Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Thoroughbred Horse Racing Discussion > **TRIPLE CROWN TRAIL**


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 02-08-2012, 01:59 AM   #1
papillon
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 282
an alternative explanation

i've been playing around with a theory that explains battle hardened, i'll have another, and algorithms' wins beyond the standards of "they are just better," "pedigree," and "distance limitations" etc.

what do all three of these horses have in common?

they were all the lowest or near lowest weights in their respective races:

battle hardened, 116 lbs, state of play gave him 6 lbs, reveron and prosepctive gave him 4 lbs

algorithms, 117 lbs, hansen gave him 6 lbs, my adonis gave him 4 lbs

i'll have another, 118 lbs, liaison gave him 5 lbs



what do all of the beaten favorites in these races have in common?

they were all the highest weights in their respective races.


i know the significance of weight in racing isn't new or earth shattering, but it is almost never spoken about, and perusing the various pontificators from haskin, to watchmaker, to siegal to all the sundry anonymous posters around the web--i haven't seen anyone discussing it other than a brief little blurb by plonk.

taking occam's razor to the outcomes of these races, where every high weight favorite fell to every low weight new comer, the most obvious explanation isn't breeding (after all these horses are so inbreed it really is almost pointless to focus on breeding as determinative, if the distance is one that is within the expected range based on their pedigrees, and all of these horses should be able to get 1 to 1 1/16).

it also doesn't really help to focus on distance as determinative (especially if the horse in question has already shown it can go the same distance or longer than the race it just lost, which all of the high weights have already shown).

before i continue: i am not saying breeding and distance are moot, i am saying that they don't really help explain this particular phenomenon.

it seems that usual, non-occamish way of explaining how every high weight lost to every low weight involved convoluted explanations about 2 year old prococity, a lack of 3 year old progression, combined with 3 year old regression, and a magic trick that keeps all of the good horses from multiple owners and trainers from debuting until january, topped of with a dash of pedigree/distance limitations that equally effected all of these colts exaclty the same way despite different pedigrees, different trainers, different owners, diifferent race tracks, and different racing conditions...

this is not very satisfactory.

so this is my theory--weight is particularly uncomfortable for young horses and has more pronounced effect on them than it does on mature horses (thus hansen felt his 123 lbs a lot more in the holy bull than GOD felt his 123 lbs in the santa antonio).

ok, so how does this affect handicapping the ky derby?--if my theory is right, then no two young horses' performances can be accurately compared until they have run the same distance under the same weight. wins by horses carrying significantly less weight are meaningless, but the quality of a loss by high weight horse in relation to the amount of weight given can be very instructive. the better horses isn't the won who won but who handled his weight the best.

track surface is less important in my theory than weight, but carrying weight on a harder surface is likely to be more uncomfortable, and thus more troublesome, for young horses, than carrying weight on a yielding surface is, so a horse that handled weight well on a yielding track can be deceptive of the horse's true ability to handle weight (this helps to explain the collapse of the liaison, rousing sermon, and sky kingdom). however, i also feel that carrying weight too soon leads to injury, so the determinative races are the 2nd (and on) races under a given weight at a given distance--they might run well once under weight but then be pretty much washed up due to the effort..

those horses that show they can carry weight repeatedly are your derby picks.


a note about alpha--alpha was the only high weight to win, but he was also the lowest of all the high weights, at only 120 lbs, and the last time he raced at 123 lbs, he came in 11th. also the level of competition still matters--hansen, highest weight of all so far, was still able to hold off 4 other much lower weighted horses. according to my theory, barring injury or illness, a horse is unlikely to beat a horse at the same distance at equal weight, if it has already lost to that horse at a much lower weight. likewise, a horse is very unlikely to beat another at a higher weight, if the horse that beat it previously at a higher weight, now carries less weight than it does. (i know this isn't earth shattering--i'm just spelling out my conditions for myself really, so i can test it).

last thought--i think the 126 lbs of the ky derby is really underrated as a crucial factor in both the race outcome and the amount of injuries sustained--some of these horses graduate from 116 straight to 126--it shouldn't surprise if they don't run like they did under 116, or come awaywith badly bucked shins or worse.

aside: i also think weight is the real culprit behind the devastating effect that running in the bcj tends to have on 2 year olds--i don't think it is the distance or the speed, i think it is the 123 lbs imposed on horses that are actually still yearlings (most non-racehorses are not even ridden until late 3 years, and 4 years is the recommended age--a horse's skeleton doesn't finish growing until age 6).

all right--tear it apart

Last edited by papillon; 02-08-2012 at 02:02 AM.
papillon is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 02-08-2012, 04:39 AM   #2
redshift1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,194
One thing I agree with, weights are mentioned about as often as dosage which is to say almost never. One thing about your theory, it can be directly measured in the next 8 weeks. Here's my take on what happened in the above races sans the Withers which was a virtual walkover for lack of good competition.


Robert B Lewis:

Nice race by the winner but everybody carried 118 except Liaison who carried 123. What about Rousing Sermon and Sky Kingdom both of which struggled home at 118. You could be right about Liaison maybe it was the weight but my feeling is he was not going to win the race no matter what the weight discrepancy.

Sam F Davis:

I mentioned this in another thread, somebody knew something about Battle Hardened. How does a Maiden with a soso record get bet from 11-1 to 4.50 in the latter part of the betting against horses with better records? It wasn't the weights it was probably the connections knowing he was training lights out.


Holy Bull:

Algorithms IMO, at this point, is just better if he wins out in Florida he will be the Derby Favorite.

.
redshift1 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 02-08-2012, 03:43 PM   #3
rastajenk
Just Deplorable
 
rastajenk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Lebanon, Ohio
Posts: 8,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by redshift1
Algorithms IMO, at this point, is just better if he wins out in Florida he will be the Derby Favorite..
He's the ML fave in Future Pool #1, except of course for #24, All Others.
rastajenk is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 02-08-2012, 05:10 PM   #4
Blenheim
Race Player
 
Blenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Home of the brave.
Posts: 1,044
Alternative thinking is always good - keeps things interesting. One thing to pick a horse, another thing altogether to consider why the horse won or lost.
~
I've always thought weight an important factor in the outcome of races and posted such the latter part of the 2011 Trail. Excellent you've seen weight as a factor early along this Trail. As redshift1 wrote, "it can be directly measured in the next 8 weeks." At the least, when I now review the data, I'll see the weight next time I look.

FYI, here is a quote from Ainslie's Complete Guide to Thoroughbred Racing

4.
For most horses, 120 pounds is the beginning of difficulty at any distance. Except for young, sharp animals of allowance quality or better, no horse should be granted ability to carry 120 or more unless (a) it has already done so with aplomb in a race of today's distance or longer, or (b) it has run a powerful, reasonably recent race at the distance or longer, under 118 or more.
5. In races at a mile or longer, weights in excess of 120 pounds become most burdensome. A horse entered in a race of that kind under such an impost can be backed with confidence only if (a) it has demonstrated its ability to tote the load, (b) it is in superb form and does not come to the race off a recent tough effort under similar high poundage, and (c) no other fit animal of equal class has a weight advantage of five pounds or more.
~
redshift1,

You really didn't get into the why of the outcome of the RBLewis. You wrote, "my feeling is he [Liaison] was not going to win the race no matter what the weight discrepancy." Why wasn't he going to win the race no matter what? What about the SFDavis?
~
Can't believe El Padrino is going off at 20/1; 28/1 Wynn. I read he is goin' next in the Risen Star against Mr. Bowling and Z Dager. Lookin' forward to that one!

Nothin' Like the Derby Trail. Lookin' forward to the next one.
__________________
Nothing endures but change.
- Heraclitus 535-475 BC

Blenheim is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 02-09-2012, 12:32 AM   #5
redshift1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blenheim

You really didn't get into the why of the outcome of the RBLewis. You wrote, "my feeling is he [Liaison] was not going to win the race no matter what the weight discrepancy." Why wasn't he going to win the race no matter what? What about the SFDavis?


Nothin' Like the Derby Trail. Lookin' forward to the next one.
I actually liked Liaison's chances prior to the race but you could see he was struggling coming into the stretch in fact if you listen to Denman's call he mentioned Liaison was struggling about 4 lengths behind in a 3/4 run in 1:10.20. He went to fast attending the pace and was unable to keep up in the stretch. IMO the additional weight was negligible compared to how quickly he backed out


Will get to the Sam Davis later on.
.
redshift1 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 02-10-2012, 02:10 AM   #6
papillon
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 282
thanks for the thoughtful and informative replies redshift and blenhiem (blenheim extra special thanks for posting the excerpt from the book).

i'm going to be applying my theory from here on out and tracking the results. i'll be honset about what happens--if it turns our to be turd, i'll admit it!

but i did a test run with the 3 year old races at gulfstream (through to december) from last year, and it worked out almost perfectly.

last year had everyone scratching their heads and throwing up their hands, but when you only look at weight assignments, all of the results make perfect sense.

i started with a hunch that soldat (my original derby pick, before shack's 2nd in the fl derby) was one of the lowest weights in his dirt bow, the 1 1/8 mile allowance race at gulfstream in january, and that he had remained a low weight until the the fixed weight assignments of FL derby and his bottoming out in the KY derby.

i also guessed that to honor and serve was the high weight in the races he raced against soldat, dialed-in, and shackleford--and was right again. like soldat, both dialed-in and shack remained low weights until their fixed weight races.

soldat:

ALLOWANCE--as the low weight, was a run away winner at 1 1/8 mile in the slop (sound familiar?)

FOY--1 1/8 mile a beautiful day on dry track, was assigned 120lbs, but was not the high weight (to honor and serve was the high weight at 122lbs). soldat wins, THAS was third, and gourmet dinner also carrying 120lbs was second, but the effort destroyed him. but note shack was 5th at 116lbs.

FL Derby--1 1/8 mile, a very hot day, on a dry track, all horses assigned 122lbs, soldat doesn't run at all he-- starts fifth and ends fifth. most blame the heat or just don't know why he bonked. THAS was 3rd again, but doesn't run again until august. dialed in, who was the low weight in his first two races of the year (the 1 mile holy bull, and an allowance written for him at 1 1/8 in which he was 2nd), just barely wins, over shack (who went off at 60-1), who was also the low weight (116lbs) in his first two races of the year--the first he won, an allowance at 1 1/8 mile, the second he ran fifth, the FOY.

KY Derby--1 1/4 mile, cuppy track, all horses 126lbs. soldat fades just after the first turn, ends up 11th, never races again. THAS didn't make it to the starting gate. dialed in trails the field, never really makes a move, finishes 8th just by virtue of passing tired horses. shack leads turning for home, fades to fourth 4th in the final furlong.

Preakness--1 3/16 mile, all horses at 126lbs. soldat doesn't make it to the gate. shack wins, dialed-in, in his last race of the year, finishes 4th.

Belmont--1 1/2 mile, all horses at 126lbs. shack is the only gulfstream veteran still racing. he leads until the stretch again, fades to fifth in the final long--finishes 5th--which for the son of forestry is really nothing short of a miracle, but not as miraculous as a son of roman ruler winning the belmont.

shack:

Haskell--1 1/8 mile--my guess before pulling up the weights, shack was high weight, coil was low weight. upon checking--shack gave coil 4 lbs, 122 to 118. coil only just catches him at the wire, but never races worth a dam again.

Travers--1 1/4, all horses a 126 lbs, shack leads till they turn for home then fades badly to 8th--his worst race of the year.

Indiana--1 1/16, my guess before checking the weights, is that shack was high weight--i am wrong, he was co-high weight with first place finisher wilburn and 3rd place finisher caleb's posse, all were at 124lbs. that was the first time wilburn had carried real weight, he ran back in the dirt mile in 7th place. my guess, he's basically washed up now.

PA Derby--going to sneak THAS back into the picture. he made an "impressive" return in an allowance race at 116 lbs, and, as the low weight in the PA derby, held off high weight ruler on ice for 1st. every hails the return of the monster they all hoped he would be running without weight at 2--but at 123 lbs finishes 7th in the BCC, whereas ruler on ice, now at equal weight, finishes 3rd, beaten only by older horses, carrying 126lbs, one of whom is a beast, GOD, .

Dirt mile--shack and caleb's posse are the low weights, at 123lbs. they demolish the field, and their old foe wilburn, but shack can't hold off caleb's posse at equal weight at the shorter distance.

Cigar Mile-- THAS returns at 116lbs to win the cigar mile, his only grade 1 as a 3 year old. my guess, like mission impazible and soaring empire, he can't win over 120lbs, and maybe not even over 118lbs.

there were only 3 races that didn't fit my hypothesis--shack's foy, his travers, and ROI's clark. according to my theory, at 116 lbs, shack should have destroyed the FOY feild, but i was there that day, and he didn't even take the lead, he didn't really do much of anything that day. the travers was setting up to be another quality win for shack but he faded in the stretch badly (or did he?). also according to my theory, ruler on ice should have beaten flat our in the clark.

regarding shack's : travers, my theory also postulates that track "give" enables or hinders a horse's abilty to carry weight. the hardest dirt track in the us is santa anita; churchill and gulftream are in the middle; and the softest track is saratoga--look at who came in 2nd and 3rd in the travers rattlesnake bridge and jw blue, hardly world beaters. also, look at stay thirsty--he couldn't do anything at churchill or gulfstream, but he's great at saratoga and good at belmont, the softest and next to softest dirt tracks in the us. my theory explains why saratoga is the grave yard of champions--the softer the track is, the more give it has, and the more give a track has, the less painful carrying weight is while running, it basically evens the field, just like a weight break does. it's like dancing on "dead" surface or a "live" surface. concrete is dead, dancing on it not only destroys the dance very quickly, it makes things like lifts much harder, whereas a live surface with give ( a suspended wooden floor fr example, is just the opposite. most professional dancers have "no dead floors" in their contracts.

now, i'm not saying that distance hasn't played a role in shack's results--i think he is the best 1 1/8 mile horse in america, just as GOD is the best 1 1/4 mile in america, and don't think that a 1 1/4 miles is ever going to be easy for shack, but had the travers been run at churchill, gulfstream, or santa anita, shack wouldn't have been 8th, and stay thirsty wouldn't have been 1st.

about liaison, RS, and SK--they were carrying higher weights on a poly track, which had lots have give. once they had to run on a hard track at santa anita, they felt their weight for the first time really. i agree that liaison wasn't going to win, but he responded better than the other two, and like hansen, he was carrying 123lbs, and he was really feeling it. had i'll-have-another also been carrying 123lbs, liaison might not have been the one looking like he was struggling. but since he didn't finish it's hard to tell by how much he would have lost by--a hansen like loss wouldn't surprise me.

i can't say that either liaison or hansen will win the foy or the san felipe, but if they both are high weights again and both finish well, even if they don't win, they will be on my derby watch--but the real test will be the fl and santa anita derbys, when the weights will all be equal--right now it is too soon to tell if they came away from their 123lbs ok, or will end up ruin like so many horses before them--i hope not! hansen at least seemed to rebound from his 123lbs of the BCJ, but until the foy i won't know for sure.

thanks again for your replies--i enjoyed reading them.
papillon is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 02-10-2012, 03:29 AM   #7
Robert Goren
Racing Form Detective
 
Robert Goren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Lincoln, Ne but my heart is at Santa Anita
Posts: 16,316
Goren"s rule # 134. One of the quickest ways to go broke is to start thinking that how much weight the horse carrys matters in horse racing. The only weight that matters in horse racing is the weight of the horse (Actually even then it is the changes in the weight of the horse that could be useful) and the public doesn't have access to that information.
__________________
Some day in the not too distant future, horse players will betting on computer generated races over the net. Race tracks will become casinos and shopping centers. And some crooner will be belting out "there used to be a race track here".
Robert Goren is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 02-10-2012, 05:59 AM   #8
turninforhome10
Registered User
 
turninforhome10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,815
Can you account for the difference in lead in the saddle vs. live jock weight?
turninforhome10 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 02-10-2012, 02:06 PM   #9
Blenheim
Race Player
 
Blenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Home of the brave.
Posts: 1,044
papillon,

Good post and fine work. Looking forward to taking a look at your data as we move down the long and winding road.
~
For those that don't believe weight matters two additional quotes from the late, great Mr. Ainslie in his ground breaking work, Ainslie's Complete Guide to Thoroughbred Racing:

In contests among well-conditioned Thoroughbreds of approximately equal quality, with first-rate riders aboard, the only measurable, tangible, fully predictable advantage is lighter weight.
~
When the late Ben Jones trained for the mighty Calumet Farms, he kept his horses out of countless races in which they would have been freighted with a few more pounds than he liked. His son and successor, H. A. "Jimmy" Jones, allowed the great Citation to carry as much as 130 pounds only four times. The horse lost all four races and never won with more than 128 throughout his career.

~
And papillon, fyi, I found that post I made back in April last year. I think in some ways it fits. That post:

I was wonderin’ why and just couldn’t help but try to figure out how so many favorites lost their Derby preps. I’m thinkin’ I may have found the answer.

While reviewing the past performances I couldn’t help but notice that most of the horses running a route on dirt while moving up to 122 pounds for the first time lost that race: Anthony’s Cross, Archarcharch, Astrology, Mucho Macho Man, Nehro, Shakelford, Silver Medallion, Soldat, The Factor, Twice the Appeal, Twin Spires and Watch Me Go. Now I’m no expert, I don’t expect to get it all right and I may have missed one or two, but that is almost half of em’. Of particular note is Florida Derby prep favorite Soldat – he runs lights out at 120 pounds and less but just can’t win at 122 pounds . Another is Arkansas Derby prep favorite The Factor - he wanted nothing to do with 122 pounds in the Arkansas. Mucho Macho Man moved up to 122 pounds in the Louisiana and lost but of course, he had that shoe excuse. No excuses for Silver Medallion in the Lexington. I didn’t review all of em’ but it seems a few extra pounds made a big difference when going two turns with this group, particularly on dirt.

I also noticed some of the horses that ran under those conditions that returned to racing had to change their running style - it seems they couldn’t run on the pace with the additional weight. Some the race knocked completely off form which makes me kinda wonder about Mucho Macho Man, Pants on Fire, Nehro and others coming to the Derby off a tough effort under similar high poundage. Sadly, some that raced under those conditions will ever be the same.

Those few hosses’ winning under those conditions - Dialed In, Midnight Interlude, Pants on Fire and Toby’s Corner won by narrow margins, Uncle Mo being the only exception.
__________________
Nothing endures but change.
- Heraclitus 535-475 BC


Last edited by Blenheim; 02-10-2012 at 02:12 PM.
Blenheim is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 02-10-2012, 07:10 PM   #10
turninforhome10
Registered User
 
turninforhome10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,815
Here is a study that adds credence to your theory
http://www.horseracing-bettingtips.c...t-in-races.php

On pedigrees we always talk about dosage but rarely mention a sire's ability to throw horses that can carry weight. Is their such a thing in the forums opinion?

Last edited by turninforhome10; 02-10-2012 at 07:14 PM.
turninforhome10 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 02-11-2012, 10:15 PM   #11
papillon
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 282
that was a great catch about last year blenheim--i wish i'd seen your post and had made the connection sooner.

robert--papillon's first rule is that the fastest way to go broke in horse racing is to take your money out of your wallet and place it on a horse.

i used to agree that a few pounds couldn't really effect the outcome, but when you see different horses, at different tracks, with different trainers and different owners, running in different weather, all having the same outcomes, there has to be a reason.

but the reasons usually trotted out are pretty facile and trite tbh, and basically boil down too--"i was wrong. that horse really just sucks and this new horse is really the second coming of [insert favorite all time top horse here]." but i'm not so sure now.

i think it would be a lot better for the horses and the gamblers to only have weight for age races for 2 year olds and 3 year olds though to the belmont, with steadily increasing but equal weights for each race.

it would be better for the horses, because horses that can't carry over 120 lbs, would be sparred the pain and suffering of being forced to run in KY derby just because they won a big prep at 116 lbs, and have enough money to start.

it would be better for the gamblers because they would be better able to tell a horse's true class--class is not just ability to stay, it has always been ability to carry weight too--it's the whole reason races are handicapped in the first place--but with young horses there isn't enough data to be able to handicap correctly, and getting it wrong can ruin horse and sour the racing public on racing.

turningforhome, i don't know if your question about dead weight vs live weight was directed to me, but the answer has to be yes i think. i know from all my years in jumping and eventing that the rider has a lot of control over how burdensome his or her weight is to a horse. as unintuitive as it sounds, it is often easier for a horse to jump with a skilled 180lb man on board than with an equally skilled 100 lb female on board--because the lighter rider is more easily displaced (i.e. looses her seat easier), throwing the horse's balance out of whack. also the more weight the rider has the more he or she can use their own forward momentum to add to the horse's forward momentum, as well as correct for loses in balance by the horse.

but lead weight is not able to work with the horse, it can only work against the horse, so i would assume that a 126lb jockey is much easier to carry than a 100lb jockey and 26 lbs of lead.

two thoughts occurred to me today watching shack fade, (1) trainers that can influence the weight assignments at a given track, would have a very big advantage in every handicap race, which would parade right in front of everyone everyday but that no one would ever see, even though it is right in front of them.

if this is going on, then what you would expect to see is the trainer dominating at particular tracks with low weight horses, but struggling in weight for age races at all tracks, and in all races away from their home tracks.

the second thought was that lasix may make it harder for horses to carry and recover from carrying weight, due to its propensity to leech calcium and potassium out of any animal on it, along with the fact that dehydration makes all animals weaker. it might be that weight is an even bigger impediment now, than 40-50-90-100 years ago.

anyway, thanks again for all the great comments and suggestions!

Last edited by papillon; 02-11-2012 at 10:19 PM.
papillon is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 02-12-2012, 12:07 AM   #12
PhantomOnTour
C'est Tout
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cajunland
Posts: 13,253
One axiom on weight that Davidowitz revealed in Betting Thoroughbreds that i still follow with success is:

A 3yr old carrying top weight while facing older rivals under Alw conditions has little or no chance of winning. What's better is that a 3yr old being assigned top weight vs older most likely won his last race and his form looks great on paper, which usually fools the public and they go off at short odds.
__________________
How do I work this?
-David Byrne
PhantomOnTour is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 02-12-2012, 01:27 PM   #13
Robert Fischer
clean money
 
Robert Fischer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Maryland
Posts: 23,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by turninforhome10
Can you account for the difference in lead in the saddle vs. live jock weight?
Actually had the fortune to ask Pat Day his question. He told me that the heavier jockeys who didn't need as much "dead weight"(his words), had a little bit of an edge in the higher assigned weights.
__________________
Preparation. Discipline. Patience. Decisiveness.
Robert Fischer is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 02-12-2012, 01:38 PM   #14
Robert Fischer
clean money
 
Robert Fischer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Maryland
Posts: 23,512
what is the quote about chaos
becoming dangerous when it appears orderly ??
__________________
Preparation. Discipline. Patience. Decisiveness.
Robert Fischer is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 02-12-2012, 01:39 PM   #15
turninforhome10
Registered User
 
turninforhome10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Fischer
Actually had the fortune to ask Pat Day his question. He told me that the heavier jockeys who didn't need as much "dead weight"(his words), had a little bit of an edge in the higher assigned weights.
Being a big fan of Whittingham , in his book he says the same thing.
Papallion, Excellent insight thanks a bunch and solidifies my logic. Having weight being more fluid would allow for increased efficiency of movement. Greater efficiency less fatigue. This is a good thread.
turninforhome10 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Reply




Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

» Advertisement
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2023 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.