looking back

[ddthetide]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

sure, weight could have made a difference. But I think Rags to Riches stumble at the start and 4-5 wide trip the whole race it more than made of the difference of the weight.

Rags covered ALOT more distance than any of the top 4 finishers.

[slotdirt]

Hard Spun ran about 7f before they even made the first turn.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

If you're into sheet figures...and believe in that sort of thing....I believe 5lbs at the distance of 1 1/2 miles equals 2.5 lengths.

[ddthetide]

does belmont do the distance tracker like keeneland? i'd be interested to see the differences in trips.

[jpops757]

I agree with all of you. The race is run with the pace and conditions and we had a very deserving winner. I think a lot of things influnce the results and the 5 lbs is one of them. I am not saying Curlin had an excuse for the loss,but if the weight was not a factor why do the allow it?

The wide trips dont matter when you run the leader runs the first 6f in 1:15.37 and the mile in 1:40... the stumble was negated by the incredibly slow pace. It allowed her to settle and be perfectly comfortable. A stumle like that in the Derby would have been lights out, and we may never have seen this filly run against the males again.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

I agree that trouble is never more overrated than when it happens during the slowest part of the race....and also that racing wide while the pace is so slow is no disadvantage at all...as you're in the clear and really giving nothing away. And Belmont is just about as forgiving a track as any to be wide on.

In the Belmont, the meaningfull ground loss would be on the final turn...when the real running was finally starting.

Ground loss is most severe in real fast-paced two-turn races, with a short run into the first turn. If a horse gets hung wide while gunning for the lead in that situations...he's a very likely candidate to tire markedly later on in the race, as those type of horses often run well below form.

[MISTERGEE]

to me the complication of figuring ground loss comes when the better spot on the track is the outside not the inside. then it is an advantage to be out there not a disadvantage. also how often these days do you see a horse coming down the rail form off the pace and drawing away? it seems those days are over. most winning moves are made coming around horses.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I agree that trouble is never more overrated than when it happens during the slowest part of the race....and also that racing wide while the pace is so slow is no disadvantage at all...as you're in the clear and really giving nothing away. And Belmont is just about as forgiving a track as any to be wide on.

In the Belmont, the meaningfull ground loss would be on the final turn...when the real running was finally starting.

Ground loss is most severe in real fast-paced two-turn races, with a short run into the first turn. If a horse gets hung wide while gunning for the lead in that situations...he's a very likely candidate to tire markedly later on in the race, as those type of horses often run well below form.

Ground loss is ground loss is ground loss. If they were running on a track with a severe dead rail then it is not as big of deal because there is an X factor that is slowing the inside paths down that negates the ground loss.

A perfect example of this is just about any 2 turn long grass race. Usually the pace for longer grass races is moderate and saving ground is of the utmost of importance in these races.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pgardn

The wide trips dont matter when you run the leader runs the first 6f in 1:15.37 and the mile in 1:40... the stumble was negated by the incredibly slow pace. It allowed her to settle and be perfectly comfortable. A stumle like that in the Derby would have been lights out, and we may never have seen this filly run against the males again.

I have no idea why you would think this? Ground loss is ground loss regardless of pace. Running further than your rivals is a disadvantage period. The stumbling instance may be negated by a slower pace because she did not have to work hard to catch up. But simple physics says that 4 wide is 4 wide no matter the speed you are doing it at.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

But simple physics says that 4 wide is 4 wide no matter the speed you are doing it at.

Physics may say that...however, ground loss is most certainly more significant in some situations than others.

Let's say you have a 12 horse field, with a very short run to the first turn. If a horse gets hung up four-to-five wide, while up on a fast early pace....that horse is almost certainly going to ran FAR below his best form.

I've seen horses breaking from those very difficult posts, in much slower paced races, get hung up through the first turn...and still run to their best form.

I know a lot of other very capable trip handicappers (BTW would agree with me on this) feel the same. When the pace is very slow, I actually don't mind it that much if the runner I bet is caught out in the clear.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

If you're into sheet figures...and believe in that sort of thing....I believe 5lbs at the distance of 1 1/2 miles equals 2.5 lengths.

FWIW

I went to there site and looked it up....according to their calculations...at 12 furlongs, five pounds equals exactly 2.40 lengths.

That gets adjusted into their figures....as does their belief that one path of ground on the turn equals one length.

[ddthetide]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

FWIW

I went to there site and looked it up....according to their calculations...at 12 furlongs, five pounds equals exactly 2.40 lengths.

That gets adjusted into their figures....as does their belief that one path of ground on the turn equals one length.

that equals out pretty well then. Rags was 4-5 wide the whole trip and Curlin was 2-3?