thats original.

who cares about tiago

This is often stated as if true. However, no matter how often someone expresses it, it will be nothing more than gibberish. Of course, this assumes the common notion that 'pace' is a number; and not how the race develops.

The premise is that jockeys are supposed to be able to notice pace differences of less than a second while going close to 40 mph on a horse they get on once in a while, at best.

Here's an example: I ride the same bicycle every day for a lot more, in terms of distance and time, than a jock rides a horse in a race. While a miniscule change in setup, handle bar angle/length, seat height/ distance, etc. is IMMEDIATELY noticeable, I couldn't tell you (without my computer) if I were going 19 or 20 miles per hour at any given point, let alone 29 or 30, or 39 or 40, horse speed.

How ridiculous this notion really is is enforced by the many idiotic racecallers, who insist on commenting about the pace without seeing the splits.

Looks like we were 0 for 11:mad:

Fat Man you've inserted your own premise; I don't believe I made mention in my post of noticing pace differences of less than a second. I won't quibble with you on that point. The quarter splits in the San Antonio were a good TWO seconds or 10 lengths slower than what we could have expected from G2 animals at Santa Anita. No way will I agree that no jock in that race could tell that the pace was tortoise like. Heck Fat Man, exercise jocks throughout the country work horses for top stables every morning to the second. No, judging pace ain't easy. But the best jocks that are the ones that can do it better than the others. After thousands of rides Garrett Gomez can tell the difference between a 47 half and a 49 half.

Well said.