Weekend Beyers: Blind Luck 104; Sidney's 100; AmLion 98

[the_fat_man]

Oh. I get it. Horses are FASTER on dirt.

[tector]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

Oh. I get it. Horses are FASTER on dirt.

Every time I think you can't possibly be as stupid as you seem, you prove me wrong.

I'll never doubt you again.

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by tector

Every time I think you can't possibly be as stupid as you seem, you prove me wrong.

I'll never doubt you again.

What are you RETARDED?

Or have you simply accepted the BEYER BS as gospel? In your case, the former would be the better option.

[tector]

OK, all horses are equally adept on all surfaces. Whatever you say.

Sorry: "Adept" = "good" (sort of). Didn't mean to use a word obviously beyond your grasp.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

Oh. I get it. Horses are FASTER on dirt.

Certain individual horses are faster on dirt.. yes. Just as certain individual horses are faster on turf... or even possibly on the third surface. Their individual physical properties can and will make them 'faster' on different surfaces.

Your obstinacy and myopia on this particular topic is hard to understand.

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Certain individual horses are faster on dirt.. yes. Just as certain individual horses are faster on turf... or even possibly on the third surface. Their individual physical properties can and will make them 'faster' on different surfaces.

Your obstinacy and myopia on this particular topic is hard to understand.

Steve

This horse ALWAYS runs the same type of race. She's just GOOD. And, the more of these SLOW poly horses that run higher figures on the dirt, the harder it will be to HIDE the inadequacy of Beyers on synthetics. I mean, even CJ is on record that the Beyers in CALI absolutely suck.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

Steve

This horse ALWAY runs the same type of race. She's just GOOD. And, the more of these SLOW poly horses that run higher figures on the dirt, the harder it will be to HIDE the inadequacy of Beyers on synthetics.

OK... Understand that point. The inadequacies argument is a different discussion. I can guarantee that Andy Beyer, Mark Hopkins and Randy Moss and everyone involved in Beyer Associates is evaluating and re-examining their formulations constantly to try and get the equation as accurate as possible for the non-organic surfaces. As Beyer himself said when he came on ATR to announce and explain the fig adjustment last January, there is nothing more important to him than providing the most valuable and accurate figures they can to us, the wagering public.

In this case with Blind Luck, you just really see the quantum difference in dirt racing and synthetic racing and how the synthetic oval mutes raw speed. Blind Luck has done fine out west because her style particularly suits the surface and how races on synthetic have come to be run.. Zenyatta is another that fits the surface/style scenario. That isn't to say that Blind Luck still couldn't be bested by dawdling pace as she was in the SA Oaks and almost was in the Las Virgenes.

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by Kasept

In this case with Blind Luck, you just really see the quantum difference in dirt racing and synthetic racing and how the synthetic oval mutes raw speed. Blind Luck has done fine out west because her style particularly suits the surface and how races on synthetic have come to be run.. Zenyatta is another that fits the surface/style scenario. That isn't to say that Blind Luck still couldn't be bested by dawdling pace as she was in the SA Oaks and almost was in the Las Virgenes.

She wins the Oaks if she's not blocked the length of the stretch -- which would've been a ridiculously huge accomplishment. Combined with the Las Virgenes, where Evening Jewel was 'supposed' to win, one gets a sense of how good this filly is. Then, she comes off the surface that supposedly 'favors' her running style and runs what appears to be an identical type of race (haven't done the charts for this yet.).

All I want is some consistency. I want the Beyers to be able to show that this is a good horse, whether on synthetics or dirt --- as she now has proven. Clearly, there are horses that are better on one surface over another but is this really the case here? Did this filly suddenly get good by running a respectable number or was she always good? (note: I don't know what she's run in the past and have made the assumption that her peak was around 90).

[10 pnt move up]

If the numbers are not comparable to each other, something I completely agree with, then why were they being throw around last year in Eclipse discussions? If they are that important then they should be on the same scale.

I highly doubt that Ventana, what looks like the west coasts best sprinter, is 15 points behind the best sprinters out east.

[blackthroatedwind]

Oh yeah, speed figures are often used in Eclipse decisions.

You used to be much smarter. Have you been eating peyote?

[philcski]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

She wins the Oaks if she's not blocked the length of the stretch -- which would've been a ridiculously huge accomplishment. Combined with the Las Virgenes, where Evening Jewel was 'supposed' to win, one gets a sense of how good this filly is. Then, she comes off the surface that supposedly 'favors' her running style and runs what appears to be an identical type of race (haven't done the charts for this yet.).

All I want is some consistency. I want the Beyers to be able to show that this is a good horse, whether on synthetics or dirt --- as she now has proven. Clearly, there are horses that are better on one surface over another but is this really the case here? Did this filly suddenly get good by running a respectable number or was she always good? (note: I don't know what she's run in the past and have made the assumption that her peak was around 90).

16 Beyer points at 8.5F is 1.6 seconds, or about 9 lengths. If the trouble she had in the Oaks was worth 3-4 lengths, and moving to dirt was worth 5-6 lengths (certainly reasonable assumptions, no?) the number makes a lot of sense.

She is absolutely a good horse, and the one to beat on April 30th. Synthetics make her "not as good" a horse as she is on dirt like it does to a lot of horses. Others have about equal ability on both surfaces. A third group move way up on synthetics. The same phenomenon occurs on turf- plenty of turfers can't run a lick on dirt, and excellent dirt horses just look like they're running in place over turf. It's been proven time and again over the last 4 years that synthetics are NOT a replacement for dirt, but rather a 3rd surface, and must be treated as such in both handicapping through speed figures or visual/trip/charting assessments.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

She wins the Oaks if she's not blocked the length of the stretch -- which would've been a ridiculously huge accomplishment. Combined with the Las Virgenes, where Evening Jewel was 'supposed' to win, one gets a sense of how good this filly is. Then, she comes off the surface that supposedly 'favors' her running style and runs what appears to be an identical type of race (haven't done the charts for this yet.).

All I want is some consistency. I want the Beyers to be able to show that this is a good horse, whether on synthetics or dirt --- as she now has proven. Clearly, there are horses that are better on one surface over another but is this really the case here? Did this filly suddenly get good by running a respectable number or was she always good? (note: I don't know what she's run in the past and have made the assumption that her peak was around 90).

I really don't want to get too deep into this because it is a very old topic. Speed figures measure final time. However, on synthetics, final time is often irrelevant. The pace is so slow, especially in routes, that horses are never going to run figures like they do on dirt.

Now, if you want Beyer figures to measure something other than final time, maybe they could be made more accurate, but it is still very hard to do. In racing, the goal isn't to run as fast as possible, it is to win the race. On dirt, these often amount to the same thing. On turf and rubber, that simply is not the case.

So again, I'm not sure what you want Beyer to do. His figures have never purported to do anything but measure final time. On rubber, final time is a very small part of determining how good a horse happens to be.

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I really don't want to get too deep into this because it is a very old topic. Speed figures measure final time. However, on synthetics, final time is often irrelevant. The pace is so slow, especially in routes, that horses are never going to run figures like they do on dirt.

Now, if you want Beyer figures to measure something other than final time, maybe they could be made more accurate, but it is still very hard to do. In racing, the goal isn't to run as fast as possible, it is to win the race. On dirt, these often amount to the same thing. On turf and rubber, that simply is not the case.

So again, I'm not sure what you want Beyer to do. His figures have never purported to do anything but measure final time. On rubber, final time is a very small part of determining how good a horse happens to be.

I think BEYERS do a disservice to those that don't have a firm grasp of the game. That's why we're constantly subjected to the same comments about horses 'improving'. I clearly realize that BEYERS don't account for pace, nor for the surface difference, and the nuances that come with it; yet, they continue to play such a huge role in the game. Comments like 'not fast enough', when the reference is to FINAL TIME, really have no part in the game of anyone who understands even the basics of racing. Beyer is stuck between a rock and a hard place. His figures are 'fine' for dirt, as pace doesn't play that much of a role (at least not the primary role it does on synthetics) but they fail woefully in cases where the 'type' of races determines how 'fast' a race is run. In other words, he CAN'T RECONCILE his DIRT with his SYNTHETIC figures. And, thus, he (and his supporters) really should not be commenting on the ability of horses that run on different surfaces. This would result in:

1) less confusing/comical situations for those who have a gauge as to the ability of a given horse

2) the Beyer camp relaxing their (equally comical) campaign against synthetic horses

This is not to say that there's a way to reconcile these numbers, however. It's just an intractable situation if only speed is involved.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Speed figures measure final time. However, on synthetics, final time is often irrelevant. The pace is so slow, especially in routes, that horses are never going to run figures like they do on dirt.

I posted this in another thread, but the figures for the 9F races at Aqueduct on Saturday seem too high, for the reason quoted above. Given the slow pace of each, the final time of both races seemed a little slow for how the track was overall playing Saturday.

Eskendereya was very impressive, especially in comparison to the slow come home time for the Excelsior, but both of these races were contested in the manner that we often see in turf/synthetic races and typically result in final figures slower than the actual performance may warrant.

[justindew]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Certain individual horses are faster on dirt.. yes. Just as certain individual horses are faster on turf... or even possibly on the third surface. Their individual physical properties can and will make them 'faster' on different surfaces.

Your obstinacy and myopia on this particular topic is hard to understand.

At the end of the day, this is an underused and fantastic word.