Post 20

[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.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by 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.

it wasn't as bad as you've described, thats why it hasn't been discussed more. not really an excuse for any of those horses.