My guess is that you do have the analytical capacity, but not the data or experience to discuss figure making questions. The process has been "mystified" (as opposed to de-mystified) over the years, intentionally in one case. It helps to be smart (and more importantly, logical), but it's mostly about doing a lot of work, gathering a lot of data, spending a lot of money to do so, and getting a lot of experience.

Having said that, and trying very hard not to be snarky, it's also about common sense. While no one is saying that a horse who ran well in a turf sprint necessarily can handle a dirt route, Buddy Gil did win the San Felipe and SA Derby. Does anyone really believe that his effort in the grass race, which he won by two, was good enough to win those major stakes by six? As for the figure being fluky-- if it wasn't solid, Friedman could have left a box. But it WAS solid, given the data he was dealing with-- which caused me to look at why, and see it was part of a much bigger problem. The Buddy Gil example was just one of many I cited in my long post, and it probably would be a good idea for everyone to take a look at it, calmly and logically.

http://www.thorograph.com/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=5903&t=5903



TGJB