109 beyer for preakness ?

[big frank]

Andy has said the initial number is a 109........ do you agree or disagree ? I agree

[Some_One]

Yea I think it's good, the pace was run at a optimal way to ensure both got the best out of them, it would give Creative Cause a 94ish beyer.

[cj]

I said it would be around a 108, that I had it 5 lengths faster than the Derby. I thought the Derby was a 100, not 101, so it was actually dead on.

[lamboguy]

i thought that this was a real good race. that would mean that it would be impossible for a horse that didn't run in this race to win the belmont stakes.

[gm10]

My number for him comes up moderate again. That is probably a function of the slow pace, though.

The Belmont will probably his toughest assignment. That Bode-monster he's been running against turned out to be a miler ... but he could be up against some proper mile and a half horses in the Belmont. Class can carry you one extra furlong, but not 3 or 4. Interesting race.

[sjk]

I have it even higher. They run so few 1 3/16 mile races that it is hard to trust a par but I have it 12 pts higher than the Special and 17 pts higher than Shackleford.

[Steve R]

I had it as the fifth fastest Preakness since 1999 behind Smarty Jones, Funny Cide, Afleet Alex and Bernardini.

[cj]

My number for him comes up moderate again. That is probably a function of the slow pace, though.

The Belmont will probably his toughest assignment. That Bode-monster he's been running against turned out to be a miler ... but he could be up against some proper mile and a half horses in the Belmont. Class can carry you one extra furlong, but not 3 or 4. Interesting race.

The pace wasn't slow for that track and distance.

[CincyHorseplayer]

With lightly raced 3 year olds I'm sure it's not a shocker to see the speed figures go up.

[Saratoga_Mike]

The pace wasn't slow for that track and distance.

Where did your Preak pace figs fall out vs the Derby?

[gm10]

The pace wasn't slow for that track and distance.

Moderately slow pace imo. They finished fast enough but there was too much time "lost" during the first 6F.

[cj]

Where did your Preak pace figs fall out vs the Derby?

A hair faster than the speed figures for 4f, and a hair slower for 6f.

[cj]

Moderately slow pace imo. They finished fast enough but there was too much time "lost" during the first 6F.

I disagree, but I'll move on. Everyone else seems to have the race pretty fast, and I know A LOT about Pimlico.

[soupman2]

i thought that this was a real good race. that would mean that it would be impossible for a horse that didn't run in this race to win the belmont stakes.

Curious why you say that.

[TexasDolly]

The time for the Preakness was a little less than 6 seconds
(5.89 sec) faster and was for 1/16mi (1/2 F) less in distance . Why does this lead to the conclusion that the Preakness was "faster" than the Derby ?
It appears to me to be slightly slower in fact.

Thank you,
TD

[cj]

The track wasn't as fast as it was at CD.

[TexasDolly]

How much slower does that mean that the track was then ?
The three 8.5f races didn't appear to be that slow Sat.
Thank you,
TD

[philofbelloni]

My two cents...
I'm not a religious man but I read CJ's take on track bias as gospel.
Amen.

[sjk]

How much slower does that mean that the track was then ?
The three 8.5f races didn't appear to be that slow Sat.
Thank you,
TD

I have CD 11 pts fast on Derby day amd Pim 1 pt fast on Preakness day.

[gm10]

I have the track as 2 points fast. Nothing special, a fairly neutral track.

So was there really a fast pace? On the contrary I'd say, but please judge for yourself. Here are the Preakness sectional times since 2000 (by the leader after each section).

RACE_DATE GOING DTV S1 S2 S3 S4 FINAL
20/05/2000 GD 6 23.3 46.62 71.21 97.06 116.04
19/05/2001 FT 3 23.84 47.32 71.86 96.4 115.51
18/05/2002 FT 10 22.87 46.1 70.6 96.22 116.36
17/05/2003 GD -2 23.37 47.14 71.62 96.42 115.61
15/05/2004 FT 3 23.65 47.32 71.53 96.44 115.59
21/05/2005 FT -7 23.17 46.07 70.72 96.04 115.04
20/05/2006 FT -1 23.21 46.69 70.24 95.73 114.65
19/05/2007 FT -13 22.83 45.75 69.8 94.68 113.46
17/05/2008 FT -19 23.59 46.81 70.48 95.72 114.8
16/05/2009 FT -3 23.13 46.71 71.01 95.82 115.08
15/05/2010 FT -8 22.91 46.47 71.22 96.26 115.47
21/05/2011 FT -4 22.69 46.87 72.01 97.22 116.47
19/05/2012 FT -2 23.79 47.68 71.72 96.69 115.94

[cj]

I have the track as 2 points fast. Nothing special, a fairly neutral track.

So was there really a fast pace? On the contrary I'd say, but please judge for yourself. Here are the Preakness sectional times since 2000 (by the leader after each section).

RACE_DATE GOING DTV S1 S2 S3 S4 FINAL
20/05/2000 GD 6 23.3 46.62 71.21 97.06 116.04
19/05/2001 FT 3 23.84 47.32 71.86 96.4 115.51
18/05/2002 FT 10 22.87 46.1 70.6 96.22 116.36
17/05/2003 GD -2 23.37 47.14 71.62 96.42 115.61
15/05/2004 FT 3 23.65 47.32 71.53 96.44 115.59
21/05/2005 FT -7 23.17 46.07 70.72 96.04 115.04
20/05/2006 FT -1 23.21 46.69 70.24 95.73 114.65
19/05/2007 FT -13 22.83 45.75 69.8 94.68 113.46
17/05/2008 FT -19 23.59 46.81 70.48 95.72 114.8
16/05/2009 FT -3 23.13 46.71 71.01 95.82 115.08
15/05/2010 FT -8 22.91 46.47 71.22 96.26 115.47
21/05/2011 FT -4 22.69 46.87 72.01 97.22 116.47
19/05/2012 FT -2 23.79 47.68 71.72 96.69 115.94



Sure, the times are faster, but where did those pace setters finish? Try looking at the pace times of the winner, not the leader. Those are the horses that are expending energy the best.

The pace was just average, I'm not saying it was fast. What I am saying is the top two drubbed the rest of the field. The pace was fast enough to drop Creative Cause like a bad habit, but they finished fast enough that the top two literally ran away from everyone else. I don't see how the race could be rated slow by any measure.

[TexasDolly]

Thanks to everyone for the replies. I am not sure if I can reconcile the various posts so I will just make another observation . The winning time for the Derby was just slightly faster than the 50 year average time (122.1 - 121.83) or about .3 of a second faster,while the Preakness was slightly slower than the 10 year average (115.25 - 115.94) or about -.7 sec. Based on this it seems like the Preakness was in fact slower than the Derby even if those comparison are on a historical basis. I guess where I encounter difficulty in understanding the Beyers and other numbers of this type comes from the statement that the track was this fast or this slow on a given day. It seems like when you deal with the better horses they need to be dealt with on their own terms . I guess then that my number for the winner would not be as high for the Preakness as it was for the Derby.
Thanks,
TD

[cj]

How much slower does that mean that the track was then ?
The three 8.5f races didn't appear to be that slow Sat.
Thank you,
TD

What sjk said. It was much faster at CD.

[gm10]

Sure, the times are faster, but where did those pace setters finish? Try looking at the pace times of the winner, not the leader. Those are the horses that are expending energy the best.

The pace was just average, I'm not saying it was fast. What I am saying is the top two drubbed the rest of the field. The pace was fast enough to drop Creative Cause like a bad habit, but they finished fast enough that the top two literally ran away from everyone else. I don't see how the race could be rated slow by any measure.

Then we agree. That was my original point: an average pace has to be cancelled out by an exceptionally fast final fraction for the overall number to be very high. I don't think we saw that on Saturday.

This isn't to say that I think IHA ran to his full potential. Even if the first mile had been 3-4 lengths faster, he probably still would have finished as strongly as he did.

[cj]

Then we agree. That was my original point: an average pace has to be cancelled out by an exceptionally fast final fraction for the overall number to be very high. I don't think we saw that on Saturday.

This isn't to say that I think IHA ran to his full potential. Even if the first mile had been 3-4 lengths faster, he probably still would have finished as strongly as he did.

Even without looking at times or figures, I would find it hard to believe the final fraction wasn't fast when those two ran away from the rest of the field. I think it was as fast or faster than we've seen from any 3yo this year.

[cj]

Thanks to everyone for the replies. I am not sure if I can reconcile the various posts so I will just make another observation . The winning time for the Derby was just slightly faster than the 50 year average time (122.1 - 121.83) or about .3 of a second faster,while the Preakness was slightly slower than the 10 year average (115.25 - 115.94) or about -.7 sec. Based on this it seems like the Preakness was in fact slower than the Derby even if those comparison are on a historical basis. I guess where I encounter difficulty in understanding the Beyers and other numbers of this type comes from the statement that the track was this fast or this slow on a given day. It seems like when you deal with the better horses they need to be dealt with on their own terms . I guess then that my number for the winner would not be as high for the Preakness as it was for the Derby.
Thanks,
TD

Using average times from up to 50 years ago is going to cause lots of problems.

[TexasDolly]

You're right that probably is too long considering the quality of the horses today. The 10 year average for the Derby is more like 122.78 which would make the 2012 about
122.78-121.83 ~~ .95-1 faster .In this case then, the Derby race would actually be 1.7 sec. faster than the Preakness where previously I thought it was more like 1 sec. faster. I guess the difference is I attribute most of the time disparity to the horses and not the track. The truth probably lies somewhere in between and the track should be accountable for say 1/2 the difference. I doubt that I could ever make the Preakness faster, contrary to what everyone else seems to have found.
Actually I do my numbers differently then is described in
the prior discussions. I just thought that the times shed some light on the discussion without undo conversation about how to make a number.
If it's of any interest I'll post my numbers
pre/post Derby and and pre/post Preakness
Thank you,
TD

[gm10]

Even without looking at times or figures, I would find it hard to believe the final fraction wasn't fast when those two ran away from the rest of the field. I think it was as fast or faster than we've seen from any 3yo this year.

Sure. But there are limits to the machinery of the thoroughbred. They can only go that fast, or make up a certain amount of time, in the final 2F. The best closer in recent history never ran very high numbers according to many ... she didn't have enough pace.

[cj]

Sure. But there are limits to the machinery of the thoroughbred. They can only go that fast, or make up a certain amount of time, in the final 2F. The best closer in recent history never ran very high numbers according to many ... she didn't have enough pace.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I have to ask, since you loved giving it to me about Quality Road, is this kind of thinking that led you to come up with Went the Day Well?

[gm10]

We'll have to agree to disagree. I have to ask, since you loved giving it to me about Quality Road, is this kind of thinking that led you to come up with Went the Day Well?
When did I give it to you about QR.

WTW disappointed. This kind of thinking is usually more succesful.

[cj]

When did I give it to you about QR.

WTW disappointed. This kind of thinking is usually more succesful.

Oh, more than once, but I gave as good as I got, no harm. We use different methods that land on different horses. No big deal, we're all wrong a lot more than right. You have to admit WTDW was a pretty big underlay. I just didn't get him at all and said so before the race.

[JPinMaryland]

I remember CJ's comment as well and thought about the same. The horse was closing at a decent clip (e.g. 25.5 sec in the final fract) in the derby when all the other horses were fading and so it seemed a classic passing tired horses knock on him. I also thought this horse doesnt really want to pass other horses but I cant recall all the PPs now.

[JPinMaryland]

You're right that probably is too long considering the quality of the horses today. The 10 year average for the Derby is more like 122.78 which would make the 2012 about
122.78-121.83 ~~ .95-1 faster . ...D


but we've had several off tracks in that period, yes? 2010 and 2011, I think were both on off tracks. Was Smarty JOnes in 04 also off track? so this 2.02.8 seems quite a bit off as any sort of average on a fast track CD track.

It seems that final times have been settling in on 2.01 2.02 for 50 years or more. I am not sure quite why the last 50 years is a problem for CJ as suggested a few posts back.

I dont really see the TB breed as getting faster although others do. Certainly track records are not falling in the same mannter/rate as track field records once did. You still see a few old records hanging on, like Artax I think. One would expect old records to expire a bit just on sheer weight of data pts.; not any across the board trend.

The only thing I notice different about say the last 15 years or so, is that given a moderate pace and a fast track, these horses are almost guaranteed to run in the neighborhood of 2.01 and change. They seem more consistent at gettting at least one horse in that range.

[Valuist]

but we've had several off tracks in that period, yes? 2010 and 2011, I think were both on off tracks. Was Smarty JOnes in 04 also off track? so this 2.02.8 seems quite a bit off as any sort of average on a fast track CD track.

It seems that final times have been settling in on 2.01 2.02 for 50 years or more. I am not sure quite why the last 50 years is a problem for CJ as suggested a few posts back.

I dont really see the TB breed as getting faster although others do. Certainly track records are not falling in the same mannter/rate as track field records once did. You still see a few old records hanging on, like Artax I think. One would expect old records to expire a bit just on sheer weight of data pts.; not any across the board trend.

The only thing I notice different about say the last 15 years or so, is that given a moderate pace and a fast track, these horses are almost guaranteed to run in the neighborhood of 2.01 and change. They seem more consistent at gettting at least one horse in that range.

You can't look at unadjusted times. Using that thinking, Monarchos would be one of the all-time greats since he ran the 2nd fastest Derby. Of course he was doing it over what basically was a concrete highway.

[classhandicapper]

I just want to add one comment to this discussion because its easy to get confused when people are discussing fast or slow paces.

1. There is fast or slow in relation to the final time or class

2. There is fast or slow in relation to an individual horse within the race.

A pace that is average for the Preakness, in relation to the final time, or Bodemeister may be killer fast for some of the inferior horses chasing him.

[raybo]

What sjk said. It was much faster at CD.

Could this belief be the result of a Bodemeister that blistered the fractions in the Derby then died in the stretch, while IHA came on strong to keep the final time decent?

Then in the Preakness, you have a tired horse, in Bodemeister, along with the trainer and Jockey agreeing to slow the pace some, for what I believe was the same reason (why slow the pace in a 1/6th mile shorter race when Bodemeister beat IHA to the 1/16th pole in a 1/16th mile longer race) causing the early pace to be slower and IHA just barely beating him to wire?

I mean, if you consider everything that happened, before and after the Derby, regarding the pace setter in both races, that the slower pace and final times in the Preakness, versus the Derby, might have been due to a pace setter that might not have been as fit as he was prior to running the Derby on short rest and then running the Preakness, already in need of a break, and not due to a slower surface?

I don't guess most here see what I saw before the Preakness ever ran, regarding Bodemeister. I had posted before the Preakness that if he was my horse I would skip the Preakness, due to lack of recuperation time (after having run 2 stressful, energy draining races in such a short time period), and due to his already having lost any chance for a TC, and allowing him to get fit for the Belmont, in my opinion, the most important race of the 3 TC races, if you're looking toward the future stud value of the horse.

[raybo]

Is the poster, who stated that Bodemeister is a mile horse, serious, or just blind? How do you finish a neck behind in the Preakness, to what many seem to think is the 2nd coming, if you're only a mile horse?

[cj]

Could this belief be the result of a Bodemeister that blistered the fractions in the Derby then died in the stretch, while IHA came on strong to keep the final time decent?

Then in the Preakness, you have a tired horse, in Bodemeister, along with the trainer and Jockey agreeing to slow the pace some, for what I believe was the same reason (why slow the pace in a 1/6th mile shorter race when Bodemeister beat IHA to the 1/16th pole in a 1/16th mile longer race) causing the early pace to be slower and IHA just barely beating him to wire?

I mean, if you consider everything that happened, before and after the Derby, regarding the pace setter in both races, that the slower pace and final times in the Preakness, versus the Derby, might have been due to a pace setter that might not have been as fit as he was prior to running the Derby on short rest and then running the Preakness, already in need of a break, and not due to a slower surface?

I don't guess most here see what I saw before the Preakness ever ran, regarding Bodemeister. I had posted before the Preakness that if he was my horse I would skip the Preakness, due to lack of recuperation time (after having run 2 stressful, energy draining races in such a short time period), and due to his already having lost any chance for a TC, and allowing him to get fit for the Belmont, in my opinion, the most important race of the 3 TC races, if you're looking toward the future stud value of the horse.

You are leaving out a big part of it though. There were NINE dirt races on the Derby card, and 6 dirt races on the Preakness card. I'm not basing track speed on two horses from one race each day. I don't have the exact number of dirt horses from the days, but I base it on many of them, not just two.

I've already addressed the two week/tired horse thing. It is hogwash and has been proven out many, many times in the past. Sure, you can't keep doing it for eternity, but doing it once after the Derby has never been shown to cause "tired horses" in the Preakness.

[RXB]

Is the poster, who stated that Bodemeister is a mile horse, serious, or just blind? How do you finish a neck behind in the Preakness, to what many seem to think is the 2nd coming, if you're only a mile horse?

Personally I think he's fine to 9f, but suggesting he's a miler is closer to the truth than suggesting he can handle 12f.

Who thinks IHA is the second coming? You say "many" think that-- I haven't seen anyone say that, let alone many.

[tucker6]

I've already addressed the two week/tired horse thing. It is hogwash and has been proven out many, many times in the past. Sure, you can't keep doing it for eternity, but doing it once after the Derby has never been shown to cause "tired horses" in the Preakness.
precisely. Secretariat (not to be confused with Bodemiester) ran four straight times two weeks apart in the spring of 1973, with the KD and Preakness being the 3rd and 4th races. Not only did he set track records in both of those races, but then went onto the Belmont ...

Point being that it's been done numerous times, and those using that excuse are doing so rather than objectively looking at the horse. Currently, Bode has one style which limits him to 8-9F races until he matures into a more versatile racehorse. That's the truth whether Raybo acknowledges it or not. Once he starts racing older horses later this summer, Bode will need more than front end speed because several IHA-type horses will be entered in races.

[Tom]

Take IHA out of the Preakness and look at BM's performance...and Beyer.
Tell me he was a spent horse.

[Maximillion]

Take IHA out of the Preakness and look at BM's performance...and Beyer.
Tell me he was a spent horse.


Exactly,and imagine yourself looking at the chart(minus IHA),Beyer, etc. and ask yourself if there was any way he would be beaten.

[Sysonby]

Secretariat had a heart twice the size of a normal horse, hardly a fair comparison to any horse.

[tucker6]

Secretariat had a heart twice the size of a normal horse, hardly a fair comparison to any horse.
true, which I used as but one example. Running every two weeks before and during the TC series been done numerous times over the years. As Tom states, Bode had a better Preakness than he did the KD. His only problem is that IHA had a better Preakness as well.

Getting back to Secretariat for a second, he raced two 12F races in Sept/Oct 1973 ten days apart. You won't see that ever again. Both fast times. He was such a machine.

[JPinMaryland]

You can't look at unadjusted times. Using that thinking, Monarchos would be one of the all-time greats since he ran the 2nd fastest Derby. Of course he was doing it over what basically was a concrete highway.

NO. It wouldnt make Monarchos an all time great any more than one season would make Roger Maris better than Hank Aaron or Mickey Mantle. Or one game would make Josh Hamilton better than them. It is elementary that a one time thing making someone or something an all time great just doesnt compute....

While I agree that unadjusted times are not the be all and end all I cant agree with your Monarchos reasoning. WHy is it so hard to believe that for one day on one track Monarchos could have run the fastest derby? Would this one race really cause you to abandon all your theories of horse racing?

Ironically, that strip Secretariat ran over in the 73 derby has to be one of the fastest tracks anyways. So your comment is doubly amusing. Did you see the final fractions run by horses like Navajo and Shecky Greene? I guess most professional handicappers make variants differently, but just looking at how the horses finished tells me alot about how fast that surface was.

Also, if final times are so out of whack why are so many of the derbies in the last 50 years or so coming in at 2.01-2.02? Are these horses much better or much worse than that? It's hard to imagine that there is much room left over for a surface variant (assuming no rain) once you factor in pace. I dont see it but maybe you do.

If you really want to seriously debate it, then how would you go about creating an object method to determine how fast the historical surfaces were on derby day? I would put Whirlaways, Decidedly's and Monarchos races right up there with Secretariats. SpendaBuck's race was unreal because of the pace (I dont think SaB's final time was as great but his race gives us an idea of how much pace takes out of you for an ideal horse) .

How would you split the difference among those races? I cant imagine there would be much difference if you were to adjust for surface from 1962 to 2001. Obviously WHirlaway was running in iron shoes so there's that, I think he was a little wide on the turn. Monarchos was like 5 wide on the turn, and Decidely also went wide. YOu think Sec. is much faster than these?

I dont see it. I see all four or five of these horses being in a photo if they were all allowed to run their race in the same path.

The pt being if you can't create some sort of surface variants for these top horses at the derby, then what does that tell us about surface variants?

[Greyfox]

Take IHA out of the Preakness and look at BM's performance...and Beyer.
Tell me he was a spent horse.

Obviously he wasn't a spent horse going into the race.
Different colts require different lengths of time to recuperate from an all out effort.

[cj]

While I agree that unadjusted times are not the be all and end all I cant agree with your Monarchos reasoning. WHy is it so hard to believe that for one day on one track Monarchos could have run the fastest derby? Would this one race really cause you to abandon all your theories of horse racing?


It isn't because of just Monarchos. There were tons of horses to run on the card. The Derby wasn't run in isolation. Also, the runner up in that Derby didn't exactly set the world on fire either.

[JPinMaryland]

well that's interesting, CJ. Can you tell me this: using final times as a standard (instead of Beyer numbers or whatever) how much would the maximum adjustment up or down be for Ky derby, assuming the track is fast?

E..g say we make par as 2.01 1/2. THen a fast track might be one sec faster and a slow track two sec. slower.

What sort of time adjustments do you think would be max and min?

[KingChas]

Here's the Derby/Preakness explanations;

http://www.drf.com/news/jerardi-science-behind-beyer-figures

[bettheoverlay]

Jerardi :

"The figures are not, as was suggested by some of the comments, subjective. This is science not art. It is based on mathematics. A figure is not a performance rating; it is a speed figure. It is not an opinion. There is no bias. The numbers are the numbers."


Beyer:

"Making speed figures is not an exact science and sometimes it’s a messy process. But the best way to cope with difficult conditions is to use human judgment (as opposed to relying on a computer program) and to be flexible enough to change the figures when the evidence changes."

[Greyfox]

Jerardi :

"The figures are not, as was suggested by some of the comments, subjective. This is science not art. It is based on mathematics. A figure is not a performance rating; it is a speed figure. It is not an opinion. There is no bias. The numbers are the numbers."


Beyer:

"Making speed figures is not an exact science and sometimes it’s a messy process. But the best way to cope with difficult conditions is to use human judgment (as opposed to relying on a computer program) and to be flexible enough to change the figures when the evidence changes."

Beyer figures are an excellent tool.
All physical instruments have a standard degree of error.
That error is magnified when human judgement has to enter into the picture to produce the final resultant.
I think that Andy's comment that "making speed figures is not an exact science" is spot on.
As horseplayers we have to accept that our numbers are "rough estimates" at best, but they are better than no estimates at all.

[Bullet Plane]

Here's the Derby/Preakness explanations;

http://www.drf.com/news/jerardi-science-behind-beyer-figures

Thanks. I had missed those articles.

[Valuist]

NO. It wouldnt make Monarchos an all time great any more than one season would make Roger Maris better than Hank Aaron or Mickey Mantle. Or one game would make Josh Hamilton better than them. It is elementary that a one time thing making someone or something an all time great just doesnt compute....

While I agree that unadjusted times are not the be all and end all I cant agree with your Monarchos reasoning. WHy is it so hard to believe that for one day on one track Monarchos could have run the fastest derby? Would this one race really cause you to abandon all your theories of horse racing?

Ironically, that strip Secretariat ran over in the 73 derby has to be one of the fastest tracks anyways. So your comment is doubly amusing. Did you see the final fractions run by horses like Navajo and Shecky Greene? I guess most professional handicappers make variants differently, but just looking at how the horses finished tells me alot about how fast that surface was.

Also, if final times are so out of whack why are so many of the derbies in the last 50 years or so coming in at 2.01-2.02? Are these horses much better or much worse than that? It's hard to imagine that there is much room left over for a surface variant (assuming no rain) once you factor in pace. I dont see it but maybe you do.

If you really want to seriously debate it, then how would you go about creating an object method to determine how fast the historical surfaces were on derby day? I would put Whirlaways, Decidedly's and Monarchos races right up there with Secretariats. SpendaBuck's race was unreal because of the pace (I dont think SaB's final time was as great but his race gives us an idea of how much pace takes out of you for an ideal horse) .

How would you split the difference among those races? I cant imagine there would be much difference if you were to adjust for surface from 1962 to 2001. Obviously WHirlaway was running in iron shoes so there's that, I think he was a little wide on the turn. Monarchos was like 5 wide on the turn, and Decidely also went wide. YOu think Sec. is much faster than these?

I dont see it. I see all four or five of these horses being in a photo if they were all allowed to run their race in the same path.

The pt being if you can't create some sort of surface variants for these top horses at the derby, then what does that tell us about surface variants?

I looked up the charts at Churchill from May 5, 2001. The track was even faster than I thought:

3YO filly NW1X 6 1/2 furlongs in 1:14.34
Class Allowance 6 furlongs in 1:08.35
Grade 2 CD Cap 7 furlongs in 1:20.50 (believe it was a track record at the time)
Grade 2 Distaff 7 furlongs in 1:20.70

THAT is a paved highway.

[cj]

well that's interesting, CJ. Can you tell me this: using final times as a standard (instead of Beyer numbers or whatever) how much would the maximum adjustment up or down be for Ky derby, assuming the track is fast?

E..g say we make par as 2.01 1/2. THen a fast track might be one sec faster and a slow track two sec. slower.

What sort of time adjustments do you think would be max and min?

I'd have to do some work, but over a distance that great (10f) the swings could be much larger than 1 second in either direction.

[raybo]

I surrender, I don't know anything!

Ok, we'll just have to wait and see what Bodemeister does in the future, and what IHA does. I'll be watching all the horses Bodemeister whipped soundly, too.

[raybo]

Exactly,and imagine yourself looking at the chart(minus IHA),Beyer, etc. and ask yourself if there was any way he would be beaten.

You made my point. If you think Bodemeister ran his best race in the Preakness, then why did both the trainer and jockey decide, before the race, to slow the fractions, versus the Derby. In the Derby he set the 4th or 5th fastest fractions in Derby history ad beat IHA to the 1 3/16th mile mark. Why in the world would the trainer/jockey run the 1 3/16th mile Preakness differently than in the Derby? He already proved he could beat IHA in that distance, by running very fast fractions.

My contention is that slowing the fractions in the Preakness took away his advantage over IHA. And the only thing that makes sense for slowing the fractions, IMO, is that the horse was not at the top of his condition cycle, after having run 2 tough races in a row. The thinking appeared to me to be that if they slow his fractions he might be able to finish strong, and if they let him run early he will die worse than he did in the Derby. All that did was allow IHA to save energy and be closer to Bode in the turn, and run stronger to the 1 3/16 mile distance than he did in the Derby.

If you're running a shorter race, you don't run slower fractions, you run faster ones, if your horse is in condition to do it.

Again, if I'm the trainer, after that grueling Derby run, I sit him down for 5 weeks and run the Belmont fresh.

We'll never know now, unfortunately, if the horse can run 1 1/2 miles or not, as he's unlikely to ever see a race that distance in his future. There just aren't that many races that distance. What a waste of a once in a lifetime opportunity.

[Greyfox]

You made my point. If you think Bodemeister ran his best race in the Preakness, then why did both the trainer and jockey decide, before the race, to slow the fractions, versus the Derby. In the Derby he set the 4th or 5th fastest fractions in Derby history ad beat IHA to the 1 3/16th mile mark. Why in the world would the trainer/jockey run the 1 3/16th mile Preakness differently than in the Derby? He already proved he could beat IHA in that distance, by running very fast fractions.

My contention is that slowing the fractions in the Preakness took away his advantage over IHA. And the only thing that makes sense for slowing the fractions, IMO, is that the horse was not at the top of his condition cycle, after having run 2 tough races in a row. The thinking appeared to me to be that if they slow his fractions he might be able to finish strong, and if they let him run early he will die worse than he did in the Derby. All that did was allow IHA to save energy and be closer to Bode in the turn, and run stronger to the 1 3/16 mile distance than he did in the Derby.

If you're running a shorter race, you don't run slower fractions, you run faster ones, if your horse is in condition to do it.

Again, if I'm the trainer, after that grueling Derby run, I sit him down for 5 weeks and run the Belmont fresh.

We'll never know now, unfortunately, if the horse can run 1 1/2 miles or not, as he's unlikely to ever see a race that distance in his future. There just aren't that many races that distance. What a waste of a once in a lifetime opportunity.

Excellent post. You make a lot of strong valid points here raybo.

[cj]

I surrender, I don't know anything!

Ok, we'll just have to wait and see what Bodemeister does in the future, and what IHA does. I'll be watching all the horses Bodemeister whipped soundly, too.

Was that the point? I thought you were saying the track actually was pretty fast, he just ran worse than in the Derby because he was tired. I'm not sure what he does down the road matters much from a figure standpoint.

Mine That Bird ran two pretty darn good races a few years ago and stunk after that.

[Sysonby]

Excellent post. You make a lot of strong valid points here raybo.

agreed

[Vinnie]

Talk about a brutally crushing race by the pace alone.. I will never forget Song and a Prayer on the front end setting those brutal fractions and Monarchos going by all of those exhausted horses in a slingshot type move. He went by them like "Nuns sitting at a Bus Stop"!! :)

I don't believe that Monarchos could have ever run (and never did again) in a Race that could have set up better for him than that (2001) Derby did.

It was unbelievable with Bobby Hurley's Song and a Prayer setting those suicidal fractions.

[JPinMaryland]

I'd have to do some work, but over a distance that great (10f) the swings could be much larger than 1 second in either direction.



interesting cause I thought that is the kind of factor you would know off the top of your head, with BSF I think it's 7 pts per sec. at longer distances.

I would think there would have to be some accounting for pace, regardless of the surface. And after that, presumably what is left is the surface. I cant see it much more than a second either way. I guess with Beyer we see BSF for the derby range from what 101-115? I guess that would be one sec. either way. Beyer tries to account for the pace I guess from what I read, so perhaps that +/- one sec. would be based on the surface alone...

You can cite Monarchos all you want. What about Pt. Given he finished about 11+ lengths behind him. I would think about a full sec and a half. If you start thinking what he would run on a normal fast track. Not sure if he had a problem that day, I know someone said the surface stung his feet. the pt is there is more than one data pt. than Monarchos: there's Navajo, there's pt Given; there's Shecky Greene, there's Forego, there's AP Valentine, etc.

I would certainly grant that Monarchos ran on a fast surface, but his final fraction was much stronger than the rest of the field so am not sure just how fast the surface is or how dominant Monarchos is, or the field is crappy. In the 73 derby, I think over half the field was running sub 25 final fractions which to put in perspective I think there were more final fract in sub 25 than in the preceding 10 years

Shecky Green himself finished up in 26.2 and came in last; think about that vs this years race Its pretty insane. Hes losing like a length and a half to IHA and running as fast as Dullahan: this for the last place finisher!...

Obviously I dont make figures and I look at races more historically. I sometimes do consider the undercard races especially if I am betting. More often I look at the final fractions; the bunching up of horses near the end; and front runners that crash as an indication of racing surface.

As I think about it, yeah that Monarchos track must have been quite fast as they ran a very fast pace, and only a few horses were coming home in 26+. OTOH he won by 4 3/4 over Invisible INk/Congaree and the rest of the field was pretty spread out. actually a number of horses near the front ran out of gas; which also runs against the idea of a fast track, but then the pace was hot. the whole thing is confusing..

Maybe MOnarchos competition was worse than Secretariats maybe that explains it. It's the open lengths of win than has me still wondering about the issue of surface. My guess is that Monarchos on that day would have been neck/neck with Sec if M. doesnt go quite as wide.

So the issue is: how much real time should I dock Monarchos for the surface? maybe a second. If we give Monarchos a 2.01; then the next two horses are something like 2.01.8, and pt given is like 2.02.5. OK maybe that makes sense; but dock monarchos more and then the rest of the field does not add up.

[cj]

interesting cause I thought that is the kind of factor you would know off the top of your head, with BSF I think it's 7 pts per sec. at longer distances.



I know speed charts and such like the back of my hand. What I don't memorize is how big of a swing there can be in final times. There are more factors than just the surface. The pace has a big impact, so can wind, and a few other things as well.

I've seen the same track change over 40 Beyer points during a season, all listed as fast. That is a lot more than a second in either direction for a race like the Derby.

[Maximillion]

You made my point. If you think Bodemeister ran his best race in the Preakness, then why did both the trainer and jockey decide, before the race, to slow the fractions, versus the Derby. In the Derby he set the 4th or 5th fastest fractions in Derby history ad beat IHA to the 1 3/16th mile mark. Why in the world would the trainer/jockey run the 1 3/16th mile Preakness differently than in the Derby? He already proved he could beat IHA in that distance, by running very fast fractions.

My contention is that slowing the fractions in the Preakness took away his advantage over IHA. And the only thing that makes sense for slowing the fractions, IMO, is that the horse was not at the top of his condition cycle, after having run 2 tough races in a row. The thinking appeared to me to be that if they slow his fractions he might be able to finish strong, and if they let him run early he will die worse than he did in the Derby. All that did was allow IHA to save energy and be closer to Bode in the turn, and run stronger to the 1 3/16 mile distance than he did in the Derby.

If you're running a shorter race, you don't run slower fractions, you run faster ones, if your horse is in condition to do it.

Again, if I'm the trainer, after that grueling Derby run, I sit him down for 5 weeks and run the Belmont fresh.

We'll never know now, unfortunately, if the horse can run 1 1/2 miles or not, as he's unlikely to ever see a race that distance in his future. There just aren't that many races that distance. What a waste of a once in a lifetime opportunity.


So you believe if Bode had cut similiar fractions to those in the derby he would have won the Preakness?.....guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

[JPinMaryland]

So you believe if Bode had cut similiar fractions to those in the derby he would have won the Preakness?.....guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.


I think he's saying that he would be more likely to win, and Raybo makes an interesting pt: if he had IHA beaten to the 1/8th pole in the derby, why not run at the same pace? I had never thought of it that way; but its an interesting take.

[raybo]

So you believe if Bode had cut similiar fractions to those in the derby he would have won the Preakness?.....guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

No I didn't say that at all, I think Bode should have skipped the Preakness, and prepared for Belmont, just like I said.

The point I thought I made in the other post was that you don't run slower fractions in a shorter race, you run faster ones, but it seems obvious to me that the trainer and jockey both thought Bode wasn't physically recuperated enough to do that, so they played right into IHA's hand, by running slower fractions and giving up Bode's edge, very good early and middle speed.

[raybo]

I think he's saying that he would be more likely to win, and Raybo makes an interesting pt: if he had IHA beaten to the 1/8th pole in the derby, why not run at the same pace? I had never thought of it that way; but its an interesting take.

He had him beat at the 1/16th pole, the same distance as the Preakness, 1 3/16 mile. And that was one of the points I was making. If you have already beat a horse to a certain distance by running your own race, then why would you not run your own race, against the same horse you just beat to that distance, in another race, of that same distance, unless you are not physically ready to run your race again that soon?

Maybe I'm seeing things wrong, but I don't think so. It seems obvious to me that Bode was not ready to run those, or faster, fractions so soon after those 2 tough races, otherwise they would have let him run his race, very quick early and middle fractions. He needed a break of more than 2 weeks, IMO, and I noted that concern in some of my other posts in various TC threads here, right after the Derby.

[cj]

He had him beat at the 1/16th pole, the same distance as the Preakness, 1 3/16 mile. And that was one of the points I was making. If you have already beat a horse to a certain distance by running your own race, then why would you not run your own race, against the same horse you just beat to that distance, in another race, of that same distance, unless you are not physically ready to run your race again that soon?

Maybe I'm seeing things wrong, but I don't think so. It seems obvious to me that Bode was not ready to run those, or faster, fractions so soon after those 2 tough races, otherwise they would have let him run his race, very quick early and middle fractions. He needed a break of more than 2 weeks, IMO, and I noted that concern in some of my other posts in various TC threads here, right after the Derby.

Doesn't it matter that the jockey on IHA knew it was only the 1/16 pole, and not the finish? I would imagine he could have started his run a little earlier and passed him at the 1/16 pole if that i s where the race ended. Am I wrong?

[RXB]

He had him beat at the 1/16th pole, the same distance as the Preakness, 1 3/16 mile. And that was one of the points I was making. If you have already beat a horse to a certain distance by running your own race, then why would you not run your own race, against the same horse you just beat to that distance, in another race, of that same distance, unless you are not physically ready to run your race again that soon?

Maybe I'm seeing things wrong, but I don't think so. It seems obvious to me that Bode was not ready to run those, or faster, fractions so soon after those 2 tough races, otherwise they would have let him run his race, very quick early and middle fractions. He needed a break of more than 2 weeks, IMO, and I noted that concern in some of my other posts in various TC threads here, right after the Derby.

The fractions in the Preakness weren't slower because the horse was tired. They slowed it down because they didn't have to run as fast to get the lead-- which is exactly what should be done. He improved his Beyer by 10 points from the Ky Derby. Instead of beating the third place horse by a neck, this time it was by nine lengths. There was nothing wrong with his form or the pace tactics; Bodemeister just got ran down by a horse that's a little better.

To review:
Arkansas Derby-- reasonable fractions, 108 Beyer, romping win
Kentucky Derby-- fast fractions, 99 Beyer, barely held second, even the fifth place finisher was only 1.5 lengths behind him at the finish
Preakness-- reasonable fractions, 109 Beyer, just nipped at the wire with the rest of the field in a different area code behind him

[PhantomOnTour]

Bottom line for me is that IHA has enough of a stalking gear to stay as close to Bodemeister as he needs to (regardless of pace) and he can get him after the 9f mark.
This may change later in the year, but if Bode were to run in the Belmont IHA would beat him again. He's the better colt right now at classic distances.
Didn't a famous racing author say "class laughs at pace"? Well, this is it imo.

Also, getting back to the topic of this thread, my puny opinion says that Beyer got the Preakness fig just about right.

[gm10]

No I didn't say that at all, I think Bode should have skipped the Preakness, and prepared for Belmont, just like I said.

The point I thought I made in the other post was that you don't run slower fractions in a shorter race, you run faster ones, but it seems obvious to me that the trainer and jockey both thought Bode wasn't physically recuperated enough to do that, so they played right into IHA's hand, by running slower fractions and giving up Bode's edge, very good early and middle speed.

I'm not so sure that recuperation has anything to do with it, it was more about maximizing the horse's chances imo. The best front running ride is the one whether the horse sets the slowest possible fractions while maintaining an unchallenged lead.

Plus they had already tried running fast and defending a 5 lengths bonus in the stretch. It didn't work.

(I don't think the 0.5F made much of a difference given the running style of IHA).

[Robert Goren]

I know speed charts and such like the back of my hand. What I don't memorize is how big of a swing there can be in final times. There are more factors than just the surface. The pace has a big impact, so can wind, and a few other things as well.

I've seen the same track change over 40 Beyer points during a season, all listed as fast. That is a lot more than a second in either direction for a race like the Derby. I have too. If in fact over a long summer meet I would say 30 point changes are pretty common especially during a dry spell.

[Greyfox]

I'm not so sure that recuperation has anything to do with it, it was more about maximizing the horse's chances imo.

Well we'll never know the answer to that for sure. Both horses ended up running higher Beyers than before.
The hypothetical question to consider to the above concerning recuperation is:

"Would Bodemeister have won the Preakness if he had skipped the Kentucky Derby?"
(In effect would he have ran an even higher Beyer in the Preakness? I've got a gut level hunch that he might have, but we'll never know now.)

[raybo]

Well we'll never know the answer to that for sure. Both horses ended up running higher Beyers than before.
The hypothetical question to consider to the above concerning recuperation is:

"Would Bodemeister have won the Preakness if he had skipped the Kentucky Derby?"
(In effect would he have ran an even higher Beyer in the Preakness? I've got a gut level hunch that he might have, but we'll never know now.)

Interesting, I hadn't thought of that scenario. But then, you gotta run the Derby to have any shot at the TC.