Now that the Bull has been retired the one question everyone will asked is "How good was He"? I made a comparison of the Bull and Secretariat for 11/8. I used the Marlboro for Secreatariat and the Woodward for the Bull. Both races were in September as 3 yo and at Belmont. For the Marlboro race I used Secretariat's Belmont model. In testing the Belmont model I found that I had to improve the model to match his time for the race. Track resistance was adjusted mu=.017 as compared to Belmont mu=.018. In Quirin book he shows the track variant for the Marlboro to be a faster track then the Belmont even though DRF shows a slower track. The faster track corresponded with the Belmont model. The adjustment was to one variable which would represent an improvement in conditioning. Also the gate is assumed to be at 60 ft for both races which is the distance I used for the Bull's Woodward. I also adjusted for race weight. I have also shown the Donn model which was posted on Friday for the gate at 60ft. Secretariat , Gate=60ft Model mu Wt.# 1/2 3/4 1mi 11/8 Actual Race Time 124 45.80 69.25 105.40 sec. Marlboro .017 124 45.65 69.20 93.30 105.45 Compare .018 126 45.95 69.75 94.15 106.45 <--Compare Holy Bull, Gate=60 ft Model mu Wt.# 1/2 3/4 1mi 11/8 Actual Race Time 121 46.60 70.40 94.60 106.80 Woodward .018 121 46.25 70.25 94.60 106.85 Compare .018 126 46.40 70.45 94.85 107.15 <--Compare Donn .018 126 45.45 69.40 93.85 106.20 My estimates show that at the same time of year as 3yo Secretariat was about .70 sec better then the Bull (@3 lengths) at 11/8. While at the start of his 4 yo the Bull had improved to one length better then Secretariat 3yo model. The Donn model was based on the Bull's Olympic races. It looks like we would have seen something very special this year. For you west coast fans. Here is a model for Dare and Go based on the Strub performance compared to the Bull and Secretariat. Strub Model mu=.0165 Gate=50ft 1/2 3/4 1mi 11/8 11/4 Actual Race 47.40 71.18 95.29 120.20 Dare and Go 46.95 71.00 95.45 107.75 120.20 <-model mu=.018 Gate 60 ft Wt ? did not have his weight to make the final adjustment 1/2 3/4 1mi 11/8 Dare and Go 47.30 71.70 96.55 109.05 Larry From owner-derby@inslab.uky.edu Wed Feb 15 07:33:50 1995 Return-Path: Received: from simpatico.inslab.uky.edu by oasys.dt.navy.mil (5.61/oasys.dt.navy.mil) id AA10810; Wed, 15 Feb 95 07:33:42 EST Received: by inslab.uky.edu (NX5.67e/NX3.0M) id AA28989; Wed, 15 Feb 95 07:30:04 -0500 Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 04:05:41 -0800 Message-Id: <199502151205.EAA01271@ix2.ix.netcom.com> From: saroman@ix.netcom.com (Steve Roman) Subject: History and Holy Bull (Long) To: derby@inslab.uky.edu (Horse Racing List) Comments: Derby Message #3779 Sender: owner-derby@inslab.uky.edu Errors-To: derby-problems@inslab.uky.edu Ladies and Gentlemen, Having read the numerous postings about the unfortunate breakdown of that *special* horse, Holy Bull, I feel obliged to express my own feelings on the matter. One conclusion I have reached is that the majority of the people on this list are either too young to remember other top class horses of the past, or they are so old they are starting to forget. Fortunately, I am in the middle. I do remember and I have not forgotten. Let me preface this discussion by telling you about my mentor, the late Mr. Abram S. Hewitt, whom I consider the most brilliant man I have ever known. Mr. Hewitt came from a privileged New York family. His grandfather founded Carnegie Tech. He taught law at Columbia University and during the depression managed the Farm Credit Bureau for the Roosevelt administration. In WWII he was an operative in the OSS and after the war he became a prominent Wall Street investment analyst and theoretician. All the while, his first love was Thoroughbred racing. He imported the outstanding sire Pilate into the US and later purchased and raced the Italian champion Sirlad who became a Grade I winner in California. He was a personal breeding advisor to Nelson Bunker Hunt but was dismissed when he told Mr. Hunt that none of Vaguely Noble's sons would be prominent at stud in North America (which they weren't). During his lifetime, Mr. Hewitt wrote two classic volumes on Thoroughbred breeding: SIRE LINES and THE GREAT BREEDERS & THEIR METHODS. As late as the early 1980's Mr. Hewitt insisted that Nijinsky II had yet to prove he was a great sire. I tell you this because Mr. Hewitt believed that only a few, make that *very* few horses deserved to be called great. He felt most people were far too liberal with their accolades and didn't apply rigorous objective standards to their assessments. This philosophy has had a profound impact on me and as a result I try to step back and evaluate accomplishments in context. It's not always easy to do because emotion does play a role. But in the end you do the best you can. Holy Bull was an outstanding race horse and clearly the dominant figure on dirt in 1994. Beyond that I have reservations about his place in history. My concern is that the myth of Holy Bull transcends the reality. One part of mythology depends on what might have been rather than what really was. Another relies on timing. Holy Bull came along when racing was desperate for a focal point, a source of stability in an increasingly unstable industry. But in the end you must ask what is that he did to warrant comparison with the giants of racing history? For now I will ignore his *exceptional* Beyer Figures because IMHO the methodology is far less precise than the purveyors would have you believe. Although certainly useful, the figures are, to a large extent, self-fulfilling. Anyway, this is not the point of my discussion. Instead, I would rather do a direct comparison of Holy Bull with another horse from the past. It's not Secretariat, or Dr. Fager, or Spectacular Bid, or Swaps, or Nashua, or Forego, or Native Dancer, or.... all of which I believe were better individuals. Rather, it is Spend a Buck, a runner of presumably similar type. I will concentrate on the five races Spend a Buck won as a three-year-old and then leave it to you to judge. First, I will prejudice the issue by saying that IMHO Spend a Buck was also superior to Holy Bull. After running second in the 1985 Bay Shore in his first start as a 3yo, Spend a Buck easily won the Cherry Hill Mile by 10 1/2 lengths in 1:35.2 against a modest field off of fractions of :45.2 and 1:10.0. His next start, the Garden State Stakes, I believe stands as one of the best performances in racing history. Setting fractions of :45.3 and 1:09.2 he ran out the 9 furlongs in new track record time of 1:45.4 winning by 9 1/2. According to the DRF chart, he covered the last eighth in :11.4. Not bad after a 1:34.0 mile. Also, unless I have been misinformed this remains the fastest mile and an eighth ever run by a 3yo around two turns.----My mistake; Spend a Buck, a May foal, was really a 2yo at the time. His next start was the Kentucky Derby which he won by more than five lengths in a time (2:00.1) bettered only by Secretariat and Northern Dancer. Along the way he set the fastest 3/4 fraction (1:09.3) of any winner in the history of the race. Beyond that, the field was considered one of the strongest in many years and included 2yo champion Chief's Crown, Tank's Prospect (which set a Preakness Stakes record in his next start), and Skywalker and Proud Truth (both of which subsequently won Breeders' Cup Classics). Anyone who saw the race had to recognize just how devastating it was. The horse jumped to a six length lead on the first turn and never backed up. He didn't just outrun the field; he ground it into the dirt. While the rest were breathless and leg weary in the stretch, Spend a Buck was dancing down the lane jumping shadows. Spend a Buck's next race, the ten furlong Jersey Derby, places Holy Bull's Travers in perspective. Wayne Lukas sent out a rabbit named Huddle Up to compromise Spend a Buck's speed. He pushed the Derby winner through 3/4 in *1:09.0* - that's 1:09 flat. After disposing of Huddle Up he faced a more serious challenge from Creme Fraiche who attacked on the turn from far back. He came to Spend a Buck at the top of the stretch but could not get past through the entire drive. I should remind you that Creme Fraiche's next start was the Belmont Stakes which he won in the fourth fastest time to that point (Note: second by a half length was Stephan's Odyssey, second to Spend a Buck in the Kentucky Derby). A legitimate come from behind stayer, he couldn't go by despite Spend a Buck having been softened with an incredible 1:09.0 fraction. Unless I have been misinformed here as well, I believe no other horse in history has won a major ten furlong stake after setting a quicker 3/4 mile fraction, and that includes Dr. Fager. Spend a Buck finished second in the Haskell to multiple Grade I winner Skip Trial while bleeding in the race and then ended his career with a track record setting (1:46.4) win over Carr de Naskra in the Monmouth Invitational. Here, too, he didn't merely outlast the competition. He fought to keep the lead through the entire stretch. A direct comparison of the winning 3yo races of Spend a Buck and Holy Bull shows that Spend a Buck was the faster horse. Spend a Buck: Holy Bull: Cherry Hill Mile :45.4,1:10.0,1:35.2 Florida Derby:46.2,1:10.2,1:47.3 Garden State S :45.3,1:09.2,1:45.4 Blue Grass S :47.4,1:12.3,1:50.0 Kentucky Derby :45.4,1:09.3,2:00.1 Met Mile :46.1,1:09.4,1:34.0 Jersy Derby :45.2,1:09.0,2:02.3 Dwyer S :45.1,1:09.4,1:41.2 Monmouth Inv. :46.4,1:09.4,1:46.4 Haskell Inv. :47.2,1:11.2,1:48.1 Travers S :46.2,1:10.2,2:02.0 Woodward S :46.3,1:10.2,1:46.4 Don't let anyone claim that dirt tracks are slower today. The evidence is to the contrary. Below are the best times recorded at Belmont and Santa Anita in 1976, 1985, and 1992. If anything, races are generally being run faster today than previously. I also believe it is unreasonable to imagine that all of Spend a Buck's fast races benefitted from small track variants while Holy Bull's slower races suffered from large ones. Belmont Santa Anita Distance 1976 1985 1992 1976 1985 1992 6f 1:08.3 1:08.3 1:08.1 1:08.3 1:08.0 1:07.2 7f 1:21.0 1:21.1 1:20.3 1:21.1 1:21.0 1:20.3 8f 1:34.0 1:34.0 1:33.3 1:34.2 1:34.3 1:34.0 8.5f 1:40.3 1:40.4 1:40.2 1:41.2 1:40.3 1:40.4 9f 1:45.4 1:46.3 1:46.3 1:48.0 1:47.0 1:47.0 10f 2:00.0 2:00.3 1:58.4 2:00.0 2:00.1 1:59.0 Spend a Buck was never unplaced in 15 lifetime starts, winning ten. When he bled through Lasix in workouts, it was time to give it up. There were no examples of quitting or losing interest as Holy Bull did in the Fountain of Youth (the entrapped palette is speculation and has never been confirmed) and Kentucky Derby. When Spend a Buck finished a close third in the Breeders' Cup Juvenile after setting the early pace, he did it with a broken knee. He also never had the luxury of an experienced, high quality trainer like Mr. Croll. Despite all this, Spend a Buck (although being named Horse of the Year) never (IMHO) received the support from the racing media that he deserved. Was it the Lasix? Perhaps, but he certainly wasn't the only champion to use it. Was it his connections? They were, after all, not part of the mainstream racing establishment. Who knows! But regardless, when I step back and look at Spend a Buck and Holy Bull I see a clear distinction between the two. Don't get me wrong. I don't claim Spend a Buck is the greatest. There are many better than he. But I would claim he was better than Holy Bull despite all the current hype. And, as with Holy Bull, who knows how *special* Spend a Buck might have been? Having beaten Tank's Prospect easily in the Derby, could *he* have broken the Preakness record on a surface even better suited to his running style? Having beaten Creme Fraiche in the Jersey Derby despite suicidal fractions, could *he* have captured one of the fastest Belmonts off a more reasonable pace? Having beaten both Proud Truth and Skywalker with ease, could *he* have won the Breeders' Cup Classic? Speculation for sure, but not beyond serious consideration. Don't get me wrong. I like Holy Bull. He was exciting, chrasmatic, and dominating. But I know Holy Bull.....and he's no Spend a Buck.....or Secretariat, or Dr. Fager, or Spectacular Bid, or Swaps, or Nashua, or Forego, or Native Dancer, or.... This posting is not intended to generate heated debate. It is simply the opinion of one observor. I would, however, like to hear your stories of horses that captured your imagination and elevated the sport beyond the ordinary. Respectfully, -- Steve Roman "Creator of the Dosage Index" Fulshear, Texas From owner-derby@inslab.uky.edu Wed Feb 15 19:08:48 1995 Return-Path: Received: from simpatico.inslab.uky.edu by oasys.dt.navy.mil (5.61/oasys.dt.navy.mil) id AA06486; Wed, 15 Feb 95 19:08:46 EST Received: by inslab.uky.edu (NX5.67e/NX3.0M) id AA02060; Wed, 15 Feb 95 19:05:04 -0500 X-Provider: NeoSoft, Inc.: Internet Service Provider (713) 684-5969 Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 17:37:11 -0600 (CST) From: Steve Davidowitz Subject: Re: Holy Bull and Spend a Buck (Long) In-Reply-To: <199502151205.EAA01271@ix2.ix.netcom.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Comments: Derby Message #3826 Sender: owner-derby@inslab.uky.edu To: derby@inslab.uky.edu (Horse Racing List) Errors-To: derby-problems@inslab.uky.edu A segment of Steve Roman's exceptionally well written comarison between Holy Bull and Spend a Buck: > Holy Bull was an outstanding race horse and clearly the dominant figure on > dirt in 1994. Beyond that I have reservations about his place in history. My > concern is that the myth of Holy Bull transcends the reality. One part of > mythology depends on what might have been rather than what really was. > Another relies on timing. Holy Bull came along when racing was desperate for > a focal point, a source of stability in an increasingly unstable industry. > But in the end you must ask what is that he did to warrant comparison with the > giants of racing history? For now I will ignore his *exceptional* Beyer > Figures because IMHO the methodology is far less precise than the purveyors > would have you believe. Although certainly useful, the figures are, to a > large extent, self-fulfilling. Anyway, this is not the point of my > discussion. Instead, I would rather do a direct comparison of Holy Bull with > another horse from the past. It's not Secretariat, or Dr. Fager, or > Spectacular Bid, or Swaps, or Nashua, or Forego, or Native Dancer, or.... all > of which I believe were better individuals. Rather, it is Spend a Buck, a > runner of presumably similar type. I will concentrate on the five races Spend > a Buck won as a three-year-old and then leave it to you to judge. First, I > will prejudice the issue by saying that IMHO Spend a Buck was also superior to > Holy Bull. > > > A direct comparison of the winning 3yo races of Spend a Buck and Holy Bull > shows that Spend a Buck was the faster horse. > > Spend a Buck: Holy Bull: > Cherry Hill Mile :45.4,1:10.0,1:35.2 Florida Derby:46.2,1:10.2,1:47.3 > Garden State S :45.3,1:09.2,1:45.4 Blue Grass S :47.4,1:12.3,1:50.0 > Kentucky Derby :45.4,1:09.3,2:00.1 Met Mile :46.1,1:09.4,1:34.0 > Jersy Derby :45.2,1:09.0,2:02.3 Dwyer S :45.1,1:09.4,1:41.2 > Monmouth Inv. :46.4,1:09.4,1:46.4 Haskell Inv. :47.2,1:11.2,1:48.1 > Travers S :46.2,1:10.2,2:02.0 > Woodward S :46.3,1:10.2,1:46.4 > > Despite all this, Spend a Buck (although being named Horse of the Year) never > (IMHO) received the support from the racing media that he deserved. > it his connections? They were, after all, not part of the mainstream racing > > Don't get me wrong. I like Holy Bull. He was exciting, chrasmatic, and > dominating. But I know Holy Bull.....and he's no Spend a Buck.....or > Secretariat, or Dr. Fager, or Spectacular Bid, or Swaps, or Nashua, or Forego, > or Native Dancer, or.... > > Respectfully, > > > -- > Steve Roman > "Creator of the Dosage Index" > Fulshear, Texas -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment from Steve Davidowitz: An extremely well written posting Steve and guess what? you win this argument, hands down. Or, at the very least we'll be on the same side. Spend a Buck was faster and at least equally accomplished, given that both horses travelled different paths and acomplished different goals. By the way, Spend a Buck's Beyer Speed Figures (and any set of pace figures you wish to apply) were better on several occassions. As best I recollect he cracked 120 four times. while The Bull did it only once in the Met Mile (possibly twice in the Olympic if you believe some who use the Beyer method and feel the race was rated four or five points slow.) Spend a Buck's owner (?) Diaz was a negative lightning rod, in that he bypassed the Preakness and Belmont in favor of the $2 million bonus for sweeping the Chery Hill, Garden State, Ky. Derby and Jersey Derby in Garden State's opening of the newly rebuilt track. (I was there for all of those races and can attest to the amazing performance in the Garden State. (Even though the track was exceedingly fast. the Figure was 124 for the race.) He also missed the bulk of the second half of the racing season and probably needed one more major race victory against older horses to really wake people up how good he was. (In some respects, Spend a Buck's victory over Creme Fraiche was a lot like Holy Bull's victory over Concer in the Travers and it is also noteworthy that both Creme Fraiche and Concern went on to win the Belmont and Breeders' Cup Classic respectively.) You are right about the public and the industry's present sense of starvation for a hero horse; but at the same time, giving The Bull his due, I have to say he was one of the most charismatic horses I have seen in that he seemed to draw people's focus to him. (In the post parade, the post parade and walking ring he behaved like a performer.) It was difficult to go to a holy Bull race and not want to watch him to the exclusion of all other horses on the track. That was part of his allure and his mystique and there is no question in my mind that there was more horsepower yet to be revealed. The promise of it was also a big part of his appeal. The best horse since Secretariat? On my own list he ranks somewhere about 11th best since Secretariat, with Spend a Buck sixth. 1: Secretariat 2: Seattle Slew 3: Affirmed. 4: Spectacular Bid 5 Sunday Silence 6: Spend A Buck 7: Forego 8: Alysheba 9: Easy Goer 10: Alydar 11: Holy Bull 12: Slew o' Gold No Turf horses, such as Manila, Miesque, John Henry included in the above and it would have been interesting to see what Holy Bull developed into this year; with his huge body, there was, it seemed to me much room for improvement. The good news he's resting comfortably and out of danger. Regards, Steve Davidowitz From owner-derby@inslab.uky.edu Wed Feb 15 21:18:16 1995 Return-Path: Received: from simpatico.inslab.uky.edu by oasys.dt.navy.mil (5.61/oasys.dt.navy.mil) id AA12917; Wed, 15 Feb 95 21:18:14 EST Received: by inslab.uky.edu (NX5.67e/NX3.0M) id AA02752; Wed, 15 Feb 95 21:15:03 -0500 X-Provider: NeoSoft, Inc.: Internet Service Provider (713) 684-5969 Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 20:02:33 -0600 (CST) From: Steve Davidowitz Subject: Re: Holy Bull and Spend a Buck (Long) In-Reply-To: <199502160104.SAA11384@glory.met.utah.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Comments: Derby Message #3841 Sender: owner-derby@inslab.uky.edu To: derby@inslab.uky.edu (Horse Racing List) Errors-To: derby-problems@inslab.uky.edu On Wed, 15 Feb 1995, James Robert Campbell wrote: > > >The best horse since Secretariat? On my own list he ranks somewhere > >about 11th best since Secretariat, with Spend a Buck sixth. > >1: Secretariat > >2: Seattle Slew > >3: Affirmed. > >4: Spectacular Bid > >5 Sunday Silence > >6: Spend A Buck > >7: Forego > >8: Alysheba > >9: Easy Goer > >10: Alydar > >11: Holy Bull > >12: Slew o' Gold > > Steve, > > I'd be interested to read your feelings on A.P. Indy after seeing this > list. As a younger fan, my racing recollection barely goes past > 1988, with any earlier memories being of John Henry. In those 7 or so > years, I feel as though A.P. Indy is the best I've personally seen outside > of Sunday Silence. As far as Easy Goer, no knocks, but I can't recall > him winning a big one outside of New York and I guess I hold it against > him a bit. > > Cheers, > > --James ------------------------------------------------------------------- A.P. Indy was a very good horse who won most of the serious races he was pointed towards. I rank him highly. In fact, I could easily place him in eighth or ninth and move all the others down a peg without too much argument. Subjective as my rankings and anyone else's may be, I do believe there was a qualitative, clearly definitive difference between Secretariat and any of the other horses on the list. In my mind, this also is followed by a second qualititative grouping of Seattle Slew and Affirmed, followed closely by Spectacular Bid, followed by about 15-20 other top class Thoroughbreds who seem to comprise one large group. (Sort of like a college football poll, in which the teams are good, but hard to separate past the elite few.) Among the horses I could include along withb A.P. Indy would be the filly Ruffian and if I made the list six months from now, I might slip in a horse like Conquistador Cielo who was as fast as Holy Bull on his best days. My own criteria for such lists change from time to time. For instance: what If I narrowed the focus and said which horses were the best 3 YEAR OLDS, or which horses were the best 1-1/4 MILE HORSES, or which ones were the FASTEST MILERS. The list would change. At the bottom line, I think Holy Bull was a "freak." A truly gifted horse with 13 wins from 16 starts, including a long list of very good stakes trophies in the closet and a legion of fans. People saw the horse as a champion and forgave him for his flaws, just as they do all champions. And I still say there was more power under the hood than we ever got to see. Regards, Steve Davidowitz From owner-derby@inslab.uky.edu Thu Feb 16 09:35:02 1995 Return-Path: Received: from simpatico.inslab.uky.edu by oasys.dt.navy.mil (5.61/oasys.dt.navy.mil) id AA11742; Thu, 16 Feb 95 09:34:58 EST Received: by inslab.uky.edu (NX5.67e/NX3.0M) id AA04550; Thu, 16 Feb 95 09:31:30 -0500 Message-Id: <9502161411.AA07006@oasys.dt.navy.mil> Date: 16 Feb 95 08:07 EST From: wellman (Larry Wellman) Subject: Re: Holy Bull and spendaBuck. .. passer To: derby@inslab.uky.edu (Horse Racing List) In-Reply-To: Message of 15 Feb 1995 22:25 Comments: Derby Message #3859 Sender: owner-derby@inslab.uky.edu Errors-To: derby-problems@inslab.uky.edu I guess I am responsible for starting this tread by comparing my model for Secretariat and Holy Bull. I really did not intend on starting a debate about who is better then who. To develop a model on a horse it will sometime take me 1-2 hours of computer runs with continous review and adjustments to various parameters. The model only represents what is performed on the track not what the horse has in reserve. To get what I believe is an accurate model for a horse I will compared predictions against 3-4 races and maybe more depending on what I have available. Now what about Spend a Buck: I have not had time to develop a model on Spend a Buck maybe over the weekend. The big question I have aftering looking over 1985 forms from the TC races and Breeders Cup races. Just how fast was the Garden State track where Spend a Buck ran most of his super races (all in about 2 months in April-May 1985). I reviewed the track records for GS, AQU, BEL, and PIM. All of the track records at GS from 5 furlongs to 11/4 were all set between 11-27 April 1985. On 4 May 1989 all of these records were still the same. I then decided to look at what was the best time for 1988 races at the route distances for these four tracks. Interval 1mi 11/16 11/8 13/16 11/4 11/8-11/4 Date 4/19/85 4/19/85 4/20/85 4/20/85 4/27/85 GS-TR 95.00 101.60 105.80 117.00 120.80 15 sec 1988 95.80 101.80 109.40 119.40 122.80 13.40 Diff. +.80 +.20 +3.60 +2.40 +2.00 Date 5/31/82 8/28/73 9/15/73 7/4/82 BEL-TR 93.00 100.40 105.40 119.60 14.20 1988 94.00 101.00 107.60 120.60 13.00 Diff. +1.00 +.60 +2.20 +1.00 Date 4/8/89 10/15/73 3/29/86 AQU-TR 92.40 107.00 119.20 12.20 1988 94.00 107.20 120.20 13.00 Diff. +1.60 +.20 +1.00 Date 5/19/84 7/22/78 5/18/85 3/19/88 PIM-TR 100.80 108.40 113.40 121.80 13.40 1988 102.60 108.80 114.20 121.80 13.00 Diff +1.80 +.40 +.80 0 One could make a judgement from the above data that GS during its inaugural meeting in April 1985 was groomed to set speed records. In 4 years not one of 9 different track records has changed at GS and not a single horse in 1988 could get within 2 seconds of the 11/8 to 11/4 races. While at the other tracks new track records were set or approached. (See Steve R. comment about horse showing improvement) The other item to look at is the interval time between 11/8 and 11/4 races for both the track records and best time in 1988. In the 1985 TC races the track records at PIM was broke in the Preakness by both Tanks Prospect and Chiefs Crown. Was 1985 the time for grooming the tracks for speed? What was the quality of horses at GS after Spend a Buck? I believe Snow Chief ran at GS in the Cherry Hill mile. Track resistance can make a significant impact on the time of a race. Larry From davidwtz@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM Thu Feb 16 13:21:36 1995 Return-Path: Received: from starbase.NeoSoft.COM by oasys.dt.navy.mil (5.61/oasys.dt.navy.mil) id AA23335; Thu, 16 Feb 95 13:21:32 EST Received: (from davidwtz@localhost) by Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (8.6.9/8.6.9) id MAA16660; Thu, 16 Feb 1995 12:21:30 -0600 X-Provider: NeoSoft, Inc.: Internet Service Provider (713) 684-5969 Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 12:21:29 -0600 (CST) From: Steve Davidowitz To: Larry Wellman Subject: Re: Holy Bull and spendaBuck. .. passer In-Reply-To: <9502161411.AA07003@oasys.dt.navy.mil> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Larry, It will take me about a week to find my old Garden State notes, or to ask Andy if he still has them. . .The track was very fast, that much I do remember. I also have to check the scale we were using then; some minor changes have been made since 1991. But the numbers were very big. Snow Chief won the 1-1/4 mile Jersey Derby about nine or 10 days after he won the 1-3/16 miles Preakness. The resistance formula that you use: what would a track that plays 4 seconds fast, 3 seconds, 2 seconds, 1 second, 1/5 second fast register at one mile, or is it a uniform resistance factor at all distances? The term resistance in your lingo, seems virtually equal to track variant in speed figure lingo. But I suspect some differences(?) I couldn't really get into your comparisons between HB and Sec the other day, but I wondered why you needed to start with the 1-1/2 mile Belmont and modify it, when the 1-1/8 miles Marlboro was already there? (Like I said, I'm sure I didn;t get it all on first reading.) Interesting stuff, though. very interesting. Regards, Steve Davidowitz