Covfefe

[dilanesp]

I think the sky is the limit for Covfefe.

[cj]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I think the sky is the limit for Covfefe.

7f is probably the limit.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by cj

7f is probably the limit.

The sky is the limit, but only around one turn.

[classhandicapper]

Serengeti Empress isn't exactly chopped liver either and can carry her speed longer if she shakes loose.

[jocko699]

Covfefe looked mighty good today winning easily at CD in 120.51.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by jocko699

Covfefe looked mighty good today winning easily at CD in 120.51.

She came right back with another big one. She's legit very good.

[ubercapper]

Covfefe got at 121 Equibase figure which is right there with the best males sprinters in the Country this year, particularly since the best figure belongs to Do Share from March and he's bombed a few times since and the second best belongs to Roy H, who hasn't been seen since January. Shancelot got beaten in the Jerkens after his big figure effort in the Vanderbilt so only looking at the horses who won their last starts and in the last 90 days:



Imperial Hint 125
Covfefe 121
Come Dancing 120
Catalina Cruiser 120
Giant Expectations 120
King Jack 120


Of course it's unlikely either Covfefe or Come Dancing face the boys in the BC Sprint but the Filly & Mare Sprint should be a dandy of a race between these two.

[rastajenk]

The guys on Fox2's broadcast that day were speculating that having a go at the BC Sprint could be worthwhile.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by rastajenk

The guys on Fox2's broadcast that day were speculating that having a go at the BC Sprint could be worthwhile.

Absolutely. There isn't a better dirt sprinter in America right now.

EDIT: By the way, obviously the numbers came back the way they did, but from the time she ran that 1:07 and change at Pimlico until now, I have felt the figure makers, for whatever reason, came up with a way too low number for that race.

I mean, come on. Some exceptional sprinters have run at Pimlico over the years and none of them have ever broken a 1:09. The runup on Pimlico sprints is miniscule and horses who can run a 21 and change opening quarter anywhere else run 22 4/5 there.

And we are talking about 6 furlongs. Breaking any sort of a track record at a major track at 6 furlongs by more than a second is unheard of.

I really believe her effort was far better than the Beyer. She's really one of the best sprinters to come along in a long time, and that performance was the best race run by an American dirt sprinter in several years.

[cj]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Absolutely. There isn't a better dirt sprinter in America right now.

EDIT: By the way, obviously the numbers came back the way they did, but from the time she ran that 1:07 and change at Pimlico until now, I have felt the figure makers, for whatever reason, came up with a way too low number for that race.

I mean, come on. Some exceptional sprinters have run at Pimlico over the years and none of them have ever broken a 1:09. The runup on Pimlico sprints is miniscule and horses who can run a 21 and change opening quarter anywhere else run 22 4/5 there.

And we are talking about 6 furlongs. Breaking any sort of a track record at a major track at 6 furlongs by more than a second is unheard of.

I really believe her effort was far better than the Beyer. She's really one of the best sprinters to come along in a long time, and that performance was the best race run by an American dirt sprinter in several years.

What was the Beyer?

I rated her 127 that day, about the equivalent of a 107 Beyer. The problem with just "it should have been higher" is that there are other races on the day and there were other horses in her race. Nothing that has happened since that day had made me think the figure was too low, both with horses running back from her race and with horses running back from the others.

Since that 127, she's run 118 (in defeat), 125, and 128.

EDIT: I just looked up the Beyer, was a 107 exactly. She's since run 84, 98, and 107 (oldest to newest)

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by cj

What was the Beyer?

I rated her 127 that day, about the equivalent of a 107 Beyer. The problem with just "it should have been higher" is that there are other races on the day and there were other horses in her race. Nothing that has happened since that day had made me think the figure was too low, both with horses running back from her race and with horses running back from the others.

Since that 127, she's run 118 (in defeat), 125, and 128.

EDIT: I just looked up the Beyer, was a 107 exactly. She's since run 84, 98, and 107 (oldest to newest)

I am not quarreling with the figure making process, or even with the result. I am saying that I think she's the best sprinter in America (the loss was a bounce), and what she actually did at Pimlico was much, much more extraordinary than the 107 would imply.

Put another way, a 107 implies that numerous other horses could have run 1:07 and changes at Pimlico had they just caught fast tracks. I do not believe that. If figure makers do, that's, I think, a failure of the imagination of figure makers that maybe their numbers aren't telling them everything about that performance.

She's going to win the BC Sprint if she runs in it and runs her race.

[cj]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I am not quarreling with the figure making process, or even with the result. I am saying that I think she's the best sprinter in America (the loss was a bounce), and what she actually did at Pimlico was much, much more extraordinary than the 107 would imply.

Put another way, a 107 implies that numerous other horses could have run 1:07 and changes at Pimlico had they just caught fast tracks. I do not believe that. If figure makers do, that's, I think, a failure of the imagination of figure makers that maybe their numbers aren't telling them everything about that performance.

She's going to win the BC Sprint if she runs in it and runs her race.

Well that is a long way from this:

...but from the time she ran that 1:07 and change at Pimlico until now, I have felt the figure makers, for whatever reason, came up with a way too low number for that race.

You also "if figure makers do" when none have actually said that or believe it that I am aware of at least. I never think a figure tells me everything about a performance.


She's a really good filly, but good enough to beat some of the better older males? It is a pretty deep group and she'd get tested like never before. Is it worth it to try for 2 million versus being close to a cinch for 1 million? That is for the connections to decide.

[dilanesp]

Let me put it this way.

No horse has ever run a 1:07 and change at Pimlico before this one did. No horse had even run a 1:08 and change.

Now, how do speed figure makers estimate how difficult it is to run a 1:07 and change at Pimlico? Well, they have no data at Pimlico. What they have are speed figure charts, which yield a raw time number based on how difficult it is to run 1:07 and change at other tracks.

But what if, in fact, it is actually more difficult to jump from 1:09 to 1:07 and change at Pimlico than it is at other tracks?. What if, in fact, a jump from 1:09 to 1:07 and change at Pimlico is similar to jumping from 1:08 to 1:06 3/5 at Aqueduct? There's no way to know this, because no horse before has ever come close to Covfefe's time at Pimlico (or run a 1:06 3/5 at Aqueduct).

My suspicion is, based on the amount that she broke the track record by and the difficulty of running a fast opening quarter at the distance, that this is what actually happened here. It's like the futility of assigning a speed figure to Secretariat's Belmont. I mean, you can assign some number (and people have and do), but it's not going to be accurate, because there's no real frame of reference as to how much more effort and energy it actually takes to run a 2:24 flat on the dirt. That's the only time anyone ever came close to doing it.

[cj]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Let me put it this way.

No horse has ever run a 1:07 and change at Pimlico before this one did. No horse had even run a 1:08 and change.

Now, how do speed figure makers estimate how difficult it is to run a 1:07 and change at Pimlico? Well, they have no data at Pimlico. What they have are speed figure charts, which yield a raw time number based on how difficult it is to run 1:07 and change at other tracks.

But what if, in fact, it is actually more difficult to jump from 1:09 to 1:07 and change at Pimlico than it is at other tracks?. What if, in fact, a jump from 1:09 to 1:07 and change at Pimlico is similar to jumping from 1:08 to 1:06 3/5 at Aqueduct? There's no way to know this, because no horse before has ever come close to Covfefe's time at Pimlico (or run a 1:06 3/5 at Aqueduct).

My suspicion is, based on the amount that she broke the track record by and the difficulty of running a fast opening quarter at the distance, that this is what actually happened here. It's like the futility of assigning a speed figure to Secretariat's Belmont. I mean, you can assign some number (and people have and do), but it's not going to be accurate, because there's no real frame of reference as to how much more effort and energy it actually takes to run a 2:24 flat on the dirt. That's the only time anyone ever came close to doing it.

You are over simplifying the process, at least the way I do it. Like I said, nothing since has indicated the figure is too low. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

[DGroundhog]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I am not quarreling with the figure making process, or even with the result. I am saying that I think she's the best sprinter in America (the loss was a bounce), and what she actually did at Pimlico was much, much more extraordinary than the 107 would imply.

Put another way, a 107 implies that numerous other horses could have run 1:07 and changes at Pimlico had they just caught fast tracks. I do not believe that. If figure makers do, that's, I think, a failure of the imagination of figure makers that maybe their numbers aren't telling them everything about that performance.

She's going to win the BC Sprint if she runs in it and runs her race.

I believe as you believe. The figures and others possibly not believing what we believe let her go off at 3-1 in the Test which I thought was a bargain.

I hope others keep giving her low figures and continue to imagine the track became faster between her race and the one that preceded it.

...and I don't give a darn if 7f is her limit. I don't see anything wrong with that.