philosophy differences

[tompkins]

We are all the resultant harvest of our experience and philosophies. This is principally true in one’s choice of racing venues since we typically RETURN to where we do well. To some degree, this shapes our overall point of view and, if one is not vigilant, leads to generalizations about every one the races, forgetting that EACH contest is a distinct interaction of running styles, form cycles and abilities to be evaluated anew. You have to have an OPEN MIND at each race review not to have tunnel vision of any one style over another, even if data suggests that style SHOULD be the one to win.

My philosophies stress EARLY since study after study has show that the closer to the pace, the more likely the animal does well. I can recall a passage that William Quirin wrote in one of his earlier works in regard to closers and why they do not do any better than they do. “The closer has three built-in problems to overcome: 1) It does not participate in the pace (unable to change it) only reacting to it, so today’s pace MUST be in a range that the horse can react to, 2) the rider has to make an educated best “guess� as to when to move and 3) coming from off the pace, the traffic must open up to allow it to get clear.� Also in regards to the “energy lost early, made up late� ratios that are listed in the Follow Up (the 1:4 1:3 and 1:2 tracks we all know i.e. Fort Erie, Gulfstream and Belmont respectively but not everyday) the energy requirements of just about EVERY track has a built in bias against the closer. This is not to say that a match up favoring them does not exist (have seen two big prices over the past two days: Calculator 4-1-06 Aqu 7th and Nohoch 8th Woodbine 4-01-06) but to OVERCOME a pace, most horses have to possess a decided total energy edge (“gas in the tank�) to prevail over what’s up front since no one knows HOW MUCH is left to make up until the race runs. Also, I’ve noticed that big closer moves are far less reproducible than earlier moves, which, physiologically makes sense: more energy is available earlier in a contest before lactic acid builds up as a result aerobic glycolysis. Heuy Mahl was well aware of this problem and notes it in his book on pace.

Having said this, evaluating the front end of the pace requires a rational appraisal of when it cannot last out to the wire. The track superintendents are always playing around with the surface, and it requires not only keeping general records, but a race-to-race record, through the card, to see if it is “game-playing� day or not.

BOTTOM LINE: There is no one way to look at anything, but the front end of most races at most venues have a built in bias when it is legitimate.

[RichieP]

Originally Posted by tompkins

We are all the resultant harvest of our experience and philosophies. This is principally true in one’s choice of racing venues since we typically RETURN to where we do well. To some degree, this shapes our overall point of view and, if one is not vigilant, leads to generalizations about every one the races, forgetting that EACH contest is a distinct interaction of running styles, form cycles and abilities to be evaluated anew. You have to have an OPEN MIND at each race review not to have tunnel vision of any one style over another, even if data suggests that style SHOULD be the one to win.

My philosophies stress EARLY since study after study has show that the closer to the pace, the more likely the animal does well. I can recall a passage that William Quirin wrote in one of his earlier works in regard to closers and why they do not do any better than they do. “The closer has three built-in problems to overcome: 1) It does not participate in the pace (unable to change it) only reacting to it, so today’s pace MUST be in a range that the horse can react to, 2) the rider has to make an educated best “guess� as to when to move and 3) coming from off the pace, the traffic must open up to allow it to get clear.� Also in regards to the “energy lost early, made up late� ratios that are listed in the Follow Up (the 1:4 1:3 and 1:2 tracks we all know i.e. Fort Erie, Gulfstream and Belmont respectively but not everyday) the energy requirements of just about EVERY track has a built in bias against the closer. This is not to say that a match up favoring them does not exist (have seen two big prices over the past two days: Calculator 4-1-06 Aqu 7th and Nohoch 8th Woodbine 4-01-06) but to OVERCOME a pace, most horses have to possess a decided total energy edge (“gas in the tank�) to prevail over what’s up front since no one knows HOW MUCH is left to make up until the race runs. Also, I’ve noticed that big closer moves are far less reproducible than earlier moves, which, physiologically makes sense: more energy is available earlier in a contest before lactic acid builds up as a result aerobic glycolysis. Heuy Mahl was well aware of this problem and notes it in his book on pace.

Having said this, evaluating the front end of the pace requires a rational appraisal of when it cannot last out to the wire. The track superintendents are always playing around with the surface, and it requires not only keeping general records, but a race-to-race record, through the card, to see if it is “game-playing� day or not.

BOTTOM LINE: There is no one way to look at anything, but the front end of most races at most venues have a built in bias when it is legitimate.

Hi Tim,

For whatever it's worth I agree with EVERY word of your post man.

A TREMENDOUS post.

Thank you for sharing
luv,
Richie