Final Verdict ... Fog Is A Fraud

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

so basically you are saying that competition and race set up have no impact on performance?

No, I didn't say that. Sometimes it has an impact and sometimes it doesn't. For example, you may see a horse break his maiden first-time out by 4 lengths. In his next start, he runs in a stakes against some a much stronger field and he wins by 5 lengths. I've seen that happen many times. So in that example, the stronger competition did not have an effect on the horse's performances. He stepped up against stronger competition and he ran just as good if not better. So in that case, the competition had no impact on his performance.
Sometimes the opposite happens. Maybe a horse wins easily first-time out and goes wire to wire. Let's say he runs the half-mile in :45 2/5 and gets an easy lead and he wins easily. In his next start, he runs in a stakes race against much better horses where the half is run in :44 1/5. He's not as goos as these horses and he can't run early with them and he gets beat. In this case, the competition and the race set up had a huge impact on performance.
Plenty of horses win by 3 lengths first-time out. I think you need to have a good eye to determine which of these horses are stars and which ones are not. I don't think that simply looking at the fractions or the speed figures will give you this information. You need to have a good eye.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

No, I didn't say that. Sometimes it has an impact and sometimes it doesn't. For example, you may see a horse break his maiden first-time out by 4 lengths. In his next start, he runs in a stakes against some a much stronger field and he wins by 5 lengths. I've seen that happen many times. So in that example, the stronger competition did not have an effect on the horse's performances. He stepped up against stronger competition and he ran just as good if not better. So in that case, the competition had no impact on his performance.
Sometimes the opposite happens. Maybe a horse wins easily first-time out and goes wire to wire. Let's say he runs the half-mile in :45 2/5 and gets an easy lead and he wins easily. In his next start, he runs in a stakes race against much better horses where the half is run in :44 1/5. He's not as goos as these horses and he can't run early with them and he gets beat. In this case, the competition and the race set up had a huge impact on performance.
Plenty of horses win by 3 lengths first-time out. I think you need to have a good eye to determine which of these horses are stars and which ones are not. I don't think that simply looking at the fractions or the speed figures will give you this information. You need to have a good eye.

Very well stated.

Hopefully we will have more information when LITF runs again. And I of course hope he does as he is visually very impressive to me.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

No, I didn't say that. Sometimes it has an impact and sometimes it doesn't. For example, you may see a horse break his maiden first-time out by 4 lengths. In his next start, he runs in a stakes against some a much stronger field and he wins by 5 lengths. I've seen that happen many times. So in that example, the stronger competition did not have an effect on the horse's performances. He stepped up against stronger competition and he ran just as good if not better. So in that case, the competition had no impact on his performance.
Sometimes the opposite happens. Maybe a horse wins easily first-time out and goes wire to wire. Let's say he runs the half-mile in :45 2/5 and gets an easy lead and he wins easily. In his next start, he runs in a stakes race against much better horses where the half is run in :44 1/5. He's not as goos as these horses and he can't run early with them and he gets beat. In this case, the competition and the race set up had a huge impact on performance. Plenty of horses win by 3 lengths first-time out. I think you need to have a good eye to determine which of these horses are stars and which ones are not. I don't think that simply looking at the fractions or the speed figures will give you this information. You need to have a good eye.

And as demonstrated by arljim earlier in the thread, this is clearly the case with LITF. You have just made the case. Thank you.

[bogeydaman]

[quote=dalakhani]Why is there so much blind faith in an animal that has proven to be vastly overrated on multiple occasions?

How can you possibly say that LITF was overrated?

Sincerely,

The 2005 USC Football Team


Not to put a damper on this fun thread, but there is so much emotion being used on the words "overrated" in this thread? Just to state the obvious, but "Ratings" are obviously opinions (including those people that voted for the eclipse). People are going to have opinions on both sides of this fence (neither right and neither wrong). I also saw some references in this thread to translating the odds (or lack thereof on Saturday) and translating those odds to how the horse is "rated". For the record LITF has a >+10% ROI (if I did my math correct) which by definition he is underrated (yes I know the argument will be that he would be overrated based on the small sample size of G1/G2 races against older horses). BTW by using this definition there should be a 500 post thread on this board describing how overrated Dubai Escapade is.

[dalakhani]

[quote=bogeydaman]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Why is there so much blind faith in an animal that has proven to be vastly overrated on multiple occasions?

How can you possibly say that LITF was overrated?

Sincerely,

The 2005 USC Football Team


Not to put a damper on this fun thread, but there is so much emotion being used on the words "overrated" in this thread? Just to state the obvious, but "Ratings" are obviously opinions (including those people that voted for the eclipse). People are going to have opinions on both sides of this fence (neither right and neither wrong). I also saw some references in this thread to translating the odds (or lack thereof on Saturday) and translating those odds to how the horse is "rated". For the record LITF has a >+10% ROI (if I did my math correct) which by definition he is underrated (yes I know the argument will be that he would be overrated based on the small sample size of G1/G2 races against older horses). BTW by using this definition there should be a 500 post thread on this board describing how overrated Dubai Escapade is.

Dubai Escapade was not compared to the all time greats. Dubai escapade wasnt voted champion anything. Dubai escapade hasnt been hyped to a fraction that LITF has. Dubai Escapades connections and fans didnt invent a bunch of excuses. Dubai Escapade can still atone and i bet she will.

Would you bet LITF will win a g1 before he is done?

[Rupert Pupkin]

[quote=dalakhani]

Originally Posted by bogeydaman

Dubai Escapade was not compared to the all time greats. Dubai escapade wasnt voted champion anything. Dubai escapade hasnt been hyped to a fraction that LITF has. Dubai Escapades connections and fans didnt invent a bunch of excuses. Dubai Escapade can still atone and i bet she will.

Would you bet LITF will win a g1 before he is done?

People have made excuses for Dubai Escapade and rightfully so. They say she didn't fire which is absolutely true. I don't know if she would have won or not if she would have fired. I don't really know the filly that well and I'm not that familiar with the fillies she was running against on Saturday.
I do know that she didn't fire though. She didn't even want to switch leads on Saturday which is unusual for her. She stayed on her left lead through much of the stretch. She did eventually switch to her right lead, but she did it much later than normal. There was clearly something bothering her.

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

I never thought he should have been champion sprinter last year either. But, I also don't know who should have gotten it. Do you, because people here say that he shouldn't, yet offer no solution.

Sorry, Hoss ... you must have missed the posts on this thread where I proposed the solution ... that is ...

... that the Eclipse Sprint Award should have been vacated ... that is ... no champion named.

There are years when that's the best solution ... and I argued for it all last Fall. The champion in any division should be a horse who raced well over a substantial portion of the year ... AND ... who somehow demonstrated a reasonably clear superiority to his rivals.

There wasn't an American sprinter last year ... who deserved to carry the glorious word "champion" for all eternity.

Giving it to a horse who may not have even been in the top 10 ... debased the whole meaning of the Eclipse Award.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

And as demonstrated by arljim earlier in the thread, this is clearly the case with LITF. You have just made the case. Thank you.

No, not at all. LITF has proven he can win from off the pace. In addition, LITF has set some blazing early fractions and still drew off and won easily. So he has shown that he can set blazing fast fractions and win and he has shown that he can sit off the pace of fast fractions and win.
I'm not saying your theory is positively wrong. His sub-par performances in his 3 losses could be due to tougher competition on those occasions. Or it may be a combination of tougher competition and the horse not firing to due to physical problems.
Or it may be due almost solely to physical problems.

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Yeah but it's impossible, won't happen, and obviously didn't. There has to be a winner, if there is no winner it sort of defeats the whole purpose of having the award. Some trainers plan their whole year around getting the eclipse, so to not give one out because Bold Brooklynite doesn't think anyone deserved it isn't going to fly. I'm suprised no one involved with the eclipse awards listenened to your arguement last fall.

No ... there doesn't HAVE to be a winner. Vacating the award only strengthens the purpose of the award ... which is to honor the best horse in a division as a "champion."

No sprinter deserved that acclamation last year ... it cheapened the whole meaning of the Eclipse Awards.

And it doesn't matter at all what I think ... the voters should have the option of checking a box which says "No champion" ... and let that be the determinant.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Sorry, Hoss ... you must have missed the posts on this thread where I proposed the solution ... that is ...

... that the Eclipse Sprint Award should have been vacated ... that is ... no champion named.

There are years when that's the best solution ... and I argued for it all last Fall. The champion in any division should be a horse who raced well over a substantial portion of the year ... AND ... who somehow demonstrated a reasonably clear superiority to his rivals.

There wasn't an American sprinter last year ... who deserved to carry the glorious word "champion" for all eternity.

Giving it to a horse who may not have even been in the top 10 ... debased the whole meaning of the Eclipse Award.

I think that's pretty silly. It's probably less than 50% of the time that there is a clear and obvious winner who demonstrated reasonably clear superiority over their rivals. If we adopted your idea, we would have no winner in half the divisions every year.
Your contention that LITF was not in the Top 10 is absurd. He finished 7th in the BC Sprint. How is not in the Top 10 if he finished 7th in the championship race. If hed terrible Form before the race and finished 7th, you could argue that he wasn't in the Top 10. However, he had great Form going in and was the #1 seed going in. He went off as the odds-on 3-5 favorite that day. Let's say that the fans made a huge mistake in their handicapping and he should have been 5-1 instead of 3-5. That would still put him in at least the Top 7 best sprinters(since he finished 7th) and probably the Top 4 or 5 based on his previous Form. You can't tell me that LITF should have been 40-1 that day. I see fans make mistakes all the time, but I've never seen a horse who should be 40-1 go off at 3-5. If they made mistakes that big you could make millions betting the horses.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

No, not at all. LITF has proven he can win from off the pace. In addition, LITF has set some blazing early fractions and still drew off and won easily. So he has shown that he can set blazing fast fractions and win and he has shown that he can sit off the pace of fast fractions and win.
I'm not saying your theory is positively wrong. His sub-par performances in his 3 losses could be due to tougher competition on those occasions. Or it may be a combination of tougher competition and the horse not firing to due to physical problems.
Or it may be due almost solely to physical problems.

If he had demonstrated at least once that he could compete at the top against open company, than the injury excuse would have much more validity in my mind. The fact is that he hasnt been able to compete at the top. Maybe he does it in the future...i would bet not.

LITF has rated- you are correct. But he rated against cheap speed that would fold. LITF has set blazing fractions- you are correct. But there was nothing of quality there to chase him down. In races where there have been credible frontrunners as well as credible closers, he has lost. Simple as that. That is fact.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

No, not at all. LITF has proven he can win from off the pace. In addition, LITF has set some blazing early fractions and still drew off and won easily. So he has shown that he can set blazing fast fractions and win and he has shown that he can sit off the pace of fast fractions and win.
I'm not saying your theory is positively wrong. His sub-par performances in his 3 losses could be due to tougher competition on those occasions. Or it may be a combination of tougher competition and the horse not firing to due to physical problems.
Or it may be due almost solely to physical problems.

There is simply no race that LITF has ran which would qualify under the description of winning from off the pace. Not one.

By blazing fractions I know you are again referring to the three horse race at Bay Meadows, the 43 and change half mile. First of all that race was essentially a walkover, a time trial for LITF. Neither of the other two horses was a factor at any point. It wasn't as if he dueled with a fast horse and drew off. it makes a world of difference to a sprinter if you can't get comfortable up front, have to run a little wide or between horses.
That race showcased his blazing speed but little more. According to the pace figures that I use, and that you don't buy into, LITF actually ran swifter half miles in the RivaRidge, the KingsBishop, and the BC sprint. Imo the KingsBishop was probably his best performance.

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

It's your opinion that no one deserved the award ...

As I said ... my opinion doesn't count ...

... the Eclipse voters should have the option of checking "No champion" ... and let those votes be determinative.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

There is simply no race that LITF has ran which would qualify under the description of winning from off the pace. Not one.

By blazing fractions I know you are again referring to the three horse race at Bay Meadows, the 43 and change half mile. First of all that race was essentially a walkover, a time trial for LITF. Neither of the other two horses was a factor at any point. It wasn't as if he dueled with a fast horse and drew off. it makes a world of difference to a sprinter if you can't get comfortable up front, have to run a little wide or between horses.
That race showcased his blazing speed but little more. According to the pace figures that I use, and that you don't buy into, LITF actually ran swifter half miles in the RivaRidge, the KingsBishop, and the BC sprint. Imo the KingsBishop was probably his best performance.

And the funny thing is, i was at the track and he was dead as a doornail at the 1/16th pole. Even Baze said after the race that he had "no horse" from the 1/16th pole on. I watched that race and thought "hes lucky that there wasnt anyone that could catch him".

Originally Posted by dalakhani

And the funny thing is, i was at the track and he was dead as a doornail at the 1/16th pole. Even Baze said after the race that he had "no horse" from the 1/16th pole on. I watched that race and thought "hes lucky that there wasnt anyone that could catch him".

That's when I drew the same conclusion ...

... and it's what led me to publicly predict ... ten days before the BC Sprint ... when Lost In The Fog was the hottest favorite on the card ... and the goo-goos were going ga-ga ... that not only would he lose ... but that he would crack in the last eighth like an egg dropped on concrete.

Glad you spotted it too.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

And the funny thing is, i was at the track and he was dead as a doornail at the 1/16th pole. Even Baze said after the race that he had "no horse" from the 1/16th pole on. I watched that race and thought "hes lucky that there wasnt anyone that could catch him".

I guess I can understand him not having any gas left at that point. That was a blazing seven furlongs. I think he was lucky that there wasn't any real speed merchant type that could have challenged him more early, again the relatively weak competition. But I take nothing against him for races like that one and the Carryback. Like Phalaris said he was clearly the best 3yo sprinter by a mile.

[ArlJim78]

Is this thing going to 300 posts tomorrow?

I'm startin to feel a little fogged out.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

And the funny thing is, i was at the track and he was dead as a doornail at the 1/16th pole. Even Baze said after the race that he had "no horse" from the 1/16th pole on. I watched that race and thought "hes lucky that there wasnt anyone that could catch him".

Yes, you are correct. I remember that race. LITF did not finish well that day. If my memory is correct, I think there was some debate about that race on the ESPN website. If my memory is correct, I was telling people that LITF did not finish well at all and even Russel admitted it. I told them that it's never a good sign when the jockey says something negative about his horse. The jocks are usually the biggest cheerleaders in the world when it comes to their horses. When they tell you that "my horse got really tired" that is a red flag and a cause for concern. I had thought that LITF got tired that day and Russel confirmed it in the interview. I remember thinking that LITF was starting to look somewhat vulnerable despite the fact that he won that race.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

I guess I can understand him not having any gas left at that point. That was a blazing seven furlongs. I think he was lucky that there wasn't any real speed merchant type that could have challenged him more early, again the relatively weak competition. But I take nothing against him for races like that one and the Carryback. Like Phalaris said he was clearly the best 3yo sprinter by a mile.

I don't know if he was the best 3 year old by a mile. Silver Train was a 3 year old. Silver Train crushed LITF in the BC Sprint. LITF may have had a better year overall, but when Silver Train was on, he and LITF were pretty closely matched.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't know if he was the best 3 year old by a mile. Silver Train was a 3 year old. Silver Train crushed LITF in the BC Sprint. LITF may have had a better year overall, but when Silver Train was on, he and LITF were pretty closely matched.

You're right, it would be closer. If it were my vote I would have given it to LITF despite the one loss to ST due to the overall year.
But it doesn't matter, it's all hypothetical