Bossert blames Z loss on schedule - I disagree

[BluegrassProf]

Wait....so there's a chance - mathematically! - Zenyatta coulda beaten Blame? For serious??

Dudes. She's the greatest.

Even if she didn't.

[JustRalph]

John, I gotta give you an A for effort. If you took the time to do that, good for you

[tucker6]

Originally Posted by swetyejohn

I just reviewed the video using a stopwatch and I calculated the deceleration. In the last 100 yards, Blame was decelerating more than Zenyatta.


Let's compare this to Zenyatta:

Z was 2 lengths back at the top of the stretch = 16 feet behind Blame.

next 300 feet she gained 1/2 length = 4 feet
next 300 feet she gained 1/2 length = 4 feet
last 300 feet she gained 1 length = 8 feet

John,

Nice post, but if you review the video several times as I just did, you'll see that the underlying premise of your numbers is invalid. Zenyatta was NOT behind by 2 lengths at the 300 yard mark (if the yard markers are accurately portrayed by TV), she was at least 3 back, maybe 4. At 200 yards, she was a solid 2 back. At 100 yards, she surges to a length back. At 50 yards, she is within a half length. She makes up most of her remaining deficit just past the 50 yard mark, and in the last 25 yards, they are bobbing heads. You don't need fancy numbers to prove the point. Just reviewing the video shows that at each frame of reference heading further into the stretch, the distance she was making up was lessening. This is the very essense of deceleration compared to another object (Blame). Her speed was greater, but she was coming off her fast pace more quickly than Blame was. The visuals don't lie, and tell the tale.

[tucker6]

Originally Posted by BluegrassProf

Wait....so there's a chance - mathematically! - Zenyatta coulda beaten Blame? For serious??

Dudes. She's the greatest.

Even if she didn't.

Unfortuantely, he got the math right, but the underlying conditions wrong. Thus, the final result is incorrect. She was decelerating more than Blame at the wire when compared to 100 or 300 yards earlier.

[GARY Z]

Hate to date myself, no real problem with Mike Smith as a Jockey.

That said, wondering if this result woud have been if Mr. Pincay
were on this incredible mare.

[cj]

Originally Posted by swetyejohn

The stretch at CD is about a 1/4 mile if I'm not mistaken. It should be possible to time the stretch run and calculate the FPS for Z and Blame. It should be simple to time the last 1/8 and last 1/16, too.

The 1/4 and 1/8 are readily available in the charts.

[cj]

Originally Posted by swetyejohn

I think it is almost irrefutable that had Smith moved earlier or kept closer contact with the pace Z would have won.

Well, sure, except for that little fact that the more energy you use up early the less that is available late. I would argue she would have had a better chance if winning if she went even slower early rather than faster.

[joanied]

Originally Posted by Cratos

Joanied, I agree with you, but I not saying she would have beaten Blame. However she would have been into the race earlier.

Thanks. I wonder if Shirreff's is thinking the same thing...had she worked overe the track, had she been there maybe a full week, she may have been used to the surface enough not to struggle over it like she did...we'll never know, but I don't know what else Mike could have done that first 1/2 mile...he just sorta had to wait for her to get comfortable...no one can force a horse to go (as in fast) over ground they don't like, IMO.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by cj

Well, sure, except for that little fact that the more energy you use up early the less that is available late. I would argue she would have had a better chance if winning if she went even slower early rather than faster.

Of course you are right that energy used early will not be available later.

However, that applies more to front runners than to deep closers.

Just look what happens if the pace is too slow in a turf race. The final time can be very slow because the horses don't have enough distance in the stretch to make up for the slow pace. The horses can be full of run, but the wire comes too soon.

My opinion is that Zenyatta did NOT use up enough energy early to try to keep up with the pack. I think she had more energy left, but ran out of time to use it to her advantage. Blame was rapidly running out of energy and Z was about to pass him. She was decelerating, but at a slower rate than Blame.

The 4 minute mile was not broken by humans until the runners learned to run a quick pace the entire race. They could have run slower for the first 3/4 mile and then sprinted the last lap, but would have run out of time to break 4 minutes.

Same with Zenyatta in the 2010 Classic, Smith did NOT apportion her energy optimally -- in my opinion -- and his.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by BluegrassProf

Wait....so there's a chance - mathematically! - Zenyatta coulda beaten Blame? For serious??

Dudes. She's the greatest.

Even if she didn't.

Ruffian, in my opinion, is the greatest -- maybe of all time and of both sexes.

[tucker6]

Originally Posted by swetyejohn

My opinion is that Zenyatta did NOT use up enough energy early to try to keep up with the pack. I think she had more energy left, but ran out of time to use it to her advantage. Blame was rapidly running out of energy and Z was about to pass him. She was decelerating, but at a slower rate than Blame.

You keep saying it, but it isn't true. The visuals alone disprove your theory. If a horse makes up two lengths in a 100 yards, and in the next 100 yards, makes up another length, then that horse is decelerating compared to the other horse. Simple really. I hope you're not confusing speed with acceleration. Acceleration/deceleration is the rate of change of speed, and if a horse isn't reeling in the horse in front of her like she was, then she is slowing down relative to the other horse. NOT slower as in speed, but not catching up as quick.

[highnote]

Tuck,
According to the result chart in the Louisville Courier Journal she was in third place and behind Blame by 2 lengths at the 1/4 pole. That is consistent with what I can see on the video replay. She was closing in on him with every step in the stretch. It does not look to me like she was back 3 or 4 lengths at 300 yards. It is unlikely that Blame could have gained 1 or 2 lengths on her in the 110 yards from the quarter pole to 300 yards. On the video, it doesn't look to me like he gained any ground on her from the 1/4 pole to 300 yards. In fact, it looks to me like she gained 1/2 length on him.

If she was gaining on him in the stretch and almost catching him at the wire then her velocity would have to have been greater than his. If it wasn't greater than his then he would have been pulling away from her.

If her velocity is greater than his then he must have been decelerating at a rate greater than hers because we know they were both decelerating and we know she gained on him.

Maybe we are describing two different things? I am not sure what is not clear about what I'm saying, though. But I'll be glad to take another shot at it if you want me to.

Originally Posted by tucker6

John,

Nice post, but if you review the video several times as I just did, you'll see that the underlying premise of your numbers is invalid. Zenyatta was NOT behind by 2 lengths at the 300 yard mark (if the yard markers are accurately portrayed by TV), she was at least 3 back, maybe 4. At 200 yards, she was a solid 2 back. At 100 yards, she surges to a length back. At 50 yards, she is within a half length. She makes up most of her remaining deficit just past the 50 yard mark, and in the last 25 yards, they are bobbing heads. You don't need fancy numbers to prove the point. Just reviewing the video shows that at each frame of reference heading further into the stretch, the distance she was making up was lessening. This is the very essense of deceleration compared to another object (Blame). Her speed was greater, but she was coming off her fast pace more quickly than Blame was. The visuals don't lie, and tell the tale.

[tucker6]

Originally Posted by swetyejohn

Tuck,
According to the result chart in the Louisville Courier Journal she was in third place and behind Blame by 2 lengths at the 1/4 pole. That is consistent with what I can see on the video replay. She was closing in on him with every step in the stretch. It does not look to me like she was back 3 or 4 lengths at 300 yards. It is unlikely that Blame could have gained 1 or 2 lengths on her in the 110 yards from the quarter pole to 300 yards. On the video, it doesn't look to me like he gained any ground on her from the 1/4 pole to 300 yards. In fact, it looks to me like she gained 1/2 length on him.

If she was gaining on him in the stretch and almost catching him at the wire then her velocity would have to have been greater than his. If it wasn't greater than his then he would have been pulling away from her.

If her velocity is greater than his then he must have been decelerating at a rate greater than hers because we know they were both decelerating and we know she gained on him.

Maybe we are describing two different things? I am not sure what is not clear about what I'm saying, though. But I'll be glad to take another shot at it if you want me to.

Find one reputable poster that agrees with you that at 300 yards, Zenyatta is only two lengths back. As I see it, Blame is in front by a solid length over horse #2. #2 is a solid length ahead of horse #3. #3 is a solid length ahead of Zenyatta. Therefore, my statement that Blame was 3-4 lengths in front of Zenyatta at 300 yards is correct, and irrefutable. The reason you cannot agree with this is that if you do, then your numbers will change and show that Zenyatta was decelerating more than Blame at the wire, and we can't have that, can we. And I haven't even challenged your stop watch skills.

[highnote]

Tuck,
Let's look at what you wrote below.

Horse A makes up 2 lengths on Horse B in 100 yards.

Horse A makes up 1 length on Horse B in the next 100 yards.

You are correct that Horse A is decelerating compared to Horse B, but only to a degree -- say, if Horse B's velocity is constant.

If Horse B's velocity is constant and Horse A is closing in on B at a slower rate, then yes, A is decelerating at a greater rate than B, because B is NOT decelerating.

However, in the Zenyatta/Blame race to wire they were both decelerating at different rates. Blame was decelerating at a greater rate than Zenyatta as they approached the wire. That is why she was catching him. Blame's velocity WAS NOT CONSTANT as he approached the wire.

This starts to get into calculus and that is what makes it difficult and challenging, but very interesting.

Originally Posted by tucker6

You keep saying it, but it isn't true. The visuals alone disprove your theory. If a horse makes up two lengths in a 100 yards, and in the next 100 yards, makes up another length, then that horse is decelerating compared to the other horse. Simple really. I hope you're not confusing speed with acceleration. Acceleration/deceleration is the rate of change of speed, and if a horse isn't reeling in the horse in front of her like she was, then she is slowing down relative to the other horse. NOT slower as in speed, but not catching up as quick.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by tucker6

Find one reputable poster that agrees with you that at 300 yards, Zenyatta is only two lengths back. As I see it, Blame is in front by a solid length over horse #2. #2 is a solid length ahead of horse #3. #3 is a solid length ahead of Zenyatta. Therefore, my statement that Blame was 3-4 lengths in front of Zenyatta at 300 yards is correct, and irrefutable. The reason you cannot agree with this is that if you do, then your numbers will change and show that Zenyatta was decelerating more than Blame at the wire, and we can't have that, can we. And I haven't even challenged your stop watch skills.

On the contrary. Even if Z is back by 3-4 lengths at 300 yards it is not going to change the fact that as Z and Blame approach the wire Blame was decelerating at a greater rate than Z and that was my point.

Now, do you think the chart that the Louisville Courier printed is incorrect? Do you think Z was back 2 lenths at the 1/4 pole and then lost one or two lengths in the next 140 yards?

I would say that it is possible the chart is wrong or that Z did lose a length or two over 140 yards. But it doesn't appear that way to me as I watch the video.

But if I am wrong, it doesn't change the fact that as Z and Blame neared the wire Z was decelerating less than Blame.

It will change the math from the quarter pole to 300 yards (which I agree Z was decelerating more than Blame even with my math), but it won't change the math in the last 200 yards. This is the point where Blame starts to decelerate more than Z.

You have stated that Blame was decelerating less than Z at the wire. The video and the math in the last 200 yards differs from what you said.

My calculations shows that in the span of 200 yards to 100 yards from the wire, Z and Blame were decelerating at the same rate about 1.27 feet per second.

Then in the last 100 yards Blame decelerated at 2.21 feet per second and Z decelerated at 1.88 feet per second.

Blame was decelerating at 0.33 feet per second more than Z.