RA...Top 5 Sport Moment of the Year

[SoCalCircuit]

Time magazine released a list of 2009 top 10 in various catagories. One of them was top 10 sports moments, and RA got 5th

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1945379_1944649_1944662,00.html

[FenceBored]

Time magazine released a list of 2009 top 10 in various catagories. One of them was top 10 sports moments, and RA got 5th

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1945379_1944649_1944662,00.html

Whoaboy, some heads are going to explode on this one.

She never tired and held off a furious push from Mine That Bird to win the race by a length, becoming the first filly in 85 years to take the Preakness.

[Steve R]

Whoaboy, some heads are going to explode on this one.

She never tired and held off a furious push from Mine That Bird to win the race by a length, becoming the first filly in 85 years to take the Preakness.


What's the problem with the quote?

[FenceBored]

What's the problem with the quote?

"She never tired" is a sentiment which has many disputants, to put it mildly.

[Steve R]

"She never tired" is a sentiment which has many disputants, to put it mildly.
Well, they are wrong.

The filly ran the final 3/16ths in :19.1 which is exactly the average for Preakness winners at least as far back as 1973. Only four Preakness winners since then got the first 4f faster than she did and none finished faster. Only 11 Preakness winners since then got the first 6f faster than she did and only one, Tank's Prospect, finished faster. And he did it by setting a new stakes and track record.

People who confuse Mine That Bird's furious close off a :50.0 first half with the filly getting tired don't know what they are talking about. If she got tired, then so did horses like Point Given, Spectacular Bid, Seattle Slew, Silver Charm and Sunday Silence, all of which ran their last 3/16ths slower than she did.

[NTamm1215]

How could this be? All we've heard is how the Breeders' Cup is the World Championships, the Super Bowl of horse racing, the place where defining moments in a horse's career happen and Zenyatta's BCC win is not on the list?

That's right, because the country doesn't give a damn about the Breeders' Cup and it is nothing more than a nominal "Championship."

NT

[Show Me the Wire]

Well, they are wrong.

The filly ran the final 3/16ths in :19.1 which is exactly the average for Preakness winners at least as far back as 1973. Only four Preakness winners since then got the first 4f faster than she did and none finished faster. Only 11 Preakness winners since then got the first 6f faster than she did and only one, Tank's Prospect, finished faster. And he did it by setting a new stakes and track record.

People who confuse Mine That Bird's furious close off a :50.0 first half with the filly getting tired don't know what they are talking about. If she got tired, then so did horses like Point Given, Spectacular Bid, Seattle Slew, Silver Charm and Sunday Silence, all of which ran their last 3/16ths slower than she did.

Averages do not account how the energy was distributed.. She ran faster in the first part of the last 4 furlongs and slowed down at the end. Expend more energy early and less late. She just built up a big enough lead, throug hearly expenditure, to hold off MTB. Average performance, time wise according to you, nothing spectacular about the last 4 furlongs. All it proves is the field and MTB were sub-standard as they could not meet the average final four furlong time for a Preakness winner. I agree with that fact.

If R.A. ran the fatest 4 furlongs, her performance should be looked upon as exceptional. Alas, she only produced average time and thus an average performance for the class

Why in R.A.s case do you elevate an average performance and in Zenyatta's case down grade what you classify as average performances?

Like you said about Zenyatta, it is getting tiresome hearing about R.A.'s average performances, based on perfect trips, as being great.

[tzipi]

OMG! Now we are disputing RA and her on a list! This is pathetic now. We are talking about her not setting a final qtr Preakness record and energy distribution? Jesus :rolleyes:

Go look up her races and see she set records or tied records in almost every race she ran winning by open lengths in many,beating boys and older males in some AS A 3YO OLD FILLY! And people are still trashing her races. Yup,she's average and her races were average :rolleyes: The actual truth is causing insane frustration in some.

[Show Me the Wire]

OMG! Now we are disputing RA and her on a list! This is pathetic now. We are talking about her not setting a final qtr Preakness record and energy distribution? Jesus :rolleyes:

Go look up her races and see she set records or tied records in almost every race she ran winning by open lengths in many,beating boys and older males in some and we are still trashing her races. Yup,she's average and her races were average :rolleyes: The frustration of the truth is getting to people bad.

That is not what I said. I did not say winning the Preakness was not an achievement. It is an achievement for any horse that wins a T.C. race or a B.C. race.

I said Steve R.'s analysis about R.A. not tiring , based on average time, was flawed.

[Show Me the Wire]

To clarify further, I am serious it is tiresome to continually, hear how great R.A. is, especially since the two horses that came closest to beating her, have consistently run up the track in subsequent races.

HOY voters are you paying attention to her rivals subsequent performances? I hope so.

[NTamm1215]

To clarify further, I am serious it is tiresome to continually, hear how great R.A. is, especially since the two horses that came closest to beating her, have consistently run up the track in subsequent races.

HOY voters are you paying attention to her rivals subsequent performances? I hope so.

Sorry that Macho Again and Bullsbay aren't as good as Anabaa's Creation.

NT

[tzipi]

To clarify further, I am serious it is tiresome to continually, hear how great R.A. is, especially since the two horses that came closest to beating her, have consistently run up the track in subsequent races.

HOY voters are you paying attention to her rivals subsequent performances? I hope so.

Rachel ran fast fractions early and throughout so Macho Again had the biggest advantage in beating her and still could'nt as she kept on going at the very end. Some people do not know about how fractions affect races I guess. Fast fractions set up for closers,slow ones set it up for wire to wire and pace horses.

So Concern is better than Holy Bull because in the Travers Bull ran very fast fractions and JUST held on! :D

If Rachel sat at one track and never moeved and went against the same fillies in her division she would've won by 15 every race setting records. But she didn't. She traveled,beat top girls,the boys,the older males,etc and was setting records.

[Show Me the Wire]

Sorry that Macho Again and Bullsbay aren't as good as Anabaa's Creation.

NT

Nothing to be sorry about.

A tiring R.A. held off weak horses after building up a commanding lead. Anabaa's Creation had the commanding lead and was run down by a superior horse. Mike Smith's error in judgment, not Zenyatta's limitations, almost cost the race by giving an inferior horse an almost insurmountable advantage . Zenyatta's talent over came her jockey's errors.

[Show Me the Wire]

Rachel ran fast fractions early and throughout so Macho Again had the biggest advantage in beating her and still could'nt as she kept on going at the very end. Fractions make the race in horses. Some people do not know about how fractions affect races I guess.

So Concern is better than Holy Bull because in the Travers Bull ran very fast fractions and JUST held on! :D

If Rachel sat at one track and never moeved and went against the same fillies in her division she would've won by 15 every race setting records. But she didn't. She traveled,beat top girls,the boys,the older males,etc and was setting records.


How does the above even relate to my post about subsequent performances of MTB and Macho Again? And yes it is apparent that some posters here do not understand energy distribution and that horses have a finite amount of energy available for expenditure in a specific race and they cannot understand R.A. expended all her energy by the time she crossed the wire.

[tzipi]

Nothing to be sorry about.

A tiring R.A. held off weak horses after building up a commanding lead. Anabaa's creation had the commanding lead and was run down by a superior horse. Mike Smith's error in judgment, not Zenyatta's limitations, almost cost the race by giving an inferior horse an almost insurmountable advantage . Zenyatta's talent over came her jockey's errors.

HA according to you Concern is a better horse than Holy Bull because of the Travers. HolyBUll ran a weak race. Concern almost beat him. Yeah ookkk :D Learn fractions.
Your trashing Rachel for just holding off MA. She ran very fast fractions. Of course closers were going to come after her! She would'nt let him pass.

[NTamm1215]

Nothing to be sorry about.

A tiring R.A. held off weak horses after building up a commanding lead. Anabaa's Creation had the commanding lead and was run down by a superior horse. Mike Smith's error in judgment, not Zenyatta's limitations, almost cost the race by giving an inferior horse an almost insurmountable advantage . Zenyatta's talent over came her jockey's errors.

So plodding along at the back and making one big run for a 1/4 mile is better than running a very fast opening 1/2 mile, beating off all other pacesetters and holding sway late?

I think it's too convenient to think highly of Zenyatta's Clement Hirsch and degrade Rachel's Woodward based on the logic you used.

NT

[tzipi]

So plodding along at the back and making one big run for a 1/4 mile is better than running a very fast opening 1/2 mile, beating off all other pacesetters and holding sway late?

I think it's too convenient to think highly of Zenyatta's Clement Hirsch and degrade Rachel's Woodward based on the logic you used.

NT


Exactly. Makes the fractions excuse for Zenyatta but not for Rachel! Ridiculous. Just a frustrated Zenyatta fan picking on Rachel because she got a top 10 comment in sports.
Must be easy to stay at just one track and face the same beatable group race after race.

[Show Me the Wire]

HA according to you Concern is a better horse than Holy Bull because of the Travers. HolyBUll ran a weak race. Concern almost beat him. Yeah ookkk :D Learn fractions.
Your trashing Rachel for just holding off MA. She ran very fast fractions. Of course closers were going to come after her! She would'nt let him pass.


You do realize you are echoing my sentiments about fast early and the lack of energy available late. That is my point weak horses almost beat R.A. because her running style gave her a tactical advantage over inferior horses.

[tzipi]

You do realize you are echoing my sentiments about fast early and the lack of energy available late. That is my point weak horses almost beat R.A. because her running style gave her a tactical advantage over inferior horses.

OMG this is so sad. The girl wins a top 10 in a sports article and we are jumping and yelling about energy and late closers into fast fractions! Zenyatta ran against the same going nowhere and then wins a synthetic BC race over a overhyped European and turf horse and Summer Bird who RA killed! Yup,one for the ages.

No your point was saying MA almost beat RA and that's sad and shows much. Ok then Concern makes HolyBulls career look sad and did not Zen almost lose to weak over slow fractions. Yup,her career is smoke and mirrors too. Ha geez.

[Show Me the Wire]

So plodding along at the back and making one big run for a 1/4 mile is better than running a very fast opening 1/2 mile, beating off all other pacesetters and holding sway late?

I think it's too convenient to think highly of Zenyatta's Clement Hirsch and degrade Rachel's Woodward based on the logic you used.

NT

I am not degrading any performance. I questioned way Steve R. has a tendency to elevate average performances for R.A. and down grade such for Zenyatta.

Your scenario about running styles is a close call. I would tend to favor a closer that runs down lone speed, as being classier. With regards to R.A. which race did she duel, for a protracted distance, any other front runner? In all her races she has had the tactical advantage of being the quickest and fastest of her competition.

Yes, she runs fast early, by herself, building a sufficient lead to hold off late runs by inferior horses. Look at her races objectiviely and you will see that is how She wins. She really has never dueled another horse into submission and then had to duel with a second horse, as most speed horses have to do to win.

[Show Me the Wire]

OMG this is so sad. The girl wins a top 10 in a sports article and we are jumping and yelling about energy and late closers into fast fractions! Zenyatta ran against the same going nowhere and then wins a synthetic BC race over a overhyped European and turf horse and Summer Bird who RA killed! Yup,one for the ages.

No your point was saying MA almost beat RA and that's sad and shows much. Ok then Concern makes HolyBulls career look sad and did not Zen almost lose to weak over slow fractions. Yup,her career is smoke and mirrors too. Ha geez.


Now you are denying the fact Macho Again lost to R.A. in a tight photo, while Macho Again was closing ground on a clearly tiring R.A.

It is great the mag gave her a top ten achievement, for winning the Preakness.

[tzipi]

I am not degrading any performance. I questioned way Steve R. has a tendency to elevate average performances for R.A. and down grade such for Zenyatta.

Your scenario about running styles is a close call. I would tend to favor a closer that runs down lone speed, as being classier. With regards to R.A. which race did she duel, for a protracted distance, any other front runner? In all her races she has had the tactical advantage of being the quickest and fastest of her competition.

Yes, she runs fast early, by herself, building a sufficient lead to hold off late runs by inferior horses. Look at her races objectiviely and you will see that is how She wins. She really has never dueled another horse into submission and then had to duel with a second horse, as most speed horses have to do to win.


:lol: :lol: :lol: "She never dueled another horse in submission and then duel with another horse."
She ran a 22.4 and 46 fractions DUELING with Da'Tara then held off closers that could not get past her! Jesus,this is so pathetic. Just making up stuff.

[Show Me the Wire]

:lol: :lol: :lol: "She never dueled another horse in submission and then deal with another." She ran a 22.4 and 46 fractions DUELING with Da'Tara then held off closers that could not get past her! Jesus,this is so pathetic. Just making up stuff.


Da'Tara is your standard :lol: :lol: :lol: :bang: :bang: You are a riot :lol: :lol:

It is implied in my statement, a legitimate horse involved in a protracted first duel and where is the second duel I talked about.

[tzipi]

Da'Tara is your standard :lol: :lol: :lol: :bang: :bang:

:D Oh man, you said "duel a horse into submission and then take on a second". She ran 22.4 and 46 for that race and that means nothing to you! Thats a duel NO MATTER WHO THE HORSE IS! You know nothing about racing and are just making things up that are debunked each time. You are just a frustrated fan and getting out of control. I'm done.

[Show Me the Wire]

:D Oh man, you said "duel a horse into submission and then take on a second". She ran 22 and 46 for that race and that means nothig to you! You know nothing about racing and are just making things up that are debunked each time. You are just a frustrated fan and getting out of control. I'm done

Excuse me has no other horse ever ran 22 and 46?

[tzipi]

Excuse me has no other horse ever ran 22 and 46?

:lol: :lol: That's your comeback!"NO other horse has ran that" Who ever said that? Not me. Your insane frustrated comments have been debunked. She dueled horses into defeat thru wicked fractions and still won. Your comments about her races are nuts and proven wrong. Learn what fractions mean and how it affects horses trying to win.
According to you then,Holy Bulls Travers was crap because OTHER horses have run those fractions before in races :lol: Oh man.

[Show Me the Wire]

:lol: :lol: That's your comeback!"NO other horse has ran that" Who ever said that? Not me. Your insane frustrated comments have been debunked. She dueled horses into defeat thru wicked fractions and still won. Your comments about her races are nuts and proven wrong. Learn what fractions mean and how it affects horses trying to win.
According to you then,Holy Bulls Travers was crap because OTHER horses have run those fractions before in races :lol: Oh man.

Actually no. it was a question about why those fractions are significant in the context of this discusion.

All you look for is conflict. It must really bother you, that you can't elicite certain responses you are looking for from me.

Me thinks you are the frustrated one. Keep on trying. It is fun to see how far you will take it.

[tzipi]

Actually no. it was a question about why those fractions are significant in the context of this discusiion.

All you look for is conflict. It must really bother you, that you can't elicite certain responses you are looking for from me.

Me thinks you are the frustrated one. Keep on trying.

Nope she won a top 10. I'm happy. You got mad. Just check.

YOUR QUOTE: "She never dueled a horse into SUBMISSION and the had to duel with another to win"

Duels Da'tara through 22.4 and 46 and whatever else and then hold off late charging MA! :lol: Yup she never did it ;) . Keep BS to cover your frustration.
You talked to someone on here about Zenyatta being at a disadvantage with slow fractions and just getting up and that was great but disregard RA battling through fast fractions and holding on. Goodbye Wire. Enjoy your day

[Steve R]

Averages do not account how the energy was distributed.. She ran faster in the first part of the last 4 furlongs and slowed down at the end. Expend more energy early and less late. She just built up a big enough lead, throug hearly expenditure, to hold off MTB. Average performance, time wise according to you, nothing spectacular about the last 4 furlongs. All it proves is the field and MTB were sub-standard as they could not meet the average final four furlong time for a Preakness winner. I agree with that fact.

If R.A. ran the fatest 4 furlongs, her performance should be looked upon as exceptional. Alas, she only produced average time and thus an average performance for the class

Why in R.A.s case do you elevate an average performance and in Zenyatta's case down grade what you classify as average performances?

Like you said about Zenyatta, it is getting tiresome hearing about R.A.'s average performances, based on perfect trips, as being great.
This is one of the most incomprehensible posts I've seen in recent memory. And your understanding of perfect trips is bizarre. If you don't like averages, I can supply the data for every Preakness since 1973. The fact remains that she ran faster early than about 90% of previous winners at 4f and about 70% of previous winners at 6f yet still finished in typical Preakness winner time. Maybe you don't like horses than won the Preakness going fast early-average late. BTW, Mine That Bird got the last 3/16ths in 18:2, as fast as any Preakness winner since before 1973, so your inane assertion that he "could not meet the average final four furlong time for a Preakness winner" is absurd.

[Show Me the Wire]

You too tzipi. Best wishes.

[toussaud]

I do find it quite interesting that this great defining moment that zenyatta had didn't even make the top 10.

and to make it worse, it JUST happened. rachael's feat happened 7 months ago

[Show Me the Wire]

This is one of the most incomprehensible posts I've seen in recent memory. And your understanding of perfect trips is bizarre. If you don't like averages, I can supply the data for every Preakness since 1973. The fact remains that she ran faster early than about 90% of previous winners at 4f and about 70% of previous winners at 6f yet still finished in typical Preakness winner time. Maybe you don't like horses than won the Preakness going fast early-average late. BTW, Mine That Bird got the last 3/16ths in 18:2, as fast as any Preakness winner since before 1973, so your inane assertion that he "could not meet the average final four furlong time for a Preakness winner" is absurd.

Being on the lead is the easiest way to win a race if you are the quickest and fastest horse at the distance. Nothing bizarre about that logic. I pointed out that averages do not tell you how the energy is distributed over the last 4 furlongs. Do they? Is that the incomprehensible part?

What is so difficult to understand about the advantage of having a sufficient lead to hold off less talented late runners? Oh I forget, you have a difficult time grasping the lesson of the tortoise and the hare. In your world the hare has to win all the time because he has fatest adjusted time at the distance.

I like War Eblem so what does that mean to you.

3/16ths last time I checked is less then 4 furlongs. Talk about incomprehensible, now you are elevating MTB for what you knock Zenyatta.

Is Tzipi your alter ego?

[Show Me the Wire]

I do find it quite interesting that this great defining moment that zenyatta had didn't even make the top 10.

and to make it worse, it JUST happened. rachael's feat happened 7 months ago


Simple they do not understand the sport. It is like naming Danicka Patrick a top ten driver. :lol: :lol:

[Show Me the Wire]

.................................................. .................................................. ...,and leaving out Mario Andretti.

[Steve R]

Being on the lead is the easiest way to win a race if you are the quickest and fastest horse at the distance. Nothing bizarre about that logic. I pointed out that averages do not tell you how the energy is distributed over the last 4 furlongs. Do they? Is that the incomprehensible part?

What is so difficult to understand about the advantage of having a sufficient lead to hold off less talented late runners? Oh I forget, you have a difficult time grasping the lesson of the tortoise and the hare. In your world the hare has to win all the time because he has fatest adjusted time at the distance.

I like War Eblem so what does that mean to you.

3/16ths last time I checked is less then 4 furlongs. Talk about incomprehensible, now you are elevating MTB for what you knock Zenyatta.

Is Tzipi your alter ego?
Wow, Tzipi is right. You really don't understand pace, do you? And I never mentioned the last half mile in my original post. I referred to the last 3/16ths which is what the charts show. Every point you have made is either incorrect or irrelevant to the initial premise.

Your liking War Emblem simply means you prefer horses who run fast early and slow late. He ran the slowest last part of the Preakness of any winner in almost 40 years.

And exactly what does "averages do not tell you how the energy is distributed over the last 4 furlongs" mean in physical terms? Are you referring to consecutive sixteenths in, say, :6.1, :6.2, :6.3 to get to :19.1? Fine. Run a polynomial regression on Rachel Alexandra's Preakness fractions using hundredths of a second off the chart. You'll observe a correlation coefficient of 1.00000 (you do know what that means, right?) and every predicted time at a distance based on the regression is within .07 seconds of the actual time. Her pattern over the last half mile is: 6.12, 6.17, 6.21, 6.26, 6.30, 6.34, 6.39, 6.43. I suppose by your analysis that means she simply folded up at the end and was all out to hold on.

[joanied]

I'll leave you guys to argue about the numbers...I'm just happy that a horse racing moment made the list...and that they at least mentioned Zenyatta in the segement...they should have made Zenyatta sports moment #4...
but, millions read Time magazine...so we're doing pretty good!!
:)

[Show Me the Wire]

Wow, Tzipi is right. You really don't understand pace, do you? And I never mentioned the last half mile in my original post. I referred to the last 3/16ths which is what the charts show. Every point you have made is either incorrect or irrelevant to the initial premise.

Your liking War Emblem simply means you prefer horses who run fast early and slow late. He ran the slowest last part of the Preakness of any winner in almost 40 years.

And exactly what does "averages do not tell you how the energy is distributed over the last 4 furlongs" mean in physical terms? Are you referring to consecutive sixteenths in, say, :6.1, :6.2, :6.3 to get to :19.1? Fine. Run a polynomial regression on Rachel Alexandra's Preakness fractions using hundredths of a second off the chart. You'll observe a correlation coefficient of 1.00000 (you do know what that means, right?) and every predicted time at a distance based on the regression is within .07 seconds of the actual time. Her pattern over the last half mile is: 6.12, 6.17, 6.21, 6.26, 6.30, 6.34, 6.39, 6.43. I suppose by your analysis that means she simply folded up at the end and was all out to hold on.

Yeah, I don't understand averages. Let's see, as a hypothetical, avg time for a furlong is 23 sec. Now is it a 10 sec 1/16th and 13 sec 1/16th or 12 sec 1/16th and a 11 sec 1/16th, etc that adds up to the average, which is the reality? I cannot understand why someone so educated, as you seem to be, has such a difficult time with elementry concepts. We cannot tell from an average how the average was earned.

Very simply the horse that exerted the ten second fractional part of furlong the exerted more of its finite availble energy to run the avg. 23 second furlong.

You must believe horses are machine like and deplete their energy effeciently and uniformily, to come up with your astounding conclusions. Horses are not machines and generally do not use their energy effeciently and evenly. The best horses are able to rate and as a result use their energy more efficiently.

I bet you think the frst quarter in a sprint of 22 4/5 is physically run in 11 2/5 and 11 2/5. You really think that an even split is physically possible with a standing start and a limited run-up? Until you understand reality of exertion, we are wasting bandwidth.

And War Emblem looked better winning the Preakness, than R.A., even with a slower 3/16ths.

[Show Me the Wire]

p.s. I understand furlongs are not usually run in such a slow time, but it illustrates the concept nicely.

[Bobzilla]

And War Emblem looked better winning the Preakness, than R.A., even with a slower 3/16ths.

I'm not sure if War Emblem looked better winning the 2002 Preakness than did Rachel Alexandra in 2009, but I will give War Emblem credit for surviving what I personally believe to be the stiffest early adjusted fractions over the last fifteen years (1999 being 2nd). I actually give 3rd place finisher Proud Citizen even more credit on account of ground loss during his trip, 5 wide throuhout much of it I believe. If War Emblem came home with a slow final 3/16 then I'd suggest that perhaps he had liscense to given energy expended during the earlier stages of the event over a labourious drying-out track. That said, I do think he was fortunate that there wasn't a true quality closer in the field that day who was at least in career form, as I don't believe Harlan's Holiday was at that time. Kudos to anyone who nailed the $300 plus exacta with War Emblem on top of local hero Magic Weisner, I sure as hell didn't. More kudos to anyone who had the $2,000 plus trifecta.

In the wake of this year's Preakness the Racing Post assigned higher PFs for the 2nd and 3rd place finishers than was assigned to the winner, I believe 121,120,118 respectively. I'm not familiar with these figures though I believe they represent weights. Would you, or perhaps your primary adversary in this thread, be able to explain the methodology used by the RP in arriving at these numbers, and more specifically, to what extent were such variables as impost; positioning; early internal and late fractions; and ground loss seperately weighed and factored?

[Steve R]

Yeah, I don't understand averages. Let's see, as a hypothetical, avg time for a furlong is 23 sec. Now is it a 10 sec 1/16th and 13 sec 1/16th or 12 sec 1/16th and a 11 sec 1/16th, etc that adds up to the average, which is the reality? I cannot understand why someone so educated, as you seem to be, has such a difficult time with elementry concepts. We cannot tell from an average how the average was earned.

Very simply the horse that exerted the ten second fractional part of furlong the exerted more of its finite availble energy to run the avg. 23 second furlong.

You must believe horses are machine like and deplete their energy effeciently and uniformily, to come up with your astounding conclusions. Horses are not machines and generally do not use their energy effeciently and evenly. The best horses are able to rate and as a result use their energy more efficiently.

I bet you think the frst quarter in a sprint of 22 4/5 is physically run in 11 2/5 and 11 2/5. You really think that an even split is physically possible with a standing start and a limited run-up? Until you understand reality of exertion, we are wasting bandwidth.

And War Emblem looked better winning the Preakness, than R.A., even with a slower 3/16ths.
Actually the better horses do use their energy more efficiently than poorer horses and once they establish a momentum it is very difficult to change the apparent fatigue rate in the absence of an injury or bleeding. Overcoming the inertia of animals weighing over a thousand pounds moving at 35 to 40 mph is not a trivial exercise regardless of how "handy" you think they are. They don't run quarters in 7, 6, 7, 6 splits.

In any case, a correlation coefficient of 1.00000 based on a range of times and distances ensures enormous predictability of time at any distance within the range. In the case of injury or bleeding (or exhaustion) you will observe correlation coefficients well below 1.00000. As for standing starts and run-ups, fatigue rate calculations generally begin after a quarter mile in sprints and after a half mile in routes to account for those very factors, something which you apparently didn't know. I suggest you read an article called "Athletic Records and Human Endurance" by Peter S. Riegel, a research engineer at Batelle Memorial Institute and a competitive long-distance runner, published in American Scientist magazine in 1981 (Volume 69, p 285). Maybe you'll learn something, although I doubt it. BTW, what the hell is the "reality of exertion"? Sounds like a heavy metal band.

Incidentally, "rating" is not necessarily related to the efficiency of energy utilization. It has to do with conservation of energy and may or may not be an efficient process depending on the horse's individual biomechanics and physiological characteristics. The analogy would be finely tuned cars which differ at the speed they consume fuel most efficiently. If you have just a gallon in the tank, driving at a speed below maximum efficiency won't get you there faster at the end. In that sense, yes, horses are machines because their "engines" are bound by the same laws of physics as an automobile engine.

[Show Me the Wire]

Actually the better horses do use their energy more ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.................................... ..............................................
Incidentally, "rating" is not necessarily related to the efficiency of energy utilization. It has to do with conservation of energy and may or may not be an efficient process depending on the horse's individual biomechanics and physiological characteristics. The analogy would be finely tuned cars which differ at the speed they consume fuel most efficiently. If you have just a gallon in the tank, driving at a speed below maximum efficiency won't get you there faster at the end. In that sense, yes, horses are machines because their "engines" are bound by the same laws of physics as an automobile engine.


As you see my good fellow, first, the debate was about your use of averages to definitively prove, in you world, that R.A. was not a tired animal.
You never refuted my example that all averages are not the result of equal performances, in other words, earned the same way. So it is pointless to say it was an average performance at the level and therefore she could not be tired at the finish.

Second, you have two faulty assumptions. you assume a horse is machine like (finely tune car) and they behave like cognitive humans, when it comes to conserving or expending energy. A horse is not a machine, but I will concede its bio-mechanics defines potential as does a humans. Also, the horse does not have a rational or cognitive thought process about conserving energy or expending energy that will effect its running behavior.

For your benefit, I do understand in most sprints the fatigue process begins, due to oxygen break down, which leads to lactic acid production, in the latter half of the second quarter. With inferior healthy sprint horses fatigue has its beginnings at the end of the first quarter .

As I theorized earlier you believe horses are machine like, Based on your belief, there is no point to wasting more bandwidth on debating a fundamental disagreement.

You will never undersand the reality of the tortoise and hare, because after all the hare's bio-mechanics make him vastly superior to the tortoise, for bursts of energy and speed over distance while utilizing its cognitive abilities.

When the tea cup is filled to the lip, there is no room left.

Best of wishes with your endeavors.

[PaceAdvantage]

Ok then Concern makes HolyBulls career look sad and did not Zen almost lose to weak over slow fractions.You need to stop bringing this example up, because sooner or later, somebody is going to point out to you that Concern went on to win the Breeders' Cup Classic. In fact, one of Holy Bull's many marks of greatness was the fact that a multitude of horses who finished behind him went on to win graded stakes in races where Holy Bull was not an entrant (lucky for them).

[Show Me the Wire]

Occam's Razor: the simplest reason/explanation for the outcome.

A measure of how good the horse is the subsequent performances of the horse's competitors in races where the original winner is not participating.

Using this standard, which I have been advocating, shows that R.A.'s opponents are mostly inferior horses at the stakes level.

[cj]

Occam's Razor: the simplest reason/explanation for the outcome.

A measure of how good the horse is the subsequent performances of the horse's competitors in races where the original winner is not participating.

Using this standard, which I have been advocating, shows that R.A.'s opponents are mostly inferior horses at the stakes level.

Haven't the horses Rachel defeated won a whole slew of G1s? I mean, it is a really, really long list. Many did it after suffering losses to RA by double digit lengths.

[Show Me the Wire]

Haven't the horses Rachel defeated won a whole slew of G1s? I mean, it is a really, really long list. Many did it after suffering losses to RA by double digit lengths.

My discussion is primarily about the worthiness of the male horses that she faced in stakes company, and came close to beating her.

She is clearly the best 3 year old female, beating the others by open lengths, and desrves accolades for beating the 3 year boys in the Preakness.

But those open length wins of up to 20 lengths did not materialize in her races against the males. In other words, her powerful performances against young females did not translate into the same type of performances against the males.

Her margins of victories, against the boys, were very small. The male horses she barely defeated have not validated R.A.'s winnig efforts, through strong subsequent, performances of their own.

[gm10]

My discussion is primarily about the worthiness of the male horses that she faced in stakes company, and came close to beating her.

She is clearly the best 3 year old female, beating the others by open lengths, and desrves accolades for beating the 3 year boys in the Preakness.

But those open length wins of up to 20 lengths did not materialize in her races against the males. In other words, her powerful performances against young females did not translate into the same type of performances against the males.

Her margins of victories, against the boys, were very small. The male horses she barely defeated have not validated R.A.'s winnig efforts, through strong subsequent, performances of their own.

I agree and disagree.

No, her rivals aren't superstars based on post-race form.
But, she did run very strong sectionals throughout the full race on multiple occasions. Whether she could have won the Classic, where she would surely have faced a more pressured trip than before, we'll never know. I don't think she would have handled the distance and trip ... but she is def. the 3yo of the year based on what she accomplished.

[Show Me the Wire]

When evaluting a horse's performance, ther is an old handicapping axiom, which is relevant today as it was then. The axiom is, " how did the horse accomplish the win? and Who did the horse beat?'

The answers to those pertinent questions regarding R.A.'s performance against the boys are as follows:

She beat them in the easiest way there is: Meaning the easiest way to win a race is on the lead, especially when the horse possess the quickest acceleration of the group, where she built-up a large enough lead to hold off the late runners,

and

she didn't beat competitive stake quality horses as demonstrated by the poor subsequent performances at the stakes level.

According to the above axiom, her races against the males were not that spectacular.

[cj]

Take the Points took the G1 Secretariat and the G1 Jamaica.

Summer Bird won the G1 Travers and the G1 JCGC.

[FenceBored]

Occam's Razor: the simplest reason/explanation for the outcome.

A measure of how good the horse is the subsequent performances of the horse's competitors in races where the original winner is not participating.

Using this standard, which I have been advocating, shows that R.A.'s opponents are mostly inferior horses at the stakes level.

Keep hanging your hat on "mostly".

Rachel won or defeated the winners of 7 of the 9 US G1 main track routes for 3 year old colts. She won or defeated the winners of 4 of the 9 US G1 main track routes for 3 year old fillies. Futhermore, fillies she beat defeated the winners of 4 more of the 3 yo F dirt routes (who chose not to face Rachel) in stakes races. In short, Rachel 'owned' 3 year old dirt routes this year, both colt and filly. She also beat the winner of 2 of 3 US G1 turf routes for 3 year old colts. 18 of 47 (38%) opponents non stakes winning.

On the other hand, Zenyatta won or defeated the winners of 5 of the 13 US G1 main track routes for older females (with Life is Sweet defeating another 3 in stakes races), 4 of the 13 US G1 main track routes for older males, 5 of the 19 US G1 turf routes for older males. 8 of 25 (32%) opponents non stakes winning. Exclude the Classic and the figure is 8 of 14 (57%) non stakes winners.

[Show Me the Wire]

If you want to take my statements out of context, I can't stop you. I have repeatedly stated I am measuring her performance agianst the subsequent performances of the horses which came close to beating R.A.

I am hanging my hat on the subsequent performances of the two horse that came close to beating her. I can't be much clearer than that. The other horses you are talking about were not competitive and may have not been well meant on that particular day. The race could have been a stepping stone for the other races for the horses you mentioned.

The correct measure is the horses that were trying to win such as MTB and Macho Again.

How did the B.C. race work out for Summer Bird? Yeah, I know it is the poly and not the competition.

People over the last few years have been complaining about the weakness of the 3 year olds, this year the complaint is valid, weakest bunch of three year old males to run on the track.

[Spalding No!]

Whether she could have won the Classic, where she would surely have faced a more pressured trip than before, we'll never know. I don't think she would have handled the distance and trip ... but she is def. the 3yo of the year based on what she accomplished.

Once Quality Road scratched, all that was left to contend for the pace was Regal Ransom. I don't think the pace scenario would be the thing to do her in had she run in the BC.

[Spalding No!]

She beat them in the easiest way there is: Meaning the easiest way to win a race is on the lead.

Yes, and it would have been even easier if she had rattled off each furlong in 23 seconds on average.

Greatest 3 minutes in sports...

[FenceBored]

If you want to take my statements out of context, I can't stop you. I have repeatedly stated I am measuring her performance agianst the subsequent performances of the horses which came close to beating R.A.


The only context I presented you comments in, is the one you put them in. If you aren't honest enough to keep your story straight for 1 1/2 hours, but keep changing it to suit the circumstance and pretend you're being consistent, that's fine by me, but I'll certainly call you on it.


I am hanging my hat on the subsequent performances of the two horse that came close to beating her. I can't be much clearer than that. The other horses you are talking about were not competitive and may have not been well meant on that particular day. The race could have been a stepping stone for the other races for the horses you mentioned.

The correct measure is the horses that were trying to win such as MTB and Macho Again.

How did the B.C. race work out for Summer Bird? Yeah, I know it is the poly and not the competition.

People over the last few years have been complaining about the weakness of the 3 year olds, this year the complaint is valid, weakest bunch of three year old males to run on the track.

By that measure, Zenyatta should only be judged by Anabaa's Creation and her inability to win anything this year other than a NW2X in April. Now, personally I think that's stupid, but if that's how you want to play it, hey, let's go for it. In a comparison between a filly who held on to beat 2 G1 winners, and a mare who struggled to get up and beat a cheap allowance horse, well, that ain't a hard one, is it?

[Steve R]

[snip]...She beat them in the easiest way there is: Meaning the easiest way to win a race is on the lead, ...[snip]
I guess I'll have to rethink my evaluations of horses like Dr. Fager, Seattle Slew, Affirmed, Spend a Buck, Ruffian, Count Fleet, Holy Bull, Lady's Secret, Man o' War, Twilight Tear, War Admiral et al. All those easy wire-to-wire wins. They obviously were overrated.

I don't suppose the fact that horses on the early lead win a higher percentage of races than those in 2nd, 3rd, 4th early could have anything to do with superior physiology. It must be a coincidence that Quirin (1979) found a perfect correlation between first call position and win percent:

FCP-Win%
1-26.6
2-16.8
3-13.7
4-11.5
5-9.6
6-7.6
7-6.1
8-4.9
9-4.2
10-2.2
11-1.6
12-0.8

BTW, FCP and average odd shows exactly the same trend.

It's a terrible thing all of these front runners are beating better horses simply because it's easier. What a ripoff!

I also assume you have never been a competitive runner and don't appreciate the psychological advantage of tracking the pace. All those track announcers telling me how a pace prompter is in "a perfect spot" must not have a clue. A perfect spot for what? To lose?

[Stillriledup]

Time magazine released a list of 2009 top 10 in various catagories. One of them was top 10 sports moments, and RA got 5th

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1945379_1944649_1944662,00.html


And Zenyatta was where in this list?

[joanied]

And Zenyatta was where in this list?

Get really riledup...no where!! Oh, she was mentioned in the write up on RA...but for some very strange reason, they didn't think her worthy :rolleyes: of a spot on the list...maybe it just killed them to even put one race horse on their list:faint:

[Steve R]

Get really riledup...no where!! Oh, she was mentioned in the write up on RA...but for some very strange reason, they didn't think her worthy :rolleyes: of a spot on the list...maybe it just killed them to even put one race horse on their list:faint:
I think one has to be realistic about this. Thoroughbred racing can look very different from the inside and the outside. Those not directly involved, like Time Magazine, have no vested interest in individual horses, riders, trainers or owners. They simply look at events within the industry and decide, based on perceptions developed over time, what matters and what doesn't. When you are a "player", so to speak, you are much more likely to take an emotional stance and react accordingly simply because you are so intimately involved.

Probably millions of outsiders read about fatal breakdowns and would just as soon see racing disappear. Trainers, riders, owners and fans usually say "it's part of the game". Same events. Different perceptions.

I can only speculate, but the non-racing public recognizes things like the Derby and Preakness. Always has. Many may never have even heard of the BC Classic (recall that many localities have no racing coverage at all). When a filly wins the Preakness and does it by defeating the Derby winner, it resonates with the public consciousness. When a mare wins the BC Classic, it may not. There is no right or wrong to it. Time Magazine sells it product to the general public. Maybe they felt that if they included the Classic, many of their readers would say "Huh"? If that is true, it would only confirm how miserably the industry has developed the BC concept. As background, the combined TC races this year had a Nielsen Rating of 7.0. The BC Classic segment had a 1.1. That pretty well sums it up. Nobody (except us) cares about the BC.

BTW, with regard to my second paragraph, having been around racing for decades first as a fan and later within the industry, and having owned, bred, raised and early-trained several breeds of horses most of my adult life, even I find it increasingly difficult in today's racing climate to love horses as I do and still love racing as well.

[Show Me the Wire]

The only context I presented you comments in, is the one you put them in. If you aren't honest enough to keep your story straight for 1 1/2 hours, but keep changing it to suit the circumstance and pretend you're being consistent, that's fine by me, but I'll certainly call you on it.


By that measure, Zenyatta should only be judged by Anabaa's Creation and her inability to win anything this year other than a NW2X in April. Now, personally I think that's stupid, but if that's how you want to play it, hey, let's go for it. In a comparison between a filly who held on to beat 2 G1 winners, and a mare who struggled to get up and beat a cheap allowance horse, well, that ain't a hard one, is it?

I have made multiple postings in this thread and others about the same horses. My position has not changed over the course of weeks. My postings are in context to the whole of the subject and are consistent from thread to thread. However, I don't expect you or anyone else to follow all of my postings. You don't have to call me on anything.

Facts:

R.A. beat fillies by open lengths. Those open length wins did not translate to open length wins in her two, much ballyhooed, races against males.

The horses that came close to beating her in those two races have run up the track in subsequent races.

Winning on the lead is the easiest way for horses to win. With respect to Steve R's comment horses do not have the capability to understand the psychological advantage of tracking. A horse reacts to herd dynamics, in which dominance greatly factors in. Have you noticed, the great race mares run on the lead exhibiting their dominance, instead of taking advantage of the psychological benefits of tracking. Contrary to Steve R's assertion it is psychologically bad for a dominant horse to act submissive in the herd.

The only legit male horse she faced was Summer Bird, in a race, which was not ideal to show his talent, distance wise. If R.A. would have raced against and beaten Summer Bird in the Belmont, then I would concede she is the better horse. But there is the problem, her connections always duck the real tests.


Zenyatta, whom, really is not the subject of this thread, beat multiple winners, male horses that were proven winners at the stake levels, before facing Zenyatta.

If you can't understand the differences in the quality of the male fields as being evaluated in terms of prior performances and subsequent performances, I accept that. You and I disagree about the validity of key race type of analysis based on the prior and subsequent performances of the competitive entrants.

However, my logic you twisted would mandate comparing Zenyatta to the second place finisher in the B.C. Gio Ponte (male horses that almost won) Anabaa's Creation is one of the many female victims of Zenyatta.

[Show Me the Wire]

I guess I'll have to rethink my evaluations of horses like Dr. Fager, Seattle Slew, Affirmed, Spend a Buck, Ruffian, Count Fleet, Holy Bull, Lady's Secret, Man o' War, Twilight Tear, War Admiral et al. All those easy wire-to-wire wins. They obviously were overrated.

I don't suppose the fact that horses on the early lead win a higher percentage of races than those in 2nd, 3rd, 4th early could have anything to do with superior physiology. It must be a coincidence that Quirin (1979) found a perfect correlation between first call position and win percent:

FCP-Win%
1-26.6
2-16.8
3-13.7
4-11.5
5-9.6
6-7.6
7-6.1
8-4.9
9-4.2
10-2.2
11-1.6
12-0.8

BTW, FCP and average odd shows exactly the same trend.

It's a terrible thing all of these front runners are beating better horses simply because it's easier. What a ripoff!

I also assume you have never been a competitive runner and don't appreciate the psychological advantage of tracking the pace. All those track announcers telling me how a pace prompter is in "a perfect spot" must not have a clue. A perfect spot for what? To lose?

I have never said anything about all wire to wire winners are over rated. I maintain it is easier to numerically evaluate their performances. And if you have been in the racing business you know any trainer will tell you the easiest way to win a race is on the lead if you have the quickest and fastest horse.

I am limiting my analysis to R.A.'s wins against the males, because that is the basis for awarding her HOY.

Let me ask you a question, do you believe R.A., as a 3 year old, could handle even one of those older horses, including the female ones, you mentioned. I don't. Besides those great race mares you cited opted for dominance of the herd, instead of the psychological advantage of tracking ;)

[PaceAdvantage]

Do Rachel detractors / Zenyatta supporters live on a different planet than myself?

her connections always duck the real tests.SMTW, you disappoint me...and I'm surprised by that....

[PaceAdvantage]

And if you have been in the racing business you know any trainer will tell you the easiest way to win a race is on the lead if you have the quickest and fastest horse.What do you think trainers might say if asked:

"What's the easiest way is to win over the surfaces Zenyatta has been racing on in 2009?"

Something tells me "on the lead" will not be the answer.

[Show Me the Wire]

Do Rachel detractors / Zenyatta supporters live on a different planet than myself?

SMTW, you disappoint me...and I'm surprised by that....

BTW it is not about Zenyatta versus R.A. as I specifically omitted Zenyatta from this discusion, until I responded to a specific question.

There was not one good reason to avoid running in the Belmont, especially after winning the Preakness. Just think if R.A. would have taken on Summer Bird in the Belmont and won, there would not be this lingering question about the quality or the preparedness of the males R.A. beat. The case would be made.

My opinion is the connections have avoided the tough races and want to be rewarded for doing so.

[Show Me the Wire]

What do you think trainers might say if asked:

"What's the easiest way is to win over the surfaces Zenyatta has been racing on in 2009?"

Something tells me "on the lead" will not be the answer.

Dear PA

I would prefer not to make this a discussion about surfaces. I am not comparing R.A. to Zenyatta. I specifically stated, the proper thing to do with R.A. was to run her on dirt in the Belmont against Summer Bird. If the connections would have done that simple do able item, this discussion would be moot.

[Steve R]

I have made multiple postings in this thread and others about the same horses. My position has not changed over the course of weeks. My postings are in context to the whole of the subject and are consistent from thread to thread. However, I don't expect you or anyone else to follow all of my postings. You don't have to call me on anything.

Facts:

R.A. beat fillies by open lengths. Those open length wins did not translate to open length wins in her two, much ballyhooed, races against males.

The horses that came close to beating her in those two races have run up the track in subsequent races.

Winning on the lead is the easiest way for horses to win. With respect to Steve R's comment horses do not have the capability to understand the psychological advantage of tracking. A horse reacts to herd dynamics, in which dominance greatly factors in. Have you noticed, the great race mares run on the lead exhibiting their dominance, instead of taking advantage of the psychological benefits of tracking. Contrary to Steve R's assertion it is psychologically bad for a dominant horse to act submissive in the herd.

The only legit male horse she faced was Summer Bird, in a race, which was not ideal to show his talent, distance wise. If R.A. would have raced against and beaten Summer Bird in the Belmont, then I would concede she is the better horse. But there is the problem, her connections always duck the real tests.


Zenyatta, whom, really is not the subject of this thread, beat multiple winners, male horses that were proven winners at the stake levels, before facing Zenyatta.

If you can't understand the differences in the quality of the male fields as being evaluated in terms of prior performances and subsequent performances, I accept that. You and I disagree about the validity of key race type of analysis based on the prior and subsequent performances of the competitive entrants.

However, my logic you twisted would mandate comparing Zenyatta to the second place finisher in the B.C. Gio Ponte (male horses that almost won) Anabaa's Creation is one of the many female victims of Zenyatta.
The psychological advantage referred to was obviously from the perspective of the rider who, presumably, has some control over how his or her horse's pace scenario unfolds. If not, we might as well let them run free, herd style and see which one gets there first. We've all seen loose horses run with the crowd to the wire, even finishing in front on occasion. But you have written, incorrectly I believe, that rating is a more energy efficient style. Therefore, riders would be better served to keep their mounts a bit off a fast pace to save energy for the latter stages of the race. Yet horses in front early win a hugely disproportionate percentage of races and are more fancied by the best handicappers in the world, the public. Not only that, Quirin has also found that in a study of over 1700 races from 5f to a mile and a quarter, one of two horses involved in a speed duel won 47% of the time. So obviously rating behind horses battling up front is a disadvantage despite what you claim is a more energy efficient way to run. Now how can it be "easier" to win on the front end, even when the pace is very quick or the horse is involved in a speed duel, if it is less energy efficient than rating? It makes no sense unless it is easier because horses with natural early speed are simply physiologically superior. Not every one, of course, but generally. And I'm not talking about front runners plodding along in :48 alone on the lead. I'm talking about front runners who set honest or even torrid paces - like a Dr. Fager or a Spend a Buck. They didn't win because it was easier. They won because of physiological dominance. Take a look at Spend a Buck's Kentucky Derby in which he simply ground into the dirt one of the greatest Derby fields in history by setting spectacular early fractions. Then look at his 10f Jersey Derby when he was challenged through 6f in 1:09 flat, then held off the late charge of the colt that in his very next start won the Belmont Stakes in one of its fastest clockings ever. "Easier" is not the right word. Superior is.

As for evaluating which horses beat which horses, I refer you again to the Jockey Club Performance Rates which compare every horse racing in North America against every other horse. Performance Rates are based on an objective and unbiased algorithm. You won't like the results because they contradict your opinions. You may actually find that, relative to other years, this year's BC Classic field was below average. But far be it from me to suggest that objective data should ever trump opinion. It's much "easier" to defend one's position with perceptions than with consistent logic and facts.

What I find especially fascinating is the conclusion that the G1 winners the filly defeated weren't any good, but the ones the mare defeated were exceptional.

[Show Me the Wire]

Pontificate all you want. I am sure everything I have written is incorrect per your view. I am okay with that result.

Will you answer my straight forward question? Do you believe R.A., as a three year old, would beat the horses you cited in your earlier post? I already said, I don't think so. Are you going to step up and answer my little question?

I need to say this you are differnet kind of duck for someone that spends time around horses, in that you believe horses are machine like and have human like reasoning abilities and thought processes.

[Steve R]

Pontificate all you want. I am sure everything I have written is incorrect per your view. I am okay with that result.

Will you answer my straight forward question? Do you believe R.A., as a three year old, would beat the horses you cited in your earlier post? I already said, I don't think so. Are you going to step up and answer my little question?

I need to say this you are differnet kind of duck for someone that spends time around horses, in that you believe horses are machine like and have human like reasoning abilities and thought processes.
Brush up on your reading skills. I never said horses are machines in the context you imply. What I said was the way they use energy is bound by the same laws of physics that describe how automobile engines use energy. Note how I prefaced the sentence with "in that sense" and wrote the word "engine" in quotes. Or was I being too subtle for you?

As for your impression that I ascribe human attributes of reasoning and thought to horses, once again let me suggest you work on your reading skills. I believe I was explicit in differentiating between what horses do on their own and under the control of a rider. Apparently you are confusing the two. Do you really interpret my comment about them running free, herd-style, in contrast to my comment about a rider establishing a pace scenario as expressions of anthropomorphism? If so, you've got some serious cognitive problems. In fact, your "tortoise and the hare" reference, implying that it is the horse, not the rider that controls rating is one of the more anthropomorphic statements I've seen on this forum, right up there with horses getting "brave" on the lead. Indeed, slow and steady wins the race...unless there is a competitor that is fast and steady. Regardless, I still can't get past your logic that it's easier to win on the front end, even under conditions of a fast pace, despite it being less energy efficient than rating. You realize it is only possible for a less energy-efficient horse to defeat a more energy-efficient horse if the less energy-efficient horse is significantly superior, don't you?

And I have no idea if Rachel Alexandra would defeat the horses I mentioned earlier. What distance? What pace scenario? How large a field? How many of those all-time greats in the same race? Would Man o' War beat Dr. Fager at a mile and a quarter? Would War Admiral beat Affirmed at six furlongs? Who knows? It's a ridiculous question.

[FenceBored]

I have made multiple postings in this thread and others about the same horses. My position has not changed over the course of weeks. My postings are in context to the whole of the subject and are consistent from thread to thread. However, I don't expect you or anyone else to follow all of my postings. You don't have to call me on anything.


On this very thread yesterday between the hours of 11:32 am and 1:08 pm you went from talking about "R.A's opponents" without reference to gender or focus on any other subset

Occam's Razor: the simplest reason/explanation for the outcome.

A measure of how good the horse is the subsequent performances of the horse's competitors in races where the original winner is not participating.

Using this standard, which I have been advocating, shows that R.A.'s opponents are mostly inferior horses at the stakes level. -- #43 (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=799576&postcount=43)
in the post I quoted in its entiretly (a quote which you then said I was taking you out of context), to saying you are only talking about the male horses after CJ refered to G1 winners (here I will use only your concluding paragraph)

Her margins of victories, against the boys, were very small. The male horses she barely defeated have not validated R.A.'s winnig efforts, through strong subsequent, performances of their own. --#45 (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=799600&postcount=45)
to repeating that self-same "all males" refrain two posts later (again just the conclusion)

According to the above axiom, her races against the males were not that spectacular. -- #47 (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=799600&postcount=47)
to finally at 1:08, after CJ mentioned multiple G1 winners Take the Points and Summer Bird retreating into your last bastion -- "I'm only talking about Mine That Bird and Macho Again"

If you want to take my statements out of context, I can't stop you. I have repeatedly stated I am measuring her performance agianst the subsequent performances of the horses which came close to beating R.A.

I am hanging my hat on the subsequent performances of the two horse that came close to beating her. I can't be much clearer than that. The other horses you are talking about were not competitive and may have not been well meant on that particular day. The race could have been a stepping stone for the other races for the horses you mentioned.

The correct measure is the horses that were trying to win such as MTB and Macho Again. -- #50 (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=799600&postcount=50)

Consistency? Hah, the only consistent thing is you retreating in the face of facts that don't support your foolishness.



Facts:

R.A. beat fillies by open lengths. Those open length wins did not translate to open length wins in her two, much ballyhooed, races against males.

The horses that came close to beating her in those two races have run up the track in subsequent races.

Winning on the lead is the easiest way for horses to win. With respect to Steve R's comment horses do not have the capability to understand the psychological advantage of tracking. A horse reacts to herd dynamics, in which dominance greatly factors in. Have you noticed, the great race mares run on the lead exhibiting their dominance, instead of taking advantage of the psychological benefits of tracking. Contrary to Steve R's assertion it is psychologically bad for a dominant horse to act submissive in the herd.

The only legit male horse she faced was Summer Bird, in a race, which was not ideal to show his talent, distance wise. If R.A. would have raced against and beaten Summer Bird in the Belmont, then I would concede she is the better horse. But there is the problem, her connections always duck the real tests.


Zenyatta, whom, really is not the subject of this thread, beat multiple winners, male horses that were proven winners at the stake levels, before facing Zenyatta.

If you can't understand the differences in the quality of the male fields as being evaluated in terms of prior performances and subsequent performances, I accept that. You and I disagree about the validity of key race type of analysis based on the prior and subsequent performances of the competitive entrants.

However, my logic you twisted would mandate comparing Zenyatta to the second place finisher in the B.C. Gio Ponte (male horses that almost won) Anabaa's Creation is one of the many female victims of Zenyatta.

Yes, yes, restrict the subject down to nothing because you got nothing. Anabaa's Creation is the horse who fits "horses that were trying to win" and came the closest to defeating the horse in question. Oh, but that doesn't help you, so you want to restrict it to MALE horses, so you can hold up Gio Ponti (note spelling), instead of Anabaa's Creation. What a joke. Only someone who is completely insecure in his arguments tries to whittle down the points of discussion in such a transparent and pathetic manner.

As to subsequent performance, only 1 horse in the Classic has raced again and this multiple 2009 G1 winner lost to two 3 year olds, from, you know, the
weakest bunch of three year old males to run on the track. -- #50 (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=799600&postcount=50)
How are you going to try to restrict this from the topic now?

I've said repeatedly that the Classic field was stronger than the Woodward field, what part of agreement can't you deal with? But a year's campaign is not one race, or one or two horses, it consists of larger numbers.

[Show Me the Wire]

Steve R.

I didn't think you would answer. You are well versed in qualifying your responses, I am sure you could have formed an opinion based on a classic distance, stakes race. What pace would be the usual running styles, etc. ?You know the usual practical handicapping exercise you would use off your pps would be acceptable. I would not expect R.A. to change her running style or tactics dramatically from her two biggest wins over the male horses.

So you may assume it is a stakes quality race, at a classic distance on the dirt and R.A. is going to use the wire the field tactic? I have sufficiently defined the parameters for you. Will you answer the question now?

You have never specifically addressed any of my points, as I have yours.

Let's return to the subject of the easiest trip or way to win a race. In the DRF or whatever pps you will find a majority of horses with one life-time win while participating in eight or more races. The sole win resulted from being on the front-end and the lead. All the races lost prior to their single, gate to wire win, lost after were the results of having the psychological advantage of tracking the speed horse.

I posted the above real life scenario about the best trip or the easiest win to win not to convince you, because your cup is already brimming over with your abstract knowledge, but to further other readers understanding of the practicallity of the going to the lead tactic, R.A. uses.

[Show Me the Wire]

FenceBored:

My position over all the discussions has been consistent. I see you conveniently leave out the part I said over multiple posts in different threads, on the subject as a whole. You just want to go back to a few posts.

I can't help what other people post, I answer with the assumption they understand my prior consistent position about the subject. When I see someone is not familiar with my prior parameters, like you, I clarify to bring posters like you up to date.

Now that I have clarified my position, again specifically for you, would you like to address the points I raised about R.A.'s two much ballyhooed races or do you want to continue to deflect like Steve R.?

And my other consistent position is R.A.'s connections avoid the real tests for the HOY.

Also, for further clarification, the thread is not about Zenyatta or my opinions about Zenyatta. It is about taking a somewhat objective look at R.A.s performances in general and specifically her two races against males.

After all the argument over her HOY worthiness is basically she beat males. Therefore, the races against the males should be highly scrutinized. The fact she beat males means something, but what does it mean. Is that clear enough?

[Steve R]

Steve R.

I didn't think you would answer. You are well versed in qualifying your responses, I am sure you could have formed an opinion based on a classic distance, stakes race. What pace would be the usual running styles, etc. ?You know the usual practical handicapping exercise you would use off your pps would be acceptable. I would not expect R.A. to change her running style or tactics dramatically from her two biggest wins over the male horses.

So you may assume it is a stakes quality race, at a classic distance on the dirt and R.A. is going to use the wire the field tactic? I have sufficiently defined the parameters for you. Will you answer the question now?

You have never specifically addressed any of my points, as I have yours.

Let's return to the subject of the easiest trip or way to win a race. In the DRF or whatever pps you will find a majority of horses with one life-time win while participating in eight or more races. The sole win resulted from being on the front-end and the lead. All the races lost prior to their single, gate to wire win, lost after were the results of having the psychological advantage of tracking the speed horse.

I posted the above real life scenario about the best trip or the easiest win to win not to convince you, because your cup is already brimming over with your abstract knowledge, but to further other readers understanding of the practicallity of the going to the lead tactic, R.A. uses.
Fine. I'll answer, although I am mystified by your insistence that the filly use a "wire the field" tactic. In case you hadn't noticed, three of her G1 wins this year came while sitting comfortably behind the pace in the early stages. She never even hit the front until approaching the quarter pole in the KY Oaks, the Mother Goose and the Haskell. As for distance, I'm sure the folks at Pimlico would appreciate that you don't consider the Preakness a classic distance race. That aside, had she run another furlong in the Mother Goose or the Haskell in even a ridiculous 14 seconds, her 10f time would have been better than that of most Derby winners and many BC Classic winners. Plus, there is nothing in her pedigree that is inconsistent with 10f.

So could she ever beat ANY of those I named? Unless you can show me that they all always earned an equivalent Beyer Figure better than 116 or even 111, then I'd say she absolutely was capable of beating some. Dr. Fager? Probably not. Ruffian or Twilight Tear? Sure.

I'm not going to respond to the anecdotal example of how "easy" it is to win on the front end. It's a preposterous notion. It proposes that it was easier for Affirmed to win the Hollywood Gold Cup while fronting a speed duel in :45.3, 1:09.3 than it was for Zenyatta to win the BC Classic under no early pressure in :50.2. 1:13.3.

Time to end this, although I am disappointed that you think opinion and perception supersede actual physical data. Perhaps we'll meet on another thread.

[Show Me the Wire]

Again I am talking about her tactics to win her two ballyhooed races against the males.

Of course any horse can beat another on any given day, the bane of speed figures.
The question implies on each horse's best day or performance for the horses you cited, Mr. qulaifier of remarks. On each horse's best day do you think R.A. beats any of them. i don't.

My evidence is not opinion and perception. Open up the DRF and physically count. I am sure a large database would confirm front running victories are the most common and there is another thread talking about Steve Klein's findings about early speed. Is that perception too?

Your are so abstract your data and facts are akin to jello. You give lots of facts without any sticking (validating any point).

You avoid answering a straight forward question by needlessly adding in tangental variables.

Of course you won't opine R.A. would beat Holy Bull on his best day, because it is ludicrous to even think it (isn't that rue PA?) You duck the substantive parts of a discusiion, almost as well as R.A.'s connections avoid the real tests.

You are the quantative person, and yet you try and refute my statement with your non-factual opinion about my perception. Some facts based on actual numbers and percentages would go along way in disproving my assertions about a particular way of winning is the easiest. I tend to have confidence in Steve Klein's factual numbers and not your perceptions based in your abstract world.

[Robert Fischer]

probably Mine That Bird's shocking win in the Derby.

Surprising that Zenyatta won the 2008 award for the Ladies Classic. That was such a foregone conclusion. The most interesting thing about that "moment" was whether or not the bump to the nose she sustained walking with her pony in warm-ups would cause any issues. strange choice.

as far as rachel or zenyatta in '09 you've got the Classic as the best accomplisment and then you have to give some weight to the Preakness as it is a triple crown event. Fairly close.

[PaceAdvantage]

Again I am talking about her tactics to win her two ballyhooed races against the males.Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems you are downplaying her efforts against males because she somehow had it "easy" by the way that she runs (on or close to the front).

Is this accurate?

When I countered with the "ask trainers what the easiest way is to win on the tracks Zenyatta has been running on in 2009," you fought off a response and redirected the discussion.

I believe my point was pretty clear though.

If you downplay RA's efforts against males because she (according to you) had it somewhat "easy" because of her running style, can't the same be said about Zenyatta?

Of course it can. Because Zenyatta's running style was crafted to perfection to be completely in tune with the artificial surfaces she ran on in 2009. Imagine the confluence of events that had to take place so that Zenyatta was born at just the right time in history...a talented filly/mare with a running style CUSTOM MADE for synthetics.

How come Zenyatta doesn't lose any lustre in your eyes because of this, the same way that RA obviously does?

[Stillriledup]

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems you are downplaying her efforts against males because she somehow had it "easy" by the way that she runs (on or close to the front).

Is this accurate?

When I countered with the "ask trainers what the easiest way is to win on the tracks Zenyatta has been running on in 2009," you fought off a response and redirected the discussion.

I believe my point was pretty clear though.

If you downplay RA's efforts against males because she (according to you) had it somewhat "easy" because of her running style, can't the same be said about Zenyatta?

Of course it can. Because Zenyatta's running style was crafted to perfection to be completely in tune with the artificial surfaces she ran on in 2009. Imagine the confluence of events that had to take place so that Zenyatta was born at just the right time in history...a talented filly/mare with a running style CUSTOM MADE for synthetics.

How come Zenyatta doesn't lose any lustre in your eyes because of this, the same way that RA obviously does?


Awesome post. Totally agree.

[Steve R]

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems you are downplaying her efforts against males because she somehow had it "easy" by the way that she runs (on or close to the front).

Is this accurate?

When I countered with the "ask trainers what the easiest way is to win on the tracks Zenyatta has been running on in 2009," you fought off a response and redirected the discussion.

I believe my point was pretty clear though.

If you downplay RA's efforts against males because she (according to you) had it somewhat "easy" because of her running style, can't the same be said about Zenyatta?

Of course it can. Because Zenyatta's running style was crafted to perfection to be completely in tune with the artificial surfaces she ran on in 2009. Imagine the confluence of events that had to take place so that Zenyatta was born at just the right time in history...a talented filly/mare with a running style CUSTOM MADE for synthetics.

How come Zenyatta doesn't lose any lustre in your eyes because of this, the same way that RA obviously does?
You may be familiar with Cynthia Publishing's Winning Move Factor (WMF) which measures the ratio of early winning moves to late winning moves, a winning move defined as the winner getting the lead by the second call. WMFs are specific to individual tracks, surfaces and distances. A WMF of 100 indicates a balance between the two while a WMF over 100 favors early speed and a WMF under 100 favors late speed. These are the approximate WMFs for key tracks at route distances:

SA, 30 to 40
HOL, 20-60
DMR, ca. 60

SAR, ca. 60
MTH, 90-130
BEL, 50-80
PIM, ca. 70
CD, ca. 60

The California tracks strongly favor late speed in route races. Even the eastern tracks favor late speed in routes (with the notable exception of MTH) but not to the same extent as the west coast venues.

These data are objective and unbiased whether or not they agree with individual preconceptions. The point is that Zenyatta won consistently on tracks with a strong bias for her running style. Rachel Alexandra won consistently on tracks (again with the MTH exception) that also favor late winning moves in routes races but with less of a bias. The notion that her wins on or near the lead were "easy" is inconsistent with the actual behavior of most of the surfaces on which she ran.

Now let's hear the spin or the reason why Cynthia Publishing's data is meaningless.

[elksclub]

Cynthia does not seem to be accounting for ambient weather conditions rendering her data.....meaningless

I don't like her name ,either.

[Steve R]

Cynthia does not seem to be accounting for ambient weather conditions rendering her data.....meaningless

I don't like her name ,either.
Cynthia Publishing's WMFs do indeed take into account track conditions. They have data ranging from fast to good to muddy to sloppy depending on which apply to the individual track. Belmont routes will range from 50 to 80 on fast tracks to well over a hugely speed-favoring 200 on sloppy tracks. Monmouth is only marginally more speed-favoring in the slop while Churchill and Saratoga stay about the same fast or sloppy. Pimlico actually becomes more biased toward late runners on a sloppy surface. The California tracks obviously have data only for tracks labeled fast.

[Show Me the Wire]

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems you are downplaying her efforts against males because she somehow had it "easy" by the way that she runs (on or close to the front).

Is this accurate?

When I countered with the "ask trainers what the easiest way is to win on the tracks Zenyatta has been running on in 2009," you fought off a response and redirected the discussion.

I believe my point was pretty clear though.

If you downplay RA's efforts against males because she (according to you) had it somewhat "easy" because of her running style, can't the same be said about Zenyatta?

Of course it can. Because Zenyatta's running style was crafted to perfection to be completely in tune with the artificial surfaces she ran on in 2009. Imagine the confluence of events that had to take place so that Zenyatta was born at just the right time in history...a talented filly/mare with a running style CUSTOM MADE for synthetics.

How come Zenyatta doesn't lose any lustre in your eyes because of this, the same way that RA obviously does?

I did not want to make this an aws versus dirt discussion with a side of Zenyatta thrown in for good measure.

The posting is about R.A. performance on dirt tracks versus males. I am of the opinion R.A. would not be considered for HOY if she only beat up on young female horses.

I have been trying to apply pretty standardized evaluating principles encapsulated in the maxim of how the win happened and who was beaten.

According to that standard the two races against the males were not that spectacular.

Of course Zenyatta can be judged by the same measure. That is what we do all the time, whether it is by adjusted final time, pace, class, etc. The essence I is always how tough/competitive is the field and how was the win achieved. Competitiveness of the field is measured through prior performance of the competitive horses and the subsequent performances of the competitive horses.

Of course, in reality, different surfaces favor different styles. Dirt tracks traditionally favor early quickness and speed, which R.A. exhibited in her two HOY based performances. Additionally, the two male horses that have come close to beating her have finished up the track in their subsequent starts.

From an objective position, and you saw these two wins in your everyday handicapping you more than likely would not look at the prior races as anything special, if R.A. was facing quality horse coming from better races.

Remember, I am defining better races as we do everyday with key race analysis. How achieved is the field prior to the race and how achieved is the field by subsequent performances of the competitive horses?

We hear everyday in handicapping that a subsequent performance by a horse that finished 2nd or 3rd validates the prior winner's performance.

Basically, I am saying using these accepted guidelines her performance is being over hyped based on the field quality, as evaluated as I described.

Feel free to disagree; I am not deflecting, but trying to stay on point. Discussing Zenyatta’s performance should be the subject of another thread, in which we may conclude her performance in the B.C. classic is over hyped too.

Of course a remedy for the doubts arising form the two performances, would have been competing in a race on the dirt against the only proven legitimate 3 year old male, Summer Bird, like the Belmont.

[Dahoss9698]

Rachel Alexandra ran 3 races against males this year. The Preakness, Haskell and Woodward. In the Haskell, she beat Summer Bird, decisively. He came back to win the Travers and JCGC.

Why do you continue to ignore this performance?

[Show Me the Wire]

Truthfully, I didn't see it, and it slips my mind because I didn't see it to evaluate it, while the others stick in my mind and they did not impress me.

Good point. I may be ovelooking it, unintentionally.

[Dahoss9698]

Truthfully, I didn't see it, and it slips my mind because I didn't see it to evaluate it, while the others stick in my mind and they did not impress me.

Good point. I may be ovelooking it, unintentionally.

It might have been her best performance this year. Stalked the pace of stretchout sprinter Munnings. Actually was 3rd going into the turn with Summer Bird and Munnings in front of her, then just took off into the stretch and won by open lengths. She was dominating.

http://www.youtube.com/user/partymanners#p/search/3/rS1EG0zf8sk

[Show Me the Wire]

Very Impressive from a visual standpoint. Have to contemplate on it.

[Dahoss9698]

Very Impressive from a visual standpoint. Have to contemplate on it.


I have to ask a question. You've been one of the most vocal people here in terms of the Rachel/Zenyatta HOY arguement. Wouldn't it have been better to view each of their respective races and then argue one way or another?

By your own admittance you hadn't even seen her win the Haskell until a few hours ago. Does seeing her trounce Summer Bird on dirt change your mind at all?

[Show Me the Wire]

No, not yet. Summer Bird was attending the pace in the slop.

BTW I am more of a vocal critic of using speed figures as the determinitve method of proving which horse or horse is better. It just so happens Zenyatta and R.A. are great examples to use.

As I said many times, both accomplished what they were sent to do.

I admit, I think R.A.s connections avoided tougher races and ceratain horses, but that is entirely different than being a basher of the horse..

[PaceAdvantage]

No, not yet. Summer Bird was attending the pace in the slop.Summer Bird's running style changed in the Haskell...yes...he was much closer...

But, if you examine his lines from the Travers (won in the SLOP) and JCGC (won in the SLOP), you will see he was also close to the pace (in fact, he had the same EXACT running line in the JCGC as he did in the Haskell, until the third call when Rachel left him in her dust/slop).

Thus, when you point out that "Summer Bird was attending the pace in the slop," it sounds as though you are claiming this was some sort of detriment.

His next two races pretty much put that argument to shame.

[Show Me the Wire]

Not claiming anything yet. So there is no need to defend R.A.

I am not a fan of East Coast racing and I don't go out of my way to watch all the east coast stake races (time difference, etc.). I really haven't watched all of Summer Bird's performances, so I have no opinion as to whether it was his usual race or not.

When I said needed to thnk about it, I meant exactly that. I admitted it was a visually impressive performance. She nailed Summer Bird in this race to post.

But can you make the case Summer Bird was ready for a peak performance in this race? I can't without looking at the pps, etc.

I think a more proportional response, from you, could be informing me about the competitiveness of the field and the reasons why Summer Bird was ready for a peak performance in this race, instead of accusing me of setting up excuses for Summer Bird.

Off the top of my head the field looked pretty weak. 3 year old Papa Clem already proved he doesn't belong, Atomic Rain is not much, and I am not familiar with Duke of Mischief and Bunker Hill. Munnings is a very good sprinter going 1 1/8, which is really not his game. So, upon first impression, the field is not very impressive, outside of possibly Summer Bird.

What happened in the Haskell, doesn't effect my analysis or the facts of the Preakness and the Woodward.

One race out of three would not change my over all opinion much.

[Dahoss9698]

I think a more proportional response, from you, could be saying that since you aren't really familiar with a lot of the major races on the east coast this year, you should hold off on forming opinions about who Rachel has beat. At least until you take the 30 minutes or so it will take to go on youtube and watch them.

[Show Me the Wire]

I think a more proportional response, from you, could be saying that since you aren't really familiar with a lot of the major races on the east coast this year, you should hold off on forming opinions about who Rachel has beat. At least until you take the 30 minutes or so it will take to go on youtube and watch them.


What about the Preakness and the Woodward nothing has changed about them? I am familiar with the majority( 2/3) of races against the males and the majority of her races against the males are not too impressive.

Again no one poking any holes in my analysis of the Preakness and Woodward based on the methodology used every day in handicapping. The only hole poking is attacking me, because I am doing an analysis.

[Show Me the Wire]

One of the important aspects is how the race was won, besides the quality of the field.

Let’s discuss the concept that the easiest way to win a race is on the front-end. Every racing fan knows about stealing a race. Stealing a race is a common occurrence in horse racing.

Stealing a race can only be done on the front-end, in other words on the lead. You can’t steal a race from off the pace. Why, because the only place you can control the race is on the lead.

On the lead is the easiest way to win a race as you can control the pace and/or build a large enough margin which can’t be overcome prior to time running out. The actualities of the above-mentioned occurrences perplex me why Steve R. and others do not grasp the importance of head starts and the use of the lead to win races.

Now let’s do some thought experiments, like Albert Einstein, did to help him unlock the secrets of the universe. Imagine you are riding the quickest horse in the race, which posses the best final time ability at the distance. You know you are going to be the first or close to it out of the gate. You also know you are three lengths faster for the first two furlongs and a total of two lengths faster for the entire distance.

Understanding the advantage of early quickness and of final time superiority you visualize the easiest and best way to for you to cross the finish line first is to comfortably break first or close to it and use the horse’s natural quickness to take the lead, because nobody else is able to do so, without pushing their horse or you making a tactical decision letting them lead, and you maintain your speed edge to the finish line.

Why do you visualize this? Because I told you so! No, you intuitively visualize it because it is natural for the quickest and fastest horse to be in front and it is physically the easiest path to completing the task of winning.

The less quick and slower horses need things outside their control to happen for them to win, like speed duels.

[Dahoss9698]

What about the Preakness and the Woodward nothing has changed about them? I am familiar with the majority( 2/3) of races against the males and the majority of her races against the males are not too impressive.

Again no one poking any holes in my analysis of the Preakness and Woodward based on the methodology used every day in handicapping. The only hole poking is attacking me, because I am doing an analysis.

I have a hard time poking holes in the campaign of a 3 year old filly that was 8 for 8. She won the Kentucky Oaks, Preakness, Mother Goose, Haskell and Woodward. We're probably never going to see a 3 year old filly do what she did in our lifetimes.

It's been discussed over and over, but the pace was against her in the Preakness and Woodward, whether you admit it or not. It's not like she was alone on the lead crawling. She was setting legit fractions, and had enough left in the tank to hang on.

Mine That Bird stinks, but for a 4 or 5 week span in May and June he was okay, including a dominant victory in the Derby. She beat him fair and square. A horse she beat in the KY Oaks by a city clock (Gabby's Golden Gal) came back to win the grade 1 Acorn. Take The Points, who she crushed in the Preakness came back to win two grade 1's on the turf. Flashing, a horse she destroyed in the Mother Goose came back to win the Grade 1 Test and Gazelle. Malibu prayer, who wasn't in her zip code in the Mother Goose won multiple stakes after being beat by Rachel.

Munnings was arguably the top 3 year old sprinter before she broke his heart in the Haskell. He was never the same after it. Summer Bird was coming off a win in the Belmont when they met in the Haskell. She beat him, on a wet track that he has performed well on. He went on to win the Travers and JCGC. He's going to be voted 3 year old champ.

There are no holes in what she did this year, none. There are plenty of holes in your "analysis". Like getting the number of races she won against boys correct and who was in the races. not to mention actually seeing the races.

[Show Me the Wire]

I agree it was an excellent 3 year old campaign. Albeit a strange one that ended too early and left too many doubts. Why didn't she run in the Belmont, basically same cast of characters she already beat? Now that would have been a campaign, winning the Preakness and Belmont. Much better fit than the Woodward.

Yes, the pace has been discussed, and she set legitimate fractions, but she was not pushed, and yet she was fully extended to hold on in the Preakness and Woodward.

Based on the "how" and the "who" analysis applied to the males the who is not stacking up as great , and the how seems good for one race. The how against the sprinter Munnings. Munnings couldn't control the pace on the lead. Nothing spectacular about putting away a fast sprinter over a route of ground. What was impressive is the way she drew off from Summer Bird.

Did you ever think we only saw this special campaign because it came in a "special" year. The year of the inferior 3 year old males and older male pretenders. I do. Do you think she would have beaten Big Brown, or even Eight Bells? Personally, I think she is fortunate in her timing. Timing is everything. Inferior horses make better horses look better than they are.

I hope you understand, I enjoy these discusions and I am not trying to be difficult.

[Dahoss9698]

I agree it was an excellent 3 year old campaign. Albeit a strange one that ended too early and left too many doubts. Why didn't she run in the Belmont, basically same cast of characters she already beat? Now that would have been a campaign, winning the Preakness and Belmont. Much better fit than the Woodward.

Yes, the pace has been discussed, and she set legitimate fractions, but she was not pushed, and yet she was fully extended to hold on in the Preakness and Woodward.

Based on the "how" and the "who" analysis applied to the males the who is not stacking up as great , and the how seems good for one race. The how against the sprinter Munnings. Munnings couldn't control the pace on the lead. Nothing spectacular about putting away a fast sprinter over a route of ground. What was impressive is the way she drew off from Summer Bird.

Did you ever think we only saw this special campaign because it came in a "special" year. The year of the inferior 3 year old males and older male pretenders. I do. Do you think she would have beaten Big Brown, or even Eight Bells? Personally, I think she is fortunate in her timing. Timing is everything. Inferior horses make better horses look better than they are.

I hope you understand, I enjoy these discusions and I am not trying to be difficult.

I enjoy these discussions also. Another reason the game is so great. We can discuss races and everyone has a different take on them.

I'll give you the older males this year were a sad sort. They really were. In my opinion she would have had no problem with Eight Belles and/or Big Brown. Their crop was horrendous. I'm not taking anything away from either horse, because Big brown had a great year and Eight Belles never had a chance after the Derby. But it's hard to dispute their crop was among the worst in recent memory. I just think she is superior to them.

I don't know if I agree this was an inferior crop of 3 year old males though. Are they all time greats? No, but they are light years better than last year. Honestly, I don't know where Rachel will be judged historically. Or Zenyatta for that matter. I mean, if Rachel had the year she had because of poor competition, what about Zenyatta?

[Show Me the Wire]

The same could be said of Zenyatta, and it has been.

That is why I brought up big Brown and Eight Belles, because they didn't have much to beat.

I am not so sure R.A. would win those match-ups. And that is what makes it interesting.

[NTamm1215]

I agree it was an excellent 3 year old campaign. Albeit a strange one that ended too early and left too many doubts. Why didn't she run in the Belmont, basically same cast of characters she already beat? Now that would have been a campaign, winning the Preakness and Belmont. Much better fit than the Woodward.

Yes, the pace has been discussed, and she set legitimate fractions, but she was not pushed, and yet she was fully extended to hold on in the Preakness and Woodward.

Based on the "how" and the "who" analysis applied to the males the who is not stacking up as great , and the how seems good for one race. The how against the sprinter Munnings. Munnings couldn't control the pace on the lead. Nothing spectacular about putting away a fast sprinter over a route of ground. What was impressive is the way she drew off from Summer Bird.

Did you ever think we only saw this special campaign because it came in a "special" year. The year of the inferior 3 year old males and older male pretenders. I do. Do you think she would have beaten Big Brown, or even Eight Bells? Personally, I think she is fortunate in her timing. Timing is everything. Inferior horses make better horses look better than they are.

I hope you understand, I enjoy these discusions and I am not trying to be difficult.

With all the time that you've spent analyzing what the males Rachel beat in her wins in the Woodward and Preakness after she beat them, have you considered what they all did before they met her?

NT

[Jackal]

I don't see how anyone can say Zenyatta hasn't been extended. She is usually 10 or more lengths off the pace. No horse can gain that much ground and not be extended.

JM has ducked the competition since the start of 2008. All of Zenyatta's races other than the BC have had a 300k or smaller purse. Yet she stood in her stall to watch two Hollywood gold cups and other races with a large purses.

To be the best you have to beat the best consistently. The award is for horse of the year not horse of November 6th or best horse in CA.

[joanied]

I don't see how anyone can say Zenyatta hasn't been extended. She is usually 10 or more lengths off the pace. No horse can gain that much ground and not be extended.

JM has ducked the competition since the start of 2008. All of Zenyatta's races other than the BC have had a 300k or smaller purse. Yet she stood in her stall to watch two Hollywood gold cups and other races with a large purses.

To be the best you have to beat the best consistently. The award is for horse of the year not horse of November 6th or best horse in CA.

:ThmbUp:

[Steve R]

One of the important aspects is how the race was won, besides the quality of the field.

Let’s discuss the concept that the easiest way to win a race is on the front-end. Every racing fan knows about stealing a race. Stealing a race is a common occurrence in horse racing.

Stealing a race can only be done on the front-end, in other words on the lead. You can’t steal a race from off the pace. Why, because the only place you can control the race is on the lead.

On the lead is the easiest way to win a race as you can control the pace and/or build a large enough margin which can’t be overcome prior to time running out. The actualities of the above-mentioned occurrences perplex me why Steve R. and others do not grasp the importance of head starts and the use of the lead to win races.

Now let’s do some thought experiments, like Albert Einstein, did to help him unlock the secrets of the universe. Imagine you are riding the quickest horse in the race, which posses the best final time ability at the distance. You know you are going to be the first or close to it out of the gate. You also know you are three lengths faster for the first two furlongs and a total of two lengths faster for the entire distance.

Understanding the advantage of early quickness and of final time superiority you visualize the easiest and best way to for you to cross the finish line first is to comfortably break first or close to it and use the horse’s natural quickness to take the lead, because nobody else is able to do so, without pushing their horse or you making a tactical decision letting them lead, and you maintain your speed edge to the finish line.

Why do you visualize this? Because I told you so! No, you intuitively visualize it because it is natural for the quickest and fastest horse to be in front and it is physically the easiest path to completing the task of winning.

The less quick and slower horses need things outside their control to happen for them to win, like speed duels.
You amaze me. First, you seem not to even understand what people have written and then you argue your points using the most superficial and juvenile logic imaginable. You wonder why "Steve R. and others do not grasp the importance of head starts and the use of the lead to win races." That's a strange comment since I have invoked probably close to a half dozen times in this one thread alone the idea of physiological superiority and front runners winning more than their fair share not because it is easier to win on the lead but simply because they are better. Which part of that confuses you? The part that rejects the notion of "easier?"

I do get a kick out of some of your gems, though.

"Stealing a race can only be done on the front-end..."
"...it is natural for the quickest and fastest horse to be in front..."

They remind me of another line I once heard: "Many a joke is said in jest."

Brilliant stuff, as is your ridiculous "thought experiment."

Perhaps this is the topper: "The less quick and slower horses need things outside their control to happen for them to win, like speed duels."

I guess this makes Zenyatta the luckiest horse in racing history. Fourteen times in a row something happened that was out of her control. Or is that not what you really meant to say? Is it at all possible that things outside her control had nothing to do with it and that perhaps she was just better than her competition? You can apply all the formulaic thinking you like. In the end, a horse running within its physiological comfort zone, free of injury or mishap, will put in a creditable effort. That effort can be expressed from the front, the middle or the back. Even the stealing of a race is a questionable paradigm because it only can happen when the jockeys on the trailing horses lose their sense of pace. When their horse likes to be 5 back in :47, why would they keep them 5 back in :49? The only reason the leader can hold on is because there is a limit to how fast the trailers can finish regardless of how slow they go early. These situations have all to do with the riders, not the horses, and they are within "control." There is nothing special about coming from behind off a slow pace as long as the horse coming from behind has been in an energy-efficient mode. You write about these situations as if they were physical laws. Pure nonsense.

As for speed duels, you are simply locked into a false paradigm even though you've seen the data that negate it. Again, in his classic computer studies, Quirin showed that in 1705 races at major tracks from 5f to a mile and a quarter in which "two horses engaged in a speed duel, running within half a length of each other and at least one full length ahead of the rest of the field at the first call", one of the two involved in the speed duel won over 40% of the time with a profit of over 30% even when both horses were bet to win. It appears that speed duels don't really help the less quick and slower horses all that much. It's simply another of countless handicapping myths, this one failing to distinguish between speed associated with superior physiology and so-called "cheap" speed. Of course cheap speed isn't really cheap at all. It's speed not carried the full distance of a race, nothing more. A horse quitting after a half mile in a sprint is not displaying cheaper speed than a champion sprinter backing up at 6f or a mile in a route race. It's all relative, a concept you apparently don't grasp despite your allusion to Prof. Einstein.

Now aren't you sorry you mentioned me in your response? Just leave my name out of your discussion and you won't here from me.

[FenceBored]

Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you here. I've been busy.

FenceBored:

My position over all the discussions has been consistent. I see you conveniently leave out the part I said over multiple posts in different threads, on the subject as a whole. You just want to go back to a few posts.

I can't help what other people post, I answer with the assumption they understand my prior consistent position about the subject. When I see someone is not familiar with my prior parameters, like you, I clarify to bring posters like you up to date.


Sorry, that just doesn't hold water. You've said on multiple occasions that you want to look at "the males she's beaten" (group x) and at other times you say just MTB and MA (a subset of group x). These do not mean the same thing so the fact that you've said both of these things multiple times does not mean you're consistent unless you mean 'consistently inconsistent.'


Now that I have clarified my position, again specifically for you, would you like to address the points I raised about R.A.'s two much ballyhooed races or do you want to continue to deflect like Steve R.?

1. The easiest place from which to win a race is the place where the horse in question is most comfortable. Looking at Rachel's five G1s she is more comfortable sitting off Gabby's Golden Gal in the Oaks than on the lead in the Preakness. She is more comfortable sitting behind Munnings in the Haskell, than on the lead in the Woodward. So, no, putting her on the lead is not the easiest way to win with her. For tatical reasons they felt it was the highest probability way for those particular races.a. Preakness: from the 13th post position they had a choice of gunning from the gate or trying to settle her back behind the first flight to avoid being carried wide into the clubhouse turn. Not knowing how she'd react to being that far off the pace, they decided to gun it. Big Drama came out to the 3rd path to keep her wider than her connections would have preferred, but those are the breaks. The problem is that having gunned her, she wouldn't settle and pulled herself into the lead, basically making it a 1 3/16th

b. Woodward: Frankly, if they sent for any other reason than fear of getting boxed in, they were fools. Da'Tara was sure to be sent, so sitting off of him, pressing him, and letting him carry the load as far as possible seems like a no brainer. But, having seen Da'Tara used to box in Big Brown in the early part of the Belmont, I can see trying to avoid that. The first half mile was .03 of a second slower than the Whitney, so it would seem to set up for Bullsbay and Macho Again in the way the Whitney had for their placings over Commentator. The 3rd qtr mile was about .43 sec slower, but the final 3f was about .26 seconds faster than the Whitney.

And my other consistent position is R.A.'s connections avoid the real tests for the HOY.


Buying a filly and wheeling her back in less than two weeks in a Classic, contrary to the schedule the prior owners had trained her for, doesn't qualify as a "real test(s) for the HOY?" Running a 3 year old filly against older males in a Grade 1 in late summer (even a not so deep field) doesn't qualify as one of the "real tests for the HOY?" Okaaaay. :rolleyes:

Would you like the numbers on Belmont winners who have won the HOY in the same year over the past 25 (0)? Or, maybe the number of JCGC winners (2)? Or, maybe the number of BC Classic winners (11)? Preakness (4), Travers (1), Woodward (9). There are no set "real tests" as you put it.


Also, for further clarification, the thread is not about Zenyatta or my opinions about Zenyatta. It is about taking a somewhat objective look at R.A.s performances in general and specifically her two races against males.

After all the argument over her HOY worthiness is basically she beat males. Therefore, the races against the males should be highly scrutinized. The fact she beat males means something, but what does it mean. Is that clear enough?

No, the argument over her HOY worthiness is not basically that she beat males. That's Zenyatta, whom we're not speaking about now. Rachel's is a multilegged stool, (1) an undefeated season with more G1 victories than any other horse in the US, (2) more total graded victories than any other horse in the US (3) running record breaking and near record (< .25 seconds) races in multiple G1s, (4) running the fastest time for a 3 year old filly on dirt since 1990, (5) defeating males in G1s. I could probably add more, but I'm pressed for time. Rachel's resume is not so dependent upon the Preakness and the Woodward's field quality as you fantasize.

But, as to the field quality of the Preakness and Woodward, the fair method of evaluation is to take the entirety of the year, not just prior, or just subsequent, performance, otherwise you create a bias toward late year races (just prior performances) or early year races (just subsequent performance). The Preakness, from a standpoint of prior accomplishments for the participants was as stacked as it could be. With the G1 Wood winner and the G1 Fla Derby winner on the shelf you had every major Derby prep winner, plus the Derby winner. It's also a key race with 3 next out winners from 10 who have raced since. Looking back of the 12 opponents there was a multiple G1 winner, another 3 single G1 winners, 4 G2 winners. In short 8 of 12 have won at least a grade 2 stakes and placed in other graded stakes.



Take the Points - (4th in G2 Colonial Turf Cup, 3rd in G2 VA Derby, won G1 Secretariat, won G1 Jamaica, 7th in the G1 Hollywood Derby)
Pioneer of the Nile - G1 SA Derby (unraced since)
Mine That Bird - G1 Ky Derby (3rd in Belmont, 3rd in WV Derby, unplaced on pro-ride in the Goodwood and BC Classic since his throat surgery) Did he just peak at the right time to hit the board in all three TC races?
General Quarters - G1 Blue Grass (unraced since)
Musket Man - G2 Ill. Derby and G2 Tampa Bay Derby (unraced since)
Papa Clem - G2 Ark Derby (3rd in Long Branch, 4th in Haskell, 7th on turf in Del Mar Derby)
Friesan Fire - G2 La Derby (3rd in OC at FG on 12/3)
Big Drama - G2 Swale (won next out in 240k Red Legend at CT, 2nd in WV Derby, faded to 6th in Kings Bishop)
Terrain - 3rd in La Derby (broke down and euthanized in next out Iowa Derby)
Luv Gov - nothing, zip (last seen in for a tag of 35k at FG on 12/10).
Flying Private - nothing, zip (6th in Belmont, unraced after).
Tone it Down - 3rd in the Frederico Tessio (next out winner in OC at LRL on 11/13, 2nd in OC at LRL on 12/03).
As to the Woodward, it is a bit more of a motley crew as far as 2009 form goes. There were 11 different winners of the 11 G1 main track routes for older males this year won by a male, in other words no real standouts amongst the group. Here Rachel faced 4 stakes winners among 7 rivals: two G1 winners, a G3 winner, and an overnight stakes winner. And the G1 winners certainly aren't bad horses, but they aren't the strongest in the world either.


Macho Again - G1 Foster (with G2 New Orleans Hdcp earlier, 3rd in the Whitney). He's a decent horse whose 3 year old form shows inconsistency. Was more consistent in his 4 year old season, but tailed off following the Woodward. What you have to remember is that a closer who's off form isn't going to get up to finish 2nd. He/she will finish well back, so clearly he was still at his best in the Woodward. In the Clark he didn't even respond when asked, which is off form. The JCGC was either on form, and compromised by pace and track condition, or going off form.
Bullsbay - G1 Whitney (plus G3 Alysheba, and a overnight stake, placed in another G3). Graded stakes caliber, but not reliably so. Ran the same race in both the Whitney and the Woodward. In the first, it was good enough for a win. In the second race, he had to settle for 3rd.
It's a Bird - G3 Lone Star Park Hndcp (finished 1st in the G2 Oaklawn Hndcp, but dqed for substance positive). Also won the Sunshine Millions Classic. Second half of year has been poor.
Asiatic Boy has a bleeding problem (which is why he's in the US) and when it's under control he's good: 3rd in two G3s in Dubai before bleeding badly in the Dubai World Cup, 2nd in the Stephen Foster and Suburban in his first US starts this year. He apparantly "bled badly in the JC GoldCup" (http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/52837/countdown-to-the-cup-beyond-the-seaa-bird). Did he bleed in the Woodward? I can't find a report that says he did.
Cool Coal Man - Won two overnight stakes, twice 2nd in G3s.
Past the Point - One win this year in an OC. He's been 3rd in a G2 at SA and 2nd in a G3 at Aqueduct. Bit player.
Da' Tara - Will someone please retire this horse? He's sets a fast opening 1/2 and then fading like a cheap painting in the sunshine.
How does that group compare with the past few runnings of the Woodward? Haven't taken the time to check. I may do that when I have a spare couple of hours.

Again, the Preakness was as solid a credentialed group as you could expect. The Woodward was a group of hard-knocking upper 2nd and some 3rd tier graded stakes horses with Da'Tara thrown in as an extra. Not the toughest field to beat, but a similar pace allowed Bullsbay and Macho Again to beat Commentator, so I think Rachel deserves credit for finishing faster than that tough old campaigner and holding off these two.

[FenceBored]

Would you like the numbers on Belmont winners who have won the HOY in the same year over the past 25 (0)? Or, maybe the number of JCGC winners (2)? Or, maybe the number of BC Classic winners (11)? Preakness (4), Travers (1), Woodward (9). There are no set "real tests" as you put it.


Whoops, forget this paragraph. I was looking at a chart I thought I had completed, but clearly hadn't. A.P. Indy in 92 certainly won the Belmont and HOY, Point Given in 2001 as well. :bang: I know I have a complete chart of HOY vs major races, but the one I was looking at wasn't it.

[Show Me the Wire]

Steve R.you misconstrues everything I post. Did I write less quick horses or slower horses need only speed duels to win. BTW your example another horse won or benefitted 60% of the time due to a speed duel. So what is you point the best horse won 100% of the time, because speed is king 40% of the time and the remaining 60% of the speed duel races are won, because the winning horse had the psychological advantage of tracking. :bang: As, I said the data you cite is useless when put into context,

You project your own limitations about reading comprehension and logical conclusions to others, as you do not understand a speed duel is one of many possible scenarios.

I don’t understand your logic that a failure rate of 60% supports the proposition that winning on the lead is the best way to win a race. I would suggest a 40% success rate would buttress your original position that it is very difficult to win on the lead. Now I understand why you took the position it is difficulty to win on the lead.

Regarding my comments about you not understanding the concept of head starts, I was referring to our previous posts about tipping points and time running out. Usually, when I carry on a dialogue throughout multiple threads about the same type of subject, I carry forward previous discussions. Sorry for the complex thinking.

Thought experiments were the basis for Einstein's theories. You didn't actually think he travelled at the speed of light? Do you have any facts that prove the assertion wrong that the easiest way to win is on the lead, for the quickest and fastest? No, so why bother posting your inconsequential subjective opinion about the thought experiment?

Regarding Zenyatta, what I have said in many other posts citing your personal data, what makes her races so spectacular is, and this is very important, she is not dependent on what happens up front. Do you comprehend now? She is the exception to the general rule about the less quick horse, because she is so fast. Her speed over the distance over compensates for her lack of quickness. Thank you for allowing me to clarify this point about Zenyatta.

What is interesting, you seem to be the only one protesting my theory and reasoning about the easiest way to win a race is on the lead with the quickest and fastest horse.

Forgive me when I miss all the post in this thread and others where you agree being on the lead is the easiest way to win a race. What I recall is your disputing the general assertion and stating in no uncertain terms it is very difficult to win on the lead and there is a psychological advantage to tracking. If your posting that winning on the lead is difficult and tracking is a psychological advantage, really means that the most advantages (easiest) way to win a race is on the lead, I humbly apologize from my lack of reading comprehension.

[cj]

Regarding Zenyatta, what I have said in many other posts citing your personal data, what makes her races so spectacular is, and this is very important, she is not dependent on what happens up front. Do you comprehend now? She is the exception to the general rule about the less quick horse, because she is so fast. Her speed over the distance over compensates for her lack of quickness. Thank you for allowing me to clarify this point about Zenyatta.

What is interesting, you seem to be the only one protesting my theory and reasoning about the easiest way to win a race is on the lead with the quickest and fastest horse.



We don't know if Zenyatta is dependent on a fast pace on dirt to win. She only ran on it once and she had a fast pace to close into in my opinion. Now, some here disagree the pace was fast but I have many customers that put a lot of faith in the numbers I make. I certainly didn't go back and revise the pace number at a later date to somehow penalize Zenyatta. What we do know is that pace is much, much less of a factor in turf and rubber track route races.

As to the second paragraph, again, it is true on dirt. It is not necessarily true on synthetics and turf in route races. If Zenyatta had run on dirt tracks for her entire career with her style of racing, I would say it is about 1,000 to 1 she goes undefeated.

[PaceAdvantage]

Regarding Zenyatta, what I have said in many other posts citing your personal data, what makes her races so spectacular is, and this is very important, she is not dependent on what happens up front. Do you comprehend now? She is the exception to the general rule about the less quick horse, because she is so fast. Her speed over the distance over compensates for her lack of quickness. Thank you for allowing me to clarify this point about Zenyatta.And you completely neglect to mention the surface she runs over while gushing forth your praise.

What you just described, I believe anyway, is a turf horse. Turf horses, generally, do not depend on what happens up front either.

She is more a product of her surface than anything else, and I say this precisely because she has only raced ONCE outside of an AWS, and therefore, as CJ says above, we have very little to go by regarding if she can win against good quality stock on the dirt while facing normal/slow pace races.

[Show Me the Wire]

FenceBored:

You convinced me R.A. is the greatest and talking about two specific races the Preakness and the Woodward and the sub-set of participants is not consitent.

Happy now.

But I will leave you with this thought there is a race, the 6th race on October 30th at OSA an OC/40k which embodies this type of analysis I am discusiing. R.A.'s two races, (I will leave out the third for consistency) against the males can be classified as weak, by this analysis (how and who), as it stacks up to subsequent races at the same and different class levels.

You may learn something or receive a clearer understanding about what I have tried to discuss. However, if you only wanted to disagree with me me for disagreement sake, it really doesn't matter.

[Show Me the Wire]

We don't know if Zenyatta is dependent on a fast pace on dirt to win. She only ran on it once and she had a fast pace to close into in my opinion. Now, some here disagree the pace was fast but I have many customers that put a lot of faith in the numbers I make. I certainly didn't go back and revise the pace number at a later date to somehow penalize Zenyatta. What we do know is that pace is much, much less of a factor in turf and rubber track route races.

As to the second paragraph, again, it is true on dirt. It is not necessarily true on synthetics and turf in route races. If Zenyatta had run on dirt tracks for her entire career with her style of racing, I would say it is about 1,000 to 1 she goes undefeated.

cj and PA:

I was specifically, referring to Steve R.’s own data from an earlier discussion and how he is misconstruing my general statement about the less quick horse needing some help regarding his quip about Zenyatta (but the 60% hit rate against speed duels, does bolster my position). And I am sure Steve R. will respond with a post he never said that, but in fact he said the opposite, but I digress.

And now we are back to the AWS and dirt.

My postings were general concepts about the easiest type of win, in conjunction with an analysis regarding the quality of the fields R.A. beat. Nothing more and nothing less. Specific posts discussing general concepts as applied to R.A.

I understand now it was a folly on my part to even try. R.A. is the greatest horse to ever grace us.

[cj]

I understand now it was a folly on my part to even try. R.A. is the greatest horse to ever grace us.

That is hardly what I was saying. I think RA wins easily on dirt, and Zenyatta wins easily on rubber. The composition of the fields wouldn't matter a whole lot in my opinion, and neither would the distance if it were anywhere from 8.5 to 10f.

As much as some don't want to admit it, you can't really have these discussions without considering the surface because they are so very different. Or, to paraphrase my buddy Cadallakin, dirt horses run great on synthetics. They just can't beat good turf and synthetic horses on it.

[Show Me the Wire]

cj:

What you said is true about the aws versus dirt discussion, if I was comparing Zenyatta to R.A. I was not. I attempted to analyze specific performances by R.A.

Zenyatta's name, performances and remarks were raised by others, even though I expalined multiple times, I wanted to discuss R.A.'s perfromances in specific races on the dirt.

You may be in the minority with your assertion that Zenyatta would win on the aws, you better watch out :lol:

[Steve R]

Steve R.you misconstrues everything I post. Did I write less quick horses or slower horses need only speed duels to win. BTW your example another horse won or benefitted 60% of the time due to a speed duel. So what is you point the best horse won 100% of the time, because speed is king 40% of the time and the remaining 60% of the speed duel races are won, because the winning horse had the psychological advantage of tracking. :bang: As, I said the data you cite is useless when put into context,

You project your own limitations about reading comprehension and logical conclusions to others, as you do not understand a speed duel is one of many possible scenarios.

I don’t understand your logic that a failure rate of 60% supports the proposition that winning on the lead is the best way to win a race. I would suggest a 40% success rate would buttress your original position that it is very difficult to win on the lead. Now I understand why you took the position it is difficulty to win on the lead.

Regarding my comments about you not understanding the concept of head starts, I was referring to our previous posts about tipping points and time running out. Usually, when I carry on a dialogue throughout multiple threads about the same type of subject, I carry forward previous discussions. Sorry for the complex thinking.

Thought experiments were the basis for Einstein's theories. You didn't actually think he travelled at the speed of light? Do you have any facts that prove the assertion wrong that the easiest way to win is on the lead, for the quickest and fastest? No, so why bother posting your inconsequential subjective opinion about the thought experiment?

BTW, please enlighten me as to the

Regarding Zenyatta, what I have said in many other posts citing your personal data, what makes her races so spectacular is, and this is very important, she is not dependent on what happens up front. Do you comprehend now? She is the exception to the general rule about the less quick horse, because she is so fast. Her speed over the distance over compensates for her lack of quickness. Thank you for allowing me to clarify this point about Zenyatta.

What is interesting, you seem to be the only one protesting my theory and reasoning about the easiest way to win a race is on the lead with the quickest and fastest horse.

Forgive me when I miss all the post in this thread and others where you agree being on the lead is the easiest way to win a race. What I recall is your disputing the general assertion and stating in no uncertain terms it is very difficult to win on the lead and there is a psychological advantage to tracking. If your posting that winning on the lead is difficult and tracking is a psychological advantage, really means that the most advantages (easiest) way to win a race is on the lead, I humbly apologize from my lack of reading comprehension.
What you wrote was: "The less quick and slower horses need things outside their control to happen for them to win, like speed duels." No. You didn't say ONLY. What else did you have in mind? The horses in front falling down or bleeding? Don't be a fool. When you invoke a NEED for things outside their control to win you are saying they aren't good enough to win without them.

Your statement "So what is you point the best horse won 100% of the time, because speed is king 40% of the time and the remaining 60% of the speed duel races are won, because the winning horse had the psychological advantage of tracking. :bang:" is, I'm afraid, borderline illiterate. There is not one part of it connected to anything I had written, not to mention the shameful syntax. My reference was to the fact that even horses disadvantaged by speed duels win far more than their share of races. In fact, their IV is an outstanding 1.81. BTW, the IV for WTW winners in general is an even better 2.50, so speed duels do indeed take their toll, but not enough to negate the physical superiority of horses with early speed. Apparently you believe that speed duels are part of the "easier"-to-win-on-the-lead scenario which, of course, contradicts traditional handicapping folklore as well as the available data. Maybe that should be the strategy - get your horse into a speed duel whenever you can. And frankly, the totally illogical connection you made between a psychological advantage and winning horses not involved in the speed duels ahead of them is mind boggling.

I don't know if I'm the only one who rejects your "theory" "about the easiest way to win a race is on the lead with the quickest and fastest horse." How does that relate to winning from off the lead with the "quickest and fastest" horse? Regardless, I also may be the only one who doesn't automatically favor closers in a race where a speed duel is likely. Feel free to spin the resulting profitability of playing two horses fighting for the early lead.

Did I actually say that is was more difficult for a horse to win on the lead? I don't think so. I believe I rejected the ridiculous idea that it was an easier way to win, instead suggesting horses winning after showing early speed are simply physiologically superior. Big difference. And if you think the rider on a horse tracking the pace does not have a psychological advantage, then you know nothing about competitive running, which wouldn't surprise me. Then again, a psychological advantage is not a substitute for physical superiority.

Finally, "If your posting that winning on the lead is difficult and tracking is a psychological advantage, really means that the most advantages (easiest) way to win a race is on the lead" is the dumbest thing I've seen on this board in...maybe forever. I take that back. It might be matched by "Thought experiments were the basis for Einstein's theories. You didn't actually think he travelled [(sic]) at the speed of light?" I spent four years doing graduate research in a science and two more doing postdoctoral research. As a practicing scientist I am an author on 53 US patents. I feel qualified to comment on the basis of Einstein's theories. They are based not on "thought experiments" but on the rigorous application of high level mathematics to model previously observed physical phenomena. The mathematical model, not "thought experiments", then enabled him to make predictions of future observations. You should probably stick with "thought experiments" like "should I have fish or chicken for dinner"?

Please do me a favor and not refer to anything I may have written and I will do likewise. It is a pointless dialog and you are wasting my time.

[Show Me the Wire]

Steve R.

What else did I have in mind? In common parlance "like" is used to describe an example of some thing being discussed, it is not meant to be an exhaustive listing of all the events.

To answer your specific statements: Don't be a fool. When you invoke a NEED for things outside their control to win you are saying they aren't good enough to win without them.

I am not being a fool and that is what I am saying. Circumstances conspire to allow inferior horses to win.

Of course horses win when they are not good enough (speed figure and talent wise) to win solely through their own talent. They win because something happens outside their control to benefit them. Sort of like a speed duel, where a less qualified horse wins 60% of the time. It happens everyday an inferior horse wins due to factors outside its control.

If you understood how horses win, you would be able to visualize other scenarios. How about the best horse missing the break and expends too much energy rushing up to secure the lead. Do you think that event might help another horse win?

Only a myopic person would not understand the above concepts. Maybe you think I am foolish, because without understanding, why certain things happen, everything looks foolish.

Visualizing ways horses either lose or win a race is more productive then applying the process to dinner, only if you know what you are doing.

The rest of your post is a waste of time.

I have no doubt you have knowledge. Knowledge means you know something happens. You know horses engaged in speed duels win 40% of the time. Wisdom is completely different. Wisdom understands why the event happened. Understanding, when the two duelers is a good wager 40% of the time and understanding when the two duelers is not a good wager 60% of the time is the goal.

Now that I have illustrated another scenario, is the concept that an inferior horse needs help to win too simplistic or unrealistic for you?

[Steve R]

Steve R.

What else did I have in mind? In common parlance "like" is used to describe an example of some thing being discussed, it is not meant to be an exhaustive listing of all the events.

To answer your specific statements: Don't be a fool. When you invoke a NEED for things outside their control to win you are saying they aren't good enough to win without them.

I am not being a fool and that is what I am saying. Circumstances conspire to allow inferior horses to win.

Of course horses win when they are not good enough (speed figure and talent wise) to win solely through their own talent. They win because something happens outside their control to benefit them. Sort of like a speed duel, where a less qualified horse wins 60% of the time. It happens everyday an inferior horse wins due to factors outside its control.

If you understood how horses win, you would be able to visualize other scenarios. How about the best horse missing the break and expends too much energy rushing up to secure the lead. Do you think that event might help another horse win?

Only a myopic person would not understand the above concepts. Maybe you think I am foolish, because without understanding, why certain things happen, everything looks foolish.

Visualizing ways horses either lose or win a race is more productive then applying the process to dinner, only if you know what you are doing.

The rest of your post is a waste of time.

I have no doubt you have knowledge. Knowledge means you know something happens. You know horses engaged in speed duels win 40% of the time. Wisdom is completely different. Wisdom understands why the event happened. Understanding, when the two duelers is a good wager 40% of the time and understanding when the two duelers is not a good wager 60% of the time is the goal.

Now that I have illustrated another scenario, is the concept that an inferior horse needs help to win too simplistic or unrealistic for you?
I have no further interest in this discussion.

[Show Me the Wire]

I have no further interest in this discussion.

That is okay, especially since we really have not had a true discussion. You have avoided dialogue by evading my inquiries, in favor of pontification.

[FenceBored]

FenceBored:

You convinced me R.A. is the greatest and talking about two specific races the Preakness and the Woodward and the sub-set of participants is not consitent.

Happy now.

But I will leave you with this thought there is a race, the 6th race on October 30th at OSA an OC/40k which embodies this type of analysis I am discusiing. R.A.'s two races, (I will leave out the third for consistency) against the males can be classified as weak, by this analysis (how and who), as it stacks up to subsequent races at the same and different class levels.

You may learn something or receive a clearer understanding about what I have tried to discuss. However, if you only wanted to disagree with me me for disagreement sake, it really doesn't matter.

What could I learn from it, I already know you don't know what you're talking about.:D

But I will leave you with a couple of races that demonstrate that it isn't easiest to win on the lead.

3X9171jxrlE

And

mO6vm7TIvrI

[Show Me the Wire]

There are exceptions to all the general rules. What does the caption read on the Hawthorne video? An oddity in racing. Also, you use Zenyatta's race, the one horse I say her greatness is difficult to measure, because the way she wins races to prove what?

To prove you are like the other poster in this thread? You post items that contradict your position as support for your position, is that your point?

If so you definately prove it.

The race I referred demonstrated the validity of subsequent performances as a measure of field strength. But then why would I expect you to understand?

Silly me.

[FenceBored]

There are exceptions to all the general rules. What does the caption read on the Hawthorne video? An oddity in racing. Also, you use Zenyatta's race, the one horse I say her greatness is difficult to measure, because the way she wins races to prove what?

To prove you are like the other poster in this thread? You post items that contradict your position as support for your position, is that your point?

If so you definately prove it.

The race I referred demonstrated the validity of subsequent performances as a measure of field strength. But then why would I expect you to understand?

Silly me.

I agree, you are silly.

[Show Me the Wire]

I agree, you are silly.
:lol: You agree I am silly for expecting you to understand a concept :lol: :lol: You nailed that one :bang: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[FenceBored]

:lol: You agree I am silly for expecting you to understand a concept :lol: :lol: You nailed that one :bang: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

No, I agree that you are generally a silly person, who lacks the ability to express your arguments in anything like a coherent or consistent manner.

[Show Me the Wire]

No, I agree that you are generally a silly person, who lacks the ability to express your arguments in anything like a coherent or consistent manner.

Well if you read my post I desribed myself as silly for expecting you to understand. Well you agreed with me, in the context I stated.

Your initial post, agreeing to my silliness, reveals your lacking comprehession skills regarding the thoughts expressed in any cogent posting. You exposed your own lack of understanding contextual thoughts with your inane posting. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: I still can't stop laughing :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[FenceBored]

Well if you read my post I desribed myself as silly for expecting you to understand. Well you agreed with me, in the context I stated.

Your initial post, agreeing to my silliness, reveals your lacking comprehession skills regarding the thoughts expressed in any cogent posting. You exposed your own lack of understanding contextual thoughts with your inane posting. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: I still can't stop laughing :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Good, since I'm still enjoying a fine laugh at your inability to handle even the complexity of response in a childish rejoinder.

[Show Me the Wire]

Give it up you lost your big moment at slamming me, because you don't understand context or what you write.

You are being pathetic now. :(

[FenceBored]

Give it up you lost your big moment at slamming me, because you don't understand context or what you write.

You are being pathetic now. :(

Not as pathetic as you for insisting on using one methodology to evaluate a field's quality to the exclusion of all other methodologies, merely because it agrees with your preconceived result. How many wins have the Classic field accumulated since Nov. 7th? None. Now, would it be an honest measure of their class to focus solely on what they've done since the Classic and say that as a field they stink? Of course not. But, you engaging in similar dishonesty by neglecting the victories of the horses in the Preakness and the Woodward from consideration in evaluating their class. Neither simply prior starts, nor simply subsequent starts is sufficient to guage strength of field. A horse may be in the top of his form today, or rounding into form and do his best running after the race in question, or he may be going off form and while running well today run poorly in subsequent races, or he may already be past it and run poorly today and subsequently. A thoughtful, considerate person tries to construct a test that allows for all these possibilities and produces the fairest outcome to all. On the other hand, there is you.

[Show Me the Wire]

FenceBored:

It would have been nice if you suggested some other methodology and reasoning to address my "How" and "Why" analysis. But you did not. All you did was post conclusions, that I was wrong, without any reasoning to support your position that the “How” and “Why” analysis should not apply or tried to argument semantics. You brought no substance or value to the thread.

The only thing you accomplished was demonstrating your small-mindedness, by trying to insult me. The best part is you couldn’t even accomplish a small-minded insult.

[FenceBored]

FenceBored:

It would have been nice if you suggested some other methodology and reasoning to address my "How" and "Why" analysis. But you did not. All you did was post conclusions, that I was wrong, without any reasoning to support your position that the “How” and “Why” analysis should not apply or tried to argument semantics. You brought no substance or value to the thread.

The only thing you accomplished was demonstrating your small-mindedness, by trying to insult me. The best part is you couldn’t even accomplish a small-minded insult.


I did propose a methodology, and applied it to the Preakness and Woodward fields. You really do need to learn how to read.


But, as to the field quality of the Preakness and Woodward, the fair method of evaluation is to take the entirety of the year, not just prior, or just subsequent, performance, otherwise you create a bias toward late year races (just prior performances) or early year races (just subsequent performance). The Preakness, from a standpoint of prior accomplishments for the participants was as stacked as it could be. With the G1 Wood winner and the G1 Fla Derby winner on the shelf you had every major Derby prep winner, plus the Derby winner. It's also a key race with 3 next out winners from 10 who have raced since. Looking back of the 12 opponents there was a multiple G1 winner, another 3 single G1 winners, 4 G2 winners. In short 8 of 12 have won at least a grade 2 stakes and placed in other graded stakes.



Take the Points - (4th in G2 Colonial Turf Cup, 3rd in G2 VA Derby, won G1 Secretariat, won G1 Jamaica, 7th in the G1 Hollywood Derby)
Pioneer of the Nile - G1 SA Derby (unraced since)
Mine That Bird - G1 Ky Derby (3rd in Belmont, 3rd in WV Derby, unplaced on pro-ride in the Goodwood and BC Classic since his throat surgery) Did he just peak at the right time to hit the board in all three TC races?
General Quarters - G1 Blue Grass (unraced since)
Musket Man - G2 Ill. Derby and G2 Tampa Bay Derby (unraced since)
Papa Clem - G2 Ark Derby (3rd in Long Branch, 4th in Haskell, 7th on turf in Del Mar Derby)
Friesan Fire - G2 La Derby (3rd in OC at FG on 12/3)
Big Drama - G2 Swale (won next out in 240k Red Legend at CT, 2nd in WV Derby, faded to 6th in Kings Bishop)
Terrain - 3rd in La Derby (broke down and euthanized in next out Iowa Derby)
Luv Gov - nothing, zip (last seen in for a tag of 35k at FG on 12/10).
Flying Private - nothing, zip (6th in Belmont, unraced after).
Tone it Down - 3rd in the Frederico Tessio (next out winner in OC at LRL on 11/13, 2nd in OC at LRL on 12/03).
As to the Woodward, it is a bit more of a motley crew as far as 2009 form goes. There were 11 different winners of the 11 G1 main track routes for older males this year won by a male, in other words no real standouts amongst the group. Here Rachel faced 4 stakes winners among 7 rivals: two G1 winners, a G3 winner, and an overnight stakes winner. And the G1 winners certainly aren't bad horses, but they aren't the strongest in the world either.


Macho Again - G1 Foster (with G2 New Orleans Hdcp earlier, 3rd in the Whitney). He's a decent horse whose 3 year old form shows inconsistency. Was more consistent in his 4 year old season, but tailed off following the Woodward. What you have to remember is that a closer who's off form isn't going to get up to finish 2nd. He/she will finish well back, so clearly he was still at his best in the Woodward. In the Clark he didn't even respond when asked, which is off form. The JCGC was either on form, and compromised by pace and track condition, or going off form.
Bullsbay - G1 Whitney (plus G3 Alysheba, and a overnight stake, placed in another G3). Graded stakes caliber, but not reliably so. Ran the same race in both the Whitney and the Woodward. In the first, it was good enough for a win. In the second race, he had to settle for 3rd.
It's a Bird - G3 Lone Star Park Hndcp (finished 1st in the G2 Oaklawn Hndcp, but dqed for substance positive). Also won the Sunshine Millions Classic. Second half of year has been poor.
Asiatic Boy has a bleeding problem (which is why he's in the US) and when it's under control he's good: 3rd in two G3s in Dubai before bleeding badly in the Dubai World Cup, 2nd in the Stephen Foster and Suburban in his first US starts this year. He apparantly "bled badly in the JC GoldCup" (http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/52837/countdown-to-the-cup-beyond-the-seaa-bird). Did he bleed in the Woodward? I can't find a report that says he did.
Cool Coal Man - Won two overnight stakes, twice 2nd in G3s.
Past the Point - One win this year in an OC. He's been 3rd in a G2 at SA and 2nd in a G3 at Aqueduct. Bit player.
Da' Tara - Will someone please retire this horse? He's sets a fast opening 1/2 and then fading like a cheap painting in the sunshine.
How does that group compare with the past few runnings of the Woodward? Haven't taken the time to check. I may do that when I have a spare couple of hours.

Again, the Preakness was as solid a credentialed group as you could expect. The Woodward was a group of hard-knocking upper 2nd and some 3rd tier graded stakes horses with Da'Tara thrown in as an extra. Not the toughest field to beat, but a similar pace allowed Bullsbay and Macho Again to beat Commentator, so I think Rachel deserves credit for finishing faster than that tough old campaigner and holding off these two. -- #98 (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=801250&postcount=98)

[Show Me the Wire]

I understand the above post, now and then, as an a how and why analysis of past years runners and non-recent performances. Why would past year's runners have any impact on the quality of this year's field and R.A.s performance.

Also form is fluid, what happened 5 months ago is not important as more current form. Recent prior and subsequent is the basis of the how and who.

I understood perfectly. It had no relevance to the discusion so I treated it as such.

[FenceBored]

I understand the above post, now and then, as an a how and why analysis of past years runners and non-recent performances. Why would past year's runners have any impact on the quality of this year's field and R.A.s performance.

Also form is fluid, what happened 5 months ago is not important as more current form. Recent prior and subsequent is the basis of the how and who.

I understood perfectly. It had no relevance to the discusion so I treated it as such.

No, it's perfectly clear that you don't understand. I don't list any prior years' runners, or stakes winning performances by current year runners which did not occur within the current year. This was strictly an recitation of the best 2009 form of the horses in these fields. Do try to keep up.

You're saying that April's Blue Grass, SA Derby, Ill Derby, Ark Derby, and early May's Ky Derby aren't recent when talking about the Preakness field, but asking what they did in September and October is recent. You want others to think that a horse can't be on form in this race, but go off form before his next race, otherwise you wouldn't present this hangup on subsequent performance. But, really, it's all just a farce. What other fields are you evaluating in this manner? Would you like to use your farcical fetish on the Belmont, Travers, and JCGC next?

Subsequent performance is one, and only one, element of a comprehensive evaluation of a horse's class and form at the time of a particular race necessary to make a accurate assessment of the strength of the field.

Oh, and by the way, you didn't pay close enough attention to the race videos I posted (suprise, suprise). It's not that closer gets up for the win, it's that the front runner doesn't even finish 2nd, but also gets beat by someone who was pressing them. Thank you for playing our game, we may have a lovely parting gift for you in the green room, ... or not.

[Show Me the Wire]

No, it's perfectly clear that you don't understand. I don't list any prior years' runners, or stakes winning performances by current year runners which did not occur within the current year. This was strictly an recitation of the best 2009 form of the horses in these fields. Do try to keep up.

.................................................. ...............................



Apparently I have a reading comprehension problem, as I mistakemly understood you asked about a comparison to this year's field to past fields, by your following question from your post:

How does that group compare with the past few runnings of the Woodward? Haven't taken the time to check. I may do that when I have a spare couple of hours.

BTW, I already stated you convinced me how great R.A. is in a much earlier post. If you don't believe me look at my signature. I changed it specifically for you. :jump:

[Show Me the Wire]

FenceBored:

I say let's wipe the slate clean. What I intended to happen regarding the discussion did not materialize. Too many variables and tangental aspects entered into the whole thread. Some of it, because people thought I just wanted to stir the pot. I am guilty of it too, because I tried to cover too much.

In using the "Who" and "How" analysis, by trying to define the how more than likely did not help, but confused matters more. Also, trying to answer multiple parties at the same time regarding different aspects of the subject, does lend to some confusion. After reading and responding to many posts in a short time, I am sure, all of us, either read more into another post or possibly misinterpreted what was intended.

Also, I never implied that winning on the lead is easy if you are not the quickest horse and/or not the fastest horse at the distance. I tried to emphasize the quickest and fastest part, to try and further the discussion. As, I said too much complex ground to cover, my fault.

I apologize if my being overwhelmed led to any misunderstandings.