Pace was incredibly slow in Belmont

[menifee]

Anyone think the Belmont was just a case of horses going slow up front and then no one being able to catch them.

I actually agree with Randy Moss here. Commissioner should not have been on the lead. Where was Samraat, et al.

[letswastemoney]

I agree with Moss too.

I've read the argument that it's better to conserve energy in the Belmont Stakes, but I don't completely agree. Horses that wait too long to make their move are too tired, so the ones in front just stick there.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Bad horses run slow fractions.

The post parade had some sad looking ponies in it, and the close finish translates to a bunch of mediocre horses, IMHO. The horses I expected to challenge for the lead weren't doing that, and the horse I played (:8:), expecting him to stalk instead went to the lead and almost stole it.

I got back my Derby and Preakness losses and then some, but this was an odd Triple Crown this year.

And now, considering that CC grab a quarter, it probably just means I was lucky and not good....

[menifee]

I agree with Moss too.

I've read the argument that it's better to conserve energy in the Belmont Stakes, but I don't completely agree. Horses that wait too long to make their move are too tired, so the ones in front just stick there.

Btw, this is true among all class levels. If you watch 5000k claimers at MNR running a mile and a half the same thing happens. The horses in front stick because those who have waited too long to make their move can't make it later in the race.

[tucker6]

The pace for today's Belmont was average from an historical perspective, and not overly slow. 48 for 4F and 1:12 for 6F and 2:28 for 12F ain't that bad. Certainly not "incredibly" slow. I'm not sure pace was an issue.

[cj]

The pace for today's Belmont was average from an historical perspective, and not overly slow. 48 for 4F and 1:12 for 6F and 2:28 for 12F ain't that bad. Certainly not "incredibly" slow. I'm not sure pace was an issue.

I agree, pace was reasonable. Those horses just couldn't finish at 12f. The Brooklyn run earlier was a good comparison. Times were almost identical after 10f, the finish was the difference.

Brooklyn last 1/4 in 24.66 and the winner made up 2.5 lengths during that time. The Belmont last 1/4 was in 26.09 and the winner only made up a length.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Watching the race, the pace appeared slow because the field was so bunched, and horses were not running in positions I thought they'd be in....but, the fractions don't lie. The pace was reasonable until the last quarter....

[classhandicapper]

I agree, pace was reasonable. Those horses just couldn't finish at 12f. The Brooklyn run earlier was a good comparison. Times were almost identical after 10f, the finish was the difference.

Brooklyn last 1/4 in 24.66 and the winner made up 2.5 lengths during that time. The Belmont last 1/4 was in 26.09 and the winner only made up a length.

I agree. The pace was a non issue. Having the the Brooklyn on the same card was a great help for evaluating the races.

[clocker7]

I agree, pace was reasonable. Those horses just couldn't finish at 12f. The Brooklyn run earlier was a good comparison. Times were almost identical after 10f, the finish was the difference.

Brooklyn last 1/4 in 24.66 and the winner made up 2.5 lengths during that time. The Belmont last 1/4 was in 26.09 and the winner only made up a length.
Just as a point of comparison, here's last year's splits:

23.55 24.29 25.52 26.65 27.58

[cj]

Just as a point of comparison, here's last year's splits:

23.55 24.29 25.52 26.65 27.58


...and the two early leaders finished last and next to last.

[BettinBilly]

Watching the race, the pace appeared slow because the field was so bunched, and horses were not running in positions I thought they'd be in....but, the fractions don't lie. The pace was reasonable until the last quarter....

I hear that! ;)

[onefast99]

maybe the track was a little too deep?

[Tom]

Maybe the horses were a little too shallow? ;)

[clocker7]

Maybe the horses were a little too shallow? ;)
The horses finished much stronger this year than last year. They actually resembled 12f-ers.

I think that the BC Classic will bear this out.

[dilanesp]

The pace was moderate.

The Affirmed-Alydar Belmont pace was slow.

[Cratos]

Anyone think the Belmont was just a case of horses going slow up front and then no one being able to catch them.

I actually agree with Randy Moss here. Commissioner should not have been on the lead. Where was Samraat, et al.

It is always interesting to make comparisons in horseracing, but the comparisons should be made “apples to apples”.

In comparing Tonalist’s perceived Belmont Stakes “slow” time to the time of Norumbega, the winner of the Brooklyn Invitational Stakes which was run at the same distance as the Belmont Stakes I think Trakus data gives a better and fairer comparison than the DRF/Equibase time data.

Why, because the DRF/Equibase time data is the “time of the race” for a prescribed distance. The Trakus time data is the “time of the horse(s)” for distance run.

Tonalist ran 8,081 feet (longer than any horse in either of the 1-11/2 mile races) and when his final time of 2:28.86 seconds as recorded by Trakus is normalized and adjusted for the estimated surface resistance at the time of the race his adjusted final time for the Belmont Stakes 1-1/2m race would be 2:27.52 seconds.

On the other hand we can do the same for Norumbega who Trakus recorded as having run 8,052 feet during his race and his adjusted final time for the Brooklyn Invitational Stakes 1-1/2m race would be 2:26.60 seconds.

Therefore when the “apples to apples” comparison is made between the two winners the difference is .92 seconds and not the 1.56 seconds using the Trakus unadjusted data.

As a side sidebar, Mr Beyer was right again with his BSF for the the Belmont IMHO.

[raybo]

Anyone think the Belmont was just a case of horses going slow up front and then no one being able to catch them.

I actually agree with Randy Moss here. Commissioner should not have been on the lead. Where was Samraat, et al.

It was posted before the race, I was just one of them, stating that the overwhelming percentage of Belmont Stakes winners have been on or near the lead at the 1/2m. And, my reasoning at least, is that the deep surface tires all the runners, regardless of the speed they are traveling early, so the farther back they are the less chance they have of catching tiring leaders.

In short, in the Belmont, it is much better to be near the front early and tiring late, than to be farther back early and tiring late.

[Valuist]

maybe the track was a little too deep?

Considering Bayern ripped off 7 furlongs in 1:20 4/5, and the Brooklyn was in a rapid 2:27, I think we can safely rule that out.

[clocker7]

I just re-watched the videos of both the Brooklyn and the Belmont. Visually, it looked like the composition of the racing surfaced changed from a tighter one to a looser one, to the point of having noticeably more dust later in the day.

See what you think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZeSM-9n-do

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWevIME0k6M

[onefast99]

Considering Bayern ripped off 7 furlongs in 1:20 4/5, and the Brooklyn was in a rapid 2:27, I think we can safely rule that out.
It was noted that the track surface looked drier and deeper prior to the Belmont. No one was talking about the previous races just noting the Belmont seemed slower and the reasons for it.

[cj]

As a side sidebar, Mr Beyer was right again with his BSF for the the Belmont IMHO.

Beyer figures specifically don't include ground loss, so I'd have to disagree.

[cj]

I just re-watched the videos of both the Brooklyn and the Belmont. Visually, it looked like the composition of the racing surfaced changed from a tighter one to a looser one, to the point of having noticeably more dust later in the day.

See what you think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZeSM-9n-do

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWevIME0k6M

I don't buy that, the track was watered more heavily before the Belmont than the other races. I think the difference you see is due to the quality of the pictures more than anything else.

[clocker7]

I think that there cannot be any argument that the track got dustier after the Brooklyn. Compare the stretch runs from the Brooklyn vs. Met Mile. A vast difference.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZeSM-9n-do

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKol_TGeNBM

The only question is whether the water added before the Belmont was enough to return it to its earlier status. Imo, it was not. The difference isn't only due to the quality of the video.

This evidence demonstrates why speed calculations can be ballpark estimates instead of exact science.

Edit: earlier in the program, it was more like the Brooklyn -- the Ogden Phipps:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7C41IpLdTc

[Show Me the Wire]

The track was sealed prior to the first race. Over the course of the day the surface more than likely loosened up.

[Cratos]

Beyer figures specifically don't include ground loss, so I'd have to disagree.

Disagree if you like that is your prerogative, but I used normalized data and the “so-called ground loss” assumption has zero bearing; again Beyer is correct with his conclusion.

However I would be more than happy to read your extrapolation of the statistical inference of the Beyer conclusion without any contemptuous rhetoric.

[Cratos]

It was noted that the track surface looked drier and deeper prior to the Belmont. No one was talking about the previous races just noting the Belmont seemed slower and the reasons for it.

If you do an estimated surface resistance calculation prior to the Brooklyn Invitational you find that the resistance was somewhat less than what it was prior to the Belmont Stakes.

Also it should be understood that work is described as taking place when a force acts upon an object to cause a displacement. Thus the force by the horse acting on the track’s surface for the horse’s movement would be greater as the surface resistance increases however small and this causes more energy expenditure by the horse which might account for one of the contributors for the "slowing down" of the total speed for the Belmont Stakes race.

[cj]

Disagree if you like that is your prerogative, but I used normalized data and the “so-called ground loss” assumption has zero bearing; again Beyer is correct with his conclusion.

However I would be more than happy to read your extrapolation of the statistical inference of the Beyer conclusion without any contemptuous rhetoric.

You concluded Beyer was right because by your calculations with ground loss, you came to the same conclusion. That is fine, I'm just pointing out that if you think that, he is right by accident, because he absolutely does not account for any ground loss. He uses race time and race distance, not how far the horses actually travel.

[Cratos]

You concluded Beyer was right because by your calculations with ground loss, you came to the same conclusion. That is fine, I'm just pointing out that if you think that, he is right by accident, because he absolutely does not account for any ground loss. He uses race time and race distance, not how far the horses actually travel.

I truly don’t want to argue a nebulous point, but the proof of Beyer’s conclusion (or your conclusion) must be “apples to apples” and I don’t have any access to how Andrew Beyer performs his speed figure analysis, but I don’t believe “he is right by accident.”

He just used his methodology and got it right. As I previously stated this is not about ground loss and whether Beyer includes it or not; it is about arriving at a correct conclusion and that is what Andrew Beyer did.

Remember statistical analysis is a methodological endeavor based on data.

[cj]

I truly don’t want to argue a nebulous point, but the proof of Beyer’s conclusion (or your conclusion) must be “apples to apples” and I don’t have any access to how Andrew Beyer performs his speed figure analysis, but I don’t believe “he is right by accident.”

He just used his methodology and got it right. As I previously stated this is not about ground loss and whether Beyer includes it or not; it is about arriving at a correct conclusion and that is what Andrew Beyer did.

Remember statistical analysis is a methodological endeavor based on data.

Spoken like a true scientist, forget the process, just get to the conclusion you want. ROFLMAO.

[Tom]

Remember statistical analysis is a methodological endeavor based on data.

Exactly.
I learned that back in the President Dewy days.