Thorograph Belmont Numbers

[golfer]

http://www.thorograph.com/phorum/file.php?1,file=51

Rags jumped up 2.5 points to a negative 1.5

Curlin "bounced" 2.5 points to a negative 0.5

Hard Spun "bounced" 2 points to a 2

That doesn't make sense how close Hard Spun is to those two yet rags is a full point ahead of Curlin.

I'll leave the explanation up to the rocket scientists.

[golfer]

The wide trips Rags and Hard Spun got accounts for their "inflated" numbers.

[JJP]

I would argue that speed figures earned in any 12 furlong (or further) dirt race are meaningless.

[Scav]

Originally Posted by JJP

I would argue that speed figures earned in any 12 furlong (or further) dirt race are meaningless.

Good argument, not enough races run at that distance to get a legitmate number IMO

[golfer]

Not only that, but the numbers only become truly important the next time these horses go a mile and a half
which of course, is never.

[VOL JACK]

Originally Posted by golfer

http://www.thorograph.com/phorum/file.php?1,file=51

Rags jumped up 2.5 points to a negative 1.5

Curlin "bounced" 2.5 points to a negative 0.5

Hard Spun "bounced" 2 points to a 2

I thoght h.spun was the one that had the best "pattern" and the lest likely to "bounce"?

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by VOL JACK

I thoght h.spun was the one that had the best "pattern" and the lest likely to "bounce"?

Right. That's why he "only" bounced 2 points. That way it confirms the bounce theory.

With the 1.5 mile distance, they could basically set any number they want. I was pretty sure whatever number they came up with would confirm that Curlin bounced. We all saw how lousy Curlin ran, right?

--Dunbar

[KY_Sasquash]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

Right. That's why he "only" bounced 2 points. That way it confirms the bounce theory.

With the 1.5 mile distance, they could basically set any number they want. I was pretty sure whatever number they came up with would confirm that Curlin bounced. We all saw how lousy Curlin ran, right?

--Dunbar

when a horse bounces it doesnt necessarily mean that they are going to run a terrible/lousy race. it means their effort will not be a strong as the horse's prior race. it was quite evident that Curlin could bounce and still win the race and he almost did. had he run the same number that he did in the preakness he wouldve won easily.

[cmorioles]

The more times a horse runs, the more likely it is that a new "top" will be followed by a regression. This doesn't mean the horse bounced. It usually has a lot more to do with the circumstances of the races in question.

Curlin had raced five times. His last was his top, meaning four out of five races he had run below his top. That means there was probably an 80% chance he would again last Saturday. That is simplified of course, but this bounce thing is so overused it is ridiculous.

[KY_Sasquash]

the bounce has been debated plenty of times here and there are many different opinions on it. when i refer to a bounce i mean in terms of regression, which is what curlin did especially coming off 2 hard races in the derby and preakness and his 4th race in 8 weeks. i do think it's overused by trainers for an excuse when their horses run poorly.