31st January 2005, 02:10 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 1970
Posts: 4,426
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Duritz
You really reckon the sixth is better? I can't see that - for example how does that augur for Doriemus' second to M&P in the 96 caul cup, beaten 7.5 lengths? Does that make his 8th beaten 6 lengths in another group one race a better run than 2nd beaten 7.5?
To make my point another way: back to my theoretical horse - our theoretical horse ended up winning because the intended winner was scratched, is his run still a length worse than his sixth beaten four in the same grade with the same weight the previous week???
THINK about that one and the ramifications before responding.
Duritz.
|
Yes, I stick by my diagnosis here given that all other hypothetical parameters are the same.
Your example of Doriemus is quite different, here we know the class of the races are different (different G1's are still different quality or class), we know the race time and we know how good M&P was, beaten by a quality horse, we do not have this info for the hypothetical race.
To make my point another way: back to my theoretical horse - our theoretical horse ended up winning because the intended winner was scratched, is his run still a length worse than his sixth beaten four in the same grade with the same weight the previous week???
No because now he won, a totally different ballgame because we have no info on beaten distance for the win. You cannot say if a horse was beaten 3 lengths second, that if the winner was scratched, the second horse would win; nobody really knows unless the distance between second and third is huge.
We are looking at lengths beaten, not lengths won by, apples and oranges.
|