[Kasept]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

My biggest problem with them is that they are adjusted to fit. I've always felt that a race should be left alone to tell whatever story it tells, not what story the figure maker wants to believe it should tell. One of the things I don't understand is that figure makers feel like a number should fit in with a certain pattern a horse may have. I think that's very dangerous to do because the objective of a horse is not the same everytime. Take 2yo/3yo during the winter and into the spring. Often, in each new race, they are taking on new challenges. A horse might run his first race of the year at 7f around one-turn and earn a 95. His second race might be his first try at 8.5f or his first try at two-turns and he might be shipping and running on a new surface. Also, that first race, the trainer might only have him at 70% cranked because he doesn't want him peaking too early but this race he's now at about 80-85% tightened. How can an accurate projection be made on what he's supposed to do? Or it could be a horse that has run 100-110 for five straight races, all sprints, being stretched out for the first time. He then runs a figure of 85 going 9f. How does anyone know that he didn't run his race? How does anyone know what his normal 9f figure would be? How can you project accurately? Why should you expect the same effort in the Jim Dandy that you do in the Travers? Why should you expect the same effort in the Fountain of Youth that you get in the Florida Derby? That's never made sense to me.

KG... Honestly, you don't understand what figure-making is all about or how it works based on this... There are multiple horses in a race and multiple races on a card. The figures aren't made in an isolated fashion based on the performance of one horse in one race in a vacuum. They're formulated on the day's racing in its' entirity.