I was never on the Smarty bandwagon, but after seeing him trembling with exhaustion after the Belmont, I knew he was the real deal. He was definitely a fighter.

I was convinced by the Derby actually. Thought he was a shoe in in the Preakness and then forget about the Belmont. I wonder if he was a 100% in that Bel race. I mean his injury training afterwards seemed to come ultra fast.

I was amazed that he stayed on as long as he did... he didn't have much of a chance. It was devastating to see him lose... it would have been nice to have another triple crown winner.

It wouldn't surprise me if he wasn't 100% in the Belmont. He was a very crooked horse, but ran through his conformation defaults.

First thought;
Very next post;
Just a suggestion, maybe you might want to be consistent in your own thoughts, and figure out what you're trying to say before posting.
Someone suggested trying to make your own figures. That would be a great idea because you would soon find out what the issues are that create these problems. Another suggestion I have is since you seem to like raw times so much, and since they are universally available, just use the raw times and let everyone else work with these quacky figure systems.

How about this sir. This Beyer stuff is not a system. The theory in general is a good one. Is that a little better? Also, I didn't say use raw times. I said the raw numbers that the Beyer's come up with. There is a difference. The formula that they use takes into account several factors, among them race results from that day, par times over a given period for classes and distances. I would like if they used the formula and come up with a raw number and leave it at that without adjusting based on previous performances and especially subsequent performances. I don't know how one can possibly use past and subsequent performances to judge 2yo's and 3yo's. They are changing so much from race to race. Most of them are not set to run at their peak but are building up to their peak with each race. Many of them are trying new distances and tracks for the first time. How in the world can anyone know how fast they are likely to run or what they should be running during this period? If u want to use past and subsequent performances on an established horse, say a Lava Man, that would at least make more sense. But not on developing horses.

I agree that revising based on next outs is ridiculous, but perhaps for a different reason than you. Beyer figs have always used past races to get some kind of baseline for the expected performance in the next race. That's okay, IMO, because it is not based on a single horse's performance, but rather every horse in the race. What I don't like about the Summer Doldrum's revision is (1) it appears to be primarily due to the poor showing by a single horse in its next out, and (2) it smacks of backfitting, which makes all the figs more suspect.

In essense, revising that figure from a month ago downward based on how the horse ran this weekend is admitting that Beyer had no clue what kind of figure the horse ran 3 weeks ago. It would be far better to just admit that, instead of assigning it a number based on how it ran 4 (?) weeks later.

--Dunbar

I can't help but bring this old thread back up. Now that Sports Town just romped, should the Whirlaway be re-reevaluated?

Why, Sports Town ran close to his best figure in the Whirlaway, while racing outside on a strong rail, and at a distance he probably wants no part of.

Unless, of course, you are suggesting they make it even lower.

I'm sure he ran much better than that yesterday, figure wise. Shouldn't that at least hint that maybe now, the Whirlaway is too low? I completely ignore the Kee polytrack races.

Only if you also think every number he ran was too low.

Now go delete that original Formy file and get to work on the Preakness....ya dope.

I finally got it with your technical assistance.

I'm just saying that is the same logic that was used to downgrade the figure, how the horses ran later. He ran much faster yesterday. I think they were right to downgrade it, but went too far.

Reminds me of the guy that was banned from here. Is it him?

I don't care as much about the Whirlaway number as I do that Sports Town was 6:5 yesterday, despite looking somewhere around third or fourth best, and won like the second coming of Hindoo.

interesting choice of first post...and the answer is no.

Been reading these post a lot and not one to chime in. Just seemed to me he was.

Thanks for clarifying.

Ya know, Tony Clifton aka Java Gold, your act is so transparent and pathetic that it's a wonder even you aren't embarrassed by it. But, I guess at your level of ridiculousness embarrassment is impossible.

Now I am sorry I brought this back up. Where did that guy come from?

He's a funny little troll. How many handles does this guy use?

He came back from the dead.

The thing is, he is not even a good troll, his technique is horrible.
He starts out by giving away his identity.
I think he flunked out of troll school.

I've always been fond of the multiple handle trolls. This guy is failing at it miserably, and that is hilarious to me.

Family Fued #1 Answer - From under a bridge

I don't think the Whirlaway should have been downgraded in the first place. The only time a fig should be changed is if someone makes a clear arithmetic blunder. Saying it was "tough to get a fig on that race" doesn't cut it. If they are having trouble making the fig because the variant is changing or whatever, then stick an asterisk next to the fig. But don't look at how the horse runs a month later to evaluate how it ran way back then.

--Dunbar

I don't blame them for correcting a mistake Dunbar.

I obviously disagreed with the original figure, and wrote the following in a post on this website just days after the race...and a good month before the figure was corrected.

Enough of this...who the heck was banned so I can put a name on all the inuendos?

I don't blame them either, though I think they overdid it. They corrected the figure because a few horses didn't immediately run back to the number.

However, Sports Town, in his very next dirt race, probably ran near or even better than his original figure when smashing the small stakes yesterday I would think. This is exactly what I said could happen when they tinkered with the number in the first place. Does this mean now they should change it back? Somewhere in the middle? Leave it where it is?

It is very dangerous to start playing with numbers based on what rapidly changing, inconsistent 3yos are running in the first half of the year. That was my point all along.

DrugS, I wouldn't have minded it as much if they, like you, had figured it out BEFORE the horse ran again. I'm just extremely wary of using new data to backfit previous results. (a la dosage)

If the figure was wrong, why wait a month to correct it? If the figure was shaky to start with, then create some mechanism to denote that it's shaky. I suggest the asterisk.

--Dunbar