Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS
The problem is that Dunkirk just embarassed an allowance field on Thursday and Santana Six just impressively won a MSW race on Saturday that was the faster of split heats.
Dunkirk's Beyer jumped from a 78 to a 98. Santana Six's from a 66 to a 95.
When I talked about Dunkirk's debut won on the radio and in a thread here - I basically said I wanted absolutely no part of the horse next time he runs. Not only because of the comicaly slow final time .. but because the early pace in that race was run through supersonic fast fractions for the level...and Dunkirk wasn't involved in the early pace.
The three horses you wanted from Dunkirk's race were obviously Santana Six, King's Village, and Ziegfeld. They battled for the lead in the top 3 positions through both the lightening fast first quarter mile and half mile - before all quitting.
Santana Six ran 29 points better and won back next out, Ziegfeld ran 46 points better when he upset a MSW race at 16/1 odds next out, King's Village has yet to run back.
Dunkirk, however, was one of the ones you couldn't possibly want as a bettor. And he ran head scratchingly well burrying that field at 6/5 on Thursday.
|
A speed centric methodology will sometimes lead to situations that are difficult to interpret. You can't possibly have answers for this as you just can't step outside your normal way of looking at things.
Dunkirk was a 'wipe-out' winner. This is the most dominating performance a horse can put it. Screw the Beyer or Sheet number! The wipe-out is superordinate to them.
Except for those cases where there is an 'unfair' advantage, bias, track/ condition or absolutely perfect trip, these horses invariably run back big. While I first identified this 'angle' over 2 years ago, I still 'fight' it, and watch horses that I otherwise can't figure win back. It sucks; it's almost counterintuitive in some cases.
Dunkirk 'wiped-out' the field sprinting and he did likewise routing. Deal with it, speed boy.