Weekend Stakes Beyers

[freddymo]

78 for By the Moon will prove out to be a bad fig to use going forward. That has to be the lowest g1 fig ever assigned to a winner

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by freddymo

78 for By the Moon will prove out to be a bad fig to use going forward. That has to be the lowest g1 fig ever assigned to a winner

I think I've seen lower for the frizette before.

Do you think the number should have been higher or lower?

[Kasept]

Sutra posted a 68 in the '05 Frizette.

Lowest before that in a G1 might have been Sweet Catomine with a 76 in the '04 DMR Debutante.

Don Warren's FTS on Sunday was visually impressive in the nightcap. Made an early move at the 3/8th pole that looked effortless and wins by double digit lengths. Acceptance is the horse's name.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by freddymo

78 for By the Moon will prove out to be a bad fig to use going forward. That has to be the lowest g1 fig ever assigned to a winner

Freddy.. Champagne winner was more than 3 full seconds faster. 29 points is the scale spread. How much bigger should the Frizette number be? If the filly ran say an 83, that would mean the colt ran a 112? And if you want to make track condition an hour after the Frizette an issue, with it drying out, it would almost certainly be slower for the Champagne, not faster. Don't know how the Frizette can come up any better than it did.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Freddy.. Champagne winner was more than 3 full seconds faster. 29 points is the scale spread. How much bigger should the Frizette number be? If the filly ran say an 83, that would mean the colt ran a 112? And if you want to make track condition an hour after the Frizette an issue, with it drying out, it would almost certainly be slower for the Champagne, not faster. Don't know how the Frizette can come up any better than it did.

# is 100% correct but that means the all of these regressed a lot and I dont think the fig will be useful for handicapping in future

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by freddymo

# is 100% correct but that means the all of these regressed a lot and I dont think the fig will be useful for handicapping in future

Got ya.. In other words, (hopefully) the group isn't as bad as the looked and will prove it in forthcoming efforts...

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Got ya.. In other words, (hopefully) the group isn't as bad as the looked and will prove it in forthcoming efforts...

Always root for JMS(Sam) I thought it was an OK group before the race the fig didnt change my mind. Happy for Sam she deserves some racing mazel

[blackthroatedwind]

I'm curious, what exactly had the group in the Frizette done on the racetrack to suggest they were a bunch of fast horses? I don't have an argument that horses shouldn't be overly judged by performances on wet tracks, especially when horses like Cavorting and Wonder Gal were mired down on a deeper inside, but as of now there is little concrete evidence that any of them are particularly fast, especially going long.

We'll see. However, as of now, there are quite a few faster male 2YOs than female ones.

[Indian Charlie]

The Champagne winner was completely and utterly tremendous.

The two Pletchers and one Baffert colt in the BCJ is going to be a really interesting race.

About the Frizette, they did look like they slowed up pretty badly in the last quarter mile, but it didn't look like they were going 28 or so seconds. That was pretty surprising.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Freddy.. Champagne winner was more than 3 full seconds faster. 29 points is the scale spread. How much bigger should the Frizette number be? If the filly ran say an 83, that would mean the colt ran a 112? And if you want to make track condition an hour after the Frizette an issue, with it drying out, it would almost certainly be slower for the Champagne, not faster. Don't know how the Frizette can come up any better than it did.

You don't think tracks change speed, especially on a very sloppy main track? The race in between was nowhere near the Champagne either. Are those horses really more than 2 seconds slower than two year olds going long for the first time? How does the Frizette compare to race 7?

[Kasept]

No CJ.. I don't believe tracks change speed...

Of course it's subject to change on a day like Saturday and the boys and girls are likely closer in performance levels than the raw figures indicate. We'll see how close. As Andy suggests, expectations for those fillies was overblown..

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Kasept

No CJ.. I don't believe tracks change speed...

Of course it's subject to change on a day like Saturday and the boys and girls are likely closer in performance levels than the raw figures indicate. We'll see how close. As Andy suggests, expectations for those fillies was overblown..

You are probably right, but I just find it odd most people are pretending the 7th race didn't exist. That was a pretty decent group of solid horses, and also pretty consistent speed wise. It made for a good comparison to both races.

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

You are probably right, but I just find it odd most people are pretending the 7th race didn't exist. That was a pretty decent group of solid horses, and also pretty consistent speed wise. It made for a good comparison to both races.

I noticed your figs for the winners of the Champagne and Frizette are not far off, obviously because of the significant differences in pace. I think the strength of that Frizette pace is what has been lost a little bit in the post-race analysis.

[freddymo]

The expectations of the fillies may have been too lofty. I dont think its a bad group at all and I think several have a graded stakes future, the 78 fig tends to paint them in a horrendous light.