Re: (856 Views)
Posted by: Alydar in California
Date: March 01, 2002 03:03AM
Hi HP. You forgot to give me some credit for calling "Drops of Jupiter" song of the year.
"Maybe TG should add a notation to op (off poorly)...the horse was off slowly and the Sprinting Length was more important according to Alydar."
Maybe you, HP, should read the words that are on top of the ROTW every week: "Each path wide is worth about one length...at TODAY'S DISTANCE that equals...of a TG point." It varies according to distance, and off poorly would too. You are making a fool out of yourself, and I am thoroughly tired of your shi#.
"If two horses were likely to run 3s..Common sense would dictate the longer the race, the more weight matters."
No. Common sense would dictate that you look at the TG introduction page. 5 pounds = one point, REGARDLESS of distance. That is the methodology (I hate that word) you said you were in line with. Giving extra credit for lighter weight at longer distances is double counting because weight/distance is in the formula already. 5 pounds = one point. Forget the distance. Just look at the weights and adjust. And if you want a TG-Rags beaten-lengths chart, let me know. I picked up a really good one several months ago. None of that "approximately" crap.
"You argue like a woman."
Thank you. I had a lot of practice. My ex-girlfriend makes Camille Paglia sound like Chrissy of "Three's Company."
"There is no such thing as a 'more important length'."
See above. And quit wrapping those skinny quotation marks around words I didn't write. I wrote: "A length is more important..."
"I do not consider [weight] differences of less than five pounds."
Yeah. That fifth pound does all the work. Fuc# the first four. I can see you've given this a lot of thought, HP.
"I know you like the guy. I do too."
No, HP. You don't like me. That has been quite obvious for some time, and the reason for it is equally obvious.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.