Quote:
|
Your construction of the overconfident figure handicapper who is a slave to his figures is a straw man. Your willingness to accept Accelerates 105 figure in the BC classic is an error no good figure handicapper would make. All you have to do is adjust it for pace and all his ground loss and you see it was as good as any race he won, including the Pacific Classic with it's 115 Beyer. No good figure handicapper would make such an error. That is a straw man. No need to go into all the endless factors that you continually harp on.
|
Quote:
|
think some people will never get it.
|
Actually, I think it's the other way around because I'm not very good at explaining myself. I know exactly what you guys are saying and agree. My point goes beyond that.
I agree that the pace was a factor for some of the horses in that race, but imo the track was more tiring than "average" on Saturday, it was a 10F race, and the quality of the race was much tougher than a few of those horses faced recently when they put up much faster figures than they did Saturday. That's why some of them got outrun, buried, and ran so slow. Better horses are CAPABLE of putting themselves in the right spot and handling tougher conditions.
My point would be, rather than come up with some theory (including my own that can't be proved) or a figure that understates how good some of those horses are, in this case why not just look at how they ran relative to each other given their trips and what we know about those horses. It's more accurate than pretending we can make adjustments for a very complex set of impacts and relationships.
If this were some MDN or ALW race with lightly raced horses, I might be apt to put more weight on the times because I don't know much about the quality of the horses. But we know these horses well.
