SC,

I can't speak for Andy Beyer, but I think ground loss is important. I also think it should be a seperate "note" from the speed figure.

An example might be:

I think a horse that was 4 wide into the first turn of a route when the pace was very lively (not extreme) ran a lot better race than a horse that was 4 wide on the second turn of that same route when all the speeds and pressers were collapsing - even if they finish in a photo.

Another example is bias:

I might think a horse that ran on the rail all the way on a dead rail day is superior to a horse that ran 3 wide the whole trip even if they finished in a photo. However, perhaps the horse that went 6 wide on both turns was better than both because he lost a ton of ground even though he was on the better part of the track.

The examples are endless. Especially for a guy like me that believe that pace DOES impact time and results more often than just in extreme circumstances. IMO, it's just too difficult to seperate out from other factors and prove it because it's sometimes small and it varies from horse to horse depending on his own stamina and brilliance. It's an insight/theory that comes from observation of many races and results.

I use the sheets, Beyers, and Logic figures. I back out the ground loss from the TG figures and analyze it seperately as a component of trip.

I also believe a lot in form cycles etc... but I rarely makes bets on things based on 1/2 point or 1 point moves in figures etc...

IMO, no one has figures that are accurate enough to do that with any confidence. I am looking for bigger more general patterns.