Tacitus

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

So we actually agree. Sir Winston got an excellent trip so he gets no extra points for ground loss, pace or trouble.

Yea, we agree. I wasn't clear on the 'baseline'.

Thorough Graph already allows for the trip.

If we were using just 'Trakus' instead of TG, then Trakus would overestimate a dream-trip. So the baseline would be significantly different.

Originally Posted by bobphilo

I had already posted the TG figures for the top Belmont finishers which take ground loss into account. I consider them to be accurate. The lower the figure the better the performance

Here are the TG figures for the Belmont top finishers:

1) Sir Winston 3
2) Tacitus 1
3) Jovia 3 3/4
4) Tax 3 1/4
5) Master Fencer 3 1/2
6) Spinoff 2 3/4

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

Yea, we agree. I wasn't clear on the 'baseline'.

Thorough Graph already allows for the trip.

If we were using just 'Trakus' instead of TG, then Trakus would overestimate a dream-trip. So the baseline would be significantly different.

TG and Trakus do slightly different things. Trakus tells you how much distance the horse traveled in it's final time. They also tell you how much extra ground a horse traveled compared to the winner. It does not give a speed figure or rating for the performance.
What TG does is tell you how many paths wide a horse ran off the rail on each turn and then adjusts its speed figure based on this ground loss.
Trakus had Tacitus running 65 feet more than Sir Winston. At about 8 feet per length that's about 8 lengths. TG had Tacitus going 4w4w for a total of 6 lengths more than Sir Winston's rail trip and therefore giving him a better figure despite his 1 length loss.
While only TG is the only one giving a final figure, they both agree that Tacitus ran about 6-8 lengths more than Sir Winston. Not a significant difference between the 2 services.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

TG and Trakus do slightly different things. Trakus tells you how much distance the horse traveled in it's final time. They also tell you how much extra ground a horse traveled compared to the winner. It does not give a speed figure or rating for the performance.
What TG does is tell you how many paths wide a horse ran off the rail on each turn and then adjusts its speed figure based on this ground loss.
Trakus had Tacitus running 65 feet more than Sir Winston. At about 8 feet per length that's about 8 lengths. TG had Tacitus going 4w4w for a total of 6 lengths more than Sir Winston's rail trip and therefore giving him a better figure despite his 1 length loss.
While only TG is the only one giving a final figure, they both agree that Tacitus ran about 6-8 lengths more than Sir Winston. Not a significant difference between the 2 services.

Exactly correct.

Tacitus is a proven animal, and he was a legitimate public favorite at post-time, in the Belmont Stakes.

Trakus data, and TG figures, do a great job of showing how ground loss handicapped Tacitus.

TimeformUS has scored it 119-118 to Sir Winston. This shows that the pace itself did not severely effect either horse.

Beyer: Sir Winston 95 , Tacitus 93*?(est.)


With all this information, it's relatively safe to say that we should 'upgrade' Tacitus.

We may even be able to estimate what the data and figures suggest was the 'difference between the two'.

However, I do not, feel that grading or 'handicapping' a performance for Sir Winston is easy to accomplish.

I can read the TG figure, but I don't happen to know their methodology.

I also believe it's difficult in general to accomplish this sort of task.

How much do we down-grade Sir Winston?? He capitalized on a great ride/trip, and a gold-rail, while the competition was somewhat mediocre (with the favorite eliminated, due to being significantly handicapped). Yet, he did win the race. He did show a nice response. He has a history of a proven ability to capitalize on great setups, while he's yet to have reached the Grade 1 class of runner.

Personally, I downgrade Sir Winston to' middle-price/ long-shot', and will try to get the money I lost on Tacitus, back(by betting against), if Sir Winston takes money in his next race.

It's a judgement call. Three horseplayers could have three different opinions.

[classhandicapper]

Evaluating the exact impact of a very favorable or unfavorable trip is often very difficult. Sometimes the solution is to look at prior races under more honest conditions to help clarify how well the horse ran "without a trip".

The thing that's throwing me for a loop on Sir Winston is that some figure makers have his race prior to the Belmont faster than others.

So I am dealing with the subjective nature of evaluating his perfect trip in the Belmont with the subjective nature of deciding how well he actually ran in the prior race. The best I feel I can do is say that Tacitus was better than him in the Belmont. However, I'm not sure by how much.