Street Sense Number

[Merlinsky]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I think you are missing my point, and it's not an absolute one, but at least a possibility.

Some horses are " rail runners " which effectively means they basically need to be on the rail to do their best running and will sort of sulk if they aren't on the fence. The converse is that some horses don't like being inside, and run inside as if they are effectively " chicken ", and won't pass horses on the inside. Since the two big efforts we have seen from Street Sense have come while rallying on the rail I am offering this as at least a possibility.

Oh I get what you mean, I just don't know that I would draw this conclusion with any level of confidence. Some folks grumbled that he might be a one run closer or are afraid he's a rail horse but quite simply until they do otherwise you don't know and why complain when a jockey does what makes sense? It's like we're trying to find flaws here--he saved too much ground, he's too fast, he's too gutsy... oh heaven forbid. He didn't need more than one run today so how could we know he wasn't capable of more than that (he's been tactical in the past right?) and he didn't need to go to the outside a mere two times in succession and months apart which doesn't really indicate a trend necessarily. Should we really think of what could just be coincidence as a weakness yet?

The rail's the shortest way around, can you blame Borel for taking it? I don't think Street Sense is likely to sulk but that's just my opinion. He seemed to take it personally that he was being challenged. I think if he sees a horse up ahead and he's on the outside, he'll be busting his tail to get there. At least we won't have to listen to 'was never looked in the eye' comments.

[blackthroatedwind]

I didn't draw any conclusions.....I just offered a possibility. One thing is for sure, his two best efforts have come while making inside runs, which is rarer than most people think. It isn't a question of the shortest route to the wire, as many horses are far more comfortable rallying outside of horses, and that is seemingly not the case with Street Sense. At the very least he is comfortable regardless of racetrack position. However, the ease with which he rallies inside, suggests he is VERY comfortable there.

My post wasn't a stance on Street Sense but an observation about how he achieved his two strongest results. In general, I think the " rail is the shortest route to the wire " concept is as deceptive a way of thinking as I know in racing. It is quite simply a misconception of race dynamics.

[Merlinsky]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

My post wasn't a stance on Street Sense but an observation about how he achieved his two strongest results. In general, I think the " rail is the shortest route to the wire " concept is as deceptive a way of thinking as I know in racing. It is quite simply a misconception of race dynamics.

His two strongest results also happen to be his last two outings. Couldn't just be that he's getting better could it? If you know a horse is fine going up through the inside, surely it could just be a combination of a good ride plus a horse with a good head on its shoulders. My point is sure you could think the horse likes being down there but it could also quite possibly be that it's a general professionalism rather than a preference by the horse. I don't think 2 races justifies a trend. I think the 'rail's the shortest distance' is completely viable here if it's obviously going to be a catfight to the end and you know the horse's gonna do it, like it or not. You save ground because every inch matters. I don't think he needed the rail in the Juvenile but hey if it's there, again, why not?

I just feel this idea that it's a misconception of race dynamics is only a viable way of thinking if either the rail's dead or the horse doesn't like being on the inside. If the rail's fine and the horse is talented and doesn't have a problem with it, why would any other course of action be as good? Or should I say good enough to opt out of it deliberately.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Merlinsky

His two strongest results also happen to be his last two outings. Couldn't just be that he's getting better could it? If you know a horse is fine going up through the inside, surely it could just be a combination of a good ride plus a horse with a good head on its shoulders. My point is sure you could think the horse likes being down there but it could also quite possibly be that it's a general professionalism rather than a preference by the horse. I don't think 2 races justifies a trend. I think the 'rail's the shortest distance' is completely viable here if it's obviously going to be a catfight to the end and you know the horse's gonna do it, like it or not. You save ground because every inch matters. I don't think he needed the rail in the Juvenile but hey if it's there, again, why not?

I just feel this idea that it's a misconception of race dynamics is only a viable way of thinking if either the rail's dead or the horse doesn't like being on the inside. If the rail's fine and the horse is talented and doesn't have a problem with it, why would any other course of action be as good? Or should I say good enough to opt out of it deliberately.

You seem to be arguing a point with me that I didn't make. I never made a conclusive statement, and just offered a possibility, and never even remotely suggested what you said in the first paragraph was not the case.

I am open to as many possibilities as I can imagine. However, it never hurts to at least accept the possibility that something demonstrated MAY be true. That's all.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

In general, I think the " rail is the shortest route to the wire " concept is as deceptive a way of thinking as I know in racing. It is quite simply a misconception of race dynamics.

Can you elaborate on this? I think I understand what you are saying in relation to SS, but not really sure how terrible this thinking is. I understand a lot of horses dont like to come inside but are there examples of horses that dont like to go outside? Not really sure if this is your pt. or not. so...

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by easy goer

Can you elaborate on this? I think I understand what you are saying in relation to SS, but not really sure how terrible this thinking is. I understand a lot of horses dont like to come inside but are there examples of horses that dont like to go outside? Not really sure if this is your pt. or not. so...

I'm not sure I would use the word " terrible ", as I felt deceptive was more apt, and I will try to explain.

Let's assume for this argument that all tracks are " fair ", in other words there is no advantage or disadvantage to being in one path or another, and only ground loss is involved. Thus, clearly the more time spent on the inside, or closer to the inside, on the turns the better in terms of overall ground covered. Thus, obviously there is some very real incentive to staying inside. However, many horses are intimidated by running inside of horses, whether in the stretch or sometimes even on turns, so they will not exert themselves if forced into this position. This does not hold true for ALL horses, and I wouldn't ever suggest absolutes like that, but it is true for many. In general, many horses do their best running unencumbered on the outside of other horses. So, for this reason it is a mistake, IMO, to automatically assume that an inside trip is a good trip. It may be...but it is far from an absolute.

I am sure you have bet horses in your life that have had sweet looking trips inside and behind horses and somewhat surprisingly didn't run as well as you figured, and almost looked to be spinning their wheels so to speak, only to come back and run much better the next time with a more outside trip. This goes against the " saving ground is best " way of thinking, and may be due to the horse being uncomfortable inside or perhaps not liking dirt getting kicked in its face, but for whatever reason I think it shows at least the possibility that saving ground is not ALWAYS the best way to victory. The horse's comfort CAN far outweigh any ground loss.

See what threw me off in your original thought was that you mentioned "race dynamics" so I was unsure if you were referrring to the pace of the race, or perhaps, an inside outside bias or whatever.

That is why I was hesistant to bring up horse psychology as perhaps you were thinking along another line. Obviously a dead rail would not be good for running on the inside.

so you are speaking of horse psychology which I think mutes your pt. a little bit. If the horse has established that he can and will run inside of horses (like SS that we were speaking of) is there a reason for the punter to think that there maybe a problem if he doesnt get this trip?

I mean, I understand a horse who successful on the outside may have trouble running inside of horses but are there examples of the opposite: horses who could run inside of horses but did not like to run outside of them? I think that is where you are going with it, but I dont recall any offhand. See that is where I am a little bit wondering here, you seem to suggest that the opposite effect can happen.

Of course there are many example of horses that are hesistant while on the rail, I often bring up the example of Proud Accolade literally butt whipping another horse into submission on his inside, to take a race at AQU when he was a 2 yr. old. or Barbaro when he won that race in FL was really intimidating Like Now (?). Yeah that happens a lot. Was Any Sat. bumping a little with SS, yesterday?

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I'm not sure I would use the word " terrible ", as I felt deceptive was more apt, and I will try to explain.

Let's assume for this argument that all tracks are " fair ", in other words there is no advantage or disadvantage to being in one path or another, and only ground loss is involved. Thus, clearly the more time spent on the inside, or closer to the inside, on the turns the better in terms of overall ground covered. Thus, obviously there is some very real incentive to staying inside. However, many horses are intimidated by running inside of horses, whether in the stretch or sometimes even on turns, so they will not exert themselves if forced into this position. This does not hold true for ALL horses, and I wouldn't ever suggest absolutes like that, but it is true for many. In general, many horses do their best running unencumbered on the outside of other horses. So, for this reason it is a mistake, IMO, to automatically assume that an inside trip is a good trip. It may be...but it is far from an absolute.

I am sure you have bet horses in your life that have had sweet looking trips inside and behind horses and somewhat surprisingly didn't run as well as you figured, and almost looked to be spinning their wheels so to speak, only to come back and run much better the next time with a more outside trip. This goes against the " saving ground is best " way of thinking, and may be due to the horse being uncomfortable inside or perhaps not liking dirt getting kicked in its face, but for whatever reason I think it shows at least the possibility that saving ground is not ALWAYS the best way to victory. The horse's comfort CAN far outweigh any ground loss.

I will pose another reason. It is harder to turn on the inside compared to the outside on turns. What you gain in ground, you quite possibly lose in energy. In order to hold a tight turn you actually have to use more force to stay in that turn.

F (centripetal)= mv^2/r ... its v squared thats the tough part. You have actually slow down to not lose as much energy to hold you in that turn. Any time anything turns it changes direction. Any time a body changes direction it accelerates (changes velocity). Any time a body accelerates a force is required.

And I thank you.

[magic_idol]

Originally Posted by pgardn

I will pose another reason. It is harder to turn on the inside compared to the outside on turns. What you gain in ground, you quite possibly lose in energy. In order to hold a tight turn you actually have to use more force to stay in that turn.

F (centripetal)= mv^2/r ... its v squared thats the tough part. You have actually slow down to not lose as much energy to hold you in that turn. Any time anything turns it changes direction. Any time a body changes direction it accelerates (changes velocity). Any time a body accelerates a force is required.

And I thank you.

The shortest point From A to B is a straight line if your horse can handle the turn allways take the inside saves in distance a hell of alot,Some horses dont like being closed in so the outdside is better but mind the jockey they dont like sitting outside as it makes them look bad on TV

Originally Posted by magic_idol

The shortest point From A to B is a straight line

Not if the line is drawn on curved surface. It is very tough to run tight turns fast. It takes a toll in energy. Look at some of these tracks with 5 f turf sprints (turf tracks usually being inside the dirt thus tighter turns) The horses have a hell of a time holding that turn sometimes and its hard unless a horse is really got a big muscular right side, a bit unbalanced based on our counter clockwise ways of running. Heck look a track athletes that run the 200m. Not many like the inside lane, even if the track is slanted (all good ones are) to allow gravity to play a role in holding them in that turn.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by magic_idol

The shortest point From A to B is a straight line if your horse can handle the turn allways take the inside saves in distance a hell of alot,Some horses dont like being closed in so the outdside is better but mind the jockey they dont like sitting outside as it makes them look bad on TV

Your first sentence doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. The shortest distance between A & B may be a straight line, but the inside rail is the furthest path from a "straight line" of any, at least in the sense of curvature.

You quote pgardn, and then do not address at all the valid point he makes. It takes energy to make tight turns. This should be intuitively obvious to anyone who has applied the brakes to a car making a tight turn. I'm not sure how to quantify the effect for horses, but I suspect it must be a real effect for some horses. It's going to be less important at a big oval like Belmont than at a smaller track. I can remember horses almost skidding around the turns at Sportsmans Park.

--Dunbar