Jerry Brown on Maclean's Music
 

Basically, when Brown says "I had the track changing" ... in this instance - it's pretty obvious he had it changing on multiple occasions.

People like Justin Dew (I'm going to be kind and pretend like he knows a little bit about this subject) love to call out Beyer for occasionally cutting a race loose - or splitting a variant.

However, Thoro-Graph makes a habit of doing this extremely often.

The Ragozin's, on the other hand, just about never do unless the weather changes or the track is sealed. The Beyer's are basically somewhere in the middle .. but closer to Ragozin than TG I would say.

Here's something I posted earlier:

Basically - my opinion on what Thoro-Graph is clearly saying here ... The track was consistant for races #1 through #7 ... It suddenly got faster for races #8 (Maclean's Music's race) and #9 ... and suddenly slowed down sharply 30 minutes later for race #10. That is what they mean by "we had the track changing" I would expect the TG # to come back equal to about a 106 Beyer with a 1w or 2w trip.

I'm not being crtical of Brown - though I personally have never been a big believer in that concept of a racetrack changing speeds sharply - IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS - throughout the course of a day.

I'm not being critical of Ragozin either - but his unwilllingness to fool with variants or to cut a race loose because of pace ... leaves some horses with some pretty wild looking sheets.

And obviously - I disagree with Beyer's decisions sometimes as well.

Whether it was a 114 or a 106, it was an awesome debut. Sometimes we just miss the point. There is always going to be room for slight debate on figs, it's not as if TG has it as a 2 and Beyer has it as a 114.

A) Hey! How did I get dragged into this? I though you quit DT.

B) My problem is summed up in your final sentence. There are too many "decisions" that go into assigning speed figures. They like to call it "a science with a little bit of art sprinkled in". That's BS. If there is any art to it, it's not a science.

These "decisions" and differences often clear up in hindsight. That's why Formulator is so great - and why all commerical figure makers don't hammer out the same thing together just days after a race.

I guess you could always take the Bruno DeTardio stance ... and spout off with stuff like 'speed figures are for morons. Anyone who can't see that Brethren is a great 3-year-old is just another Beyer couch jockey' just two weeks before he gets embarassed with no real legit excuse in the Tampa Derby.

He had a legit excuse.

What - you bet on him?

By "clear up in hindsight", I assume you are talking about changing a Beyer weeks after it is earned after the horse in question, who was assigned a 97 for his 2nd place effort, races again and earns a 72, then another 72, and the original 97 is changed to a 91.

No.

He's not very good.

The scenerio you mentioned probably never happened before in 20 years since they've been published - at least not to that kind of extreme.

IMO - numbers are tweaked in hindsight far, far, far, less often than I think they should be.

Are you suggesting that a horse's Beyer has never been adjusted downward by 6 points or more after a subsequent start by him or another horse?

If you adjust a horse six points - you have to adjust the rest of the field with him. For instance - The Factor's maiden win was raised from a 102 to 108 a few weeks later. That was before he ever started again.

These type of moves often come on tricky days - and often on days that can probably be explained by wind ... for instance 5f 2yo races at Belmont when a lot of the other sprints on the card are elongated sprints. Or days when only one route race is carded ... and the field consists of a lot of lightly raced horses.

I certainly doubt it ever has become adjusted solely because a beaten horse regressed 25 points over and over. In that example, the horse probably went from Rick Dutrow to Jeff Odintz ... or is off-form because of a nagging physical issue that has surfaced.

On Brown, and I like Jerry, his ground is immediately shaky with the 4th finisher, the first to hit the wire with a prior start, pretty much duplicating his debut figure. But, he's a smart guy, so we can't just dismiss him out of hand.

On the person you mentioned in this post.....has he admitted his foolishness or squirmed away like so many that say such idiocy?

What's funny is that Mig and I had that disagreement on the air after the Sam Davis, though without him being idioctically dismissive of figs, but after the Tampa Bay Derby he said on air that he was wrong. We're all wrong a lot of the time....I just wish more people were able to admit it.

Yeah - he certainly knows a ton. I just think he can be pretty excessive and over-do it a little too much with his constant variant splits and cutting races loose.

For instance - he had Uncle Mo's BC Juvenile no faster than his Champagne win - both got the same number because he believed the Juvenile came back to fast to believe. That basically means Mountain Town (beaten 4.75 lengths by Uncle Mo in the Champagne - but racing 2 or 3 paths wider - both carrying 122lbs) would have utterly drowned a lot of ok horses in the Juvenile with a repeat.


To the best of my knowledge - no. And I kind of doubt he ever would.

As somebody who likes to tell everybody how smart he is ( I guess this goes for both of us ) I think it's fair to say it helps one's credibility to occaisionally point out when we're wrong.

This post feels like a Trip or a Trap.

Andy,

The Dead played at the Uptown Theater in Chicago on back-to-back-to-back nights in January/February of 1978. For $10,000, name all three closing songs, in order.

I could be wrong, but since I'm never wrong on the Internet, I must be right.

I don't remember, did Giacamo win the BCC?

Did he win the Derby?

I think it was a really fast time by an obviously talented colt.

I also happen think it is crazy for Brown to try to make/defend/discredit a figure by comparing MM to Ghostzapper.

Ghostzapper did what he did in his career against accomplished horses and was a great, but brittle racehorse. However, comparing the two because you don't agree with a figure is lunacy. MM may not end up the reacehorse Ghostzapper was, but it doesn't mean he didn't run as high a figure in his debut.

I have no problem at all with what he said regarding Ghostzapper.

His whole take involving Ghostzapper was bascially 'Ragozin has sprint races at SA two points faster than me - and if he stays true to his habits - this horse will get a number as fast as Ghostzapper"

Johnny B Goode, Good Lovin, Around and Around

Is your name Andy, a-hole?

That would be correct.

Interestingly, no encore the second night, and Around and Around closed the second set the first night.

The shows from the Uptown in 1980 are killer.

I can't give you credit for that, but I have no doubt you would have known it on your own.

Try this (ANDY ONLY)..

On the day this horse won the Kentucky Derby, the Dead closed with Black Muddy River in Stanford, CA.

For 10 grand you can call me whatever you want douche bag.

Ok.

Anti-semite.

Your check is in the mail.

They make the Black Crowes sound incredible by comparison....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L91ZHpEaE-0

Chris Robinson dreams that he's 1/10th as good as Pigpen.

Probably .... but not according to my lying eardrums anyway.

It's Justin Dew at 0:16 of that video!

Alot of stuff sounds really great, when the sunshine is Orange.

http://www.dare.com/home/default.asp

:rolleyes:

While changing variants seems a bit unorthodox. I don't see the upside to Jerry saying what he thought unless he believed it to be true. We all know the foundation for accurate numbers is the best, most accurate variant. Both Ragozin and Thorograph want to make the most reliable numbers. If TG thought the track was changing it's their duty to make figures based on those changes. Their calculations. The numbers are the numbers why would it benefit them to say the track changed unless that's what their analysis showed?

sometimes its not "idiotically dismissive of figs"...its just i know who is going to be 6-5...more times then not its the chalk if the numbers look the highest. when the highest number gives me horses over 5-2....i'll love figs.......it works sometimes but c'mon. the faves still lose 2 out of 3 at most places.....with all the talk, you know this horse is going to be some ridiculously, stupid price next out...unless they really move him up...and even then it will probably be over bet. i'm just thinking anyone these days can do/get the number..trying to read the form is an art....you know that...but some of these others....i don't know about. i'm sure they are making bundles betting the "highest" number.....theres tons out there to be made on this horse.....lol

.....a shame he drank himself to death before he was 30. cant beat the early seventies "live dead"

Worst Unrelated Response Post Evah.

Wait until tomorrow morning when he tells everyone about how every horse that won he liked and every beaten favorite he knew wasn't going to win. Oh and......lol

I just saw this. It had to be 1987, as that was the year of Black Muddy River encores, so I guess it's Alysheba.

I regret never seeing a show at the Frost.

It's been a while since I looked this up but I think it was 1989. Sunday Silence.