Thorograph #'s- Past Derby Winners

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by smuthg

DrugS, I think you have hit on the point of my question/comment. To think that Easy Goer (while an incredible horse) received the same number as probably the single greatest performance in the history of the sport, makes me question the "soundness", for lack of a better word, of the speed figures over several generations of horses...

Some who saw Twice A Prince run (and I surely didn't!) might counter that by saying that beating Sunday Silence by 8 lengths, is probably a bigger achievement than beating Twice a Prince by 31 lengths, in a 12 furlong race.

I think someone once told me that Twice A Prince made all 23 of his lifetime starts during his 3yo season. He never won a stake, and made just 94K. Not to take anything away from Big Red's amazing Belmont Stakes performance.

I can see how Easy Goer's Belmont figure, could be incredibly fast on the sheets. He was wide on both turns, and ran the 2nd fastest time in history, beating a very solid horse by a lopsided margin.

To me, what's downright impossible to defend, is Easy Goer's Wood Memroial figure---which was also a 0...and the same number as both his and Big Red's Belmont. He only beat Rock Point by 3 or 4 lengths that day!

On the Beyer figures, horses are not progressively getting a lot faster. However, they are on the Ragozin Sheets, and most certainly are getting MUCH faster on the Thoro-graph sheets.

Spectacular Bid held the fastest Ragozin sheet figure ever recorded for over 20 years until Congaree broke it in his first NYRA Mile win. I think a few other horses have bested it since.

I guess it boils down to who's figures you trust most---because if you are comparing figures for horses over several generations---you'll notice horses are getting much faster on the sheet style figures....and that isn't the case on the Beyer Style figures.

[smuthg]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Some who saw Twice A Prince run (and I surely didn't!) might counter that by saying that beating Sunday Silence by 8 lengths, is probably a bigger achievement than beating Twice a Prince by 31 lengths, in a 12 furlong race.

I think someone once told me that Twice A Prince made all 23 of his lifetime starts during his 3yo season. He never won a stake, and made just 94K. Not to take anything away from Big Red's amazing Belmont Stakes performance.

I can see how Easy Goer's Belmont figure, could be incredibly fast on the sheets. He was wide on both turns, and ran the 2nd fastest time in history, beating a very solid horse by a lopsided margin.

To me, what's downright impossible to defend, is Easy Goer's Wood Memroial figure---which was also a 0...and the same number as both his and Big Red's Belmont. He only beat Rock Point by 3 or 4 lengths that day!

On the Beyer figures, horses are not progressively getting a lot faster. However, they are on the Ragozin Sheets, and most certainly are getting MUCH faster on the Thoro-graph sheets.

Spectacular Bid held the fastest Ragozin sheet figure ever recorded for over 20 years until Congaree broke it in his first NYRA Mile win. I think a few other horses have bested it since.

I guess it boils down to who's figures you trust most---because if you are comparing figures for horses over several generations---you'll notice horses are getting much faster on the sheet style figures....and that isn't the case on the Beyer Style figures.

As usual, great post. While, I think its somewhat crazy to think anyone could have kept up with Big Red on Belmont Day 1973, we must give Sham some due credit. Any year other than 1973 he's a clear Triple Crown candidate, and the Belmont and Twice A Prince finishing a "distant" second, in my mind is a mere fact of Sham getting his arse beat into the ground trying to keep up with a freak for two grueling races. That being said, I tend to put a lot more "faith" in the beyer figures when it comes to comparing horses over generations (I think he estimates big red's Belmont at a 139) because I think the focus on "speed" and raw talent tends to get clouded when human judgment attempts to add or subtract points for the horse's "trip"...

Originally Posted by smuthg

....I tend to put a lot more "faith" in the beyer figures when it comes to comparing horses over generations (I think he estimates big red's Belmont at a 139) because I think the focus on "speed" and raw talent tends to get clouded when human judgment attempts to add or subtract points for the horse's "trip"...

Come again

****

Speaking of the Belmont, I just watched Smarty JOne's Belmont again and one thing I got out of it was a bit more respect for Stuart Elliot. Rock Hard Ten basically challenged Smarty from the 1/2 mile pt. onto the 1 mile and it's hard to see how he could have pulled back on Smarty. Smarty turned back challenges from 3 contenders at that pt. before finally succumbing.

Plus, Elliot was real gracious in defeat doing two interviews with dignity.

THe other thing that got me, was the annoying comments from Randy Moss on the Wire to Wire show the following tuesday. First he says Smarty basically walked through the first 1/2 mile..True, the went 48+. Then he says Smarty just didnt have it in him, he wasnt good enough because Pt. Given's Belmont, he was ahead of Smarty at all points of call in the race; mentions a couple of others that were, and Go for Gin's Belmont, he was ahead of him at nearly all pts of call.

Yeah, they were ahead of him on time precisely because the first half was run so slow. What Moss doesnt mention is that after a 1/2 mile Smarty ran a 23 sec. quarter and then a 23 4/5 quarter. he runs the middle half mil in 46 4/5! That's why he lost, or one of the reasons he lost.

THe way Moss puts it, it's like pace has nothing to do with racing. Or that pressure has nothing to do with it, or that running an incrementally faster fraction means nothing. His analysis makes elapsed time the only factor.

This is clearly an incorrect analysis, pressure in the internal fractions, or just having to run slightly faster is crucial to these races. Moss totall overlooks all that.

Sometimes, Moss really annoys the hell out of me.

[pointman]

Still think there were some riders who cared more about beating Smarty than winning that race, he only had to put away 3 horses before losing to a horse with a perfect trip. I don't think I will ever forget 120,000 screaming people turning to a deafening silence in an instant. You could hear a pin drop right after that race finished.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by easy goer

Come again

****

Speaking of the Belmont, I just watched Smarty JOne's Belmont again and one thing I got out of it was a bit more respect for Stuart Elliot. Rock Hard Ten basically challenged Smarty from the 1/2 mile pt. onto the 1 mile and it's hard to see how he could have pulled back on Smarty. Smarty turned back challenges from 3 contenders at that pt. before finally succumbing.

Plus, Elliot was real gracious in defeat doing two interviews with dignity.

THe other thing that got me, was the annoying comments from Randy Moss on the Wire to Wire show the following tuesday. First he says Smarty basically walked through the first 1/2 mile..True, the went 48+. Then he says Smarty just didnt have it in him, he wasnt good enough because Pt. Given's Belmont, he was ahead of Smarty at all points of call in the race; mentions a couple of others that were, and Go for Gin's Belmont, he was ahead of him at nearly all pts of call.

Yeah, they were ahead of him on time precisely because the first half was run so slow. What Moss doesnt mention is that after a 1/2 mile Smarty ran a 23 sec. quarter and then a 23 4/5 quarter. he runs the middle half mil in 46 4/5! That's why he lost, or one of the reasons he lost.

THe way Moss puts it, it's like pace has nothing to do with racing. Or that pressure has nothing to do with it, or that running an incrementally faster fraction means nothing. His analysis makes elapsed time the only factor.

This is clearly an incorrect analysis, pressure in the internal fractions, or just having to run slightly faster is crucial to these races. Moss totall overlooks all that.

Sometimes, Moss really annoys the hell out of me.

I think Moss puts more significance on pace than anyone out there which is part of why I really like his analysis.