Did Exaggerator not like Big Sandy Surface?

[tucker6]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

It was a closer's race due to the pace. Kent D didn't realize that for a long 12 furlong marathon it was not wise to press a solid pace while going wide. He actually claimed they were "crawling" early. Except for Destin who ran an exceptional race, all those chasing the rabbit Gettysburg tired late. All those that think that top jockeys have "a clock in their heads" are mistaking them with exercise riders who truly do.

Meh, the pace had nothing to do with Exaggerator's finish imo. The pace wasn't bad at all.

24.09
48.48 (24:39)
1:13.38 (24.90)
1:37.96 (24.58)

That might not be crawling, but it wasn't hot enough to blow away Exaggerator either. Honestly, I'm not that impressed with the crop this year outside 3 or 4 horses, and even they have some flaws.

[Robert Fischer]

surface is usually a much more minor issue than players make of it.


Even going from dirt to turf, it's more about the dynamics than the actual hooves meeting grass/dirt.

If we look at the belmont as a dynamics-surface issue, then I do think 'surface' played a role as a contributing factor.
The Belmont is run in such a way where tactical position is extremely important.
This is why Destin had such a great trip, forward and inside, even with the presence of Gettysburg.
Nyquist anywhere near his prior levels would have had a field day in this Belmont.


The biggest known factor was Exaggerator being wide near the pace.


'Critical mass' is when just enough different factors contribute in the same direction that you get this 'reaction'.


up close and wide
Destin and Creator getting dream trips
Kent D maybe being off his game (and then stopped riding when he knew he wasn't contending, if you consider the final finish position important)
The 'surface/dynamics' of the Belmont being outside Exaggerator's strength
Exaggerator maybe not being at his peak physical condition after running in each jewel

etc...

lots of things pointing in a direction , who's to say which straw broke the camel's back?

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by tucker6

Meh, the pace had nothing to do with Exaggerator's finish imo. The pace wasn't bad at all.

24.09
48.48 (24:39)
1:13.38 (24.90)
1:37.96 (24.58)

That might not be crawling, but it wasn't hot enough to blow away Exaggerator either. Honestly, I'm not that impressed with the crop this year outside 3 or 4 horses, and even they have some flaws.

I never said the pace was hot. Actually CJ and the Timeform US figures did. and Moss had the middle portion fast.
Neither did I claim that Exaggerator was "blown away" by that pace alone. Ex's failure was the result of several factors.
I said that the pace was solid for a 12 furlong marathon and Kent D was foolish in his decision to stalk that pace while wide with a horse who has run his best races from off the pace while saving ground.
I cannot understand why so many people apply pace pars for shorter races to such a long race. One size does not fit all.

[tucker6]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

I never said the pace was hot. Actually CJ and the Timeform US figures did. and Moss had the middle portion fast.
Neither did I claim that Exaggerator was "blown away" by that pace alone. Ex's failure was the result of several factors.
I said that the pace was solid for a 12 furlong marathon and Kent D was foolish in his decision to stalk that pace while wide with a horse who has run his best races from off the pace while saving ground.
I cannot understand why so many people apply pace pars for shorter races to such a long race. One size does not fit all.

Your reading comprehension skills are way down today. Nowhere in my post did I accuse you of saying the pace was hot. I said the pace was not hot. Our respective opinions are not mutually exclusive. Same with the "blown away" comment. I said that the pace was not enough to blow Exaggerator away. I never said that you said that.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by tucker6

Your reading comprehension skills are way down today. Nowhere in my post did I accuse you of saying the pace was hot. I said the pace was not hot. Our respective opinions are not mutually exclusive. Same with the "blown away" comment. I said that the pace was not enough to blow Exaggerator away. I never said that you said that.

OK, sorry about the misunderstanding. Let me be clearer in what I was trying to say about the Belmont pace. Without an extensive data base as to what is par time for THIS distance and then adjusting the splits with a variant, a slow or fast pace can only be determined by comparing the fractions to the final time. That's how one knows how efficiently the race was run. Just putting up unadjusted pace splits is meaningless unless one compares it to the final time and that's what was missing from your claim that the pace was not that bad.