Re: Changing Track Speeds: A Derby Contender Case Study Perhaps (758 Views)
Posted by:
Tabitha (IP Logged)
Date: February 11, 2006 04:09PM
First, lets look at the entire card, omitting Grass, rather than three races.
1-4^ 25kMdnClm 1.10.96
2-4 50KClm 1.10.34
3-3 100Stk 1.49.15
4-3f 32kMdnClm 1.27.62
6-3f MSW 1.18.29
7-4 300Stk 1.49.14
9-3 MSW 1.16.66
The contention is the 3YO maiden claimer fillies in the 4th race went so slow its an indication the track was "Slowing Down". Arguably, that was the worst race on the card however. What about the 9th race when 3YO maiden special weight colts went close to two seconds faster than the same age fillies in the 6th? In light of that race, Was the track really Slowing Down after the 3rd? Or, was it speeding up?
The key to the Sham/Strub reality, does not exist in the Sham or Strub. It exists in the 3YO MSW sprints. Those two races are the races I'd like to see post race figure assignment Past Performances upon. On the numbers assigned, the horse coming off the win in the 9th race has to be considered a Monster. I don't think he is.
On the numbers High Limits Strub is appoximately 12 lengths faster than "Bob and John" despite the same raw time, same relative path and co equal weight. That is incredulous. This is the time of year that good 3YOs move forward. "Bob and John" did not move forward a snails eyelash per Beyer and TGraph.
Not saying Bob and John is the horse to beat, but this is clearly a problematic result. Again.
The two Turf races were also very interesting as far as final time and quality of animal.
Great card for future handicapping.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SC-- I did basically what Andy did. What people
> keep forgetting is that we don't just look at the
> winners-- there were other horses in those races--
> and other races on the card as well. Just after
> the Bob and John race the track got MUCH slower,
> and it showed more in the sprints than routes--
> next race was slow horses (for SoCal), but they
> went 7f in 1:27:62.
>
> Hey Chuckles-- why aren't you posting under your
> "own" name? As I recall, I gave you a warning, but
> didn't toss you, and if I had, do you think we
> wouldn't be able to tell it's you?
>
> The two stakes are attached.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/11/2006 04:25PM by Tabitha.