Good Magic likely done for the year

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

If you take out his Belmont, a race I have found generally to be a non predictor of future success what does his form look like?

Now maybe no one ships from socal and he faces avg g2 types like Gunnavera and Seeking the Soul and he really does like Belmont but its just hard to take the horse as a real contender. I would want 15 or 20/1 to play him against good horses such as Diversify or Accelerate.

i

If you are referring to Gronkowski, I agree his Belmont figure does not make him competitive against Diversify or Accelerate. I made no such claim.
We were talking about how his Belmont performance indicated he would be competitive against the horses he would be facing in the Travers.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

Given his fast early fractions he had every right to be tiring in the Derby stretch. Think pace, not distance limitations.
If anything his PPs and Derby performance indicate that 10 furlongs is his ideal distance. There is no reason to believe that illness or the poor trip would have been less devastating at any other distance for him in particular.
Of course the long Travers distance would magnify the problems of any horse, but there is no reason it would have effected him more than any other horse.

Good Magic ran HUGE in the Kentucky Derby.
Justify is a once-in-a-generation type of athlete(although Baffert has been fortunate to have those rare freaks occur more often than the phrase suggests).

Justify was a monster and he didn't get tired as much as others after running those huge races.

Good Magic was in the ballpark of that monstrous Justify Kentucky Derby. Yes it took everything out of him, and in the final 1/16th, Audible (a lesser horse who had a relative dream trip that day) closed the gap to make it a photo for place, but in terms of performance there was a large margin of victory to Good Magic relative to Audible.

It's still reasonable to guess that perhaps '9F' could have been Good Magic's 'best' distance, but 10f was well within his scope, especially relative to 3yo crop.

Good Magic ran very well in the Preakness as well. Mike Smith and Justify did a perfect job of brushing Good Magic a bit off stride, but Good Magic was clearly 2nd best(in spite of a literal '4th') in the Preakness.

These trips (Derby, Preakness) are mildly esoteric, so this interpretation may not be blatantly obvious to many players and fans.

In the TRAVERS itself - Good Magic was supposed to be right up forwardly-placed with Mendelssohn and Catholic Boy and any other early pace. The contact and the white-blood cells or an underlying issue or whatever happened, happened, - and he never fired or looked like a contender at any stage of the running. Certainly nothing in the Travers that indicated that distance played a role in his lack of a performance. Pretty clear that something was amiss and he would be a coin-flip whether his good magic would go 'poof', or not.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

i

If you are referring to Gronkowski, I agree his Belmont figure does not make him competitive against Diversify or Accelerate. I made no such claim.
We were talking about how his Belmont performance indicated he would be competitive against the horses he would be facing in the Travers.

Yea him

He was 3/1 or 25% to win that race, thats more than competitive, they bet him like he was dominant on figures against his own generation.

[Robert Fischer]

As far as Gronkowski?

We don't know whether he is a top class horse yet. He's done absolutely nothing yet to prove that to us.

He was a great value as a potential horse-for-course in the Belmont stakes, and parlayed a flawed break into a Calvin-Borel type of trip that was enough to out-finish a wide Hofburg and a premature Vino Rosso. His literal 2nd in a literal Grade 1 is meaningless as far as translating to a race like the Travers or the JCGC(other than fooling the public into betting him to an underlay in the Travers). The race for 2nd in the Belmont Stakes was 'losers game'. He hasn't shown that he's capable of winning in a 'winners game' scenario.

Nothing 'happened' to GRONK in the Travers (in the sense of how something obviously 'happened' to Good Magic when he went 'poof' in the Travers). That's just who Gronk is when he's not inheriting opportunities in race-shape/distance/trip.

He's a big handsome son of a gun, and he's trained by a top-5 trainer, so you may want to include him in the JCGC if other horses' value indicates a play.

Maybe you can see his talent shining through, and I'm a race behind? If you love the horse for some reason, go ahead and treat him as a contender. For me, I haven't seen anything yet. The only reason I said to use him 2nd in the Belmont Stakes before that race was because he was a horse-for-course.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

As far as Gronkowski?

We don't know whether he is a top class horse yet. He's done absolutely nothing yet to prove that to us.

He was a great value as a potential horse-for-course in the Belmont stakes, and parlayed a flawed break into a Calvin-Borel type of trip that was enough to out-finish a wide Hofburg and a premature Vino Rosso. His literal 2nd in a literal Grade 1 is meaningless as far as translating to a race like the Travers or the JCGC(other than fooling the public into betting him to an underlay in the Travers). The race for 2nd in the Belmont Stakes was 'losers game'. He hasn't shown that he's capable of winning in a 'winners game' scenario.

Nothing 'happened' to GRONK in the Travers (in the sense of how something obviously 'happened' to Good Magic when he went 'poof' in the Travers). That's just who Gronk is when he's not inheriting opportunities in race-shape/distance/trip.

He's a big handsome son of a gun, and he's trained by a top-5 trainer, so you may want to include him in the JCGC if other horses' value indicates a play.

Maybe you can see his talent shining through, and I'm a race behind? If you love the horse for some reason, go ahead and treat him as a contender. For me, I haven't seen anything yet. The only reason I said to use him 2nd in the Belmont Stakes before that race was because he was a horse-for-course.

I don't have to love the horse to give him credit for what he earned in the Belmont. Whether he goes on to a be quality horse is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about what he showed in the Belmont. We didn't know quite how good Gronkowski was based on just his unbeaten record in the UK until he quantified it with his excellent 123 Timeform figure in the Belmont. What the other horses did may have something to to with his placing but has nothing to do the the figure he earned there. That figure was 2nd only to Good Magic's going into the Travers and something must have happened in that race which caused his figure to drop dramatically. Just like Good Magic, it could have been illness or a poor ride. He did not receive a proper ride, that's for sure. I don't have to wait for him to repeat his Belmont figure over and over to watch his price to drop. We know his quality at 12 furlongs - we just still have to find out just how much that translates to shorter distances.
I take each race at a time. I don't have to expect a horse to become HOTY before betting him today.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

Yea him

He was 3/1 or 25% to win that race, thats more than competitive, they bet him like he was dominant on figures against his own generation.

He had the most dominant performance going into the Travers next to Good Magic with his 123 figure despite a poor start. I take it one race at a time. I don't have to expect a horse to later win the Breeder's Cup Classic to bet him today.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

I'm talking about what he showed in the Belmont.

We disagree on this point. Which is fine, as that's what the game is all about.

I can't tell whether Gronk, Hofburg, or Vino Rosso ran a better Belmont.

Of the three, the only one I consider having upside is Hofburg and he's no certainty.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

He had the most dominant performance going into the Travers next to Good Magic with his 123 figure despite a poor start. I take it one race at a time. I don't have to expect a horse to later win the Breeder's Cup Classic to bet him today.

Not including the Belmont was my argument, I use it for handicapping like a I do a alw race at santa anita, maybe less. Sorry I was not clear.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

We disagree on this point. Which is fine, as that's what the game is all about.

I can't tell whether Gronk, Hofburg, or Vino Rosso ran a better Belmont.

Of the three, the only one I consider having upside is Hofburg and he's no certainty.

To answer your question I reviewed the chart, video replay, and PPs of both TimeformUS and DRF (Beyer). A lot more detail than you were expecting but I wanted to leave no stone upturned.

Gronk ran a TFUS of 123, Beyer 99, was 2w, 3w, beaten 1 3/4 lengths and lost several lengths at the start.
Hofburg ran TFUS about 99, Beyer 97, was 2w 4w, beaten 3 1/2 lengths and had an unventful trip.
Vino Rosso ran TFUS abt 99, Beyer 97, 3w 3w, beaten 3 3/4 lengths and moved a bit too early for a closer. Ironically, this is the same mistake Gronks' jock made in the Travers but Gronks' riders' mistake was much more costly since he made his move much earlier on the backstretch while Vinos' rider made his move later on the far turn.

Overall, I think Gronk ran the better race as shown by his TFUS figure which includes pace with the poor break.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

Not including the Belmont was my argument, I use it for handicapping like a I do a alw race at santa anita, maybe less. Sorry I was not clear.

ie, Tapwrit yesterday.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by Tom

ie, Tapwrit yesterday.

I guess that means one should not get hung up on class and concentrate on the individual horse and its' current speed figures. Lots of Derby winners never won another race.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by Tom

ie, Tapwrit yesterday.

Sure, Affirmed, Seattle Slew and Secretariat never amounted to much.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

I guess that means one should not get hung up on class and concentrate on the individual horse and its' current speed figures. Lots of Derby winners never won another race.

While that is certainly true I think the Derby and Preakness are at least comparable to 9F compared to the obscure 12F race (is there another 12 furlong dirt race even run anymore other than on Belmont Day?). I can at least add some weight to those winners the Belmont winners have been for the most part a very mixed bag in the best light.

[Spalding No!]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

If you take out his Belmont, a race I have found generally to be a non predictor of future success what does his form look like?

In the last 16 runnings of the Belmont Stakes, not including this year's edition, only 4 horses in the runner-up spot failed to win a subsequent graded stakes.

They were:

1) Smarty Jones - retired after the Belmont
2) Denis of Cork - retired after the Belmont
3) Dunkirk - retired after the Belmont
4) Oxbow - retired one start after the Belmont (4th in the Haskell)

The runners-up in the other 12 runnings included Medaglia D'Oro, Curlin, Paynter, Stay Thirsty, Ten Most Wanted, and Frosted.

Other also-rans from those Belmonts included:

Game On Dude (G1), First Dude (G1), War Emblem (G1), Perfect Drift (G1), Funny Cide (G1), Rock Hard Ten (G1), Purge (G1), Eddington (G1), Hard Spun (G1), Tiago (G1), Big Brown (G1), Tale of Ekati (G1), Macho Again (G1), Shackleford (G1), Mucho Macho Man (G1), Dullahan (G1), Will Take Charge (G1), California Chrome (G1), Keen Ice (G1), Mubtaahij (G1), Exaggerator (G1), and Seeking The Soul (G1).

[GMB@BP]

The also rans were exactly my point, and agree, they have been useful bet backs.