The Belmont Winning Time

[cj]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

They all had reasonable trips. Each of them took a pot shot at American Pharoah and he repulsed them like they were gnats without Espinoza even asking for his best.

I agree totally with this. People are saying he had an easy trip and wasn't challenged. I don't think those people paid much attention to be honest. He was challenged. They weren't sustained challenges though, because the other horses just weren't good enough.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by cj

I agree totally with this. People are saying he had an easy trip and wasn't challenged. I don't think those people paid much attention to be honest. He was challenged. They weren't sustained challenges though, because the other horses just weren't good enough.

Yeah, and it's actually not easy to go wire to wire at 1 1/2 miles. The only one to do it in the Belmont in the past 25 years or so was Da Tara (and he lucked out in that his main challenger was eased on the far turn).

It's especially hard to go wire to wire and never slow down. AP went 1:13 the first half of the race and 1:13 the second half.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by highnote

Greatness is too broadly used.

Absolutely correct.

We can, and do, have debates about who is authentically great, but it should always be a very short list. (Like for instance, if I were making a list of great presidents, it might have Washington, Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt. Your list might differ, but the point is, if your list has a different 3 or 4 presidents, you are being reasonable; if your list has 10 presidents on it, you are defining greatness too broadly.)

I love AP's Belmont, and the TC is a wonderful accomplishment, but nothing he has done has qualified him as an all-time "great" horse yet. The horses on that list tend to be horses who had long careers, set track record times, carried weight, beat older horses, dominated the handicap division, and faced adversity.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Steve R

Actually, Favorite Trick has been acknowledged as one of the greatest two-year-olds in American racing history. Secretariat and Arazi are the only American-raced juveniles rated higher in the last 50 years. His BC Juvenile time remains the second fastest ever after 30 years. He was undefeated in 8 races, 7 of them stakes races (5 graded), from 4 1/2 to 8 1/2 furlongs with an average margin of victory of 3 1/2 lengths. He raced at 5 different tracks from New York to Kentucky to California from early April until November. I don't know how you define great, but if you're going to qualify it because he couldn't reproduce that form outside the juvenile colt division then you could do something similar for many horses. Zenyatta almost never stepped outside of her division or her home venue or her preferred surface. The only time she did all three she lost by a head while getting three pounds from the winner at 10f which historically means that Blame was 3 lengths better. I guess "great" is nothing more than what we think it is.

Any system of rating 2 year olds that rates Favorite Trick over Spectacular Bid and Affirmed is seriously flawed. And that opinion has nothing to do with what they went on and did-- I am talking just about their 2 year old seasons.

[Steve R]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Any system of rating 2 year olds that rates Favorite Trick over Spectacular Bid and Affirmed is seriously flawed. And that opinion has nothing to do with what they went on and did-- I am talking just about their 2 year old seasons.

The EFH is not a system. It is the assessment of experienced racing secretaries. You can disagree with their conclusions but the process is hardly flawed unless you can demonstrate that others more qualified are being overlooked or excluded.

[Steve R]

Originally Posted by cj

I agree totally with this. People are saying he had an easy trip and wasn't challenged. I don't think those people paid much attention to be honest. He was challenged. They weren't sustained challenges though, because the other horses just weren't good enough.

I look at the chart and I see leads of 1, 1/2, 1 1/2, 2, 2 1/2 and 5 1/2 off of slow fractions on a very fast surface. If this weren't the Belmont and no Triple Crown was involved would you not, as a handicapper, describe it as a classic example of lone speed on the front end? There is always the chance a front runner won't stay the trip but it's a fundamental handicapping concept that horses considered the only early speed in the field have a distinct advantage. In fact, if I had conjured up a chart without the race name or the real names of the horses but kept the running lines, I don't believe there is one handicapper in ten who wouldn't conclude it was a perfect example of lone speed controlling the pace on the lead. But I know, this is different.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Steve R

The EFH is not a system. It is the assessment of experienced racing secretaries. You can disagree with their conclusions but the process is hardly flawed unless you can demonstrate that others more qualified are being overlooked or excluded.

I don't see what would make racing secretaries experts on 2 year old form. And anyone who thinks favorite trick had a better two year old season than affirmed is crazy.

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by Steve R

If this weren't the Belmont and no Triple Crown was involved would you not, as a handicapper, describe it as a classic example of lone speed on the front end?

The problem with your statement is that this was the Belmont Stakes and it was a Triple Crown winner who crossed the line... IFs have nothing to do with facts in the same way that WOULDA COULDA SHOULDA are simply excuses and nothing else..

[cj]

Originally Posted by Steve R

I look at the chart and I see leads of 1, 1/2, 1 1/2, 2, 2 1/2 and 5 1/2 off of slow fractions on a very fast surface. If this weren't the Belmont and no Triple Crown was involved would you not, as a handicapper, describe it as a classic example of lone speed on the front end? There is always the chance a front runner won't stay the trip but it's a fundamental handicapping concept that horses considered the only early speed in the field have a distinct advantage. In fact, if I had conjured up a chart without the race name or the real names of the horses but kept the running lines, I don't believe there is one handicapper in ten who wouldn't conclude it was a perfect example of lone speed controlling the pace on the lead. But I know, this is different.

I'd say watch the race again, a lot can happen between the calls. Materiality took a shot at him between 6f and 8f, Mubtaahij took a shot on the turn. Both were repulsed with disdain like ease.

[superfecta]

Speaking of watching the race again, I looked at the time of taping of the replay.

From two different sources of the race,the time was 2:29.50 and 2:29.65

That mystified me,but it would explain Coach Inge's final furlong quickness at the same distance.

A timer malfunction?

[cj]

Originally Posted by superfecta

Speaking of watching the race again, I looked at the time of taping of the replay.

From two different sources of the race,the time was 2:29.50 and 2:29.65

That mystified me,but it would explain Coach Inge's final furlong quickness at the same distance.

A timer malfunction?

Probably didn't account for run up.

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by cj

Probably didn't account for run up.

Agreed. Just watched it myself. The 226 and change is correct. You're counting the run up as well.

[pandy]

Originally Posted by cj

I'd say watch the race again, a lot can happen between the calls. Materiality took a shot at him between 6f and 8f, Mubtaahij took a shot on the turn. Both were repulsed with disdain like ease.

I agree. They both made runs at him and he shook them off. This was not a loose-on-the-lead win. If you remember the Kentucky Derby win for War Emblem, no one challenged him. I believe Winning Colors Derby win, same thing, no one got close. That was lone speed loose on the lead.

American Pharoah shook off two challengers and then pulled away from Frosted's late charge.

Since he won the Preakness and Belmont easily, but only beat Firing Line by a length while all out in the Derby, the folks who own Firing Line must feel pretty good about their horse. I hope he comes back sharp, the more competition the better.

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by pandy

I agree. They both made runs at him and he shook them off. This was not a loose-on-the-lead win.

I saw the same thing and won't take away from it too much (him shaking off foes easily). But that usually is the case when lone speed cantors along for 6F. Happens at 6F, 7F, 1M, 10F and 12F. The loose leader has to also be the best horse in the race or somewhat close to the best horse in the race to keep spurting away.

However, imho, that wasn't jaw dropping or spectacular. Spectacular would've been him being in the opposite role and overcoming the leader's soft pace headstart with aplomb. Spectacular would've been him being burned to toast by his next talented counterpart, like Secretariat was in the first half mile of his Belmont AND then running on BETTER than how AP came home in the Belmont.

24.32 was not a fast come fellas. Coach Inge and Wicked Strong (more than likely a not the same Wicked Strong) came home in 23.96 and Coach Inge had way more stress in a much more solid first quarter.

[superfecta]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

Agreed. Just watched it myself. The 226 and change is correct. You're counting the run up as well.

Run up was 68 feet,roughly 7 lengths, so it took three seconds?

Interesting.