Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bobby Fischer
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.