Street Sense Derby Beyer: 110

Originally Posted by sumitas

The pace was way fast enough to knock most of the horses out of the race in the stretch. It was a fearless run and ride. It's gonna take a lot of horse to beat SS the next two.

A non sequiter. What does SS ride have to do with the pace?? The fact that the pace was moderate means that SS did quite well to win this coming from behind.

So yes, its gonna take a lot of horse to beat SS. And this is MAKING MY POINT!

[cmorioles]

That was not a moderate pace by any means. Comparing fractions from year to year is futile, as the track can be vastly different. Sure, the Derby is usually run at a faster clip, but the horses in front usually finish way, way, way behind.

What was War Emblem's pace? That should give you an idea of the type pace needed to win up front.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by easy goer

I mentioned the early pace was fast in my original post; should have referenced that to the 1/2 mile time. But it was not brutal, such as 45+ would be. And that is why I asked him if he looked at pace differently that I.

Is the 1/2 mile time more important than the 3/4? Or vice versa? Or they both are? How do you look at this? That is why I asked it the way I did. Still not getting much of a response on this.

Both are obviously important, but it always seems like the no-hope frontrunners burn up after 4F (the most recent examples being Songandaprayer, Brancusi, and Keyed Entry.) It's more important to see what the other horses around him did than the ACTUAL time, b/c the track obviously differs from year to year. He was the only frontrunner still breathing at the end, and the other 3 in the top 4 came from wayyyyyyyy back.

Originally Posted by cmorioles

That was not a moderate pace by any means. Comparing fractions from year to year is futile, as the track can be vastly different. Sure, the Derby is usually run at a faster clip, but the horses in front usually finish way, way, way behind.

What was War Emblem's pace? That should give you an idea of the type pace needed to win up front.

:47 and change or something if I recall?

Originally Posted by cmorioles

What was War Emblem's pace? That should give you an idea of the type pace needed to win up front.

47+, if memory serves. I think so, because I recall the Preakness went notably faster in like 45+. I think his derby 3/4 was 1.11 but just guessing. Its an easy look up obviously.

Only one front runner has won w/ a sub 1.10 that is Spend a Buck. There are a few that have won with 1.10+. From my recollection 1.11+ is just about ideal for a front runner.

If this pace was so torrid why did HS finish well? He finished up in 25.4 which is fairly strong for a front runner.

Part my thinking is that DrugS is right about one thing: This is a poor class. I mean, most of them died after going a mile under a pace that was fast-then moderate. Cowtown, Teuf, Liquidity....These horses obviously are not meant for 10f. So I think he's right about the overall crop in general.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by easy goer

47+, if memory serves. I think so, because I recall the Preakness went notably faster in like 45+. I think his derby 3/4 was 1.11 but just guessing. Its an easy look up obviously.

Only one front runner has won w/ a sub 1.10 that is Spend a Buck. There are a few that have won with 1.10+. From my recollection 1.11+ is just about ideal for a front runner.

If this pace was so torrid why did HS finish well? He finished up in 25.4 which is fairly strong for a front runner.

Part my thinking is that DrugS is right about one thing: This is a poor class. I mean, most of them died after going a mile under a pace that was fast-then moderate. Cowtown, Teuf, Liquidity....These horses obviously are not meant for 10f. So I think he's right about the overall crop in general.

Because he's a good horse that's built to go the distance.

If you broke down the fractions of all of the preps, he was the ONLY horse to run a :23 opening quarter AND get the final 3F in less than :38.

[ninetoone]

War Emblem: 47 flat & 1:11 & 3

Originally Posted by philcski

Because he's a good horse that's built to go the distance.

If you broke down the fractions of all of the preps, he was the ONLY horse to run a :23 opening quarter AND get the final 3F in less than :38.

RIght so the questions remains, and may remain unresolvable:

a) Was the pace moderate and the rest of the front runners quite bad; OR

b) THe pace was hot, and HS was a superior horse to survive.

Right? Are those the two choices?

My armchair analysis, having never been around horses and seeing this stuff on tv and crunching numbers like a nerd is.....A.

But Im interested in what YOU think.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by easy goer

Here's war emblems fractions:

23.25, 47.04, 1:11.75, 1:36.70, 2:01.13 [note: unofficial; a cut from the internet]

Hard Spun got the mile in what 1.37 flat? So you can see he's 2 length back of War Emblem here (assuming same surface, trip).

But the difference? War Emblem can flat out close under this pace. WE finished in 24.4 vs HS 25.4. I.e. WE can run as fast as SS from the front end of a moderate pace.

You can argue that this surface was different etc. ANd I wont dispute that you can. We all can till we're blue in the face. But one thing I think can be said, clearly a 1.11.75 pace was just fine for WE; no matter what you think of his fractions, he finished in 24.4 which is obviously extremely good for a front runner.

Therefore, undeniably a 1.11.75 pace was fine for War Emblem.

Good analysis. I'd be lying if I said I have any idea how the track was playing Derby Day '02. I think you're understimating the difference between going 46 1/5 and 47 flat in a mile and a quarter race, however.

Originally Posted by easy goer

RIght so the questions remains, and may remain unresolvable:

a) Was the pace moderate and the rest of the front runners quite bad; OR

b) THe pace was hot, and HS was a superior horse to survive.

Right? Are those the two choices?

My armchair analysis, having never been around horses and seeing this stuff on tv and crunching numbers like a nerd is.....A.

But Im interested in what YOU think.

I vote B. That being said... Street Sense over Hard Spun had been my exacta for 6 weeks, so I was quite happy with the results.

Here's war emblems fractions:

23.25, 47.04, 1:11.75, 1:36.70, 2:01.13 [note: unofficial; a cut from the internet]

Hard Spun got the mile in what 1.37 flat? So you can see he's 2 length back of War Emblem here (assuming same surface, trip).

But the difference? War Emblem can flat out close under this pace. WE finished in 24.4 vs HS 25.4. I.e. WE can run as fast as SS from the front end of a moderate pace.

You can argue that this surface was different etc. ANd I wont dispute that you can. We all can till we're blue in the face. But one thing I think can be said, clearly a 1.11.75 pace was just fine for WE; no matter what you think of his fractions, he finished in 24.4 which is obviously extremely good for a front runner.

Therefore, undeniably a 1.11.75 pace was fine for War Emblem.

His beyers at Churchill are just much faster than anywhere else. May just be a Churchill loving horse. If he can run a big number elsewhere I will be a believer, but he has never done it. His 108 and a 110 were both at Churchill, where he appears to be a different horse.

[tector]

46 and 1 is a moderate pace in 1.25 mile race NOT run on the old asphalt tracks of SoCal? You're kidding, right?