PDA

View Full Version : Did Exaggerator not like Big Sandy Surface?


bobphilo
06-13-2016, 06:05 PM
I'm usually skeptical of trainers blaming the surface for their horses' poor performances but Keith D may have a point here. Looking at the photos of EX in the stretch it appears that his forelegs are sinking deeper into the Belmont surface than the other horses. He has a smaller hoof than most which usually indicates a preference for off tracks but might make him sink deeper into Big Sandy.
Just a theory. Any thoughts from the panel?
http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/features/2016-belmont-stakes-race-sequence-212357

clocker7
06-13-2016, 06:09 PM
I think that Exaggerator had run one too-tough of a race too many.

I also think that 9f is his best distance.

pandy
06-13-2016, 07:12 PM
He didn't get the dream set up like he did in some of his prior races. He was four wide the entire mile and a half, he was pulling, and he was racing close to the pace. He ran his best races when he was allowed to relax at the back and make one run. They may have over thought the race. Everyone kept saying, you have to be close to win the Belmont. Which, of course, is not true. I doubt he would have won but Exaggerator probably would have run much better if they had let him race off the pace and make his one run.

woodbinepmi
06-13-2016, 07:21 PM
I think that Exaggerator had run one too-tough of a race too many.

I also think that 9f is his best distance.
I agree with you, sometimes we forget they are animals and not machines and eventually they run out of gas.

tanner12oz
06-13-2016, 07:37 PM
I'm usually skeptical of trainers blaming the surface for their horses' poor performances but Keith D may have a point here. Looking at the photos of EX in the stretch it appears that his forelegs are sinking deeper into the Belmont surface than the other horses. He has a smaller hoof than most which usually indicates a preference for off tracks but might make him sink deeper into Big Sandy.
Just a theory. Any thoughts from the panel?
http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/features/2016-belmont-stakes-race-sequence-212357

it probably always looks that way but I was looking at the track in the post parade and the nickname of big sandy can't be more true..it was like quicksand the horses hooves were sinking so deep

pandy
06-13-2016, 08:15 PM
It was definitely a closer's track. Here they had a horse who is a confirmed strong closer and they put him on the pace over a closer's track. Not good strategy.

bobphilo
06-13-2016, 10:08 PM
It was definitely a closer's track. Here they had a horse who is a confirmed strong closer and they put him on the pace over a closer's track. Not good strategy.

It was a closer's race due to the pace. Kent D didn't realize that for a long 12 furlong marathon it was not wise to press a solid pace while going wide. He actually claimed they were "crawling" early. Except for Destin who ran an exceptional race, all those chasing the rabbit Gettysburg tired late. All those that think that top jockeys have "a clock in their heads" are mistaking them with exercise riders who truly do.

bobphilo
06-13-2016, 10:11 PM
I agree with you, sometimes we forget they are animals and not machines and eventually they run out of gas.

Especially when they are ridden wide into a pace not appropriate for a 12 furlong marathon.

bobphilo
06-13-2016, 10:16 PM
He didn't get the dream set up like he did in some of his prior races. He was four wide the entire mile and a half, he was pulling, and he was racing close to the pace. He ran his best races when he was allowed to relax at the back and make one run. They may have over thought the race. Everyone kept saying, you have to be close to win the Belmont. Which, of course, is not true. I doubt he would have won but Exaggerator probably would have run much better if they had let him race off the pace and make his one run.

Cannot agree more. This idea of race specific handicapping that one has to be close to the Belmont pace is rubbish. Every race presents a unique handicapping challenge. The way Creator was ridden to a win proved that.

dilanesp
06-14-2016, 12:55 AM
It was a closer's race due to the pace. Kent D didn't realize that for a long 12 furlong marathon it was not wise to press a solid pace while going wide. He actually claimed they were "crawling" early. Except for Destin who ran an exceptional race, all those chasing the rabbit Gettysburg tired late. All those that think that top jockeys have "a clock in their heads" are mistaking them with exercise riders who truly do.

It's not that they don't have a clock in their heads, it's that they don't ride in enough 1 1/2 mile dirt races.

In the route races Kent normally rides in here in Southern California, 47 4/5 would be a slow pace. You can win a lot of them wire to wire when they let you go that slow.

But in a 1 1/2 mile race on the dirt at Belmont, that same 47 4/5 will usually kill off all the frontrunners. To really love a frontrunner's chances, you really want to see something akin to the 50 second half mile that Affirmed ran.

So I'm sure Kent thought they weren't going very fast. But they were, relative to the distance and surface.

Tom
06-14-2016, 07:27 AM
It's not that they don't have a clock in their heads, it's that they don't ride in enough 1 1/2 mile dirt races.

Many ride like they don't have a brain in their heads.

burnsy
06-14-2016, 07:54 AM
He didn't get the dream set up like he did in some of his prior races. He was four wide the entire mile and a half, he was pulling, and he was racing close to the pace. He ran his best races when he was allowed to relax at the back and make one run. They may have over thought the race. Everyone kept saying, you have to be close to win the Belmont. Which, of course, is not true. I doubt he would have won but Exaggerator probably would have run much better if they had let him race off the pace and make his one run.

Did he like the track? Who knows, he raced exactly like you wrote. That trip had no chance in hell of winning the Belmont at 12f. You are dead on. I don't care if he loved it, that was bad "management". Just look at the winner, he ran the way you suggest and he won the race. If it ain't broke, don't go trying to fix it and that's what they decided to do in NY. That was bad strategy.

bobphilo
06-14-2016, 10:42 AM
Many ride like they don't have a brain in their heads.

Good one, Tom. :lol: :lol: :lol:

chadk66
06-14-2016, 09:02 PM
He beat himself. He wouldn't rate early in the race and pretty much was out of contention after 3/4 of a mile. By the time they were 100 yards up the backstretch you could see it wasn't going to happen. Kent had his feet through the dash board. Never a good sign.

CincyHorseplayer
06-14-2016, 10:47 PM
He looked leg weary in the Preakness. I thought Nyquist was going to re rally on him for a second. Good colt and did everything in his abilities up to that wire. He just came into a 12f race tired. Not a good recipe.

tucker6
06-15-2016, 08:01 AM
It was a closer's race due to the pace. Kent D didn't realize that for a long 12 furlong marathon it was not wise to press a solid pace while going wide. He actually claimed they were "crawling" early. Except for Destin who ran an exceptional race, all those chasing the rabbit Gettysburg tired late. All those that think that top jockeys have "a clock in their heads" are mistaking them with exercise riders who truly do.
Meh, the pace had nothing to do with Exaggerator's finish imo. The pace wasn't bad at all.

24.09
48.48 (24:39)
1:13.38 (24.90)
1:37.96 (24.58)

That might not be crawling, but it wasn't hot enough to blow away Exaggerator either. Honestly, I'm not that impressed with the crop this year outside 3 or 4 horses, and even they have some flaws.

Robert Fischer
06-15-2016, 02:15 PM
surface is usually a much more minor issue than players make of it.


Even going from dirt to turf, it's more about the dynamics than the actual hooves meeting grass/dirt.

If we look at the belmont as a dynamics-surface issue, then I do think 'surface' played a role as a contributing factor.
The Belmont is run in such a way where tactical position is extremely important.
This is why Destin had such a great trip, forward and inside, even with the presence of Gettysburg.
Nyquist anywhere near his prior levels would have had a field day in this Belmont.


The biggest known factor was Exaggerator being wide near the pace.


'Critical mass' is when just enough different factors contribute in the same direction that you get this 'reaction'.


up close and wide
Destin and Creator getting dream trips
Kent D maybe being off his game (and then stopped riding when he knew he wasn't contending, if you consider the final finish position important)
The 'surface/dynamics' of the Belmont being outside Exaggerator's strength
Exaggerator maybe not being at his peak physical condition after running in each jewel

etc...

lots of things pointing in a direction , who's to say which straw broke the camel's back?

bobphilo
06-16-2016, 08:05 AM
Meh, the pace had nothing to do with Exaggerator's finish imo. The pace wasn't bad at all.

24.09
48.48 (24:39)
1:13.38 (24.90)
1:37.96 (24.58)

That might not be crawling, but it wasn't hot enough to blow away Exaggerator either. Honestly, I'm not that impressed with the crop this year outside 3 or 4 horses, and even they have some flaws.
I never said the pace was hot. Actually CJ and the Timeform US figures did. and Moss had the middle portion fast.
Neither did I claim that Exaggerator was "blown away" by that pace alone. Ex's failure was the result of several factors.
I said that the pace was solid for a 12 furlong marathon and Kent D was foolish in his decision to stalk that pace while wide with a horse who has run his best races from off the pace while saving ground.
I cannot understand why so many people apply pace pars for shorter races to such a long race. One size does not fit all.

tucker6
06-16-2016, 08:29 AM
I never said the pace was hot. Actually CJ and the Timeform US figures did. and Moss had the middle portion fast.
Neither did I claim that Exaggerator was "blown away" by that pace alone. Ex's failure was the result of several factors.
I said that the pace was solid for a 12 furlong marathon and Kent D was foolish in his decision to stalk that pace while wide with a horse who has run his best races from off the pace while saving ground.
I cannot understand why so many people apply pace pars for shorter races to such a long race. One size does not fit all.
Your reading comprehension skills are way down today. Nowhere in my post did I accuse you of saying the pace was hot. I said the pace was not hot. Our respective opinions are not mutually exclusive. Same with the "blown away" comment. I said that the pace was not enough to blow Exaggerator away. I never said that you said that.

bobphilo
06-16-2016, 05:07 PM
Your reading comprehension skills are way down today. Nowhere in my post did I accuse you of saying the pace was hot. I said the pace was not hot. Our respective opinions are not mutually exclusive. Same with the "blown away" comment. I said that the pace was not enough to blow Exaggerator away. I never said that you said that.

OK, sorry about the misunderstanding. Let me be clearer in what I was trying to say about the Belmont pace. Without an extensive data base as to what is par time for THIS distance and then adjusting the splits with a variant, a slow or fast pace can only be determined by comparing the fractions to the final time. That's how one knows how efficiently the race was run. Just putting up unadjusted pace splits is meaningless unless one compares it to the final time and that's what was missing from your claim that the pace was not that bad.