Frankel runs Wednesday (8-22)

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by cj

Well, we can say a lot of things are different. But that doesn't make them true. All of these things you say can be checked, and most of them fall apart when scrutinized (like the Dutrow short rest stat yesterday).



You could have said the same thing when they were all dirt tracks. Hollywood and Santa Anita had some noticeable differences, and Delmar was a completely different animal. Have you checked how turf horses do when switching to the various synthetics, or are you just using well known examples that you happen to remember?




What exactly is "a lot of horses"? Most horses never win two G1s, so of course that is pretty rare. But of those that do and actually try more than one surface, it isn't exactly like spotting Bigfoot. There are plenty of dual surface G1 winners. I'd bet there are at least 100, and that is nothing but a guess. Hell, at least one horse won G1s on three surfaces.



Lets not pretend 7f on rubber is the same as 7f on dirt. They are much more similar to going 1 mile on dirt than they are 7f.



Do you have numbers to back this up, or are you just shooting from the hip? What is the difference between the surfaces at 9f and 10f?

Obviously, speed is better on dirt than it is on synthetics. But is it better because the most talented horses have it, or because of the dirt. If it were just the surface, I think we'd see a lot more horses running on or near the front winning G1 races at longer distances than we do now.



What deep closing Euro turfer are we downgrading? If you remember, we kept hearing from her connections that she was better on dirt. They just didn't want to run on it because of those treacherous airplanes and Rocky Mountains.

I doubt you'll find anyone that ever dislikes a horse. What people objected to were the connections and the hyperbole. That made many moronic statements that "fans" actually defended.

1. Did you check Dutrow's WIN% and ROI with 3 day repeaters. Everyone was looking at 1-7 days with all horses etc... but I've seen stats that say 5 days and less with repeaters are better for a lot of trainers. Dutrow has been especially good with them. That's one of the reasons I played that horse. The flip side I never checked for Dutrow because I had no reason to, but I did test it in aggregate years ago and it held up.

2. I saw some data posted on the various synthetic surface switches that was in line with some research Jerry Brown said he did privately. I felt it held up well in high profile races I bet or observed. IMO, there is difference between dirt surface switches and synthetic switches.

3. If you look at a lot of Grade 1 horses, you will find a lot that never won sprinting, even as maidens.

4. I've seen data for W2W winners at various distances by track and surface, but I don't use it much in my play other than in a very general way because to me the game is much more day to day and race to race specific. I'm looking at setups and biases. In general on dirt I'd rather have speed even going long.

I think speed is a positive attribute and stamina is a positive attribute (as are other things).

I think each surface/distance/day rewards or punishes how much of each you have and more importantly how/when you use it.

Dirt tends to reward early speed and punish the horses that don't have enough of it that are chasing those that do. It favors speed so much that sometimes a front runner can be dead tired from running too fast early but the chasers can't catch him because they had less speed and got tired chasing.

On turf it also helps to be brilliantly fast, but you can't use too much of it prematurely or you'll die and be caught. You have to use it in a short burst. So jockeys save it for late. But the faster you are the better. Speed is great to have on turf, but it gets punished on turf if not used properly and prudently.

[cj]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

1. Did you check Dutrow's WIN% and ROI with 3 day repeaters. Everyone was looking at 1-7 days with all horses etc... but I've seen stats that say 5 days and less with repeaters are better for a lot of trainers. Dutrow has been especially good with them. That's one of the reasons I played that horse. The flip side I never checked for Dutrow because I had no reason to, but I did test it in aggregate years ago and it held up.

There is no data at that level because almost every runner he ran back in three days had hit the board.

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

2. I saw some data posted on the various synthetic surface switches that was in line with some research Jerry Brown said he did privately. I felt it held up well in high profile races I bet or observed. IMO, there is difference between dirt surface switches and synthetic switches.

How many have even studied surface switches on dirt? I can tell you I can find bigger spreads in how tracks play amongst several dirt tracks than any of the synthetic ones.

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

3. If you look at a lot of Grade 1 horses, you will find a lot that never won sprinting, even as maidens.

Again, what is a lot? I would guess those are in the minority. And my point was the surface had a lot to do with that, which you conveniently ignored.

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

4.

First you say you don't use the tendencies, then type a diatribe on the tendencies. Which is it?

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by cj

There is no data at that level because almost every runner he ran back in three days had hit the board.



How many have even studied surface switches on dirt? I can tell you I can find bigger spreads in how tracks play amongst several dirt tracks than any of the synthetic ones.



Again, what is a lot? I would guess those are in the minority. And my point was the surface had a lot to do with that, which you conveniently ignored.



First you say you don't use the tendencies, then type a diatribe on the tendencies. Which is it?

1. The flip side category is hard to study because so few horses come back in 5 days or less. But for some reason 5 days or less is somewhat unique among repeaters for some trainers. My original research goes all the way back to the late 80s (and excluded Oscar)

2. You are looking at it from the running style perspective. I agree that is important. But I think liking or disliking the footing of the surface is a factor also.

3. I think Zenyatta would have won at 7F on dirt against Grade 1 fillies/mares (colts would have been a lot tougher, but if she got a setup she would). I think any horse that won both sprints and routes is doing more than one that can clearly only do one or the other. I don't think the surface matters.

4. LOL.

Here's another diatribe.

If you ask most people whether a horse is fast or not they will generally look at one of two things before answering.

1. Final time speed figures
2. Early speed/pace

I also want to know how fast the horse's top speed is over 2-3 furlongs and I don't care if it's early, middle or late.

Take Drosselmyer and Zenyatta. Two deep closers.

If you put Drosselmyer into a jog for a few furlongs and asked him for his absolute best IMO you wouldn't get much. IMO he was a slow horse. He was probably slower than most high priced claimers over a few furlongs.

If you put Zenyatta into a jog for a few furlongs and asked her for her very best, I think she'd give you 21 and change. Zenyatta was a very fast horse when she was rolling. If we timed all her moves we'd probably find a few 11 second 1/8ths (maybe even a 10 and change) without even doing her best. She was just so big it took her a little longer to get going at the start. Plus she was on a surface that rewarded saving that speed until late. So she wasn't moved until it was the right time. She wasn't back there because she didn't have the speed to get position in the middle of a race like Drosselmyer would be.

IMO fast is fast. It's when and how you use that speed that matters on each surface.

Dirt rewards speed early, middle, or late depending on the setup.

Turf rewards speed, but it has to be used at the right time, which is typically late.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by cj

And this kind of stuff drives people crazy too. Both are pure speculation.

You honestly think she had plenty left after her win in the Classic? Based on what? She ran similar 1/4s after the last mile after running very little the first 1/4. If she had a lot left, doesn't she run faster at the end? Her final 1/4 was her slowest other than the 1st when you account for the turn on the 6f to 8f mark.

The other part about not handling surface just doesn't hold water. She ran 85/100ths of a second faster at Churchill than she did in her win at Santa Anita for the first 1/4 on a clearly faster racing surface. If she didn't handle the kickback/surface at Churchill, Santa Anita must have been a disaster...oh wait, she won. You can't upgrade a horse's performance for being very slow early when she loses when that is how she ALWAYS runs.

It's hard to prove visual things, but I don't think it's speculation.

In 2009, when she finally got outside, I thought she hit a higher gear than she was in just prior to that move. She traveled her last quarter in about 23.2. That's significantly faster than the average quarter for the race. When she went out after the wire I saw no sign she was done. It's not that I think she could have run faster through the stretch. I don't think she could have, at least by much. It's that she still had stamina left after the wire. When you close faster than the average quarter of the race and have something left after the wire (usually only happens in turf racing), it usually means if you moved sooner or the pace was faster you would have put up a somewhat faster final time. Essentially, I am saying if she ran 2 or 3 fifths faster early, there wouldn't have been a corresponding decline in the last quarter. The speculation part is the exact number. That's the impossible part because I can't measure stamina. I can just try to judge if a horse is tried or has plenty left. The nature of racing on synthetic and turf is not for dirt like fast paces or premature moves trying to put up big Beyers. They are timing moves and sometimes going out with something in reserve.

In 2010, it's mostly visual. She got out of the gate a step slow like she often does. But then IMO she reacted slightly to something as the other horses came in on her. After that IMO she didn't look comfortable on the surface for about 1/8th of a mile. As she started to get disconnected from the rest of the field, Smith asked her a little to get her back into it and she did fairy quickly. So the fractions may have been similar, but the early part of the race was not. She's normally where she wound up going easily and comfortably without being used or looking like that. I put added weight on my visual view based on the fact that after the race Smith said something along the lines of her struggling early and not liking the kickback. If I hadn't thought she was struggling early before I heard Smith's comment I would have dismissed it. But in this case I had to take it as verification of what I think I saw.

I love and use numbers. They are essential. But IMO truly understanding this game is not about numbers. There's still too much going on not being measured or even considered. IMO the idea is to try to do what I am doing, but to do it a lot better than I can (kind of like Paul Cornman)

[cj]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

...So the fractions may have been similar, but the early part of the race was not.

More hyperbole...since when is nearly a full second difference in a 1/4 mile fraction, and probably more than a second when taking track speed into account, similar? The pace was very fast and she was last. I don't think she should get the benefit of the doubt for that trip.

Are you seriously using jockey comments as a handicapping tool? I'd rather just throw money in the fireplace than base handicapping judgements on jockey speak. At least I'd get a little heat out of it. I know you said you thought the same thing, but given the race setup it probably helped her if it is even true. I said the same exact thing in the Test Saturday at the break. That bad break was a blessing in disguise for the winner.

[5k-claim]

Originally Posted by Dahoss9698

Hard for me to contain the tears after reading this account. I too loved the signs and all of the excitement. What a ride!

Too bad those sign holding girls aren't still following the game and instead have turned to talking to their favorite horseys on facebook and blogs as if the horse is talking back.

That's what Z left us with. Thanks....I guess.

How do we know what the sign holding girls are still doing? I personally have no clue. I am guessing there could be a crop of young girls with Z posters on their walls today who will be exercise riders (and maybe even a jockey or two) of tomorrow. I am going to go on record as saying some of them will be good. (Come on time machine... find this post!)

And even if it all had been just a moment in time with some wackies who will never be back... well, so what? Life is short.

I have been in this long enough to know that good times in racing are always drying up and then you are right back to Sahara Desert days for a while.

That blog that is written as if Z is doing the typing herself? Yeah, well... that one does sort of weird me out a little bit. So, I just avoid it.

The "best ever" of all time? I seriously would not bet on that. But then again, if such a race was actually run it would probably be won by an 8-1 shot and the exacta would pay $74.00. I cannot imagine that I would be any better at handicapping a "Best of All Time Stakes" than I am at handicapping any other big race. So, ultimately I do not give a shit about the question.

.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by cj

More hyperbole...since when is nearly a full second difference in a 1/4 mile fraction, and probably more than a second when taking track speed into account, similar? The pace was very fast and she was last. I don't think she should get the benefit of the doubt for that trip.

Are you seriously using jockey comments as a handicapping tool? I'd rather just throw money in the fireplace than base handicapping judgements on jockey speak. At least I'd get a little heat out of it. I know you said you thought the same thing, but given the race setup it probably helped her if it is even true. I said the same exact thing in the Test Saturday at the break. That bad break was a blessing in disguise for the winner.

I was talking about Zenyatta's early fractions.

I think it was Randy Moss that argued that she ran close to her typical fractions in the 2010 dirt Classic but was so far behind because the dirt pace was faster than the typical synthetic pace she was used to.

I think he is right about dirt and synthetic paces, but missed part of the story.

IMO there is a difference between breaking a little slow and running X evenly and comfortably without being used vs. breaking a little slow and running X after not handling the track/kickback early and then being used to make up the difference. X does not always = X. Smith saw her getting disconnected and used her to run what she normally runs on her own when comfortable. She made up a huge gap quickly.

I agree with you on the Test.

The winner got off a little slow, but relaxed, rated, and took a good position relative to the leaders that were setting a hot pace. If she got off well she might have been involved in that pace. If she was, it certainly would have diminished her chances.

It usually works the other way around.

It's usually more like It's Tricky. Usually, speed horses that break slowly get used to get back into position or they are not comfortable racing off the pace. So they are at a significant disadvantage.

Usually, deeper closers just drop back to approximately where they would have been anyway. Not a major issue.

I think the break is mostly about whether the horse gets "used" to get it's typical position, a favorable position, etc.... That's the way I view it.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by 5k-claim

How do we know what the sign holding girls are still doing?

.

They are at the Zenyatta blog every day asking for new pictures of her baby, asking questions about the weaning process, asking about her current pregnancy, talking about other horses at the farm etc... Few of them are probably betting a dime, but a lot of new racing fans are still engaged and learning about the sport.

My girlfriend visits that blog a couple of times a week and she drives me crazy with updates and pictures.

[cj]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I was talking about Zenyatta's early fractions.

I think it was Randy Moss that argued that she ran close to her typical fractions in the 2010 dirt Classic but was so far behind because the dirt pace was faster than the typical synthetic pace she was used to.

I think he is right about dirt and synthetic paces, but missed part of the story.

IMO there is a difference between breaking a little slow and running X evenly and comfortably without being used vs. breaking a little slow and running X after not handling the track/kickback early and then being used to make up the difference. X does not always = X. Smith saw her getting disconnected and used her to run what she normally runs on her own when comfortable. She made up a huge gap quickly.

I agree with you on the Test.

The winner got off a little slow, but relaxed, rated, and took a good position relative to the leaders that were setting a hot pace. If she got off well she might have been involved in that pace. If she was, it certainly would have diminished her chances.

It usually works the other way around.

It's usually more like It's Tricky. Usually, speed horses that break slowly get used to get back into position or they are not comfortable racing off the pace. So they are at a significant disadvantage.

Usually, deeper closers just drop back to approximately where they would have been anyway. Not a major issue.

I think the break is mostly about whether the horse gets "used" to get it's typical position, a favorable position, etc.... That's the way I view it.

I know you were talking about her opening fraction, and so was I. What did you think I was talking about? She ran almost 1 second faster at Churchill than she did at Santa Anita, more when adjusted for track speed. Randy Moss is wrong. She did not run her typical fraction. She ran faster. Yet she handled the latter and not the former?

Sometimes our eyes lie to us and I think that is the case here. The fact the others were running faster made it look like she was struggling. Maybe she was, but it was trying to run faster earlier than she was used to doing. I'm sure some of that was her size as you mentioned earlier. But it in no way should be considered an excuse.

I think she broke like always and started out about the same speed as always, but Smith saw that how far back she was so he had to hustle her to keep in contact. I just don't see the kickback/handling the surface excuse. How does a horse not handle the surface for a furlong, then love it for the next nine? It isn't like the dirt kicking back stopped either.

Perhaps, had she faced real competition a few times before the BC on dirt, she would have been able to keep up a little better. That is on her connections though.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by Dahoss9698

If it isn't a black and white issue than how do you explain what you are Class are saying here?

Don't you think it possible to realize she was a very good horse, but not like her in a particular race? Isn't it possible to think of her among the greats but not think of her the best ever?

why must it be one or the other?

Look, Holy Bull is the best horse I have personally witnessed in my life and his races stack up with any horse of the past twenty years. But I don't think he's the best ever and I certainly don't think anyone who doesn't recognize his greatness thinks he was mediocre.

Skip Away was an absolute beast for 3 seasons and rarely if ever missed a big dance all across the country. He proved his greatness over and over again against much better horses than Zenyatta ever faced and no one seems to think he's even in the discussion for top 10-15. Does that mean everyone views him as some mediocrity?

I don't understand why the topic of Zenyatta causes people to abandon rational thought, but my only guess is because some were so emotionally invested in her that it clouds their judgment. That's fine, but let's at least call it what it is, instead of pretending that anyone who disagrees she's the best ever is a hater...or thinks she was mediocre. Because it's just not true.

Running their "A" race

Holy Bull
Skip Away
Zenyatta

[Tom]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Jesus Christ...

YOU, of all people, can't take a joke?

Where in this post -- or in ANY post, for that matter -- do I say that she was "the greatest horse ever"?

Yes I can....as indicated by the

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by cj

I know you were talking about her opening fraction, and so was I. What did you think I was talking about? She ran almost 1 second faster at Churchill than she did at Santa Anita, more when adjusted for track speed. Randy Moss is wrong. She did not run her typical fraction. She ran faster. Yet she handled the latter and not the former?

Sometimes our eyes lie to us and I think that is the case here. The fact the others were running faster made it look like she was struggling. Maybe she was, but it was trying to run faster earlier than she was used to doing. I'm sure some of that was her size as you mentioned earlier. But it in no way should be considered an excuse.

I think she broke like always and started out about the same speed as always, but Smith saw that how far back she was so he had to hustle her to keep in contact. I just don't see the kickback/handling the surface excuse. How does a horse not handle the surface for a furlong, then love it for the next nine? It isn't like the dirt kicking back stopped either.

Perhaps, had she faced real competition a few times before the BC on dirt, she would have been able to keep up a little better. That is on her connections though.

I'm not sure which fractions he was comparing, but I'm pretty sure he wasn't comparing her 1st quarter time in the 2010 Classic to her 1st quarter time in the 2009 Classic.

It looks like she ran about a 26 2/5 in the 2010 Classic.

I think he was comparing her typical early fractions adjusted for turns and track speed over a series of races to the 2010 Classic and saying they were similar.

We aren't going to agree on this and that's OK. That's handicapping.

I see a horse that was normally off a step slowly, that settled at the back of the pack, and ran slow fractions that were dictated by field size and the action in front of her, but capable of faster than the 26 2/5 she ran in the 2010 Classic when the action allowed for it (and it often didn't)

In 2010 I see a horse that got away a step slow, got squeezed/crossed in front of a little, looked a little uncomfortable (perhaps kickback) for the first 1/8th of mile or so, then settled, but was getting so disconnected by that time Smith used her to get where she normally is running fractions she's been fully capable of exceeding without urging in the past.

We unquestionably agree the connections made an error not getting one more dirt race into her before then. I think they should have faced Rachel at 10F at Saratoga. If they did, IMO she wins both races and quiets everyone.

[Tom]

Questing buries them both.

Questing is the greatest race horse of all time.
The debate is over on that one.

[cj]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I'm not sure which fractions he was comparing, but I'm pretty sure he wasn't comparing her 1st quarter time in the 2010 Classic to her 1st quarter time in the 2009 Classic.

It looks like she ran about a 26 2/5 in the 2010 Classic.

I think he was comparing her typical early fractions adjusted for turns and track speed over a series of races to the 2010 Classic and saying they were similar.

We aren't going to agree on this and that's OK. That's handicapping.

I see a horse that was normally off a step slowly, that settled at the back of the pack, and ran slow fractions that were dictated by field size and the action in front of her, but capable of faster than the 26 2/5 she ran in the 2010 Classic when the action allowed for it (and it often didn't)

In 2010 I see a horse that got away a step slow, got squeezed/crossed in front of a little, looked a little uncomfortable (perhaps kickback) for the first 1/8th of mile or so, then settled, but was getting so disconnected by that time Smith used her to get where she normally is running fractions she's been fully capable of exceeding without urging in the past.

We unquestionably agree the connections made an error not getting one more dirt race into her before then. I think they should have faced Rachel at 10F at Saratoga. If they did, IMO she wins both races and quiets everyone.

I agree. We all see what we want to see. Everyone notices when the horse they bet at 8 to 1 gets blocked, but they rarely notice when the same thing happens to the favorite while their 8 to 1 shot is winning.

It doesn't matter how many times you say it. Moss was wrong about the times. If you choose to believe him, so be it. The 2010 fraction was not similar to the Classic the year before, and it wasn't similar to "typical" for her either. It was as fast as she had went to that call in a long time.

[trp]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I think it was Randy Moss that argued that she ran close to her typical fractions in the 2010 dirt Classic but was so far behind because the dirt pace was faster than the typical synthetic pace she was used to.

From a Nov. 8, 2010 article by Beyer:

"According to Randy Moss, who created the Moss Pace Figures for the Daily Racing Form, Zenyatta was running as fast in the early stages of the Classic as in any of her races over the last two years. Yet she was out of contact with the rest of the field."

I don't interpret Moss's statement as saying Z ran close to her typical early fractions in the 2010 Classic, but rather she ran at the upper end of her early pace range.

That's very close to what CJ posted.