Wood Memorial

[Valuist]

Originally Posted by Tread

Which fractions were slow? Goldencents came home in 38.3. Verrazano came home in 36.5, into a 20mph headwind. Which fractions better project ability at 1 1/4, early ones or late ones?

Both. Energy has to be distributed throughout the full race. Verrazano used very little energy early but was not drawing away like what could have been expected, given the scenario. The only impressive part of the race was Normandy Invasion's burst in the final 1/8th.

[Striker]

Originally Posted by Sunday Silence

I saw Verrazano win at Gulfstream in his allowance win. Freak. Not impressed with his 2 turn races -at all. He wants no part of 1 1/4 miles. Slow fractions, weak Beyer, no thanks. Will be vastly overbet. I wouldn't touch him at 7-1. Don't think he'll be in the first 5.

Not sure if this has been touched on in this thread, but IMO two of the issues that Verrazano hasn't encountered or passed yet, includes getting dirt in his face, and how he is going to react being inside horses, which more likely than not is going to happen to him in the derby. Go watch the Tampa Derby into the first turn, he is clearly not happy or relaxed being inside of Falling Sky. Obviously, he has displayed the talent so far to have avoided these issues, but not so sure this will happen in the derby for him.

[mostpost]

It seems to me that a good indication of how a horse will run at a longer distance is how he runs in the last part of his races. Does he run as fast or faster. Is there a big drop off in his performance. I looked at the four mile and one eighth preps run thus far and compared the performances of the four winners.

I used their individual times for the first half mile, the second half mile, the final eighth. and the final five eighths. I used the standard one fifth seconds. (.20 seconds) per length. I calculate a head as one tenth of a length.
For the first half mile I used the time of the leader and adjusted for the lengths the individual horse was behind, if any.
For the second half mile I subtracted the leader's time at the mile from his time at the half. The I adjusted for the lengths gained by the individual horse.

Here is what I came up with:
FIRST HALF:
Verrazano ran his first half mile in 50.02 seconds. He was two lengths behind.
Goldencents ran his 1st half in 46.58 seconds. He was 1/2 length behind.
Orb ran his first half in 49.36 seconds. He was four lengths behind.
Revolutionary ran his first half in 48.8 seconds. He was 12.3 lengths behind.

SECOND HALF:
Verrazano ran his second half in 47.70 seconds, gaining two lengths.
Goldencents ran his second half in 49.14 seconds, gaining one half length.
Orb ran his second half in 48.62 seconds gaining 2.9 lengths
Revolutionary ran his second half in 48.96 seconds, gaining 12.3 lengths.
After one mile Verrazano, Goldencents and Revolutionary were all on the lead.
Orb was 1.1 lengths behind

FINAL EIGHTH:
Verrazano 12.53
Goldencents 13.04
Orb 12.86. He gained 1.1 lengths in that final eighth,
Revolutionary 12.52

FINAL FIVE EIGHTHS:
Verrazano 60.23
Goldencents 62.18
Orb 61.48
Revolutionary 61.48

From the numbers above it is undeniable that Verrazano is the superior horse at the end of those races. It is also obvious that he has the breeding to go a mile and a quarter or further. But please, don't let that stop you all from convincing each other that he is a terrible bet. Maybe that will get me better odds.

The one thing which I did not factor in was the relative speed of the various tracks. Can we agree that from fastest to slowest the tracks would be ranked, Santa Anita, Gulfstream, Aqueduct, and Fair Grounds.

[Tom]

From the numbers above it is undeniable that Verrazano is the superior horse at the end of those races.

But, using those lines, he is the most inferior horse early. Deduct his deficiency early from his advantage late and you will see a different horse.
Look at his other routes and see if his FF velocities are in that same range.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by mostpost

It seems to me that a good indication of how a horse will run at a longer distance is how he runs in the last part of his races. Does he run as fast or faster. Is there a big drop off in his performance. I looked at the four mile and one eighth preps run thus far and compared the performances of the four winners.

I used their individual times for the first half mile, the second half mile, the final eighth. and the final five eighths. I used the standard one fifth seconds. (.20 seconds) per length. I calculate a head as one tenth of a length.
For the first half mile I used the time of the leader and adjusted for the lengths the individual horse was behind, if any.
For the second half mile I subtracted the leader's time at the mile from his time at the half. The I adjusted for the lengths gained by the individual horse.

Here is what I came up with:
FIRST HALF:
Verrazano ran his first half mile in 50.02 seconds. He was two lengths behind.
Goldencents ran his 1st half in 46.58 seconds. He was 1/2 length behind.
Orb ran his first half in 49.36 seconds. He was four lengths behind.
Revolutionary ran his first half in 48.8 seconds. He was 12.3 lengths behind.

SECOND HALF:
Verrazano ran his second half in 47.70 seconds, gaining two lengths.
Goldencents ran his second half in 49.14 seconds, gaining one half length.
Orb ran his second half in 48.62 seconds gaining 2.9 lengths
Revolutionary ran his second half in 48.96 seconds, gaining 12.3 lengths.
After one mile Verrazano, Goldencents and Revolutionary were all on the lead.
Orb was 1.1 lengths behind

FINAL EIGHTH:
Verrazano 12.53
Goldencents 13.04
Orb 12.86. He gained 1.1 lengths in that final eighth,
Revolutionary 12.52

FINAL FIVE EIGHTHS:
Verrazano 60.23
Goldencents 62.18
Orb 61.48
Revolutionary 61.48

From the numbers above it is undeniable that Verrazano is the superior horse at the end of those races. It is also obvious that he has the breeding to go a mile and a quarter or further. But please, don't let that stop you all from convincing each other that he is a terrible bet. Maybe that will get me better odds.

The one thing which I did not factor in was the relative speed of the various tracks. Can we agree that from fastest to slowest the tracks would be ranked, Santa Anita, Gulfstream, Aqueduct, and Fair Grounds.

There are a whole lot of things that you didn't factor into your calculations, the least of all is "relative speed of the various tracks", as "relative" does not mean "daily track variant". Some of the other things you didn't factor in was how each race was run, the traffic problems encountered by any of the horses, the decisions each of the jockeys made during the running of those races, etc., the list goes on and on. I will wait until the Derby data is available, then do my comparisons of the actual horses in the field. Trying to compare them off different races at different tracks, based solely on what you see in the replays and the times posted, is IMO, a waste of time.

But, that's just me, you do what you will.

[RXB]

Tom and Raybo pretty much covered it.

[raybo]

Racing is no different than other things, results must be taken "in context". When you take things out of context, you lose too much. And that is what we do when we look at an individual event, and try to impose it into something that has no relationship with it. That is not, IMO, very smart. Even worse is to take individual events, for several horses, and try to compare them as if they are all similar in some way, as in the same event. Whew!!

[ArlJim78]

mostpost I know you are on the Verrazano bandwagon.
my advice is don't bet a lot on the derby.

[Valuist]

Originally Posted by mostpost

It seems to me that a good indication of how a horse will run at a longer distance is how he runs in the last part of his races. Does he run as fast or faster. Is there a big drop off in his performance. I looked at the four mile and one eighth preps run thus far and compared the performances of the four winners.

I used their individual times for the first half mile, the second half mile, the final eighth. and the final five eighths. I used the standard one fifth seconds. (.20 seconds) per length. I calculate a head as one tenth of a length.
For the first half mile I used the time of the leader and adjusted for the lengths the individual horse was behind, if any.
For the second half mile I subtracted the leader's time at the mile from his time at the half. The I adjusted for the lengths gained by the individual horse.

Here is what I came up with:
FIRST HALF:
Verrazano ran his first half mile in 50.02 seconds. He was two lengths behind.
Goldencents ran his 1st half in 46.58 seconds. He was 1/2 length behind.
Orb ran his first half in 49.36 seconds. He was four lengths behind.
Revolutionary ran his first half in 48.8 seconds. He was 12.3 lengths behind.

SECOND HALF:
Verrazano ran his second half in 47.70 seconds, gaining two lengths.
Goldencents ran his second half in 49.14 seconds, gaining one half length.
Orb ran his second half in 48.62 seconds gaining 2.9 lengths
Revolutionary ran his second half in 48.96 seconds, gaining 12.3 lengths.
After one mile Verrazano, Goldencents and Revolutionary were all on the lead.
Orb was 1.1 lengths behind

FINAL EIGHTH:
Verrazano 12.53
Goldencents 13.04
Orb 12.86. He gained 1.1 lengths in that final eighth,
Revolutionary 12.52

FINAL FIVE EIGHTHS:
Verrazano 60.23
Goldencents 62.18
Orb 61.48
Revolutionary 61.48

From the numbers above it is undeniable that Verrazano is the superior horse at the end of those races. It is also obvious that he has the breeding to go a mile and a quarter or further. But please, don't let that stop you all from convincing each other that he is a terrible bet. Maybe that will get me better odds.

The one thing which I did not factor in was the relative speed of the various tracks. Can we agree that from fastest to slowest the tracks would be ranked, Santa Anita, Gulfstream, Aqueduct, and Fair Grounds.

Depends on the day. Track speed varies from day to day, track to track. But that's not really the point here.


Based on your premise above, a horse who crawls along early, falling 20 lengths behind, but closes ground in the final 1/4 to be beaten 7 lengths would be superior to the horse who battled for the lead and tired, beaten 4 1/2 lengths. Never mind that the dawdler exerted virtually no energy at all early on, yet calling on his reserves he could still only be beaten 7 lengths.

They can stretch out another 1/8th or 1/4 mile and I will take the second horse over the dawdler. And what's worse is when a horse gets to loaf up front near a slow pace (49 and change is insanely slow for a Grade 1 on dirt), and still can't draw away is a clear negative. IMO, Verrazano will not even be favored come post time next month.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

mostpost I know you are on the Verrazano bandwagon.
my advice is don't bet a lot on the derby.

True, my opinion is that, at this point in time, being on any bandwagon, and refusing to stay open minded regarding the Derby, is likely to get you down a dirt road in the dead of night on the darkest day of the year, in a bad neighborhood, with no Uzi!

[raybo]

Originally Posted by Valuist

Depends on the day. Track speed varies from day to day, track to track. But that's not really the point here.


Based on your premise above, a horse who crawls along early, falling 20 lengths behind, but closes ground in the final 1/4 to be beaten 7 lengths would be superior to the horse who battled for the lead and tired, beaten 4 1/2 lengths. Never mind that the dawdler exerted virtually no energy at all early on, yet calling on his reserves he could still only be beaten 7 lengths.

They can stretch out another 1/8th or 1/4 mile and I will take the second horse over the dawdler. And what's worse is when a horse gets to loaf up front near a slow pace (49 and change is insanely slow for a Grade 1 on dirt), and still can't draw away is a clear negative. IMO, Verrazano will not even be favored come post time next month.

Now, read the last paragraph in your post and relate it to the first paragraph. You're trying to do the same thing you're proposing that shouldn't be done.

[Striker]

Originally Posted by Valuist

IMO, Verrazano will not even be favored come post time next month.

Who do you think will be then?

[Valuist]

For replay watchers, check out the effort of Freedom Child. He ended up being declared a non-starter by the stewards due to a problem at the starting gate.

He probably was around 12 or so lengths behind within seconds of the start, then rushed to get caught up; went 4 or 5 wide on the first turn, then surged into contention on the far turn, also 4 or 5 wide. Needless to say, he backed off after that, but was an impressive effort for a deep also ran. Believe he is still eligible for a NW1X.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by raybo

True, my opinion is that, at this point in time, being on any bandwagon, and refusing to stay open minded regarding the Derby, is likely to get you down a dirt road in the dead of night on the darkest day of the year, in a bad neighborhood, with no Uzi!

exactly, you don't want to get tunnel vision this far out. I'm at least a few weeks away from any serious thoughts on the derby outcome.

[Valuist]

Originally Posted by Striker

Who do you think will be then?

It could be Orb, could be Normandy Invasion, it could be Goldencents. Considering how Normandy Invasion closed (and without aid of a falling apart pace), I think it probably will be him.