There is some really crazy stuff on the last page.....

Oh yay! My bestfriend is back!!!

#1 fan I thought I was?

Yes, such as these classics:

• Hey, don't be picking on my girl Lemons -- she's a good horse. And that field was damn good. Wait a While. Bushfire. One of the fastest Oaks in history. Lemons ran a monster race that day and she'll do it again. Circled the field from last to get that final time.
  

  She stinks. She basically ran the same slow race every time out.

• The track suddenly slowed on BC day? No -- the later races were just won by slow horses.
  

  Invasor is a slow horse?

• The track on BC day got faster as it dried. Yet Beyer said it got slower.
  

  Every other figure maker, including Brown and Rags, probably concluded the same thing

• I think it's nearly impossible to make or use speed figures from a Breeders Cup day.
  

  It is actually quite a bit easier.

• It is iffy enough to judge a variant in the early races of a card by assessing times versus pars for that class.

  I don't know of any figure maker, other than BRIS computer generated figures, that makes serious use of pars when making figures.

Good start, though you left out one of my favorites....


" Lemons needs a new jockey with better timing. "

Timing? He would need an hourglass.

Or an alarm clock.

Here's my favorite thought process....

I love this horse

He/she won

The speed figure came back relatively slow

The speed figure maker is an idiot

Page 7 is off to a fantastic start!

As most know, speed figures can be subjective. There is nothing you can do about it, and you have to make some judgement calls. Of course EVERY figure maker will get some wrong.

That said, I'd like to be the first to congratulate Beyer for nailing the Ancient Title figure that was later proven by Thor's Echo winning the Sprint and the DeFrancis. What a figure that was!

P.S. Damn you guys with the page numbers, now I have to switch my settings to show oldest first so I can keep up!

What exactly is the statute of limitations on the Summit of Speed from 2003? And, by the way, didn't the horse that won the Vanderbilt, Private Horde I believe, compete against Shake You Down on that day? I guess his figure should have been.....faster? And, didn't Valid Video have a perfect rail trip, on a gold rail, just off blistering fractions when he got lucky to win the King's Bishop?

Funny what people choose to remember. I guess one wrong split variant makes the whole concept dangerous. Also funny to hear about this from anyone that uses the Thorographs....where they split the variant constantly ( not to say they are wrong ).

I also nominate the following as a Page 6 gem....

* Jazil. This is a race horse. Solid fractions in the Belmont and solid final time. Would have beaten all of the previous Belmont winners in this decade including Afleet Alex.


Yes, the fractions were solid. And the horses racing 1-2-3-4 though the early stages ended up finishing like 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th. While Jazil, who was dead last through the early stages...was the one being aided by the "solid fractions." Yes, the final time was OK, because the race track was VERY fast. An N1X allowance race earlier on in the card was run in supersonic time!

However, what really takes the cake is the "Jazil would beat every Belmont winner this decade" comment. Forget about Afleet Alex, Point Given would have absolutely DESTROYED Jazil. Point Given was awesome in victory in the Belmont Stakes

Point Given would have crushed him....as would have Empire Maker.

I'm just pissed because I bet Tasteyville in that maiden race and he blew a four length lead in midstretch. Of course, his future resume of success has certainly flattered the mighty Jazil.

I stopped posting how I took advantage of Beyer breaking out a Mossflower allowance win after two years when she won the G1 stake next out, so that should be the limit.

TG splits the variant much more than anyone else. Split variants are actually pretty easy. The tough ones are when you have a race in the middle that doesn't fit with the others on both sides. Neither Beyer nor TG use pace, and sometimes that is the reason for these split variants. The problem with that is the extreme pace, whether fast or slow, doesn't affect all horses the same.

This is all for another thread someday though, I want to hear more about Lemons Forever being Personal Ensign reborn.

As for the Belmont, Jazil might not have passed Funny Cide.

Funny Cide would have drowned Jazil.

Personal Ensign shudders in the wake of Lemons Forever.

In order to be at all pace based, as you know, they have to make pace figures which neither do. At least Beyer is trying to do something with turf figs based on pace but I'm somewhat dubious. Of course I'm dubious of turf figs in general.

And then there's Ragozin....who thinks pace is irrelevent.

I want to reiterate.....Funny Cide would have drowned Jazil.

I don't post much here (yet?), but +1 to everything on Page 7 so far and -1 to just about everything on Page 6! :)

Man, these Bernardinians are everywhere . . . like vermin.

Funny Cide? Isn't he pulling a yellow school bus full of tourists in NYC?

Point Given? Must have been quite a split variant that day in Kentucky . . at least on the part of the track he ran on . . . slowed to quicksand right before your eyes.

Put on your white robe, drool on yourself, and let Andy Beyer be your David Koresh. The purple Kool-Aid isn't too far behind.

Never let facts get in the way of a good argument. We were talking the Belmont, not the Derby, so what does PG's flop at CD have to do with anything? His Belmont was TONS better than that of Jazil.

We differ on our opinion of this one.

This isn't opinion, I don't know any serious figure maker that relies on pars. What one do you know that does?

About the only time I could think of using pars would be lightly raced horses or first time starters, things like that. Even then, you try to avoid those races if at all possible as part of making the variant.

Myself... for example, the par time for an older 20K claimer on the AQU inner track is 1:11.16 over the last 5 years (with a boatload of datapoints). Fact. What is incorrect about using this information to your advantage?? I'd rather calculate a variant, if possible, on what DID happen rather than what SHOULD have happened. I have firm reservations against the projection method. It allows human nature to "prove yourself correct" by matching the figures from previous races...

What is incorrect is that you need to build in some kind of variant to get any kind of useful pars. Horses are more consistent than track conditions. If you look at the history of horses that run well in a race, the pace and final time, as well as the pace and final times of other races on the card, you are going to come up with much better numbers than you will using pars.

Quick question...what figure did you give Invasor's BC Classic, and what figure did you give Magna Graduate a few weeks ago on the inner dirt?

Invasor: a 124 on my figures, 1 point = 1 length (which works out to approximately a 113 Beyer.) He had run a 126 (Suburban) and a 125 (Whitney) in his previous two, Bernardini had run a 124 (Jim Dandy), 124 (Travers), and a 122 (JCGC). Premium Tap had run a 117 (mini-stake against SK), 118 (Whitney), 119 (Woodward). Note: I was very happy with this number, as Premium Tap ran a 120 in the Clark.

Magna Graduate: A 118 (about a 103 Beyer). Obviously the BC day CD race was a throwout for comparison purposes but his one other race I have in the database was a 119 (the Discovery.)

I only asked as by most time charts, Magna Graduate's races comes back gigantic. You must be doing something right in my opinion, though I came up with similar relationship using mostly projections.

To be clear, I rarely if ever use projections to modify single races. I use projections to come up with the overall variant for the card. I don't like splitting races out just to make them fit prior history, I need additional evidence.

The 9.5F distance is (obviously) seldom used, which the time charts don't account for- that's probably why the strictly-computer-generated figures don't get a good number. If it's a REALLY wacky distance like that 2 mile race they ran a couple weeks ago... I don't even bother with it. Just pull it out of the day's formula and have it as an "N/A" figure (not like a 2 mile race figure is worthwhile anyways!)

What's the MINIMUM number of races you prefer to have a variant "group" on a specific day? For me it's 3. Once is an abberation, two is a trend, three is a defined set of correlated results. (Of course, occasionally you'll have a day like the Jim Dandy where the first 2 dirt races were an obvious split thanks to the weather.)

I prefer three as well, if it is at all possible.

perhaps if you put lemons forever in a match race with seek gold, one of them would see the winners circle again. oh, and just for fun, drag colonial colony into the mix. maybe sinister minister as well!

Danzig:

I wouldnt throw Sinister Minister's name in with those others: Colonial Colony, Seek Gold and Lemons Forever.

Why? Because Sinister Minister doesnt win races because of pace collapses. His effort in the Blue Grass was extraordinary. Sure it may have had something to do with the track, but he was simply the boss that day beating some fine horses like Bluegrass Cat, First Samurai and Strong Contender. He also was good before that race winning a few in some very fast times.

He then ran a dud in the Derby but so too did about 3/4 of the field. He returned at Del Mar and was again not so good but it was off a layoff and thats not his favorite track.

Point is, when he is good enough he wins races, regardless of what others do. Lemons Forver, Seek Gold and Colonial Colony need races to fall apart and horses like Perfect Drift to hang. Big difference.

i put him in there since he hasn't backed up his breathtaking performance in the bluegrass. probably not as similar to the others as they are to each other, but hey, one has to win--i assume he would be the one!
i know some accuse a front runner of theft when they 'steal' a race on the front end, much like the tin man in the arlington million. but imo a confirmed stone closer is as much a thief, as he is there to pick up all the pieces at the very end but only if the pace is right on and they manage to stay clean and clear.

Yes I would agree with front runners taking too much criticism when they win races like the Tin Man did. Sinister Minister would have beaten any horse alive that day. To be fair he only had 2 chances to back up his big Blue Grass win and one of them was the Derby. He went fast as expected and faced pressure. Total throwout of a race in my opinion.

Do I think he is as good as his Blue Grass? No way. But I would rank him a lot higher than those other 3 plodders you mentioned.

Hopefully the Minister gets back in a race soon and another chance to validate who he is or isnt.