>I use your product (along with other tools)....I'm thinking of retiring at 48.<

LOL!

Actually, I reviewed some of those races and a few of the ones I was familiar with were races where the pace was either very slow or fast.

I don't know for certain, but I'd be willing to bet that Ragozin's numbers were the pure earned speed figures and TG's incorporated the impact of the extreme pace into the figures.

That's why Rogozin's figures don't make any sense based on prior and subsequent performances.

I have a problem with evaluating horses using either method.

As far as I am concerned, Ragonzin's figures are probably reasonably accurate in terms measuring how fast the horses ran, but by excluding the impact of pace on the final time they give a woefully innacurate picture of how well the horses actually ran. You have to do a pace analysis seperately to understand how well the horses ran.

I think TG often captures the impact of pace on the figure by creating a seperate variant for the race. That's why his figures make much more sense. Pace is baked in.

However, if you are using TG and doing a pace analysis seperately you might be double counting its impact because it is already cooked into the TG number. Second, by adjusting the whole race equally for the pace you might be giving some horses too much credit and that would lead to figures that are too fast for some horses (as explained in the past).

I wish all the top speed figure makers would spend a few years revisting pace because it's so obvious to me that many of the disagreements about individual figures are related to a combination of methodology, consistency of methodology, and pace.

On second thought, keep doing what you are doing because most of my best plays are based on these issues. :-)