Quote:
Originally Posted by cj
On my figures, her best race at 4 was a 127 and that came in her easy win at Churchill against completely overmatched foes. Her figures that year, earliest first:
116-119-127-118, average 120, median 118.5
As a 3yo, from the Oaks onward, she ran:
134-128-131-136-135, average 133, median 134
Yeah, I'm not buying that she was the same.
|
Beyer has her much faster at 3 also.
I'm saying two things.
1. She came back below her best (as the connection were saying) but was eventually close to her top form again.
2. The times were the times. However, imo some combination of the way the races developed on that track, on that day, given whatever the track speed actually was for "that race", lead to final times that I suspect were faster than the quality of the horses in the Preakness and Haskell.
So if you are a figure oriented handicapper and pull those figures down, you might get a somewhat different impression of what kind of figure range to expect from her in top form. Of course, that's like saying people have a slightly inflated view of Kobe Bryant relative to Michael Jordan.
I'm mostly looking at who she beat, by how much, with what relative trip, given how the track was playing that day etc... I don't think she was as bad at 4 as people think once she got rolling.
Even her final start was very good. She and Life At Ten opened up 14 lengths on the rest of field in their duel. Life at Ten was a very sharp improving Grade 1 winning mare and 2nd choice in the betting. Rachel totally buried her, opened a 3 1/2 length lead at the 1/8th pole, but the 10th furlong was too much. Life at Ten wound up beaten 11 1/4 lengths and earned a Beyer of 79 after Rachel torched her. She came right back and won the Grade 1 Beldame with a 100. She was very good at that time and Rachel killed her.
