And dougless took down the money title and tied for second in wins, so what does that tell you about wide paths? It has to be put into context, each trip is a unique event. Sometimes 3 wide clear is better then 1 path in trouble or dirt in the face.

Caradoc wrote:

> After watching a lot of California races this winter, I can’t
> understand how Victor Espinoza keeps getting top mounts from
> top stables. Apart from some other failures, Victor doesn’t
> make much of an attempt to save ground and this costs his
> mounts a number of races. The Snow Chief Stakes, the 9th
> yesterday at Hollywood, is a good example. Victor is riding
> Lucky J.H., who at 7-1 is as fast as anyone in the field after
> adjusting for weight. Going into the first turn, Lucky J.H.
> finds himself in a perfect position -- a group of horses
> contesting the lead 2 lengths ahead and a group of closers
> about 4 lengths behind him. But Victor doesn’t drop over to
> the rail to save ground, or even ease over to the two-path.
> For no reason whatsoever, he decides to stay in the three-path
> all the way around the first turn.
>
> You can guess the rest. Lucky makes a four-wide bid around the
> final turn, opens up in midstretch but gets nailed on the wire
> by a bomb. Had he saved even a half-path of ground on the
> first turn, Lucky J.H. wins the race.
>
> I thought maybe I was being a little hard on Victor, so I
> reviewed TG’s jockey information to see how Victor’s “average
> path” compares to some of his competitors. Here’s the result:
>
> Valenzuela 2.0
> Valdivia 2.0
> Gomez 2.1
> Pedroza 2.1
> Solis 2.1
> Court 2.1
> Stevens 2.2
> Nakatani 2.2
> Baze 2.2
> Douglas 2.3
> Espinoza 2.4
>
> So, someone correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t this mean in
> the average 9f stakes race, you expect P.Val to save about ¾ of
> a length in ground compared to Victor? If so, that translates
> into a lot of races that Victor loses just by not being very
> smart.
>
>