Re: Hey Jerry (515 Views)
Posted by:
Chuckles_the_Clown2 (IP Logged)
Date: April 15, 2007 02:35PM
Jerry, I appreciate the accuracy of the response, but I'm not a complete novice upon this. Are you saying that had they run a legitimate pace race they could have run say a 1.50?
On the basis of the 8th race I'd speculate that they could have. The fractions of that race were:
23.57
46.59
1.09.57
1.21.26
Which means the winner ran the last eighth in 11.79, which is quick.
But I'm not sure you answered my question, other perhaps than to dismiss it with a detailed "Turf Pace" explanation. Is that what you believe, or in other words have you ruled out track conditions changing to a degree that one rarely if ever sees?
You make Poly figures all the time. I rarely if ever study them. Last year there was no need to look at the Lanes End. This year, the figures have to be thoroughly considered or completely dismissed. Was it all pace?
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CTC-- the idea behind the "slow pace" designation
> is that sometimes the pace is so slow the final
> time is affected-- you see it happen often in
> grass races here, and on a regular basis in
> Europe. What happens is that they go so slow that
> they simply can't make up the lost time-- they
> can't run 20 second quarters or 40 second halves.
> TG, Time-Form, Beyer, and Ragozin all adjust our
> figures when that happens, though we have
> different ways of doing it (Ragozin evidently has
> some kind of formula, according to Friedman, while
> the rest of us go by the horses).