Shared Belief or Constitution?

[classhandicapper]

These are random thoughts.

1. If you asked 10 handicappers before the Donn and San Antonio which was the higher quality field, I think 10 out of 10 would have said the San Antonio (at least at the top end of the field)

2. If you asked the same 10 handicappers who ran the better race between Shared Belief and Constitution after the race, maybe 8-9 out of 10 would say Shared Belief was more impressive visually and given that gap between California Chrome and Hoppertunity, he ran huge.

3. From what I gather, most major figure makers have Constitution running the faster race (by varying amounts)

4. There are obviously all sorts of pace, ground loss, race development etc.. issues that impact time, but this is the sort of thing that causes a theoretical dilemma between class, visual skills, time etc... for me when it comes to evaluating horses. The figures are essentially "correct", but are they right?

5. I was in the camp that thought it was conceivable that Shared Belief was excellent on dirt, but a hair better on synthetic. The reason I felt that way was a very very small part pedigree, but mostly because when he finished on synthetic, he used to really reach out during the stretch drive like a horse that was absolutely loaded with energy in reserve. He also used to draw off on that surface, which is typically a tougher thing to do. Granted, pace and trip are issues in how a horse is going finish. But yesterday was the first time on dirt while watching the stretch drive I felt like I was watching that crazy good horse. To me, that was visually monstrous. He was loaded.

[MJC922]

IMO 'loaded' in part because it's a half in 47-4. My knock visually is the softest part of the pace was the second quarter where he's not well in hand crawling over the top of them but rather he needed to be scrubbed on to stay awake. Nice horse SB, but IMO against big pace he's going to find himself in deep water. Granted he should be in the hunt for a piece of any GR1 race but as I see it this race played out as ideal conditions for his abilities. A clean break, a soft half to be up close to and not a speck of dust on Mike's jacket.

[Secondbest]

I Agreee with you. Right now Shared Belief is the best horse.

[horses4courses]

imo, the only track I would consider giving Constitution a chance over SB
would be at Gulfstream. Year after year, we see horses run huge at this track
and they don't run back to it at other tracks. Quite often Pletcher horses.

I believe that Shared Belief is the better horse.
Had Constitution run at SA yesterday, I think he would have run third.

[Cadillakin]

IMO 'loaded' in part because it's a half in 47-4. My knock visually is the softest part of the pace was the second quarter where he's not well in hand crawling over the top of them but rather he needed to be scrubbed on to stay awake. Nice horse SB, but IMO against big pace he's going to find himself in deep water..A true classic horse, one that excels over a distance of ground, will never be climbing over his competitors in the first half mile, unless he is a brilliant front-running type like Seattle Slew who will fight for superiority the moment the gates open. Simply put, most classic runners aren't superior to their competition after a half mile. In yesterdays race, you could see exactly where he and CC came together. At 7/8ths, on the moderate pace, CC was still retaining his speed/energy and superiority, at least temporarily. At a mile, they came together. Beyond that, Shared Belief's superiority is clearly demonstrated. If they would have went another 1/8th, SB would have beat CC, at least 4 lengths, probably more.

Shared Belief just won a Grade 2 sprint at 7 furlongs, passing the 6 furlong mark in 1:08.3, so he is hardly vulnerable to pace circumstances in races beyond a mile. He doesn't need horses to come back to him.. At the half mile mark in most any race, he will be behind or "beat" by hundreds of horses. So, your observation is valid in a limited sense, but the stretch run and finish line - where class is demonstrated - is on the frontside of the track, not the backside.

[MJC922]

A true classic horse, one that excels over a distance of ground, will never be climbing over his competitors in the first half mile, unless he is a brilliant front-running type like Seattle Slew who will fight for superiority the moment the gates open. Simply put, most classic runners aren't superior to their competition after a half mile. In yesterdays race, you could see exactly where he and CC came together. At 7/8ths, on the moderate pace, CC was still retaining his speed/energy and superiority, at least temporarily. At a mile, they came together. Beyond that, Shared Belief's superiority is clearly demonstrated. If they would have went another 1/8th, SB would have beat CC, at least 4 lengths, probably more.

Shared Belief just won a Grade 2 sprint at 7 furlongs, passing the 6 furlong mark in 1:08.3, so he is hardly vulnerable to pace circumstances in races beyond a mile. He doesn't need horses to come back to him.. At the half mile mark in most any race, he will be behind or "beat" by hundreds of horses. So, your observation is valid in a limited sense, but the stretch run and finish line - where class is demonstrated - is on the frontside of the track, not the backside.


Hey bud, long time. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. If you have that much class then you better be in hand every step through a 48 half. I come close to putting a line through how fast they come home after that because it's phony in the sense that he'll most likely never see sitting third in the clear on a 47-4 half for the rest of his career. Furthermore I think you'll find a lot of Graded stakes horses can throw 12's down to the line after a 48 half. So not being in hand I have him pegged as a horse with more heart than ability which doesn't mean I don't respect the horse as a grinder. Watch Mucho Macho Man in the classic vs. a horse like Will Take Charge, you have pure class and talent racing in hand every step chasing 46 vs a grinder who needs to be scrubbed on when the real running begins. Sometimes these grinders they get lucky and get up but IMO there's a sizable difference in ability.

[Robert Fischer]

1. If you asked 10 handicappers before the Donn and San Antonio which was the higher quality field, I think 10 out of 10 would have said the San Antonio (at least at the top end of the field)

2. If you asked the same 10 handicappers who ran the better race between Shared Belief and Constitution after the race, maybe 8-9 out of 10 would say Shared Belief was more impressive visually and given that gap between California Chrome and Hoppertunity, he ran huge.

3. From what I gather, most major figure makers have Constitution running the faster race (by varying amounts)

4. There are obviously all sorts of pace, ground loss, race development etc.. issues that impact time, but this is the sort of thing that causes a theoretical dilemma between class, visual skills, time etc... for me when it comes to evaluating horses. The figures are essentially "correct", but are they right?

Good question.

Any time a good horse in the Donn breaks from an inside post, and gets to set a moderate pace, and then finishes pretty good = you are going to have a speed figure that ends up very high no matter what method the figs are based on.

Trust your own opinion as long as it's based on logic and not emotion. :ThmbUp:

[zico20]

Paul Lo Duca said before the Donn that Lea was the best dirt horse in America. Bold statement considering Lea has not won outside of GP on a fast track. As far as Constitution and Lea are concerned I need to see them win on dirt other than GP. Because as of now, they are being blanked minus Lea win on a sloppy track in an allowance race that had 4 horses that came off the turf.

Shared Belief ran the much better race Saturday. Constitution would have been third at best, and I am being generous here.

[Robert Fischer]

Paul Lo Duca said before the Donn that Lea was the best dirt horse in America. ...

I don't know the context (if he was using a certain speed fig, or his opinion or what)

but i seem to remember Lea having some high figs ,

& w/ what I'm referring to in post #7 of this thread -
- - Gulfstream has a certain bias already built into it @ 9Furlongs. -
Constitution got the dream run through the first turn(a significant part of the bias itself at times), and front end position(often again), and control of that front end under moderate pace(+)

So combine all that stuff with your Paul Lo Duca stuff = and any method that happens to 'project' figures is going to pump up Constitution's already very biased effort by using Lea's projection...

And you have to project your figures to some extent.


at least that's my thought process here Class, Zico, and anyone interested.

If someone knows that to be incorrect, feel free to speak up and correct me, I'm happy to learn.

[RXB]

Constitution got the dream setup yesterday: the rail draw in a race starting near the turn, helping him to establish a clear lead on moderate fractions over a notorious frontrunners' track. Here are the 2f sprint and 4f route positions of the win-place horses on GP dirt:

1-3
1-7
4-1
3-1
1-2
1-5

So the early leaders won four races and placed in the other two.

Constitution hasn't even come close to showing that he's in the same league as Shared Belief, California Chrome, Bayern.

[classhandicapper]

I agree that Constitution got a favorable trip on the lead from the inside. That probably helped him run a fast figure.

How about a horse like Elnaawi?

The gap between Elnaawi and Shared Belief/CA Chrome on figures is not very large. IMO, there's no way Elnaawi is even close to those horses.

The point being that even when figures are measured accurately, you can have some huge variations due to race development, pace etc... With horses like these, they are consistent enough and followed closely enough you can usually interpret what happened. But for me, this kind of stuff remains a dilemma in day to day racing. Do I believe the PPs and what I saw or the numbers? Sometimes it's not clear which is right, but to determine fair value it's critical to know.

[Donttellmeshowme]

What were the Beyers for both horses?

[ubercapper]

What were the Beyers for both horses?

Mike Watchmaker wrote Constitution got a 113, Shared Belief 106

Equibase figures disagree, giving Shared Belief a 120, Constitution 117

[raybo]

You can't just look at speed figures to determine better versus worst performances. I think I can guarantee that SB would beat Constitution heads-up. CC too, for that matter and Bayern wins over half the time against all 3 of them in the same races, because he controls the pace.

[horses4courses]

You can't just look at speed figures to determine better versus worst performances. I think I can guarantee that SB would beat Constitution heads-up. CC too, for that matter and Bayern wins over half the time against all 3 of them in the same races, because he controls the pace.

Fair assessment :ThmbUp:

Gulfstream has such a long history of "flash in the pan" speed figures, also.

[KirisClown]

Constitution's only chance would be at Gulfstream and only if Castellano can drift wherever he wants, whenever he wants.

[biggestal99]

Constitition is a gp hoss. Sb is a callie. Rather go with bayern, cc, or toasty in the classic at kenneland.

Allan

[Fager Fan]

Constitition is a gp hoss. Sb is a callie. Rather go with bayern, cc, or toasty in the classic at kenneland.

Allan

I thought it's too early to pick a Derby horse, and here we have someone picking their BC Classic horses.

[clocker7]

I'm surprised that anybody thinks that either SB or CC were at their peak in the San Antonio.

[bks]

raybo wrote:

and Bayern wins over half the time against all 3 of them in the same races, because he controls the pace.
__________________

He might, but if SB is just a length off of him entering the turn, it won't matter. SB has never lost ground in the stretch to any horse (he's never gained less than 1.5 lengths after the second call, in fact).

[raybo]

He might, but if SB is just a length off of him entering the turn, it won't matter. SB has never lost ground in the stretch to any horse (he's never gained less than 1.5 lengths after the second call, in fact).

Since that has never been the case, how can you say that he wouldn't lose to Bayern? If Bayern gets an easy lead he prevails, because he finishes well also. If SB is within a length of Bayern then that would mean that he ran the same pace as Bayern, and that would probably mean that SB would be more tired late than when he lays off the pace more. Bayern can run a very fast pace and still finish well, I have not seen any evidence that SB can do the same. In order to stay within a length of Bayern early, he would have to be able to do that.

[RXB]

Bayern's a nice horse but he was running on front-favouring tracks for the Haskell, the PA Derby (on a jogging pace) and the BC Classic. It didn't go so well for him when he set a solid pace on a more fair surface in the Travers, although perhaps he also just was not on his game that day.

I haven't seen anything from their overall results or their results against common opponents to make me think that Bayern is better than Shared Belief.

[classhandicapper]

Bayern is very good and has upside, but even his biggest supporters would probably concede he had a few favorable trips last year.

I'm hoping they all move forward by the same amount as 4yos (which I don't think will happen). If they don't, then people are going to conclude things about their 3yo years that are not true.

[raybo]

Favorable trips, when you are a front runner, and you have the speed and finishing capabilities, and the heart to dig in late that Bayern has, happen more often due to those characteristics.

I just wish that Bayern had been able to run in this race. He may not get another opportunity to settle things between himself, SB, and CC this year, if CC goes overseas. The only people that will, maybe, admit that Bayern is better than SB (if they meet again this year and Bayern beats him) would be those that are not CC fanatics. Those people think CC is the second coming of Secretariat or something, and nothing will ever change their minds about who is the best.

How do you beat a horse that gets the best jump from the gate, has more early speed than anyone else in the field, and can still finish strong after setting fast fractions? A horse like that will never have traffic problems and he is going to determine and control the pace and run the shortest distance if he chooses to run on the rail, and he's going to dig in down the stretch with heart. That's a whole lot to beat.

And yes, a horse like that can still have a bad day occasionally, and lose a race or two.

[Cratos]

Bayern is very good and has upside, but even his biggest supporters would probably concede he had a few favorable trips last year.

I'm hoping they all move forward by the same amount as 4yos (which I don't think will happen). If they don't, then people are going to conclude things about their 3yo years that are not true.

I disagree with your assertion and you have made the mistake of many who falsely make this claim. Yes, horses do get favorable “trips,” but more often than not they make their trips because of their running style.

Bayern, although is not in the same class as the great Dr. Fager of yesteryear he brings back Dr. Fager’s “catch me if you can running style.”

Also Bayern is a more energy efficient runner than California Chrome as witnessed by their respective energy usage in the 2014 BC Classic.

[classhandicapper]

I disagree with your assertion and you have made the mistake of many who falsely make this claim. Yes, horses do get favorable “trips,” but more often than not they make their trips because of their running style.


Making you own trip is getting good position and a good pace setup because you have tractable speed.

Getting lucky is drawing into a race with no other speed on a day when the rail is golden (Haskell) or running on a track where the rail is golden even though it typically dead (like PARX) or getting loose because the only other speed horse got mugged at the start (BC Classic).

He's a very good horse with upside, but he had a few significant advantages over his major competitors because of developments and conditions that had little to do with him.

To make the point from the other direction, I thought the rail was deeper and the track more tiring than average Travers day. He was also challenged hard by Tonalist early. That day he didn't make out so well. But he was kind of unfortunate to have to try to get 10F with everything going against him.

[Cratos]

Making you own trip is getting good position and a good pace setup because you have tractable speed.

Getting lucky is drawing into a race with no other speed on a day when the rail is golden (Haskell) or running on a track where the rail is golden even though it typically dead (like PARX) or getting loose because the only other speed horse got mugged at the start (BC Classic).

He's a very good horse with upside, but he had a few significant advantages over his major competitors because of developments and conditions that had little to do with him.

To make the point from the other direction, I thought the rail was deeper and the track more tiring than average Travers day. He was also challenged hard by Tonalist early. That day he didn't make out so well. But he was kind of unfortunate to have to try to get 10F with everything going against him.

Please understand that a confirmed frontrunner (which Bayern is) will typically have the worst of it with respect to aerodynamic drag and Bayern to be more energy efficient on the front end is quite a feat.

Incidentally, the so-called "dead rail" is not close to the impact of air resistance with respect to the use of a horse's energy.

Matter of fact it can be shown that "surface resistance" (dead rail) is the least impactful of the 4 major external retardants to a racehorse speed effort.

[classhandicapper]

Please understand that a confirmed frontrunner (which Bayern is) will typically have the worst of it with respect to aerodynamic drag and Bayern to be more energy efficient on the front end is quite a feat.

Incidentally, the so-called "dead rail" is not close to the impact of air resistance with respect to the use of a horse's energy.

Matter of fact it can be shown that "surface resistance" (dead rail) is the least impactful of the 4 major external retardants to a racehorse speed effort.

There are degrees of bad rail, from one that may barely offset the advantage of saving ground to one that would get Secretariat beat against a vastly inferior horse.

[raybo]

There are degrees of bad rail, from one that may barely offset the advantage of saving ground to one that would get Secretariat beat against a vastly inferior horse.

If one is as dominant early as is Bayern, one has the option to run on the rail, or off the rail, and still run the shortest "advantageous" distance available. So, a dead rail is not a problem for those horses, unless the jockey makes a bad decision and runs on the rail when he shouldn't.

[classhandicapper]

If one is as dominant early as is Bayern, one has the option to run on the rail, or off the rail, and still run the shortest "advantageous" distance available. So, a dead rail is not a problem for those horses, unless the jockey makes a bad decision and runs on the rail when he shouldn't.

I agree, but how many times have you bet a horse and your rider took it straight to a suspect rail? Bayern wound up inside on Travers day even though I thought that wasn't the best place to be. Unless it's a really strong bias and everyone knows to take their horses well out on the track (like a typical day at PARX), good speed horses wind up there all the time.

[Cratos]

There are degrees of bad rail, from one that may barely offset the advantage of saving ground to one that would get Secretariat beat against a vastly inferior horse.
And there are not degrees of "air resistance impacts"? Yes there are and air resistance impact can not be avoided or navigated around like the so-called "dead rail".

If the the bettors are not acute at assessing all of the speed retardants that affects the horse's speed efforts they probably will not know or understand which one was the causation for a low race speed performance.

[raybo]

I agree, but how many times have you bet a horse and your rider took it straight to a suspect rail? Bayern wound up inside on Travers day even though I thought that wasn't the best place to be. Unless it's a really strong bias and everyone knows to take their horses well out on the track (like a typical day at PARX), good speed horses wind up there all the time.

That could happen to any horse, not just the clear leader.

[Tom]

And there are not degrees of "air resistance impacts"? Yes there are and air resistance impact can not be avoided or navigated around like the so-called "dead rail".

One can't always navigate around a bad rail.
But good or bad rails become quite obvious and can affect race outcomes for days at a time. Wind may vary race to race on the same card.

[Cratos]

I agree, but how many times have you bet a horse and your rider took it straight to a suspect rail? Bayern wound up inside on Travers day even though I thought that wasn't the best place to be. Unless it's a really strong bias and everyone knows to take their horses well out on the track (like a typical day at PARX), good speed horses wind up there all the time.
The so-called "dead-rail"impact can be very tricky, especially in the turns.

In the turns the horse's effort is compounded by the rail bias and the side force bias.

Therefore you should calculate which one had the greater impact and typically it is the side force.

That is why parametric modeling is ideal for such calculations using partial derivatives.

[classhandicapper]

I don't want to turn this into a debate about biases. I think everyone understands that riders, post positions, running styles, etc.. impact who is most likely to take advantage of them or who is most likely to be disadvantaged. I think everyone also understands that some are mild and some are so strong they totally eliminate horses.

We are talking about Bayern.

The reality is that Bayern had 3 major wins and 1 stunning defeat in the Travers.

IMO he benefitted in the 3 wins and was hurt in the 1 loss by circumstances that I would not consider to be honest. By honest I mean no rail bias (good or bad), no extreme pace (fast or slow), and no track that is more or less tiring than the average dirt surface in the US.

[Cratos]

I don't want to turn this into a debate about biases. I think everyone understands that riders, post positions, running styles, etc.. impact who is most likely to take advantage of them or who is most likely to be disadvantaged. I think everyone also understands that some are mild and some are so strong they totally eliminate horses.

We are talking about Bayern.

The reality is that Bayern had 3 major wins and 1 stunning defeat in the Travers.

IMO he benefitted in the 3 wins and was hurt in the 1 loss by circumstances that I would not consider to be honest. By honest I mean no rail bias (good or bad), no extreme pace (fast or slow), and no track that is more or less tiring than the average dirt surface in the US.
I not trying to turn this into a discussion about biases either, but it was you who interjected that variable into the conversation.

Bayern has won at Monmouth, Belmont, Parx, SA, and loss at Pimlico and Saratoga.

Therefore if you think that his wins came because of some sort of innocuous "golden rail" theory I am amazed given the handicapping insight you invariably present in your posts.

[ronsmac]

I don't want to turn this into a debate about biases. I think everyone understands that riders, post positions, running styles, etc.. impact who is most likely to take advantage of them or who is most likely to be disadvantaged. I think everyone also understands that some are mild and some are so strong they totally eliminate horses.

We are talking about Bayern.

The reality is that Bayern had 3 major wins and 1 stunning defeat in the Travers.

IMO he benefitted in the 3 wins and was hurt in the 1 loss by circumstances that I would not consider to be honest. By honest I mean no rail bias (good or bad), no extreme pace (fast or slow), and no track that is more or less tiring than the average dirt surface in the US.The loss at Oaklawn was also a little surprising.

[classhandicapper]

I not trying to turn this into a discussion about biases either, but it was you who interjected that variable into the conversation.

Bayern has won at Monmouth, Belmont, Parx, SA, and loss at Pimlico and Saratoga.

Therefore if you think that his wins came because of some sort of innocuous "golden rail" theory I am amazed given the handicapping insight you invariably present in your posts.

You are putting words into my mouth.

A race can be biased aided and the horse could have won anyway (and vice versa).

He probably would have won at PARX and MTH anyway, though perhaps not as impressively. I think he would have finished 3rd in the Classic had Moreno not been compromised at the start of the race or if the race was not held on a surface at SA that was tilted more towards speed than the average racetrack in America.

I think he would have run a ton better in the Travers if the track was less tiring, the rail better, and Tonalist not sent on a suicide mission from hell to pressure him. He got killed in the Preakness.

So if you balance that all out, you have my opinion of him.

He's a very good horse with upside whose 3 most significant wins were aided by biases/race development and whose major defeats (Preakness and Travers) were also trip related. So even though he's very good and could easily develop into the best 4yo, he was not as good as a raw look at his PPs suggests on his good days and not as bad as his defeats.

[classhandicapper]

The loss at Oaklawn was also a little surprising.

I'm stretching my memory a little because I don't have his PPs and my notes in front of me, but I think at that time he was being rushed along trying to earn points to make the Derby after having some minor issues that caused him to miss a race. He may have been a tad short there.

[raybo]

You are putting words into my mouth.

A race can be biased aided and the horse could have won anyway (and vice versa).

He probably would have won at PARX and MTH anyway, though perhaps not as impressively. I think he would have finished 3rd in the Classic had Moreno not been compromised at the start of the race or if the race was not held on a surface at SA that was tilted more towards speed than the average racetrack in America.

I think he would have run a ton better in the Travers if the track was less tiring, the rail better, and Tonalist not sent on a suicide mission from hell to pressure him. He got killed in the Preakness.

So if you balance that all out, you have my opinion of him.

He's a very good horse with upside whose 3 most significant wins were aided by biases/race development and whose major defeats (Preakness and Travers) were also trip related. So even though he's very good and could easily develop into the best 4yo, he was not as good as a raw look at his PPs suggests on his good days and not as bad as his defeats.

Do you really think that Moreno would have been of any consequence, to Bayern, in the Classic? Moreno does not possess the raw speed to challenge Bayern, or even press him to an extent that would cause excess energy expenditure. Bayern will dominate him early, or let him go if he decides to commit suicide, and do it all very comfortably. At present, in the 4 year old bracket, there exists no horse Bayern would likely meet that could force him into a pace that would be anything but advantageous for him. Just because a horse likes to be on the lead, doesn't mean that that horse has the ability to get the lead, or even pressure the lead. Bayern is just too fast and cruises at too high a speed.

Bayern's only 2 losses can easily be explained by his simply not being on his game, and his being one of the youngest 3 year olds running last year (he did not even run as a 2 year old, most likely for that very reason).

[Tom]

GOD Part Deux.

[raybo]

Maybe you should define your use of "GOD"? I can think of at least 2, one of which is not even a horse, and the other is not a 4 year old (well neither is Bayern, yet, won't be until May). :lol:

[Cratos]

You are putting words into my mouth.

A race can be biased aided and the horse could have won anyway (and vice versa).

He probably would have won at PARX and MTH anyway, though perhaps not as impressively. I think he would have finished 3rd in the Classic had Moreno not been compromised at the start of the race or if the race was not held on a surface at SA that was tilted more towards speed than the average racetrack in America.

I think he would have run a ton better in the Travers if the track was less tiring, the rail better, and Tonalist not sent on a suicide mission from hell to pressure him. He got killed in the Preakness.

So if you balance that all out, you have my opinion of him.

He's a very good horse with upside whose 3 most significant wins were aided by biases/race development and whose major defeats (Preakness and Travers) were also trip related. So even though he's very good and could easily develop into the best 4yo, he was not as good as a raw look at his PPs suggests on his good days and not as bad as his defeats.
Revisionist history is typically filled with " woulda, coulda, shoulda"; I get your point.

[classhandicapper]

Revisionist history is typically filled with " woulda, coulda, shoulda"; I get your point.

What revisionist history?

I said the same things here after each of his races with almost no change of opinion about him, the tracks he's raced on, or the trips he's had, even in light of additional information from subsequent starts. I wish I had as clear a view of every horse as a I feel I had of Bayern during 2014. THere's even a clear story to his nose win where he got DQed. That doesn't mean I played on/against him correctly in all those races, but I think I understood his performances well.

[classhandicapper]

Do you really think that Moreno would have been of any consequence, to Bayern, in the Classic?

Bayern's only 2 losses can easily be explained by his simply not being on his game, and his being one of the youngest 3 year olds running last year (he did not even run as a 2 year old, most likely for that very reason).

1. Bayern is faster and better than Moreno, no doubt. But IMO, going 10 furlongs and having to put Moreno away or repulse his bid would have been the difference between a nose win and a close 3rd. We are talking about a nose. Had the rider of Moreno been given instructions to get the lead (as he had been in NY in a couple of races), the pace would have been hot and there's almost no chance Bayern would have won even if he buried Moreno. You can then argue that would be a tough trip (I would), but there aren't many easy trips in the Classic.

2. There may have been a number of factors that contributed to his losses. Some were knowable (like his easy trip in the Haskell and the fact that the Travers track was the complete opposite) and some were not knowable (like the rider of Tonalist being so worried about Bayern wiring, he essentially sacrificed his own horse pressing him). Maybe he also wasn't 100% that day, but I lean towards the track and trip because he's a high quality horse that seems to fire every time EXCEPT when there is a legitimate excuse.

[Tom]

What revisionist history?

I said the same things here after each of his races with almost no change of opinion about him, the tracks he's raced on, or the trips he's had, even in light of additional information from subsequent starts. I wish I had as clear a view of every horse as a I feel I had of Bayern during 2014. THere's even a clear story to his nose win where he got DQed. That doesn't mean I played on/against him correctly in all those races, but I think I understood his performances well.

The rails were talked about at the time of the races.
Nothing was revised.

[raybo]

1. Bayern is faster and better than Moreno, no doubt. But IMO, going 10 furlongs and having to put Moreno away or repulse his bid would have been the difference between a nose win and a close 3rd. We are talking about a nose. Had the rider of Moreno been given instructions to get the lead (as he had been in NY in a couple of races), the pace would have been hot and there's almost no chance Bayern would have won even if he buried Moreno. You can then argue that would be a tough trip (I would), but there aren't many easy trips in the Classic.

2. There may have been a number of factors that contributed to his losses. Some were knowable (like his easy trip in the Haskell and the fact that the Travers track was the complete opposite) and some were not knowable (like the rider of Tonalist being so worried about Bayern wiring, he essentially sacrificed his own horse pressing him). Maybe he also wasn't 100% that day, but I lean towards the track and trip because he's a high quality horse that seems to fire every time EXCEPT when there is a legitimate excuse.

1. If Moreno was forced to press Bayern, that would indeed be an act of suicide, and Bayern thrives on fast paces, because he sets them.

2. Tonalist's committing suicide proves my point about Moreno, or any other horse in the 4 year old bracket. And, who's to say that Bayern would succumb to such a "ridiculous" pace battle (and it would have to be ridiculous in order to truly pressure Bayern). If you look at the velocities of Bayern and Moreno, or Tonalist, or any other of the horses Bayern has faced or is likely to face, Bayern's are simply superior.

[RXB]

1. If Moreno was forced to press Bayern, that would indeed be an act of suicide, and Bayern thrives on fast paces, because he sets them.


Actually, when Bayern did set a fairly quick pace relative to the track speed/profile, at Saratoga, he spit the bit at the quarter pole. The early pace was neither fast nor contested in the Haskell or the Pa Derby-- and with California Chrome running much below par at Parx, that effectively meant that the class of the field was loose on the lead on modest fractions on days when each track was definitely speed-favouring.

Pace was about normal for the BC Classic but given that he had wiped out the other frontrunner as well as the favourite at the start, it's difficult to give full credit. Plus, the horses that were 1-2-3 early were 1-2-3 at the wire and that's usually indicative of a situation that favoured the frontrunners. And he only won by a nose, with California Chrome just a neck behind.

[thaskalos]

Actually, when Bayern did set a fairly quick pace relative to the track speed/profile, at Saratoga, he spit the bit at the quarter pole. The early pace was neither fast nor contested in the Haskell or the Pa Derby-- and with California Chrome running much below par at Parx, that effectively meant that the class of the field was loose on the lead on modest fractions on days when each track was definitely speed-favouring.

Pace was about normal for the BC Classic but given that he had wiped out the other frontrunner as well as the favourite at the start, it's difficult to give full credit. Plus, the horses that were 1-2-3 early were 1-2-3 at the wire and that's usually indicative of a situation that favoured the frontrunners. And he only won by a nose, with California Chrome just a neck behind.
"Contested" being the key word...IMO. A "good" horse can win a race over a distance of ground if it sets a fast but uncontested pace...but it takes a GREAT horse to win the race while setting a fast pace while the pace is contested...especially at the classic distance.

A clean break in the BC Classic, and Bayern finishes off the board...IMO.

[classhandicapper]

1. If Moreno was forced to press Bayern, that would indeed be an act of suicide, and Bayern thrives on fast paces, because he sets them.

2. Tonalist's committing suicide proves my point about Moreno, or any other horse in the 4 year old bracket. And, who's to say that Bayern would succumb to such a "ridiculous" pace battle (and it would have to be ridiculous in order to truly pressure Bayern). If you look at the velocities of Bayern and Moreno, or Tonalist, or any other of the horses Bayern has faced or is likely to face, Bayern's are simply superior.

Somehow Tonalist survived that pace pressure in the Travers better than Bayern. Maybe that's because Bayern was on the bad rail, has less true 10F stamina, and had been doing his best running with the aid of biased rails in previous races?

IMO, Moreno's ONLY chance to win (slim as it was) was on the lead. It would indeed be suicide to engage Bayern in a duel, but it would be foolish to choke the horse back and try to outkick him and the closers late.

IMO, the most likely scenario was that one or the other was randomly a little sharper out of the gate and the other stalked in a lively, but not suicidal pace. In either case, IMO, that's a worse trip for Bayern than being loose on the lead and probably enough to turn a nose win into a loss.

We don't have to agree on the most likely race development or the outcome had Moreno pressed, but I didn't think there was much of a controversy about Moreno getting eliminated at the start helping Bayern.

Just to be clear, I think Bayern is very good and may have more upside this year than either CC or SB. I am simply talking trips last year.

[Cratos]

What revisionist history?

I said the same things here after each of his races with almost no change of opinion about him, the tracks he's raced on, or the trips he's had, even in light of additional information from subsequent starts. I wish I had as clear a view of every horse as a I feel I had of Bayern during 2014. THere's even a clear story to his nose win where he got DQed. That doesn't mean I played on/against him correctly in all those races, but I think I understood his performances well.
It is “revisionist” because your logic is specified in the “if” context.

For example, you assert what might have happened “if” Moreno had contested Bayern on the lead in the BC Classic and you further hypothesize that Bayern wins has been because of the so-called “golden rail.”

Given that you have not any proof for either of your assertions and I agree that you are entitled to your opinions, but they are revised in the contest of “woulda, coulda, shoulda.”

[classhandicapper]

It is “revisionist” because your logic is specified in the “if” context.

For example, you assert what might have happened “if” Moreno had contested Bayern on the lead in the BC Classic and you further hypothesize that Bayern wins has been because of the so-called “golden rail.”

Given that you have not any proof for either of your assertions and I agree that you are entitled to your opinions, but they are revised in the contest of “woulda, coulda, shoulda.”

This is semantics.

When I bet real money, part of the process is to evaluate the horses in light of the trips they've had in the past relative to what I would consider to be neutral for their running style. That's part of what I do to determine how good they actually are relative to their PPs.

My view is that Bayern did not have any neutral trips in his major races other than perhaps the Woody Stephens. He had some very favorable trips and he was virtually eliminated in a couple of races. So his true innate ability is somewhere in between the two (which of course is exactly what I've been saying all along).

[raybo]

Actually, when Bayern did set a fairly quick pace relative to the track speed/profile, at Saratoga, he spit the bit at the quarter pole. The early pace was neither fast nor contested in the Haskell or the Pa Derby-- and with California Chrome running much below par at Parx, that effectively meant that the class of the field was loose on the lead on modest fractions on days when each track was definitely speed-favouring.

Pace was about normal for the BC Classic but given that he had wiped out the other frontrunner as well as the favourite at the start, it's difficult to give full credit. Plus, the horses that were 1-2-3 early were 1-2-3 at the wire and that's usually indicative of a situation that favoured the frontrunners. And he only won by a nose, with California Chrome just a neck behind.

Rationalize any way you want. Keep thinking that way, and please don't bet him in the future (I hope all like believers do the same). That would be a huge favor to me, and I would certainly appreciate it. I promise to do you a favor in the future also.

[RXB]

Rationalize any way you want. Keep thinking that way, and please don't bet him in the future (I hope all like believers do the same). That would be a huge favor to me, and I would certainly appreciate it. I promise to do you a favor in the future also.

How about Verrazano? You thought he was a superstar; I didn't. Who was proven right in the end?

So maybe hold off on the snark, okay?

[raybo]

How about Verrazano? You thought he was a superstar; I didn't. Who was proven right in the end?

So maybe hold off on the snark, okay?

Well, I don't ever remember saying V was a superstar, but yes, I thought he would continue to evolve. He didn't, it happens. So, stick to your guns about Bayern, you might be right again! Meanwhile, I'll take 3rd and 4th favorites, with the attributes of Bayern, on the top of my superfecta tickets all day long. They pay good!

[Cratos]

This is semantics.

When I bet real money, part of the process is to evaluate the horses in light of the trips they've had in the past relative to what I would consider to be neutral for their running style. That's part of what I do to determine how good they actually are relative to their PPs.

My view is that Bayern did not have any neutral trips in his major races other than perhaps the Woody Stephens. He had some very favorable trips and he was virtually eliminated in a couple of races. So his true innate ability is somewhere in between the two (which of course is exactly what I've been saying all along).
There isn't anything semantical in my post with respect to my comments about the aforementioned conclusion in your post.

You stated what you do in your handicapping, but that doesn't translate into what Bayern did or will do.

To me, Bayern and Shared Belief are throw backs to my early days in this sport when the likes of Dr. Fager and Forego roamed supremely over the American turf and I am excited to be able to glimpse through that prism again.

[classhandicapper]

You stated what you do in your handicapping, but that doesn't translate into what Bayern did or will do..

I haven't said anything about what I think he'll do this year other than I think he has potential upside. But what I've said is certainly an analysis of what he did last year. If you disagree with my analysis, that's OK. I'm sure lots of people disagree with some or all of it.