Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cunningham Racing
Thors and Rags are better IMO...I'm a Rags man myself but understand that they are pricey for the genral public....beyers are the worst in my eyes, but then again it makesd sense...Rags are more exclusive and more expensive and those guys have a far more sophisticated formula IMO...
None of these could compute those efforts...the point is that if you keep up with the upper echelon of mainstream racing you shouldn't need somebody to quantify how good a race was....you obviously love Mr. Beyer so I'll just leave it at that....If I had a nickel for everytime he was wrong in his columns I'd be more rich a lot moreso than most any other handicapper's columns I have read on consistent basis...just saying...
|
OK, Joel, you asked for it.
First I will deal with the stupidity of your earlier post where you suggested the Beyer figs were meaningless because in your opinion, whether right or wrong, the horse did not give a maximum effort, Anybody that understands speed figures, which you apparantly don't because of this comment on your part, realizes they are nothing more than a numerical analyisis of how a horse ran on that given day....whether they are Beyers, Ragozins or Jerry Browns. It is up to a horseplayer, or analyst, to decide if they felt the horse could have run faster. The number is based on the final time of that race. I am shocked you didn't realize this.
Secondly, your elitist comment that Ragozins are somehow better because they are more expensive is really correlated to your opinion I dealt with in my first paragraph. You obviously don't understand speed figures. Personally, I don't like Ragozin's numbers, or the Thorographs for that matter, because I do not believe in their use of certain variables. I don't like them because, unlike you, I actually understand them. I think weight is meaningless and they don't. Now, maybe I'm wrong, but for my handicapping my feeling about weight works. I believe that the fact that the Fall Highweight produces the same relative base numbers year in and year out substantiates my opinion. If others disagree....fine. I also strongly disagree with them adding ground loss to their numbers. First of all, and probably most importantly, I think ground loss is deceptive and many times horses making wide moves are getting better trips than horses that save ground. For this reason, in addition to possible track biases, I believe adding ground loss to figures perverts and effectively ruins the numbers. This is why I prefer a base number like the Beyer figures, as since I do extensive trip analysis, I can extrapolate from a base figure how I believe the horse actually ran. I do not denigrate others for liking the Ragozins or Thorographs, and have great intellectual respect for them, I just don't like them personally.
And, finally, since you decided to make this personal with your " you obviously love Mr. Beyer " comment, let me just detail how lame that is....along with your idiotic addition " If I had a nickel for everytime he was wrong in his columns I'd be more rich a lot moreso than most any other handicapper's columns I have read on consistent basis...". Yes, Andy Beyer is a friend of mine, this is established, but if you think that is why I like his numbers then you have paid zero attention to my posts. I form my own opinions, I respect some opinions that I don't agree with, but I don't buy somebody's logic because I happen to like them personally and your suggestion of such is insulting...which is funny coming from you who whined recently about somebody unfortunately taking comments in an argument personally. This underhanded comment from you was nothing if not personal. Am I mad? No...but I think you're an ass for making that comment. Not as much of an ass, of course, as you are for the other quote from you. Sorry if you fail to see Andy Beyer's contributions to this industry, but quite frankly, I would love to see your list of others who have contributed more and frankly from someone like you that comment just smacks of pathetic jealousy.