|
|
11-14-2010, 01:36 PM
|
#91
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 10,171
|
[QUOTE=swetyejohn]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.
Quote:
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.
|
There's no degree here. Doesn't matter if Horse B is constant or if his rate of change of speed is decelerating. Horse A's rate of change of speed was declining faster.
Quote:
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.
|
Rate of change of speed (Deceleration in this case) is relative in this case. Whether B is constant and A is declining, or B is declining but A is declining moreso, or even B is accelerating and B is constant leads to the same result if comparing the two horses.
Quote:
However, in the Zenyatta/Blame race to wire they were both decelerating at different rates.
|
Correct.
Quote:
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.
|
And this is where you trip yourself up. Zenyatta catching Blame has nothing to do with acceleration/deceleration, which is simply understanding the rate of change in relative speeds. Zenyatta was catching up because her speed was still greater than Blame's until the final 25 yards, when they approached equal speed. As long as she's going faster, then she will catch up, deceleration notwithstanding. However, a clear case can be made that she had already produced her best effort in the race, and was coming down off that pace faster than Blame was coming off his pace.
Quote:
This starts to get into calculus and that is what makes it difficult and challenging, but very interesting
|
Agreed. If one had the time, and I do not, you could produce a speed/acceleration graph for the race for both horses, which would likely show a long acceleration by Zenyatta that hit its zenith at 3/16th to a 1/4 mile left, and her decelerating momentum nearly carried to the wire for the win.
|
|
|
11-14-2010, 01:46 PM
|
#92
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 10,171
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by swetyejohn
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.
|
John,
At times, you appear to be talking about speed, and not deceleration, so I'm not sure we are arguing the same point. Until the final 25 yards, Zenyatta was clearly running faster. At that point, they were in a death struggle, with Zenyatta likely a smidge faster still. That has nothing to do with how they got to that point, which is really what I'm talking about. My overall point is that Z didn't have much more left in the tank, as her declining speed shows. She ran a great race, but she didn't run a 73 Derby, where Horse A accelerated throughout all 10F. I believe the only such occurrence in history for a classic distance. Even Ruffian couldn't do that, even though she tried, and tried, and tried.
|
|
|
11-14-2010, 01:56 PM
|
#93
|
Lacrimae rerum
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: at my house
Posts: 7,308
|
[QUOTE=tucker6]
Quote:
Originally Posted by swetyejohn
Agreed. If one had the time, and I do not, you could produce a speed/acceleration graph for the race for both horses, which would likely show a long acceleration by Zenyatta that hit its zenith at 3/16th to a 1/4 mile left, and her decelerating momentum nearly carried to the wire for the win.
|
I believe you can simply look at the fractional splits, and see that her speed peaked somewhere in the second fraction, between a 1/4 and 1/2 mile into the race. She walked out, lost contact, then rushed up on the turn to regain contact with the field. That is where she maxed out both her acceleration, and reached her top speed.
I think we're all fascinated by the interplay of pace, running styles, surface, and best efforts. It's an intractable topic. To me, its pretty clear that a one run closer won't run their best effort by shooting their wad in the first turn of a 10F race. I'd guess that running more evenly over the first half (rather than faster or slower) would have produced a better effort, but who knows for sure.
Last edited by chickenhead; 11-14-2010 at 01:58 PM.
|
|
|
11-14-2010, 02:13 PM
|
#94
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 10,861
|
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by tucker6
Quote:
Originally Posted by swetyejohn
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.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by tucker6
There's no degree here. Doesn't matter if Horse B is constant or if his rate of change of speed is decelerating. Horse A's rate of change of speed was declining faster.
|
|
|
Tuck, your second statement is the crux of the argument.
There is a degree that is important. As I wrote in the previous post, Blame was decelerating at the wire 0.33 fps more than Z.
If Z was gaining 2 lengths in the first 100 yards and then 1 length in the next 100 yards, but Blame's velocity was constant, then Z is decelerating more. I think we agree here.
If Z was gaining 2 lengths in the first 100 yards and then 1 length in the next 100 yards, but Blame's velocity was decreasing, then it is possible that Blame was decelerating at greater rate than Z. This is where we disagree.
We agree they were both decelerating at the wire.
My math shows that from 440 yards to 300 yards:
Blame ran 56.07 fps
Z ran 58.21 fps.
Z is runnning faster -- but you say Z was 3-4 lengths back. That means Z ran 54.81 fps. So you're saying she was running slower than Blame from the quarter pole to the 300 yard mark. It's possible and it won't affect the numbers at the wire.
From 300 yards to 200 yards:
Blame ran 54.55 fps
Z ran 55.27 fps. However, if you are correct that Z was 3-4 lengths further back at 300 yards then she was really flying and she actually accelerated from 300 yards to 200 yards!
From 200 yards to 100 yards:
Blame ran 53.29
Z ran 54.
At this point I claim they were decelerating at the same rate even though their velocities were different.
From 100 yards to the wire:
Blame ran 50.76 fps
Z ran 51.12
Again they are both decelerating, but Blame is decelerating at a greater rate -- 2.12 fps vs. 1.88 fps for Z. Blame is decelerating 0.33 fps greater than Z.
And that is all I the time I can spend on this topic.
|
|
|
11-14-2010, 02:17 PM
|
#95
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 10,861
|
Chick,
I agree that a more evenly run race would have produced a better final time for her. Like I wrote previously in my reply to CJ about humans breaking the 4 minute mile. They did it by running each 1/4 at a steady pace.
My argument is that Z had plenty of gas left in the tank, but ran out of time to use it. You can't run a slow pace and try to make up time in the final sections and expect to run a fast time. World records are broken in races that have fast paces.
D. Wayne Lukas has been quoted as saying that in order to win the Derby all you have to do is run 12 second furlongs.
[QUOTE=chickenhead]
Quote:
Originally Posted by tucker6
I believe you can simply look at the fractional splits, and see that her speed peaked somewhere in the second fraction, between a 1/4 and 1/2 mile into the race. She walked out, lost contact, then rushed up on the turn to regain contact with the field. That is where she maxed out both her acceleration, and reached her top speed.
I think we're all fascinated by the interplay of pace, running styles, surface, and best efforts. It's an intractable topic. To me, its pretty clear that a one run closer won't run their best effort by shooting their wad in the first turn of a 10F race. I'd guess that running more evenly over the first half (rather than faster or slower) would have produced a better effort, but who knows for sure.
|
|
|
|
11-14-2010, 02:28 PM
|
#96
|
@TimeformUSfigs
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,828
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by swetyejohn
Chick,
I agree that a more evenly run race would have produced a better final time for her. Like I wrote previously in my reply to CJ about humans breaking the 4 minute mile. They did it by running each 1/4 at a steady pace.
My argument is that Z had plenty of gas left in the tank, but ran out of time to use it. You can't run a slow pace and try to make up time in the final sections and expect to run a fast time. World records are broken in races that have fast paces.
D. Wayne Lukas has been quoted as saying that in order to win the Derby all you have to do is run 12 second furlongs.
|
If she had so much gas left, why did she not blow by him after the finish?
|
|
|
11-14-2010, 02:38 PM
|
#97
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 10,861
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj
If she had so much gas left, why did she not blow by him after the finish?
|
I don't know? Because the race was over? Afterall, she knows where the wire is, right?
|
|
|
11-14-2010, 02:40 PM
|
#98
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 10,171
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj
If she had so much gas left, why did she not blow by him after the finish?
|
Ah, still spitting out the koolaid when no one is watching eh?? Tsk. Tsk. Go get in line for some more behavior modification.
|
|
|
11-14-2010, 02:47 PM
|
#99
|
@TimeformUSfigs
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,828
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by swetyejohn
I don't know? Because the race was over? Afterall, she knows where the wire is, right?
|
The only point I'm trying to make is this. If you keep thinking closers that don't quite get up after a very fast pace and a pretty clean trip were best, or even worse should be bet back, you are really making a Stretch Armstrong type reach. I think you know this as well. If the horse in question was named anything but Zenyatta, we'd all just say she had a perfect setup and didn't get it done. She was just another overbet favorite.
|
|
|
11-14-2010, 02:52 PM
|
#100
|
C'est Tout
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cajunland
Posts: 13,272
|
Alright...I finally gotta chime in here with a few of my meaningless thoughts:
A) with my losing bet on Lucky down the drain by the 1/8 pole I began to root for Zen to win it...she didn't, and no matter how folks wanna carve up the race and discuss gallop outs and final fractions and problems with the surface and the ride and yadda yadda...she came up short. Hell of an effort, but credit due to Blame.
B) she may have fared better with a work over the surface...who knows? Did she work at OP before her races there? I can't remember.
C) it's tough to beat someone on their home course, ain't it?
D) Zenyatta is a bona-fide, Grade A, top notch, first ballot HOF'er, and a gal for the ages...but Blame is HOY for 2010.
I began to swing to the Zen camp last year after the BC Classic but was highly disappointed in her 2010 campaign prior to the big race. No excuse for not trying the Pac Classic or Hollywood Gold Cup.
Just me thoughts.
__________________
How do I work this?
-David Byrne
|
|
|
11-14-2010, 03:07 PM
|
#101
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 10,171
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhantomOnTour
Alright...I finally gotta chime in here with a few of my meaningless thoughts:
A) with my losing bet on Lucky down the drain by the 1/8 pole I began to root for Zen to win it...she didn't, and no matter how folks wanna carve up the race and discuss gallop outs and final fractions and problems with the surface and the ride and yadda yadda...she came up short. Hell of an effort, but credit due to Blame.
B) she may have fared better with a work over the surface...who knows? Did she work at OP before her races there? I can't remember.
C) it's tough to beat someone on their home course, ain't it?
D) Zenyatta is a bona-fide, Grade A, top notch, first ballot HOF'er, and a gal for the ages...but Blame is HOY for 2010.
I began to swing to the Zen camp last year after the BC Classic but was highly disappointed in her 2010 campaign prior to the big race. No excuse for not trying the Pac Classic or Hollywood Gold Cup.
Just me thoughts.
|
great post. speaks my sentiments.
|
|
|
11-14-2010, 03:20 PM
|
#102
|
Just another Facist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Now in Houston
Posts: 52,796
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhantomOnTour
D) Zenyatta is a bona-fide, Grade A, top notch, first ballot HOF'er, and a gal for the ages...but Blame is HOY for 2010.
|
Do they have a new category for those who ran a duck and cover campaign?
In the crazy world that is horse racing, where Hall of Famer's are still in the sport........they will vote her in. It's the most ridiculous Hall of Fame in all of sports. Riders and trainers are voted in while they still participate?
I say they go to the five year rule like other sports
It's a freakin popularity contest with no ground rules.
|
|
|
11-14-2010, 04:51 PM
|
#103
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,653
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by pandy
I think if Sheriffs had to do it all over again he'd ship in earlier and trainer Z over the CD track to see how she handles it
|
I don't think it would have made a difference, as the way the track was on SAT would not reflect what it might have been on Wed. Talk to some of the photographers who stood on the track for 2 days...they can tell you more about what the track was actually like.
|
|
|
11-14-2010, 05:40 PM
|
#104
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 10,861
|
CJ, in most cases I would agree with you about closers, but in this case I think Z was the best horse. I agree with Mike Smith that he did not give her the best chance of winning. The only objective way I know of proving my point that Z was the best horse is showing that Z was decelerating at slower rate at the wire than Blame. Smith almost got the win. If Z would have nipped Blame by a nose at the wire rather than losing by 1/2 a head we might not be having this conversation.
As to her being an overbet favorite, that is a matter of opinion. That's why they put them on the track.
She won the BC Classic last year. She almost won this year. She won 19 in a row. She deserves to be called a champion.
I didn't bet the race and I probably would not have bet her at short odds. I don't think the risk of betting her justified the potential reward. However, I look at it from a purely financial point of view.
Others don't mind taking the risk because holding a winning ticket on a champion like Zenyatta trumps the risk. For many people, value is not measured in dollars.
The one thing I like about big racings days with big name horses is that a lot of people make a popular horse a sentimental favorite. I think a lot of $2 bettors made Zenyatta the sentimental favorite. For these sentimental ticket holders, seeing her lose was much more painful than the $2 win bet they lost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj
The only point I'm trying to make is this. If you keep thinking closers that don't quite get up after a very fast pace and a pretty clean trip were best, or even worse should be bet back, you are really making a Stretch Armstrong type reach. I think you know this as well. If the horse in question was named anything but Zenyatta, we'd all just say she had a perfect setup and didn't get it done. She was just another overbet favorite.
|
|
|
|
11-14-2010, 06:30 PM
|
#105
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,653
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by swetyejohn
it was the jockey's fault.
|
I can't blame a jockey for not being able to change a horse's running style at the last minute, "during" a big race.
As a matter of fact, I'm against drastically altering a horse's running style, period.... unless there is something mechanically / musculoskeletally incorrect in the first place that would vastly hinder their career on the track, or cause them to come to harm. And that would happen very early on in their career, not the end of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swetyejohn
Zenyatta is perhaps the greatest closer of all time, though.
|
And everyone who knows how the track played on SAT, and what the consistency of the track was, knew that it would not be playing to her kind of running style, hence: it is precisely a testimony to Zen's greatness that she GOT a head behind Blame (horse-for-the-course) at the finish line....
and ahead of all those other dirt horses who should have been there, but weren't...(and didn't have any excuses).
Last edited by WinterTriangle; 11-14-2010 at 06:31 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|