Post 20

[mes5107]

Now 2 for 16 in the Derby: 12.5%

[Better Than Honour]

It really is not that bad of a post. I rather be there than in the 1 or 2. He has a wide trip but a clear one.

[ddthetide]

Originally Posted by Better Than Honour

It really is not that bad of a post. I rather be there than in the 1 or 2. He has a wide trip but a clear one.

thats fine if you have that much horse under you.

[King Glorious]

Of all the issues, post position was the least of my concerns. Going 10f at Churchill, post is never an issue. Being 3-4 wide is absolutely meaningless.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Of all the issues, post position was the least of my concerns. Going 10f at Churchill, post is never an issue. Being 3-4 wide is absolutely meaningless.

this is of course completely untrue.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

this is of course completely untrue.

I don't think so. There are so many things that go on during a race that being one or two paths out further than desired is not that big a difference to me. I'd rather be outside an extra path and be in the clear than be on the inside and maybe having to steady or be blocked in.

[jpops757]

If you think you have the best horse. You try to prepare him to run his race and not to depend on luck, If you have the best horse the only luck is bad luck.The best way to avoid bad luck is to be on the outside.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Of all the issues, post position was the least of my concerns. Going 10f at Churchill, post is never an issue. Being 3-4 wide is absolutely meaningless.

Just to clarify, being 3 or 4 wide -- around both turns -- is absolutely meaningless?

Thanks.

Eric

[MaTH716]

That was one of the reasons he was a toss for me. I didn't think he would be able to handle being wide near the front of what I thought was going to be a very fast pace. Let alone the whole way around. At the half I thought I was going to be ok, waiting for the Col Johns and Pyro's to show up. Boy was I wrong. I also didn't expect him to rate as nicely as he did. I thought Kent would have had a stranglehold on him. All I can do is just tip my hat, they ran a big race.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by ELA

Just to clarify, being 3 or 4 wide -- around both turns -- is absolutely meaningless?

Thanks.

Eric

Unless you believed that the winner was going to be a horse that went wire to wire on the rail, any horse that was going to win was going to come from off of the rail. So how much different is it going two wide around a turn as opposed to three? How much different is three as opposed to four. Colonel John was the second choice and he was coming from post 10 so that means that he was going to be wide also. Because of BB's early speed, I had just assumed that he would get a better trip than Colonel John. I figured on every major contender being 3-5 wide around the turns no matter how the race played out so it wasn't a consideration in my handicapping.

People make such a big deal about him being in post 20. I've heard countless times how a horse hadn't won from that post since 1929. How many have started from that post since then? How many of those that started in post 20 were horses that were considered legit contenders going in? Those factors are more relevant than just saying it hasn't been done in 79 years.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Unless you believed that the winner was going to be a horse that went wire to wire on the rail, any horse that was going to win was going to come from off of the rail. So how much different is it going two wide around a turn as opposed to three? How much different is three as opposed to four. Colonel John was the second choice and he was coming from post 10 so that means that he was going to be wide also. Because of BB's early speed, I had just assumed that he would get a better trip than Colonel John. I figured on every major contender being 3-5 wide around the turns no matter how the race played out so it wasn't a consideration in my handicapping.

People make such a big deal about him being in post 20. I've heard countless times how a horse hadn't won from that post since 1929. How many have started from that post since then? How many of those that started in post 20 were horses that were considered legit contenders going in? Those factors are more relevant than just saying it hasn't been done in 79 years.

good point. you always have a runner in post 1, but obviously the # will go lower the further out from the rail.

[Antitrust32]

Unbridled's Song broke from post 20... he ran a good race too considering he had bar shoes on.

[Travis Stone]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Being 3-4 wide is absolutely meaningless.

This is good for an early morning chuckle.

[King Glorious]

From Equibase:
Saturday at Churchill:

Race 1-winner was 3 wide
Race 2-winner was 6 wide, runner up was 5 wide
Race 3-runner up was 3 wide and lost by a neck
Race 4-winner was 4 wide, runner up was 3 wide, show horse was 3 wide
Race 6-runner up was 4 wide and lost by a neck
Race 8-winner was 3 wide, runner up was 5 wide
Race 10-winner was wide (Big Brown)
Race 11-winner was 3 wide

So of nine dirt races, the winner was at least 3 wide in six of them. In two more, horses that were at least that wide lost by a neck. In three of them, the exacta was completed by horses that were at least three wide.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

From Equibase:
Saturday at Churchill:

Race 1-winner was 3 wide
Race 2-winner was 6 wide, runner up was 5 wide
Race 3-runner up was 3 wide and lost by a neck
Race 4-winner was 4 wide, runner up was 3 wide, show horse was 3 wide
Race 6-runner up was 4 wide and lost by a neck
Race 8-winner was 3 wide, runner up was 5 wide
Race 10-winner was wide (Big Brown)
Race 11-winner was 3 wide

So of nine dirt races, the winner was at least 3 wide in six of them. In two more, horses that were at least that wide lost by a neck. In three of them, the exacta was completed by horses that were at least three wide.

You can't think this makes your point useful do you?

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by freddymo

You can't think this makes your point useful do you?

Nope. Obviously, if a horse goes 3 wide or more, he has no chance of winning. Everyone knows that all horses that win from off the pace do so while racing down on the rail.

I'll continue to not worry about horses that run wide. It's worked for me for years. There is a reason why many trainers prefer for their horses to be outside of others.

[ArlJim78]

i've seen winners come from off the pace, and winners go wire to wire.
I'm now declaring pace to also be meaningless.

[Travis Stone]

I've seen horses win on dirt, I've seen horses win on turf and I've seen horses winning synthetics. I'm now declaring racing surface to be meaningless.

[Antitrust32]

I've seen gray, brown, chestnut and dark brown horses all win races. I determine colors to be meaningless.

[King Glorious]

If nothing else, you all are good for a laugh.

Look, all things being equal, a horse on the inside has a shorter path to run. I do realize this. But how often are all things equal? Horses down on the inside may not lose the same ground on turns that horses that go wide do but they often encounter different problems that have a way of evening things out. A horse down on the inside may have to check or steady and lose some lengths there. A horse on the inside may be running on a heavier part of the track. There are many different things that happen in a race that have a way of evening things out and in my opinion, being three wide is not as big a deal as most people make it. It's not ideal but it's not the kiss of death either. How much ground is lost by going five wide on the turn at Churchill as opposed to three wide? A lot of people also don't realize that it varies from track to track. Being five wide at Belmont is not the same as being five wide at Santa Anita because of the track layouts. I just think it's overblown. But hey, whatever works for you is fine.