Quote:
Originally Posted by The Hawk
Denny is trying to make the following point (albeit poorly, in my opinion):
ALL speed figures that are not automated can be viewed as a self-fulfilling prophecy. In other words: Beyer largely bases figures on past figures, and that sometimes means that in order to make the figures fit it is deemed that the surface changed from one race to the next. That certainly happens, but Denny would contend that it doesn't happen as often as the figure makers portend, that the figures are simply based on past figures and then twisted to fit. Then, when a figure turns out to clearly be wrong, the speed figure defenders will point to any number of reasons why you can't take the figure at face value, and you're an idiot if you do. You can't have it both ways -- you can't say "you can't play profitably without them" and then say "we know there are huge flaws." Denny is simply saying there are more flaws than others would suggest, or think. He also correctly points out the lack of pace influence makes figures suspect in some cases.
In the end, he has a right to say what he's saying without being flogged, in my opinion. And what he's saying has a hint of validity. Speed figures aren't "bogus" by and large, but there is reason to view them -- all of them, not just Beyers -- with skepticism.
|
I've been pretty much saying the same things.
That's why I am encouraging people to learn more about the process. Then people would be less likely to make very strong pronouncements about the quality of certain horses based primarily on their favorite figure maker (when there are often disagreements between figure makers) and when there's so much more going on in races that impact time. If we got to that stage, then everyone would stop trashing the figure makers also. They are doing the best they can ( outstanding work imo), but it's a really tough job.
