Thorograph Derby figs
 

They are here, if anyone is interested:

http://www.thorograph.com/phorum/rea...3178#msg-43178

You might need to post them.

"Linking to files in this forum is not allowed from outside the forum."

Fixed that
 

You are right, sorry about that. I normally test before I post. Try this, and then click on the attachments:

http://www.thorograph.com/phorum/rea...3178#msg-43178

Uh .... :D :D :D :D

He is Secretariat.

I knew it would be fast, but I can't believe he exploded through that top, sickening....

The more I see figures made, the more I realize they are less impartial fact and truth, but more simply educated opinion.

..especially when you hear figure makers/proponents say things like "It's 90% science, and 10% art." Well, if it's only 90% science, it's actually 0% science. Like in tennis. A ball that is 99% out is 100% in.

There is a 75% probability that 84% of the board understands 60% of this thread.

unless they give 110%.

No wonder I never liked tennis... that and the running.

whoa Monba has gone 22...2....24 lol what kind of nifty pattern is that.

Not so, IMO. There are many areas that are not 100% science, but the science part is both real and important. Medicine, for one.

--Dunbar

That is the polytrack is not close to dirt pattern.

Anybody get the impression the inside was not really the place to be on Saturday at Churchill?

For starters, as CJ, Phil and others here that make their own figs will attest, making of the RAW numbers is 100% science and mathematical formulation. There is no nuance to the raw numbers. After the initial phase of establishing a base figure from the running times (+/- variant effect), there are nuances that each individual figure maker may utilize in their formulation. Weight, ground loss, wind effect, etc., can make up the 10% 'art' if you're allowing for the 90% science.

When Jerry Brown wrote that the Derby was relatively easy to make figures for, he means that once he established a fig for the top two finishers, the rest of the field fell in line nicely with the pattern range of their previous career efforts. That is part of the art of figure-making as well. When a race produces figures out of line with what most of the runners might have projected to run, (the Arkansas Derby is a perfect example of a race that was too 'high' on the Beyer scale for instance), you then may have to take into account an unusual circumstance that produced raw figures that don't fit with what the horses appear capable of doing. In that case, fig makers will split the variant or set the race appart (the '07 Bluegrass is an example).

Figures are never "an educated opinion", and the comments you read when people say, "I thought he deserved a 115 Beyer" are an example of those that have no idea what speed figures represent or how they are derived.

No doubt, the rail cost H lady the win IMO. Game Face came thru on it with a perfect trip but Keep the Peace was unlucky after getting carried 7 wide at the top of the stretch.

The part in bold has always been the hardest part for me to understand. I am not able to get why patterns and projections are used. For example, when horses get to the Derby, they are supposed to be 100% ready to run their peak races. Not before then. So projecting what a runner might do when he's 100% based on what he's been doing in the preps seems risky. Not only are they not at 100% in the preps but they are also facing very different circumstances than in the Derby. There are one-turn races. They aren't carrying 126 lbs. They aren't going 10f. It's different when you have horses that have established form doing certain things. Take Curlin now. We know what he can do when cranked up and going 10f so we know what kind of figures we should be able to expect. Same thing with all older horses. We knew what we could expect from Lost in the Fog when he was running because we had seen the same thing over and over. But when you are talking about horses that are still learning and developing and often facing new circumstances in each race, how can they accurately project what he's going to do facing the next new hurdle? We can accurately project what an in shape Marion Jones would run 100m in if she was running that in the Olympics tomorrow. But how could we accurately project what she would run the 400m hurdles in? For me, it's a hard thing to understand.

This is one of the assumptions that a lot of people seem to operate under that makes no sense to me whatsoever. As far as I know, most horsemen would tell you that it is almost impossible to actually get a horse to peak on one particular day. Who is to say that these horses "aren't at 100%" in the preps? Was Bellamy Road not at 100% in the Wood? Was Easy Goer weeks away from his "best" in the Gotham? etc. etc. etc.
Why do so many people assume that trainers are wizards that can magically call upon the horse's best race whenever they want it?

Also, while some horses have the earnings as a 2yo to work towards peaking on Derby Day there are others that need to peak for their final prep just to get in the Derby. The connections of Denis of Cork were so focused on peaking on Derby Day that they almost got shut out altogether and cost themselves a third place finish.

There are going to be circumstances that require some horses to be closer to their peak before others. Perhaps Bellamy Road was at 100% for the Wood. Smarty Jones might have been at 100% for the Arkansas Derby because for him, he HAD to win that race to get into the Derby. For others, like Sniper said, they have the earnings early and can be trained different. War Pass and Pyro are two examples of that this year. The point isn't trying to know where exactly each horse is at every stage, the point is that for most of them, they aren't trained as hard as they can be for the prep races because the trainers are trying to leave something in the tank and have them at their peak for the big one.