Derby Trail Forums

Go Back   Derby Trail Forums > Triple Crown Topics/Archive..
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-12-2007, 09:30 AM
parsixfarms parsixfarms is offline
Churchill Downs
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Saratoga Springs
Posts: 1,779
Default

While I'm not sure how times from last Saturday (it seemed like the track was reasonably glib) would compare to the corresponding race dates, it is interesting to note that the CCA Oaks was contested at a mile and a half twenty five times. RTR's winning time on Saturday was eclipsed by the following six fillies (in reverse chronological order): Valley Victory, Wayward Lass, Revidere, Ruffian (2:27), Chris Evert, and Magazine (also 2:27). There are some real powerhouse names there; I agree with those that say it is premature to judge RTR's place in history.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-12-2007, 09:44 AM
The Indomitable DrugS's Avatar
The Indomitable DrugS The Indomitable DrugS is offline
Flemington
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,007
Default

The track was quite fast....and the final time for the Belmont Stakes would have been much faster had it not been such an incredibly slow paced race.

Cotton Blossom ran over 54 seconds faster, winning the Acorn, which is a half mile shorter, earlier in the card. She'd have needed to pair together a couple of 27 flat quarters to slightly better the Belmont's final time.

That really underlines how the comically slow pace effected the final time...and made the final time slower than it would have been had the race been a turely run race.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-12-2007, 09:53 AM
ArlJim78 ArlJim78 is offline
Newmarket
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS
The track was quite fast....and the final time for the Belmont Stakes would have been much faster had it not been such an incredibly slow paced race.

Cotton Blossom ran over 54 seconds faster, winning the Acorn, which is a half mile shorter, earlier in the card. She'd have needed to pair together a couple of 27 flat quarters to slightly better the Belmont's final time.

That really underlines how the comically slow pace effected the final time...and made the final time slower than it would have been had the race been a turely run race.
It was reminscent of this years Blue Grass.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-12-2007, 10:04 AM
parsixfarms parsixfarms is offline
Churchill Downs
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Saratoga Springs
Posts: 1,779
Default

If it was a truely run race (6F in 1:12 or so), I doubt Rags to Riches would have won. The fact that the pace was slow gave JR a chance to allow her to settle after her stumble at the break. I suspect that if the pace had been faster, she'd have been playing catch-up from the beginning and likely would have tired from those efforts.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-14-2007, 02:12 AM
pba1817 pba1817 is offline
Hawthorne
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 541
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS
The track was quite fast....and the final time for the Belmont Stakes would have been much faster had it not been such an incredibly slow paced race.
I disagree. The pace factor on the final time is pretty much irrelevant when running that far if the pace makers stop, which they did. Only if CP West had held on to win by setting those slow fractions would that angle stand up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS
Cotton Blossom ran over 54 seconds faster, winning the Acorn, which is a half mile shorter, earlier in the card. She'd have needed to pair together a couple of 27 flat quarters to slightly better the Belmont's final time.
Tough to compare these two... A 1 mile 1 turn race vs a 1.5 mile 2 turn race that is ran over a part of the Belmont surface that is used once a year...

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS
That really underlines how the comically slow pace effected the final time...and made the final time slower than it would have been had the race been a turely run race.
It was truly ran, CP West was getting away with a pedestrian pace and he caved in, so did Hard Spun. Obviously they would have stopped even worse if they were running faster on the front end, but this still doesn't change the fact that Curlin and Rags ran a slow race themselves, until the final quarter. Let me put it to you this way, if the front end speed was 1:12 and the mile was 1:37, Rags to Riches and Curlin would have been 15 lengths back early and then would have appeared to close like freight trains running their final quarters below 24.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-14-2007, 03:51 AM
Indian Charlie's Avatar
Indian Charlie Indian Charlie is offline
Goodwood
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Southern Maine
Posts: 8,708
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pba1817
I disagree. The pace factor on the final time is pretty much irrelevant when running that far if the pace makers stop, which they did. Only if CP West had held on to win by setting those slow fractions would that angle stand up.

Tough to compare these two... A 1 mile 1 turn race vs a 1.5 mile 2 turn race that is ran over a part of the Belmont surface that is used once a year...


It was truly ran, CP West was getting away with a pedestrian pace and he caved in, so did Hard Spun. Obviously they would have stopped even worse if they were running faster on the front end, but this still doesn't change the fact that Curlin and Rags ran a slow race themselves, until the final quarter. Let me put it to you this way, if the front end speed was 1:12 and the mile was 1:37, Rags to Riches and Curlin would have been 15 lengths back early and then would have appeared to close like freight trains running their final quarters below 24.
woah.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.