Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill V.
Hi FTL
Everything is clear. However I must question why you say this... "I’m sure my following comment could be disputed, but you don’t get “early” winners looking for a good 3rd fraction. That is for closers… when you are looking for a closer. With early horses, it is the early fractions you should be looking for, along with other “dedicated” early horses in the race."
Here is a race I posted Thursday from Delaware Park The Stymie
Its a 50,000 Overnight Stakes race
http://paceandcap.com/forums/showpos...64&postcount=1
Horse # 5 to me is a lone early, It almost always gets the lead.
Its was a good bet to get the lead again in the Stymie.
I have marked in the result chart. It did get a 1.5 length lead in the first
two fractions. But what is keeping this early horse from winning?
Now I am not a very experienced class handicapper so I leave that part of the equitation to you. What I can see Its poor 3rd fractions are keeping it from winning.
Attachment 34639
Attachment 34638 |
Hi Bill,
Explaining how to evaluate early horses is not an easy thing to do and that is why I used Ted's example and my example. In both cases it was not the 3rd fraction from some previous race that lead to those horses winning their respective races. It was the early fractions and the "make up" or "match up" of the horses in the races. Looking back at previous races and the make up or match up in those races also provided more information that ultimately had a bearing on today's races.
Regarding the race at Delaware and the #5 horse. Is it the lack of 3rd fraction that keeps it from winning or is it early pressure that keeps it from winning? If you look over the PP's for the horse, you will see that in 7 early calls this horse has been "fighting" for the lead. Fighting for the lead at those early calls tends to tire a horse, leaving it little for the 3rd fraction.
In its' last race after almost 5 months OFF, it fought for the lead, not only at the first two calls, but also to the stretch call. There is no doubt in my mind that this race was very good for the horse's conditioning, but the race being just 15 days ago, the question becomes, how tiring was that effort after being OFF?
Now in that same race there was another
"E7" horse. This horse did not stand out as an early horse just looking at the PP's. Here is the horse.
To get a true picture of the horse and how it performs at a route distance, let's first clear away all the sprint races. Now let's look at what is left. It becomes clearer that when this horse is in a route race it will be on the lead or trying for the lead.
Let's take a look at this horse. Between lines 3 and 4 the horse was off for about 4 and a half months. When they brought the horse back, they put it in an overnight stake. Did they bring it back in a sprint or a route? Why does that matter? If you look down the PP's, I know you will see a win in a sprint, but what type of race do you really think they are trying to win? I believe they are trying to win a route. And in trying to win a route, the horse will run early to win. So, the first race back being a sprint tells me they are trying to put speed into the horse. That is an old training tactic, just like running a sprint horse in a route in order to build up its' stamina. It ran 3rd on the inner track at AQU. There is always the possibility that it didn't like the surface. I know I can't be sure about that. Then it went into an ALW race with a NW$3X, which is "non winners of 'X' amount of money, three times, other than" condition. In that race it showed speed for 1/2 mile. Consider this. The first call is just one of four calls, BUT it makes up 1/2 of the race!! The horse tried for the lead to that point and faded. The next thing they did was enter it in another sprint race, no doubt for the same reason as the sprint the first race back after the layoff. Then it was back to a route, today. The one thing you know is, it will run up on or close to the lead today. It has had three specific conditioning races after a layoff.
All trainers do not use the same training methods. Like the #5 horse as an example. The trainer thought his horse was ready the first time out after it's layoff. A look at that race shows the trainer wasn't necessarily wrong. It fought for the lead from the start all the way to the stretch call. It wasn't that the horse wasn't ready, it was the make up or match up of the race that kept it from winning. Had the horse been in a race where there were no other early horses to pressure it, it is likely it would have won.
In the case of the #2 horse, it appears the trainer believed his horse needed some conditioning after its' layoff, so he planned the conditioning races as he saw fit. First a sprint, then a route. After seeing how it performed in the route, he decided on another sprint. One thing is for sure. You could certainly expect a better race today than the horse showed in its' route race two back. As it turned out, the #2 stalked the #5 to the top of the stretch where it finally wore the #5 horse down and then went on to win.
Hope this helps.