4/27: Incident mars Derby Works..

[philcski]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Having been at Churchill the past weekend, I realize that there was a strong wind pushing the horses down the backside on Sunday. However, when a very modest maiden claiming horse like Aquinas cuts out a 44.4 half and a NW2L claimer like Whywhy Cat run a mile in 1:36 and change, as just two examples, there's no way that I would refer to the track as lifeless.

Saturday-
R1 $7.5K Starter 9F par time 1:51.4 actual time 1:54.60
R2 F&M $16K Claiming 6F par time 1:11.3 actual time 1:12.05
R3 F&M $30K Claiming 8F par time 1:37.1 actual time 1:37.79
R4 F&M $50K Claiming (3YO's) NW 6F par time 1:11.1 actual time 1:12.23
R5 F&M MSW 3U 6.5F par time 1:17.8 actual time 1:18.31
R6 $15K Claiming NW 6F par time 1:11.1 actual time 1:11.85
R8 ALW 3U 6F par time 1:09.5 actual time 1:09.18
R9 F&M AOC 3U 7F par time 1:23.5 actual time 1:23.83
R10 G3 3YO's 7.5F par time 1:29 actual time 1:30.21
R11 MCL 30K 6F par time 1:10.9 actual time 1:12.16

Sunday-
R1 $25K Claiming 7F par time 1:23.9 actual time 1:23.89
R2 F&M $40K Claiming 8F par time 1:37.1 actual time 1:37.83
R3 F&M $5K Claiming 8F par time 1:38.1 actual time 1:38.75
R4 F&M $15K Claiming 6F par time 1:11.5 actual time 1:11.82
R5 MCL 30K 6F par time 1:10.9 actual time 1:11.07
R6 AOC NW$ 7F par time 1:22.4 actual time 1:22.85
R8 $30K Claiming NW 8F par time 1:36.9 actual time 1:36.40
R10 MSW 3U 6.5F par time 1:17.2 actual time 1:17.66


The final times were not fast this weekend.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by philcski

The final times were not fast this weekend.

I don't disagree, but neither were they abnormally slow.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

I don't disagree, but neither were they abnormally slow.

5.2 lengths on average (Saturday) at 6F isn't abnormally slow?

It's among the slowest 10% of days I have on record for CD.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by philcski

5.2 lengths on average (Saturday) at 6F isn't abnormally slow?

It's among the slowest 10% of days I have on record for CD.

The cards at Churchill this weekend were abnormally weak, with more cheap, short fields than I can ever remember for the opening weekend of a big race meet. And Tuesday's card is even worse.

I don't know where the par times came from, but assuming they are accurate, if you take out Saturday's first race, most of the races were within a second of "par." When I think of a track being slow, I think of horses running 6F in 1:13 and 1:14 (like we saw on the inner track this winter on several occasions), and miles in 1:39 and 1:40. That was not the case on Saturday, and on Sunday, most of the final times for the races were within a tick or two of the "par" times you provided.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

The cards at Churchill this weekend were abnormally weak, with more cheap, short fields than I can ever remember for the opening weekend of a big race meet. And Tuesday's card is even worse.

I don't know where the par times came from, but assuming they are accurate, if you take out Saturday's first race, most of the races were within a second of "par." When I think of a track being slow, I think of horses running 6F in 1:13 and 1:14 (like we saw on the inner track this winter on several occasions), and miles in 1:39 and 1:40. That was not the case on Saturday, and on Sunday, most of the final times for the races were within a tick or two of the "par" times you provided.

I realize that you are holding out hope that somehow I'm wrong... but I'm not.

The pars are over the last 3 years in a database I maintain. While I agree the fields were very weak this weekend, it's not atypical for the first weekend at CD because the better horses on the grounds either just ran at KEE or are waiting till next weekend (wouldn't you if it meant a free ticket for the Derby?) Second, I am comparing apples to apples- so if they're slow horses, they still ran slow compared to other slow horses. Third, a one second difference is an ETERNITY in this game, you know that. Finally, the times on the inner track this winter were because the horses running were truly terrible, worse than any year previous, not because the track was inherently safer- plus, you cannot compare a two turn mile to a one turn mile. the AVERAGE horse at Aqueduct will run 1.6 seconds slower on the inner (two turns) than the outer (one turn).

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by philcski

I realize that you are holding out hope that somehow I'm wrong... but I'm not.

The pars are over the last 3 years in a database I maintain. While I agree the fields were very weak this weekend, it's not atypical for the first weekend at CD because the better horses on the grounds either just ran at KEE or are waiting till next weekend (wouldn't you if it meant a free ticket for the Derby?) Second, I am comparing apples to apples- so if they're slow horses, they still ran slow compared to other slow horses. Third, a one second difference is an ETERNITY in this game, you know that. Finally, the times on the inner track this winter were because the horses running were truly terrible, worse than any year previous, not because the track was inherently safer- plus, you cannot compare a two turn mile to a one turn mile. the AVERAGE horse at Aqueduct will run 1.6 seconds slower on the inner (two turns) than the outer (one turn).

arent the Churchill races generally weak except for a few days a year?

[Scurlogue Champ]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

arent the Churchill races generally weak except for a few days a year?

yes

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by philcski

Finally, the times on the inner track this winter were because the horses running were truly terrible, worse than any year previous, not because the track was inherently safer- plus, you cannot compare a two turn mile to a one turn mile.

I guess that we'll have to agree to disagree over the relative speed of the Churchill racing surface this weekend. But just like all stakes races are not equal, neither are all claiming races. Sometimes, they come up tougher than usual; other times not. The races this weekend at Churchill all seemed to come up universally weak for the respective class levels, so we're not necessarily comparing apples to apples.

The inner track was slower than usual this winter (with admittedly weak horses sometimes clocking miles in 1:41 or 1:42) because of the cold winter preventing the NYRA track maintenance crew from watering the track, the result being a very dry, cuppy racing surface.

The 1:39 and 1:40 times to which I was referring were to one turn miles. In this regard, a perfect example of an abnormally slow, tiring racing surface was Aqueduct on Saturday, April 11. Churchill on Saturday pales in comparison.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

I guess that we'll have to agree to disagree over the relative speed of the Churchill racing surface this weekend. But just like all stakes races are not equal, neither are all claiming races. Sometimes, they come up tougher than usual; other times not. The races this weekend at Churchill all seemed to come up universally weak for the respective class levels, so we're not necessarily comparing apples to apples.

The inner track was slower than usual this winter (with admittedly weak horses sometimes clocking miles in 1:41 or 1:42) because of the cold winter preventing the NYRA track maintenance crew from watering the track, the result being a very dry, cuppy racing surface.

The 1:39 and 1:40 times to which I was referring were to one turn miles. In this regard, a perfect example of an abnormally slow, tiring racing surface was Aqueduct on Saturday, April 11. Churchill on Saturday pales in comparison.

That was my one trip to Aqueduct this winter. The track was a MESS (and yes, abnormally slow and tiring) because it rained so much, and the fields were terrible (not to disparage your horse, who actually ran well that day behind a perfect trip winner). They missed the guarantee in the pick 4 because of the conditions.

I think my comparisons of each race at CD shows the times were slower than normal and it's incorrect to generalize that all the races were worse than their norms. In fact, the race you mentioned previously (the 30k N2L that went 1:36.40) was actually better than what's typical of that level, and they ran like it.

Slow doesn't necessarily mean safe, either.