Quote:
Originally Posted by cj
For me, trying to handicap without speed figures would be like trying to write without an alphabet. But that doesn't mean they are everything of course and many people assign too much value to them. I look at them more as a starting point.
|
The major benefit of figures I can see is that you can look at the PPs and have a good feel for the race in a couple of minutes. Then you can continue your analysis from there.
Without them, you have to look at the charts and PPs of a lot of horses to see if certain fields were weak or strong for the class and understand how their performances compare. That takes a lot of time and research. That's why no one does it. It's a lot of work if you want to be good at it.
It's basically the same process as making figures yourself.
The major benefit of figures I see is that it's easier to determine the strength of certain types of races using figures. Races for lightly raced horses and some shippers can get tricky. Also, if a horse wins big (or the top 2 blow out the rest of the field) the figure will typically scream if those horses were way better than average for the class or the rest of the field was trash.
There are just times when a figure is disputed and there are huge differences. Other times I know a fast figure was legitimate but earned by a cheap horse in a weak field and very unlikely to be duplicated against tougher. And still other times I know a horse is better than its recent figures based on how it has been finishing. With all the discrepancies and these other complications, I remain skeptical.
My biggest objection though is making comparisons between horses over the decades based on figures. Changing surfaces, training methods, legal/illegal drug use, and worst of all "figure drift" (which is obviously rampant) make those comparison ludicrous. The historical record is a joke.