Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mumtaz
The more I see figures made, the more I realize they are less impartial fact and truth, but more simply educated opinion.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by justindew
..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.
|
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.