Does DRF have a new method of expressing racing records?

[WinterTriangle]

I was reading an article in DRF about who Rachel and Zenyatta beat, and came across this entry. It appears to me that Dan Illman "editorialized" the records? :


Zenyatta: 20 Grade 1 winners
Rachel Alexandra: 13 past or future Grade 1 winners


I was under the impression that a TBs race record would reflect G1 horses vanquished that already had G1s before entering the race, and additionally, that you had to actually beat those horses in a race that actually included yourself and the other horses?

At first, I thought maybe they were changing the way they expressed a horse's record.

But, I looked at records of many other well-known TBs, and was unable to find the words "or future" in their records, concerning G1 horses they beat.


At any rate, can somebody provide the records in the "normally expressed" rendition for me? Unless Dan Illman and others at DRF are really are starting to do it that way and I didn't pull up enough records?

[Dahoss9698]

It's pretty simple. It means horses that won a grade 1 prior to the race Rachel defeated them, or after the race they ran in together.

He did the same thing for Zenyatta. For example, he has Girolamo listed and he won his grade 1 this year, but Zenyatta defeated him last year. Same thing for Awesome Gem.

[WinterTriangle]

Originally Posted by Dahoss9698

It's pretty simple.

It's inflationary biased data manipulation.

I just find it curious to read the different ways people choose to *present* data.

Not saying I agree with him doing it with Zen's record either. Awesome Gem was not a G1 winner when Zenyatta raced him. (although he didn't place the words or future in her entry, which in and of itself can be misleading.)


One can play with data however one wishes, though, and it depends on what kind of "sentiment" exists on the site you're reading it. Illman says "Among Zenyatta's vanquished are 20 Grade 1 winners". Someone else could say, in the 2009 BCC alone, Zenyatta beat 8 G1 winners; in the Woodward, RA beat the winners of 3 G1 races. It's easy to make any horse look worse or better than another, or worse or better than they actually are.

At any rate, I prefer not recording as G1 winners, horses who did not have G1's at the time (the filly and mare) raced them.

IMHO, what a horse does months after they run a race has little bearing on what their condition was in the earlier race. And their condition affects their ability on that day. Ditto, if they lose a G1 race later down the line, it doesn't mean they weren't fire-breathing in the previous race. That's why I don't get too much into "who they beat" thing. (I've read way too much about the attempts to keep Colonel John in race conditon......every single race took a ton out of him and they had to start from scratch. Which makes me like him since he probably accomplished more than he really should have, given that handicap).

It'd be like if Mike Mitchell raced St. Trinians again after her race with Zenyatta, and St. Trinians coming back lousy.....and some of the posters here would say: "See!!! ST is a tomato can!" It wouldn't be valid. (Amoot point, since Mitchell pretty much admitted ST had to take the rest of the year off to recuperate after taking on Zenyatta. As others have admitted taking on other races just to avoid her. )

[FenceBored]

I fail to see a major difference between this and Charlie Cella bragging on the number of Triple Crown race wins by Oaklawn alum (add Super Saver and Lookin at Lucky to the list, Charlie). Or, the criteria used by the AGSC to evaluate the field strength of a race:

The quality of a race is evaluated using:

1. stakes performance of all horses in the field in the 24 months before and after the race, and
2. annual classification ratings of the four highest-rated horses in the field.

A. Stakes Performance

Stakes performance is measured in three ways:

1. POINTS (reflecting field-horses’ 1-2-3 finishes in all unrestricted black-type events);
2. PERCENTAGE of Graded Stakes Winners in the field;
3. QUALITY POINTS (number of Grade I, II, and III winners in the field)

-- http://www.toba.org/graded-stakes/gr...-workbook.aspx

Furthermore, there is the old handicapping concept of a subsequent win "flattering" another horse, a next out G1 win being the most flattering of all.

[Dahoss9698]

Originally Posted by WinterTriangle

It's inflationary biased data manipulation.

I just find it curious to read the different ways people choose to *present* data.

Not saying I agree with him doing it with Zen's record either. Awesome Gem was not a G1 winner when Zenyatta raced him. (although he didn't place the words or future in her entry, which in and of itself can be misleading.)


One can play with data however one wishes, though, and it depends on what kind of "sentiment" exists on the site you're reading it. Illman says "Among Zenyatta's vanquished are 20 Grade 1 winners". Someone else could say, in the 2009 BCC alone, Zenyatta beat 8 G1 winners; in the Woodward, RA beat the winners of 3 G1 races. It's easy to make any horse look worse or better than another, or worse or better than they actually are.

At any rate, I prefer not recording as G1 winners, horses who did not have G1's at the time (the filly and mare) raced them.

IMHO, what a horse does months after they run a race has little bearing on what their condition was in the earlier race. And their condition affects their ability on that day. Ditto, if they lose a G1 race later down the line, it doesn't mean they weren't fire-breathing in the previous race. That's why I don't get too much into "who they beat" thing. (I've read way too much about the attempts to keep Colonel John in race conditon......every single race took a ton out of him and they had to start from scratch. Which makes me like him since he probably accomplished more than he really should have, given that handicap).

It'd be like if Mike Mitchell raced St. Trinians again after her race with Zenyatta, and St. Trinians coming back lousy.....and some of the posters here would say: "See!!! ST is a tomato can!" It wouldn't be valid. (Amoot point, since Mitchell pretty much admitted ST had to take the rest of the year off to recuperate after taking on Zenyatta. As others have admitted taking on other races just to avoid her. )

You asked the question. I answered it. I wouldn't have if I knew it was just another way of hero worshipping. Aren't there a handful of those threads now anyway?

[cj]

Originally Posted by Dahoss9698

You asked the question. I answered it. I wouldn't have if I knew it was just another way of hero worshipping. Aren't there a handful of those threads now anyway?

The writer followed the method (loosely) that the Graded Stakes committee does. Apparently, that isn't what WT would like to see. You can't please everyone.

So, just so I understand, if a horse wins the Wood Memorial by a nose, then loses to the same horse that was a nose behind in the next three Triple Crown races as said horse sweeps the series, we shouldn't mention that horse?

[Dahoss9698]

Originally Posted by cj

So, just so I understand, if a horse wins the Wood Memorial by a nose, then loses to the same horse that was a nose behind in the next three Triple Crown races as said horse sweeps the series, we shouldn't mention that horse?

Pretty much. You shouldn't be able to mention the Wood winner beat the Triple Crown winner, because the triple crown winner won it after the Wood winner beat him.

Is it too early for a drink?

[keithw84]

I think it's fair to classify horses who might be coming down on the form cycle (Rachel beating Macho Again) in the same category as ones who are rising on the form cycle or who come back with a flattering win. (Zenyatta beating Life is Sweet who went on to a BC win).

If we put an asterisk for "Hadn't won a G1 at time of race," don't we also need to add an asterisk for "Defeated 20 G1 winners... but 10 were not on the surface where they achieved their G1 wins"...?

[citygoat]

I've met many future ex-wives.

[WinterTriangle]

Originally Posted by citygoat

I've met many future ex-wives.

Funny.

Considering that 1 out of 2 marriages results in divorce, it would appear that a lot of people can't seem to make room for differences.

Originally Posted by cj

Apparently, that isn't what WT would like to see.

That is correct. Everyone sees things differently.

Originally Posted by cj

You can't please everyone.

So true! Especially since I now see a topic up about how nobody makes money.

So much of the displeasure with horse racing that appears on internet forums and blogs is perplexing. I sense there must be a lot of people who feel racing has been good to them, both financially and otherwise, or they wouldn't keep at it.

Those who don't feel this way, keep following the sport and plowing their hard-earned money into it-------it's hard to feel much sympathy for.

If somebody were on the verge of quitting though, I'd suggest they take one last stab. In that stab, they should stop doing things the same old way, just because other people told them that's the way it is done. Maybe they would have a different result.

Going back to the future ex idea, it never hurts to listen to your own inner wisdom instead of other people's.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by WinterTriangle

It's inflationary biased data manipulation.

so this thread was titled in a sarcastic spirit...


look, a list of names and the graded victories of each is not directly relevant to any real "handicapping insight". Whether it mentions subsequent wins or not.
However as an "interesting factoid" I can understand(or alternatively, in snarky backpacker-slang terms; I 'overstand') the preference for consistency and standards in compiling these lists for the sake of contrasting horses.