![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
For those not familiar with dosage, I'll post the exact formula on how to calculate it...
![]() Just add erratic dart tosses.
__________________
@TimeformUSfigs |
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
No. It doesn't matter. The next time a horse wins that doesn't qualify, they'll just revise the system again to make the horse qualify.
__________________
The real horses of the year (1986-2020) Manila, Java Gold, Alysheba, Sunday Silence, Go for Wand, In Excess, Paseana, Kotashaan, Holy Bull, Cigar, Alphabet Soup, Formal Gold, Skip Away, Artax, Tiznow, Point Given, Azeri, Candy Ride, Smarty Jones, Ghostzapper, Invasor, Curlin, Zenyatta, Zenyatta, Goldikova, Havre de Grace, Wise Dan, Wise Dan, California Chrome, American Pharoah, Arrogate, Gun Runner, Accelerate, Maximum Security, Gamine |
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Dosage is absolute hackery.
It greatly delegitimizes pedigree handicapping. |
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
Obviously i know very little about it but what exactly does a horse have to accomplish to gain the title Chef de Race?
|
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The concept that you could apply mathematics to the stallions in a pedigree and gain a reasonable approximation of what sort of horse you will have I think is plausible. The way they go about it though is completely wrong. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Sort of what was alluded to here.....after his horse's win big races going long they get added. Frankly, it the ultimate redboarder's guide. Dosage is an anachronism now that people have become more sophisticated and legitimate techniques ( like speed figures ) are widespread for analyzing a horse's talent. |
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
Look at you two love birds co-existing so peacefully.
|
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
|
Sniper... the way they go about it is wrong..... how?
BTW..... how is it the ultimate redboarders guide? Not that it matters but which stallion(s)should be and are not? Again, I've just never really understood the big picture. Assumed it didn't matter but it's easy to make an assumption (even if it's correct) with next to no information..... |
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
![]() |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
I remember being caught up in the Roman theory of dual qualifiers ( dosage of 4 or less and being 116 or higher on the 2 year old experimental highweight) as the only horses that could win the Derby. His shining moment was the '90 Derby when Unbridled, Summer Squall, and Pleasant Tap were the only three duallies in the race. The tri paid about $1600 with Tap at 50/1
I think that at some point in the '80s it may have had some merit, but everytime a sire is upgraded, it lowers the overall dosage numbers. It seems today that almost all contenders fit within the guidelines when years ago not that many did. |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#13
|
||||
|
||||
|
I don't really think it's any kind of redboarding guide - it's just misguided nonsense.
I guess Strike the Gold was the horse who was over the dosage limit - but was brought under after his Derby win when they made Alydar a chef-de-race. I don't exactly think it was an act of redboarding for them to finally give there silly rating to a great distance sire like Alydar. I can't imagine how idiotic a better would have had to have been to discredit Strike The Gold's chances of seeing out a classic distance because he had a high dosage. Strike the Gold's younger full brother was 19-6-3-2 and made $244K in route races - and was 8-1-2-0 and made $24K in sprint races. I don't really buy that they redboard - it's just a very half baked way of judging a horses likely development and distance preferences |