Thorograph Belmont Numbers

[golfer]

Originally Posted by Scav

He really regressed off that number, he runs that number again he should have won by 5 lengths. I am sure TG put a S_pace next to the number. Fact is that you can use numbers to predict what they would run. I didn't have Rags improving the way she did, but I did have Curlin coming back to his previous top so I was pretty close.

Scav, no Slow pace designation, Jerry Brown explains why on his message board.
As far as the term "bounce" is concerned, it simply signifies a regression, for whatever reason (ie pace, poor start, wide trip, etc...). So in that sense, it is not over used. When a horse doesn't run as well as he did in his previous race, he bounced. Determining why is the way money is made the next time out.

[cmorioles]

Some of his arguments seem a little out there. Noone could ever make any figure for this race with the kind of certainty he is trying to convey.

The figure doesn't matter in the end. They will never run that far again, which is sad.

[Bobby Fischer]

i never know for sure when we talk about regression or progression, if we mean from the figure earned, or if we are talking about the form and ability of the horse. Then the term "bounce" is bounced in there as well which adds more confusion (purposeful?).

My opinion is that I really couldn't tell if Curlin regressed or if Rags to Riches progressed at all as far as actual ability and performance. If i was going to make some kind of speed rating figure for the race my rough estimate is that Curlin's speed rating regressed, and that Rags to Rich's speed rating was roughly the same as the oaks maybe a slight regression. I wouldn't make any adjustments for those two horses based on ground-loss. I would note the weight, but not use the weight to adjust my official speed rating. I would view both as being in sharp form for the next race.

[golfer]

Originally Posted by Bobby Fischer

i never know for sure when we talk about regression or progression, if we mean from the figure earned, or if we are talking about the form and ability of the horse. Then the term "bounce" is bounced in there as well which adds more confusion (purposeful?).

My opinion is that I really couldn't tell if Curlin regressed or if Rags to Riches progressed at all as far as actual ability and performance. If i was going to make some kind of speed rating figure for the race my rough estimate is that Curlin's speed rating regressed, and that Rags to Rich's speed rating was roughly the same as the oaks maybe a slight regression. I wouldn't make any adjustments for those two horses based on ground-loss. I would note the weight, but not use the weight to adjust my official speed rating. I would view both as being in sharp form for the next race.

First of all, I don't mean to come off as an expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I have been using TG consistently for 2 years, and on and off since the early 90's. And I enjoy these discussions. Regressed or Progressed simply means did a horse run slower or faster than the previous race. From a common sense standpoint, do you think Rags ran faster in the Kentucky Oaks, beating fillies while in a drive before the final turn, or in the Belmont, beating Curlin. It seems obvious to me she ran quite faster in the Belmont (faster than I thought she could, I'm sorry to say). The same common sense tells me Curlin ran a fair amount slower in the Belmont. If he had run his best race, he would have been a few lengths in front, even with Rags progressing as she did. So the numbers make sense. Does that mean they are correct? You decide.