Thorograph Belmont Numbers
 

http://www.thorograph.com/phorum/file.php?1,file=51

Rags jumped up 2.5 points to a negative 1.5

Curlin "bounced" 2.5 points to a negative 0.5

Hard Spun "bounced" 2 points to a 2

That doesn't make sense how close Hard Spun is to those two yet rags is a full point ahead of Curlin.

I'll leave the explanation up to the rocket scientists. :D

The wide trips Rags and Hard Spun got accounts for their "inflated" numbers.

I would argue that speed figures earned in any 12 furlong (or further) dirt race are meaningless.

Good argument, not enough races run at that distance to get a legitmate number IMO

Not only that, but the numbers only become truly important the next time these horses go a mile and a half :rolleyes:
which of course, is never.

You never know if they'll become washed up and run in the Wagon Limit Stakes at 1.5 miles in a few years :)

I thoght h.spun was the one that had the best "pattern" and the lest likely to "bounce"?

Right. That's why he "only" bounced 2 points. That way it confirms the bounce theory.

With the 1.5 mile distance, they could basically set any number they want. I was pretty sure whatever number they came up with would confirm that Curlin bounced. We all saw how lousy Curlin ran, right?

--Dunbar

when a horse bounces it doesnt necessarily mean that they are going to run a terrible/lousy race. it means their effort will not be a strong as the horse's prior race. it was quite evident that Curlin could bounce and still win the race and he almost did. had he run the same number that he did in the preakness he wouldve won easily.

The more times a horse runs, the more likely it is that a new "top" will be followed by a regression. This doesn't mean the horse bounced. It usually has a lot more to do with the circumstances of the races in question.

Curlin had raced five times. His last was his top, meaning four out of five races he had run below his top. That means there was probably an 80% chance he would again last Saturday. That is simplified of course, but this bounce thing is so overused it is ridiculous.

the bounce has been debated plenty of times here and there are many different opinions on it. when i refer to a bounce i mean in terms of regression, which is what curlin did especially coming off 2 hard races in the derby and preakness and his 4th race in 8 weeks. i do think it's overused by trainers for an excuse when their horses run poorly.

In this particular race, the pace obviously influenced the final time. Of course with TG, the time is a secondary factor in assigning figures, behind the history of the horses.

He really regressed off that number, he runs that number again he should have won by 5 lengths. I am sure TG put a S_pace next to the number. Fact is that you can use numbers to predict what they would run. I didn't have Rags improving the way she did, but I did have Curlin coming back to his previous top so I was pretty close.

Scav, no Slow pace designation, Jerry Brown explains why on his message board.
As far as the term "bounce" is concerned, it simply signifies a regression, for whatever reason (ie pace, poor start, wide trip, etc...). So in that sense, it is not over used. When a horse doesn't run as well as he did in his previous race, he bounced. Determining why is the way money is made the next time out.

Some of his arguments seem a little out there. Noone could ever make any figure for this race with the kind of certainty he is trying to convey.

The figure doesn't matter in the end. They will never run that far again, which is sad.

i never know for sure when we talk about regression or progression, if we mean from the figure earned, or if we are talking about the form and ability of the horse. Then the term "bounce" is bounced in there as well which adds more confusion (purposeful?).

My opinion is that I really couldn't tell if Curlin regressed or if Rags to Riches progressed at all as far as actual ability and performance. If i was going to make some kind of speed rating figure for the race my rough estimate is that Curlin's speed rating regressed, and that Rags to Rich's speed rating was roughly the same as the oaks maybe a slight regression. I wouldn't make any adjustments for those two horses based on ground-loss. I would note the weight, but not use the weight to adjust my official speed rating. I would view both as being in sharp form for the next race.

First of all, I don't mean to come off as an expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I have been using TG consistently for 2 years, and on and off since the early 90's. And I enjoy these discussions. Regressed or Progressed simply means did a horse run slower or faster than the previous race. From a common sense standpoint, do you think Rags ran faster in the Kentucky Oaks, beating fillies while in a drive before the final turn, or in the Belmont, beating Curlin. It seems obvious to me she ran quite faster in the Belmont (faster than I thought she could, I'm sorry to say). The same common sense tells me Curlin ran a fair amount slower in the Belmont. If he had run his best race, he would have been a few lengths in front, even with Rags progressing as she did. So the numbers make sense. Does that mean they are correct? You decide.