TGJB,

"The issue wasn't whether Summerly's races "were as impressive as they looked", it was whether the figures she earned in those races were accurate and representative."

What are you talking about?

I completely agree with the above.

I don't have all your figures for her, but Beyer gave her a 95 "ridden out" in the Silver Bullet and a 96 "easily best" in the FG Oaks. I said she benefitted from a loose lead and easy pace in the FG Oaks and wouldn't run as fast if pressed by a quality horse (like Sis City) early.

The Ashland was a debacle and "I CAN'T" account for how dreadful she was based just on pace/trip even though I thought Sis City would put her away like she did. I would have thought she would run better than that. We never got in details of what I expected of her here, but I conceded to Len that I couldn't account for how badly she actually ran that day. She was terrible.

My premilinary estimate for the race Friday is somewhere between 90-96 (probably on the slower side) but I havn't seen what Beyer gave it. A wrapped up easy win in the FG Oaks earning a 96 probably translates into something "like a 100" if ridden out harder????

So with the passage of almost 2 months of potential development it looks like she still didn't run as fast Friday as she ran when loose on the lead in the FG Oaks.

Plus, IMHO Sis City was dreadful Friday so getting loose of her in the first half Friday should have helped not hindered her speed figure Friday.

I don't think there's anything wrong with your figures. I thought Summerly was nothing special going into the Ashland and nothing I saw Friday has changed my mind.



Post Edited (05-09-05 17:24)