How is it possible...

blackthroatedwind · #1 07-26-2008, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

that the Vanderbilt is the slowest 6 furlong race on the card? The sprinters are as bad as the handicap horses. How much did it rain?

Obviously the track changed significantly.

Even a dopey horseman should have realized that.

Linny · #2 07-26-2008, 09:38 PM

The Go For Wand was insanely slow, though as a route it's not really comparable to the Vanderbilt.

Bigsmc · #3 07-26-2008, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Obviously the track changed significantly.

Even a dopey horseman should have realized that.

dopey.jpg

Holland Hacker · #4 07-26-2008, 10:24 PM

The only thing I noticed was that before the Vanderbilt they Sealed / Harrowed the track from the opposite direction. It appeared that that they sealed it and only gave it a shallo harrowing. (It that even makes any sense.)

It really didn't rain until just before the Go For Wand and even then it only really rained for about 5 - 10 mintues. I can't say that it really changed the conditions of the track at all. It started raining during the post parade / warm up for the Go For Wand and it stopped raining by the end of the race and the sun was out before the end of the race. Actually, by the time I got back to my seat there was rainbow that seemed to end at the Saratoga tote board, at least from my vantage point. I actually told my wife that I always knew that the pot' o gold at the end of the rainbow was at the saratoga toteboard. She wasn't amused, even knowing I was alive in the pick 4 to 6 horses.

I guess my point is that the only thing I saw that could impact the speed figures was the fact that the grounds crew was sealing / harrowing the track differenty and the actual rain fall was insignificant.

I think the Go For Wand was an oddly run race with the pace being slow and the jockeys trying to keep Ginger Punch bottled up inside. The fact that she got through was unbelievable, and makes me apprecitate hot great she truely is.

blackthroatedwind · #5 07-26-2008, 10:40 PM

If Ginger Punch is great then I can dunk over Shaq.

Holland Hacker · #6 07-27-2008, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

If Ginger Punch is great then I can dunk over Shaq.

Geeesh BTW, I knew you gave up a lot to be a pro handicapper, but a career in the NBA as well as a job in Manhattan. Now I'm truly impressed by you intelligence and your athletic ability.

Seriously, Why don't you think GP is great? Perhaps you and I have different definitions of great. After all she has complied a rather nice record of 11 wins, 5 seconds and 2 thirds from 19 lifetime starts. Here only start where she failed to hit the board was her third lifetime start where she encountered an off track for the first time. Obviously, she has no problem with the slop now, as we saw her victory in the final BC "DISTAFF".

What then makes a great horse in your opinion?

miraja2 · #7 07-27-2008, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holland Hacker

Geeesh BTW, I knew you gave up a lot to be a pro handicapper, but a career in the NBA as well as a job in Manhattan. Now I'm truly impressed by you intelligence and your athletic ability.

Seriously, Why don't you think GP is great? Perhaps you and I have different definitions of great. After all she has complied a rather nice record of 11 wins, 5 seconds and 2 thirds from 19 lifetime starts. Here only start where she failed to hit the board was her third lifetime start where she encountered an off track for the first time. Obviously, she has no problem with the slop now, as we saw her victory in the final BC "DISTAFF".

What then makes a great horse in your opinion?

Everybody has different definitions.
The things you pointed out obviously indicate that Ginger Punch is a very good, and fairly versatile horse. She has won graded stakes races in the slop and on fast surfaces, and around both one turn and two turns. There are definitely a lot of good horses out there that can't do that.

I think the reason that many people wouldn't call her great is that she has never really run a "great" individual race (her top lifetime BSF is only a 104), and several of her big wins (last year's Ruffian, this year's Louisville BC, and yesterday's race) have been run in very slow times.

I don't think anybody would dispute that she is a very accomplished mare who deserves high marks for consistency, but the mythical title of "great" is extremely subjective.

Holland Hacker · #8 07-27-2008, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miraja2

Everybody has different definitions.
The things you pointed out obviously indicate that Ginger Punch is a very good, and fairly versatile horse. She has won graded stakes races in the slop and on fast surfaces, and around both one turn and two turns. There are definitely a lot of good horses out there that can't do that.

I think the reason that many people wouldn't call her great is that she has never really run a "great" individual race (her top lifetime BSF is only a 104), and several of her big wins (last year's Ruffian, this year's Louisville BC, and yesterday's race) have been run in very slow times.

I don't think anybody would dispute that she is a very accomplished mare who deserves high marks for consistency, but the mythical title of "great" is extremely subjective.

Jack Van Berg used to say that "the only place time matter is in prison." I simply can't fault a horse for running "very slow" time yet managing to win and hit the board in Graded stakes races. I know at least yesterday the fact that she only galloped along for 7 1/2 furlongs before squeezing between two horses in upper strecth to pull away to a somewhat easy victory is an indication of a very speacial if not great horse.

I do agree that everybody has different scales of greatness and it is a difficult thing to define especially now that we rarely get to see the best horses of any given generation race into their four year old campaign, except of course this year with Curlin.

Cannon Shell · #9 07-26-2008, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Obviously the track changed significantly.

Even a dopey horseman should have realized that.

The old track slowed due to reasons beyond our comprehension excuse? Exactly how much did it slow down? 2 seconds?

blackthroatedwind · #10 07-26-2008, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The old track slowed due to reasons beyond our comprehension excuse? Exactly how much did it slow down? 2 seconds?

Easily ( and more for longer distances obviously ).

zippyneedsawin · #11 07-26-2008, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The old track slowed due to reasons beyond our comprehension excuse? Exactly how much did it slow down? 2 seconds?

Didn't you take the "speed figures and variants" math course as part of your training?

outofthebox · #12 07-27-2008, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The old track slowed due to reasons beyond our comprehension excuse? Exactly how much did it slow down? 2 seconds?

Why did the track crew mess with the surface. I cant understand why they have to mess with it. Im glad i don't make figures for a living.

Cannon Shell · #13 07-27-2008, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outofthebox

Why did the track crew mess with the surface. I cant understand why they have to mess with it. Im glad i don't make figures for a living.

The fractions seemed to suggest the track was not that much different then it was 2 races earlier. The only thing that was slow was the final eighth. Of course the few speed variant courses that I took told me that 1 1/8th races and 6 furlong races are different animals.