Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile

Advanced

Re: ROTW (1093 Views)

July 15, 2017 12:11PM
Tavasco,

“this horse is s/b” – can you translate the s/b? Thanks.

“Do you like front runners on tracks that are not fast?” On a grass course, yes. If the grass course is firm, the horses race on top of the ground rather than through it (obviously). The softer it gets, the deeper the runners sink into the ground, which will blunt the speed of their finishing kick. Since a lot of grass races are run with a slowish early pace (especially compared with dirt races) with an anticipation of a quickening 3-2F out to sprint home, the inability to quicken at the same rate late on to chase a moderate pace favors the front runner who can maintain his fractions. The fact that the courses in North America are so turning and short-stretched in nature I think helps as well, since if it is harder to accelerate in general on softer ground, it will be that much more difficult on a sharp turn, and the short stretch leaves less time to make up the difference.

Obviously, different horses will sink into the soft ground to different extents, depending partly on their hoof, their stride, but especially on their weight – the heavier the horse, the more they generally sink in, so a lighter built horse can often take to soft ground better. Something the Mig pointed out just before Found beat Golden Horn in the Breeders Cup Turf is that this often favors fillies and mares, since they are typically lighter built than males.

Macagone at Aqueduct is almost the perfect storm – agile horse who takes turns well, not heavily built, generally a front runner …. I think he’s won his last 4 races at Aqueduct on less than firm ground.

In this race, Chocolate Ride does not have a great record on less than firm, although one of those was at 12F, not really his bailiwick. Plueven has a good record on softer turf though, so he would be hard to ignore if that is in fact the ground. Western Reserve and Kalamos both also have some modestly favorable form on less than firm, so its hard to argue with your analysis.
Subject Author Posted

ROTW (1527 Views)

One_Time July 14, 2017 08:45PM

Re: ROTW (1021 Views)

TGAB July 14, 2017 09:21PM

Re: ROTW (978 Views)

One_Time July 14, 2017 09:44PM

Re: ROTW (1106 Views)

TGAB July 14, 2017 09:56PM

Re: ROTW (967 Views)

dannyboy135 July 14, 2017 10:06PM

Re: ROTW (832 Views)

Bet Twice July 16, 2017 05:09PM

Re: ROTW (830 Views)

mistermoose July 16, 2017 06:15PM

Re: ROTW (1288 Views)

Tavasco July 15, 2017 05:20AM

Re: ROTW (1093 Views)

Wamsutta July 15, 2017 12:11PM

Re: ROTW (1036 Views)

mistermoose July 15, 2017 02:03PM

Re: ROTW (972 Views)

mistermoose July 15, 2017 02:19PM

Re: ROTW (863 Views)

Tavasco July 15, 2017 11:04PM

Re: ROTW (1053 Views)

Silver Charm July 15, 2017 11:49PM

Re: ROTW (878 Views)

TempletonPeck July 15, 2017 11:38PM



Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login