Tomlinson mud ratings

[cj]

Does anyone actually use those? From DRF:

Tomlinson wet track rating: This number rates a horse's chances for success on a wet track, based on his breeding. When a horse's mud rating is 320 or higher, it merits further consideration as a horse who could perform particularly well over a wet racetrack. This number can be particularly helpful the first couple of times over a wet racetrack, before the horse's preference for the mud is otherwise known.

So, the only guideline we are given is 320 or above.

I looked at Belmont today, and there are 90 horses entered. I counted 19 that did not meet the 320 qualification. Of those, 11 were New York breds (33 entered.)

So, we get 21% overall that doesn't meet the minimum. But, with NY breds, it is 33%, while non-NY breds only discount 14% of the horses. This doesn't seem like much benefit to me.

I decided to check Keeneland. 99 horses were entered. 19 didn't qualify, or 19%. (There were 3 NY breds, 2 of which didn't make the cut.) So, non NY breds could be eliminated at a 17% rate.

Is there a better way than the 320 cutoff? I'm not knocking the numbers, just trying to see how to use them more fully.

[twindouble]

Originally Posted by cj

Does anyone actually use those? From DRF:



So, the only guideline we are given is 320 or above.

I looked at Belmont today, and there are 90 horses entered. I counted 19 that did not meet the 320 qualification. Of those, 11 were New York breds (33 entered.)

So, we get 21% overall that doesn't meet the minimum. But, with NY breds, it is 33%, while non-NY breds only discount 14% of the horses. This doesn't seem like much benefit to me.

I decided to check Keeneland. 99 horses were entered. 19 didn't qualify, or 19%. (There were 3 NY breds, 2 of which didn't make the cut.) So, non NY breds could be eliminated at a 17% rate.

Is there a better way than the 320 cutoff? I'm not knocking the numbers, just trying to see how to use them more fully.

cj, I don't see where his numbers help at all. Maybe something look at when you betting the babies and you have no clue how they will run on the off going other than breeding but to me that's a very risky bet to begin with so I have had no use for his numbers.

[speedking]

CJ,

I used to find the numbers helpful prior to their appearance in the Form. Now every horse seems to have a solid number. I bumped my standard up to 390 for off tracks and 370 for turf, but these numbers are quite arbitrary and I have no sound reasoning other than they eliminate most of the competition. Even then I merely use them to reinforce my opinion. These days I have more faith in the turf ratings.

speedking

[cj]

I do use the turf and the distance ratings, and like them a lot, especially the distance. But the mud, no, nothing I have found yet anyway.

[Valuist]

This may sound strange but I find the Tomlinson mud ratings to be excellent predictors for precocity in first time starters, particularly 2YO first timers. Any first timer w/a mud Tomlinson over 375 is at least worth a look, and if the barn is decent at all, a solid use.

[garyoz]

Likewise I used to use them before they became available in the DRF. I think the mud ratings in particular are overbet, and like the trainer stats in the DRF represent a bet against opportunity.

[toetoe]

I wonder what Joe Takach can tell us about mud-friendly conformation.

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by Valuist

This may sound strange but I find the Tomlinson mud ratings to be excellent predictors for precocity in first time starters, particularly 2YO first timers. Any first timer w/a mud Tomlinson over 375 is at least worth a look, and if the barn is decent at all, a solid use.

Valuist, this sounds very interesting. Over what time period have you tested this theory? how many races etc........any further context for this statement?

[andicap]

I've seen some Mark Cramer stuff questioning the viability of mud breeding ratings, largely because not all wet tracks are alike. For example, Saratoga mud is famously for being stickier (I think it's stickier, correct me if I'm wrong).
So a horse who may run well at Monmouth may not run well at the Spa on mud.

ANother issue in my mind: are off-track ratings taking equally from ALL off-track designations? That is, if a horse wins on a good, sloppy or muddy track someone like Tomlinson (and others) would denote it the same. But couldn't a horse handle a good track differenly than a sloppy track or a muddy track where the firmness of the base is different?

[BIG49010]

Joe keeps track specific stats I believe, and doesn't care to much for anything else.

I used to use Tomlinson's book years ago, and put more on dam than sire and worked good, then when he sold out to DRF I quit using and made my own stats for all angles, when his quit working.

Bris, believe it or not pick some long winners with there ratings.

[delayjf]

Joe keeps track specific stats I believe, and doesn't care to much for anything else.

One thing he does talk about is track specific breeding (at least on turf)
The theory is if your sire ran well on the delmar turf than the podigy will as well. Could be applied to mud as well I guess.

[Tom]

The "tommies" are calculated differently in the DRF than wehn you could buy them from Lee's webstire - they don't include as much pedigree now. That sucs.

As for off tracks, I look at the horse's lifetime records to decide, since so many tracks are decidely different, and I have seen sloppy everything from standing water to "scattered showers."

[KingChas]

Originally Posted by Valuist

This may sound strange but I find the Tomlinson mud ratings to be excellent predictors for precocity in first time starters, particularly 2YO first timers. Any first timer w/a mud Tomlinson over 375 is at least worth a look, and if the barn is decent at all, a solid use.

The "tommies" are calculated differently in the DRF than wehn you could buy them from Lee's webstire - they don't include as much pedigree now. That sucs.-"Tom"

Surprising question from you CJ.After a horse has established a running style over different surfaces these figs are useless.Why did you take every race into account?As Tom said the figs in the form are totally different than the original LT "figs" anyway.Best bet using them is with young unproven runners.Love LT Figs origionally ,But he Dun Sold Out!

[mudnturf]

Originally Posted by cj

I do use the turf and the distance ratings, and like them a lot, especially the distance. But the mud, no, nothing I have found yet anyway.

Cj and all,
No one likes to hear they are "misunderstood".
A short time ago I wrote an article for one of the racing publications explaining, as best I can, the often misused and misunderstood, TOMLINSON RATINGS.

I'd be happy to email a copy of that article to anyone who requests it.
I'm at mudders@optonline.net.

[OTM Al]

I'm with Valuist on this. The mud ratings can be used as a proxy for which babies are likely to get out quickly. I say proxy because early speed on the slop more often than not gets one home on top, thus high mud Tomlinson should indicate breeding for early speed. Pretty much ignore them overall after 3 races unless big surface/distance/condition change they have never faced before.