Speed (599 Views)
Posted by:
Chuckles_the_Clown2 (IP Logged)
Date: November 15, 2004 07:32PM
Michael D. wrote:
> care to comment on the unbridled vs WE figs? how about the
> positive "3.5" you gave AP Indy for winning the '92 BC classic
> at GP in 2:00.00, while giving a # well into the negative range
> to a horse that won a 10f stake in around 2:03 at GP a year or
> two ago. answers to these questions would prove your point (a
> point that very well could be correct, but one which must be
> questioned). and again, saying that one track superintendent
> told you that some tracks have gotten slower will not prove
> your point...... and by the way, forget me, i can't imagine you
> are proving anything to anybody on the issue of these long
> distance #'s.
>
Mike the whole genesis of speed figures is that a 2:03 at 10 marks is sometimes the equivalent or better than a 2:00 flat. Now, I realize theres lots of lengths between those two final times on the same speed track, but track speeds are not consistent. What are you argueing? I accept the premise that a professional figure maker has a better grasp of how fast/slow a surface is playing. If you don't accept that premise the alternative is to dismiss speed figures entirely.
I will concede this: The fewer two turn races in the days sample the more a fast two turn race figure is subject to attack. Theres something else too. Horses are clearly getting faster. Why shouldn't they? Add to the process of the genetic and nutritional search for speed, the chemical search for performance and they are clearly faster. Which is not to say that a modern day Secretariat wouldn't still beat them all. He'd be the beneficiary of the same advancements.
CtC
Post Edited (11-15-04 19:51)