Re: How Fast Was It? (511 Views)
Posted by: (IP Logged)
Date: September 29, 2005 02:14PM
"CH-- at a mile, an extra 10 lengths would require 30 pounds of mud, or about 25% of the weight of the rider. Pretty unlikely. Lesser distances-- a length or two-- do not cause huge fluctuations in the figures, just a point or so. "
Understood. I doubt the impact is limited to the weight of the mud. There are probably other things going on also (including a like or dislike of the surface in some cases). I doubt it's a pleasureable experience for horses to have piles of goopy mud kicked at them. I've also noticed that some jockeys ease their horses through the stretch once it gets ridiculous. There are probably other things too.
In any event, I can't see the downside of noting the difference between a sloppy surface that was producing reasonable outcomes and one where the margins were much larger than usual. I am much more apt to totally ignore the latter even if the horse has a history of running well in the slop. I am also much more apt to be very skeptical of an extremely fast figure earned on a surface like that because it's difficult to guage how much was him being good and how much was the others being bad (for whatever reason).
<<"I think you understand that I can't discuss a horse's performance within the confines of a Thoro-Graph figure".
Then don't discuss it here. There are lots of other horseracing sites.>>
That's an understandable perspective coming from someone that believes that a figure tells you everything you need to know about a perfomance. It's just a difficult perspective for me to believe coming from someone that has been around the game a very long time unless there is another motive.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.