Quote:
|
Originally Posted by the_fat_man
BUT
If every other horse in the race backs up in relation to the winner, the performance isn't impressive UNLESS the final time was (figure) fast --- cause he didn't run fast enough to drop them? How did he drop them then? No answer.
|
He dropped them simply because they quit and he didn't.
The first half mile of that race was run in fractions similar to what you'd expect to see from stake horses going the distance. The last three furlongs of the race was BY FAR the weakest part of the race .. and I really don't care what happens in that part of the race.
Yes, Dunkirk came back and won in eye-popping fashion at 6/5 odds.
But - the three horses involved in the pace ... they are who you want from the race ..
a.) because they performed best in the strong part of the race - the first half
and
b.) because they performed poorly in the weak part of the race .. the final 3fs.
It's only because of part b that you get a price on them the next time they run. And like I mentioned in the post ... of the three .. two won back next out - one running 30 points faster Beyer wise and the other 40+ points faster and winning at 16/1 odds. The only remaining horse of the three involved in the pace - he hasn't run back - and I believe he was the 1st timer that John Velazquez took off of Dunkirk to ride.
horses who are in 7th place behind a pace meltdown - even if only 4 lengths off the pace - and win big ... they are not horses I want any part of next out even though they can win. I'd always rather have one who is burned up in the meltdown and stops. They can improve result dramatically in a softer pace race .. and they are more likely to get ignored in the betting rather than pounded.