DRF WKND (Hersch): Not Unusual for Filly Champs to Struggle

[Rupert Pupkin]

I thought that RA's campaign was reasonable last year. It's not like she ran 12 times. She ran 8 times but in many of those races she was geared down and was not all out. I don't fault the way they handled her last year. I thought they chose an ambitious but reasonable campaign.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I thought that RA's campaign was reasonable last year. It's not like she ran 12 times. She ran 8 times but in many of those races she was geared down and was not all out. I don't fault the way they handled her last year. I thought they chose an ambitious but reasonable campaign.

"Not all out"... "Geared down"... Nonsense, and I'm surprised that you would buy into that claptrap Richie.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Kasept

"Not all out"... "Geared down"... Nonsense, and I'm surprised that you would buy into that claptrap Richie.

While I agree that horses that are winning easily rarely would be running much faster under a drive, RA had quite a few really easy wins last year.

The Martha Washington was won by 8 with the comment "under wraps"
The FG Oaks was won by only 1 3/4 but was "eased up final 1/16th"
The Fantasy was won by 8 "easily"
The KY Oaks by 20 "on own, easily"
The Mother Goose by 19 "under wraps final 1/16th"

While she was still running fast in the stretch of those races she was under no pressure and that has to be a touch easier race than those like the preakness and Woodward.

It was an ambitious campaign, albeit against a weak group of horses, that seemingly was made possible by a string of very easy wins early in the season. She looked tanked after the Woodward understandably but had she been seriously tested in any of her races against fillies she never may have been able to get to that point.

Naturally the article looks silly in light of todays race where she was again very good.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Kasept

"Not all out"... "Geared down"... Nonsense, and I'm surprised that you would buy into that claptrap Richie.

You say it is "nonsense". How So?

I agree with you that there are times when people think a horse was not all out simply because the jockey didn't whip them. I don't agree with that. If a horse is being fairly vigourously hand-ridden, they are probably all out. Whipping the horse is usally not going to make much of a difference. But when a horse is under a hold coming down the stretch and is geared down, how could you say that it doesn't make a difference? It makes a huge difference.

It makes a huge difference in the morning too. If you have a great horse, you could get them to work 5 furlongs in :58 or you could get them to work in 1:02. It depends whether the jock asks them or not. A horse will obviously run much faster if you ask them than if you don't ask them. That is true in the morning and it is true in the afternoon.

[philcski]

Crinkle... trash can to this article thanks to Rachel returning to form today.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by philcski

Crinkle... trash can to this article thanks to Rachel returning to form today.

she looked good today, looked like she should have against that field. and the time holds up as well. nice race for her.

[Merlinsky]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You say it is "nonsense". How So?

I agree with you that there are times when people think a horse was not all out simply because the jockey didn't whip them. I don't agree with that. If a horse is being fairly vigourously hand-ridden, they are probably all out. Whipping the horse is usally not going to make much of a difference. But when a horse is under a hold coming down the stretch and is geared down, how could you say that it doesn't make a difference? It makes a huge difference.

It makes a huge difference in the morning too. If you have a great horse, you could get them to work 5 furlongs in :58 or you could get them to work in 1:02. It depends whether the jock asks them or not. A horse will obviously run much faster if you ask them than if you don't ask them. That is true in the morning and it is true in the afternoon.

Maybe she could've gone faster, but that doesn't mean she's not expending energy at the end of, say the Oaks or the Mother Goose. Holding a horse back can wear them out in ways that aren't immediately apparent. She doesn't want to slow down, that's not her thing, and the process of trying to go faster when Calvin won't let her is going to be tiring to an extent. The day Rachel likes slowing down is the day PG1985 becomes the Queen of England.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Merlinsky

Maybe she could've gone faster, but that doesn't mean she's not expending energy at the end of, say the Oaks or the Mother Goose. Holding a horse back can wear them out in ways that aren't immediately apparent. She doesn't want to slow down, that's not her thing, and the process of trying to go faster when Calvin won't let her is going to be tiring to an extent. The day Rachel likes slowing down is the day PG1985 becomes the Queen of England.

The more a jock asks a horse, the harder they're going to run. The harder a horse runs, the more it's going to take out of them.

[Merlinsky]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The more a jock asks a horse, the harder they're going to run. The harder a horse runs, the more it's going to take out of them.

That misses the point. If a horse tries to run as hard as they can and the jock won't let them, that takes plenty of energy. Rachel doesn't need to be asked for more to try to give it. How many horses have we seen get rank in a race, a jockey's tugging hard to keep them back, and by the time they're ready to go they're too worn out from trying to bust loose? It happens frequently.

[Travis Stone]

One of the most overrated things in horse racing is that horses who win "under wraps" or win "without urging" or are "ridden out" are putting a meaningful amount of energy in reserve for next time.

An exception would be Rachel Alexandra in the FG Oaks, she was noticeably slowing down to a gallop. That stretch drive versus her stretch drive yesterday are two different things.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Merlinsky

That misses the point. If a horse tries to run as hard as they can and the jock won't let them, that takes plenty of energy. Rachel doesn't need to be asked for more to try to give it. How many horses have we seen get rank in a race, a jockey's tugging hard to keep them back, and by the time they're ready to go they're too worn out from trying to bust loose? It happens frequently.

When a horse is rank, that is totally different. If you have a horse throwing their head in the air and the jock is fighting them, that is not a good thing at all. That will tire a horse out. That is a totally different situation than a jock gearing a horse down the final 1/16th of a mile.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You say it is "nonsense". How So?

I agree with you that there are times when people think a horse was not all out simply because the jockey didn't whip them. I don't agree with that. If a horse is being fairly vigourously hand-ridden, they are probably all out. Whipping the horse is usally not going to make much of a difference. But when a horse is under a hold coming down the stretch and is geared down, how could you say that it doesn't make a difference? It makes a huge difference.

It makes a huge difference in the morning too. If you have a great horse, you could get them to work 5 furlongs in :58 or you could get them to work in 1:02. It depends whether the jock asks them or not. A horse will obviously run much faster if you ask them than if you don't ask them. That is true in the morning and it is true in the afternoon.

All I mean is that horses running supremely fast under any condition, as fast as Rachel Alexandra ran last year particularly, are expending tremendous energy whether under wraps or not. Those efforts take a certain toll on a horse and require a certain amount of respective rest to recover. I'm certainly just parroting 'sheet' philosophy here, but I've seen enough evidence of its' accuracy to espouse it. Additionally, I've learned (from Andy and Chuck) that the 'could have won by more' credo is generally a fallacy.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Kasept

All I mean is that horses running supremely fast under any condition, as fast as Rachel Alexandra ran last year particularly, are expending tremendous energy whether under wraps or not. Those efforts take a certain toll on a horse and require a certain amount of respective rest to recover. I'm certainly just parroting 'sheet' philosophy here, but I've seen enough evidence of its' accuracy to espouse it. Additionally, I've learned (from Andy and Chuck) that the 'could have won by more' credo is generally a fallacy.

The "could have won by more" credo is usually a fallacy if a horse is being fairly vigorously hand ridden. As I said before, many people make the mistake of thinking a horse was not "all-out" simply because the jock never used the stick. If the horse is being fairly vigorously hand-ridden, the horse is probably all out, even if the jock never used the stick. But if a horse is actually not being asked at all and is actually being restrained, then it is not a fallacy at all.

A race is going to take something out of a horse no matter what. But if a horse is "all-out", the race will take much more out of them than if they win under wraps.

What I'm referring to does not happen all that often. Most 5 length winners are "all-out". There aren't all that many jockeys that gear their horses down. The guy that does it the most consistently is Ramon Dominguez. I often see Ramon win races by 3 lengths that he could have won by a couple of more lengths if he wanted to. Ramon is one of the smartest, if not the smartest riders in the country. He knows how important it is to save something for next time.