Post 20

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I actually didn't mean it that way. I realize it looks that way but I meant it as a general statement. In other words, anyone that wants to bet and not lose needs to watch the races and not believe chart comments.

And I agree. Watching is the best option always. Charts alone only tell part of the story. In this instance, I wasn't trying to use them to say exactly how wide the horses were, only that they were probably out further in the track than the horses they were going around.

Getting back to Big Brown, I didn't expect him to be on the lead so in visualizing the race, I automatically figured that he'd be coming 3-4 wide around the first turn and 2-3 wide around the second turn and that it wouldn't play a part in the outcome.

One thing I also want to add is that I think sometimes people look at the post and forget that there is a long run into the first turn at Churchill. Through the stretch, he ran no further from the 20 hole than the horse did from the 2, the 10, or the 15. By the time they get to the first turn, because of his speed, he could have a better position than a horse that breaks from the inside but has horses come over on him and has to take back and go around them.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

And I agree. Watching is the best option always. Charts alone only tell part of the story. In this instance, I wasn't trying to use them to say exactly how wide the horses were, only that they were probably out further in the track than the horses they were going around.

Actually, not to nitpick, but my point is the charts exagerate more often than not. I realize the charts in KY will probably change with the unfortunate recent passing of their chart caller, but I can't tell you the number of horses that were listed in charts as six wide, or even eight wide, that were actually on the inside or two path on the turn, only to angle out in the stretch.

Personally, I am not a big ground loss guy, and that is one of the reasons I have major problems with the Sheets and Thorographs. Obviously I understand the concept of more ground being covered, but there is a great deal more going on concerning racetrack placement that can often make ground loss very misleading.

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Personally, I am not a big ground loss guy, and that is one of the reasons I have major problems with the Sheets and Thorographs. Obviously I understand the concept of more ground being covered, but there is a great deal more going on concerning racetrack placement that can often make ground loss very misleading.

Do you look at the Trakus charts for KEE? You'd probably be as surprised as I was at the number of winners running significantly LESS than the others in the race.

Ground covered goes a long way towards explaining trips; both good and bad.

Too bad the industry is light years away from accurate data, including ground covered (which eliminates, to a great extent, the part of the trip process dealing with position on the turns.)

[golfer]

I agree that ground loss can be mis-leading in certain situations (such as the Fair Grounds turf course this winter, or Keeneland early on when every horse was travelling in the 5 path or out), but when the difference between winning and losing is inches, the shortest distance to the finish line can be very important.

[dalakhani]

Ground loss is significantly more important in dirt racing than it is in turf racing.

I agree that ground loss around two turns on a dirt track can be an overrated factor. We factor in the extra distance travelled but there are some less tangible advantages (dirt in the face, traffic, momentum continuation) that are often discounted. I agree with BTW that one would have to watch the race to see if that would be the case.

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Ground loss is significantly more important in dirt racing than it is in turf racing.

Absolutely correct. Flawless Treasure caught up to Communique on the turn last out in KEE but couldn't run with that one in the lane, as Communique surged to catch Tejida. And it wasn't because FT went wide, widest on the turn and entering the stretch; while Communique got a perfect rail trip to the wire, actually running 2 feet LESS than the loose Tejida. It was because Communique was the best horse.

Anyone who incorrectly thought that FT got the worst of it, running 24 feet more than Communique, 26 feet more than the runner up, and 37 feet more than the third horse, was treated to 9:5 today, as she ran very well in a paceless race.

Yet another example of the fairness of the game.

[pba1817]

The charts are inaccurate constantly.

Look at the KY Derby chart, a race we have all watched numerous times, then read the chart.

Biggest farce in the chart:

Bob Black Jack- Angled in early, set the pace, stayed on well for a mile and faded.

Should read: Bob Black Jack- broke inward, impeding multiple runners to his inside, angled in further in as the field ran by the wire the first time impeding more runners, set the pace and faded badly.

Other than Big Brown being way better than his foes, Bob Black Jack single handily ran 7-8 runners into trouble. Usually we see some bumps and exchanges forcing some horses into trouble, but I cannot recall one horse causing so many problems in the Derby. Maybe if he would have broken outward and forced Big Brown to the hot dog stand people would be crying foul.... maybe not. In the end its all horse racing, but I haven't seen many posts regarding this on the board.