![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
__________________
please use generalizations and non-truths when arguing your side, thank you |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Huh??? I've never heard of timer problems at Aqueduct on the main track. The turf course - where races are hand-timed, yes, but never the main track. The pace is what it is, no matter when it comes up on the screen. A half in 49.1 and 6F in 1:13+ is slow for a grade I dirt race, whether contested around one or two turns. If you don't believe me, listen to Mike Hushion who described the Excelsior in tomorrow's DRF as a "paceless race." The same article described the pace of the Wood as "excruciatingly slow." |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Aqu-ID, 73.85 Bel, 74.09 Aqu, 74.69 Sar, 73.89 You think he, or the writer of the article, know that the 6f pace times for 9f races at Aqueduct are routinely the slowest in New York by an average of nearly 4/5ths of a second? I don't track half mile times in routes, but I know the difference would be even greater, more than a full second. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
However ... I have a question. cmorioles - War Pass finished 2nd and was a half length loser of the Wood Memorial a few years ago. He dueled with a Bill Mott rabbit through fractions of 22.46 46.07 1:11.50 1:38.42 1:52.35 and just missed. Pretty hot fractions for 9f at AQU on a not-so fast main track. My question is simply this ... did the hapless rabbit have an impact on the outcome of that race? Keep in mind those two put over 6 lengths on the rest of the field through that wicked 22.46 opening quarter. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Even I wouldn't still argue that on my most stubborn day. |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]() I honestly don't remember that much about it because I don't worry about races that happened two years ago. What was the point of the question? Since I didn't know I just gave a generic answer.
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
2009 Wood: 24.2, 48.0, 1:12:1, 1:49.2 2009 Excelsior: 25.2, 50.3, 1:14.3, 1:50.4 2008 Wood: 22.2, 46.0, 1:11.2, 1:52.1 2009 Excelsior: 23.4, 48.2, 1:13.3, 1:51 2007 Wood: 23.1, 47.1, 1:10.4, 1:49.2 2008 Excelsior: 23.3, 46.3, 1:10.1, 1:48 2006 Wood: 23.0, 46.1, 1:11.0, 1:51.2 2006 Excelsior: 23.2, 46.1, 1:10.3, 1:48.1 2005 Wood: 23.0, 46.0, 1:09.4, 1:47 2005 Excelsior: 24.2, 48.1, 1:12.3, 1:50.2 Based on these splits, I don't know how one can argue that the pace for the races this past weekend were "average" relative to the class of the horses involved. Last edited by parsixfarms : 04-06-2010 at 10:10 AM. Reason: ADDITONAL INFO |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
If you put the pace of the Wood in the context of other Derby preps, the pace in the Florida Derby (46.3, 1:10.3) was generally perceived as "hot," while Discreetly Mine was viewed as getting away with murder in a Risen Star that had fractions somewhat comparable (48.3, 1:13.2) to the Wood. I have questioned the figure for the Wood because, to my way of thinking (and I think history bears this out), when the Wood winner has been perceived as a legitimate Derby threat, they have usually completed the race in the 1:47-48 range: Fusaichi Pegasus, 1:47.4; Congaree, 1:47.4; Buddha, 1:48.3; Empire Maker, 1:48.3; Bellamy Road, 1:47.0; I Want Revenge, 1:49.2. While I am not doubting the quality of Eskendereya's performance, the final time does not measure up, and I did not perceive the track as being 6 or 7 lengths slower than par on Saturday. That's why I questioned the figure, especially when the performances of Eightyfiveinafifty and Warrior's Reward, which I think were on par with their respective races, were given lower figures. Last edited by parsixfarms : 04-06-2010 at 11:00 AM. |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
![]() I'm basing them on all the races at Aqueduct over the last several years. If what you say was a factor, the actual average pace time for Aqueduct would be even slower than what I reported because cheap, bad, and young horses always run faster pace times in relation to final time than classier fit horses do. If you took 100 races won by NW1 NY Breds at 9f that were won in a time of 1:51, and 100 races won be G1 horses with the same conditions and final time, the G1 horses would run slower to the 4f and 6f calls on average and finish faster.
How Mike Hushion trains horses has absolutely nothing to do with how he evaluates the pace of races that have already happened. Just because I know a lot about making figures (at least I think I do) doesn't mean I know how to prepare a horse for his first start or get him to break out of the gate. As for all the past Wood's, I use figures, not raw times. These are what I have: 2005: 114 pace, 111 speed 2006: 116 pace, 93 speed 2007: 108 pace, 98 speed 2008: 122 pace, 94 speed 2009: 104 pace, 104 speed 2010: 103 pace, 109 speed It looks to me like you have had a bunch of horses going too fast early and finishing like plow horses in the Wood. Perhaps that is why people are fooled into thinking the pace was so slow this year. It was a little slow, but hardly paceless. Maybe this year the winner of the Wood will actually accomplish something in the future in a dirt route. It would be a nice change. |