Re: Horse racing 101, lets go to the videotape.
My comment that i might have been there live was directed at your 'show me the point on the replay' where you saw this gallop out because at that point in time, you didnt know if i was there live or not, you just jumped to a conclusion that i was not there live and what i saw (or didnt see) must have been something on the videotape.
I'm still looking for an explanation from you on what your definition of 'interest and energy' is in gallop out land. Do you have an example for me? I'm trying to figure out what you're looking at on tape to determine that my opinion is wrong. Why exactly do you think that my horse didnt gallop out with energy and interest and secondly, what is your definition of energy and interest.
No need to be smug and arrogant because any 'misinformation' you seem to see, is just your opinion vs my opinion, its nothing more or nothing less. If you didnt think this horse galloped out well on Jan 2, that's your OPINION, its not a fact and yet, you're trying to twist this into a fact. We're talking about something a horse did on tape, which is completely open to interpretation. I interpret things how i want and you interpret things how you want. There's really no reason to take personal shots at me because you disagree with my opinion.
Is there any way we can actually discuss this rationally, or is that something you're not interested in?
OK, against my better judgement. First and foremost, I addressed one issue in regards to a thread of "lets go the videotape"; a thread where you labeled it "101" on replay analysis. I addressed your comment on the gallop out. There was no video replay of the gallop out. Pointing to the split seconds where the horse appears at the wire and a few strides after is not the gallop out. It's not even close. You are pointing out something that JK labeled well-"fiction". How can I argue about what you saw, when what you saw wasn't a gallop out? And then you try and bring up the point of "maybe I saw it live, you're assuming I wasn't there".............well, the thread was on replay analysis, not on your personal observations at the track. The point of the the thread was "let's go to the videotape", and then you want to defend your position by saying you "might have been there live". Yes, and I may be the owner of the horse, you're assuming I'm not. Neither one has anything to do with analyzing a replay, and the mentioned gallop out. To bring it up makes no sense. And to say I wouldn't have said anything if the horse won is stupid. I noticed the thread Sat. night, went to look at the replay, and was completely thrown for what I saw (in this case didn't see).
Now I'll make a couple observations that may help. 1st, I agree with some of the "non-replay" angles in the OP. The fact that Gryder got on a for a low-profile trainer is important. The fact that he stuck around for the 2nd start even more important. Nothing wrong with that anlysis. Big time jock- small connections always solid. The fact he got on a 1ster, and stuck around for that trainer, is more solid. I agree with you on those angles.
Analyzing the gallop out-
I'll preface this by saying it's something I pay extremely close attention to, but it has to be used for handicapping in it's proper context. Let's assume they did show the gallop out on the horse (or you saw it live). The expectation for a stronger wager should have been the horse is going to go longer, not shorter. When you're talking about a 1ster or layoff horse, and analyzing a workout, often times you'll see a horse is "short". The gallop out will look anything but impressive, but that's more a signal that the trainer is giving him one then a stong gallop out. The work pattern that folllows that debut, or comeback race is important. That race tightened the screws, and a much improved 2nd out can be expected. If the 1ster, or the layoff horse gallops out well, unless he's pointed to go further, he was probably pretty fit heading into the race. When he returns in the same distance (or .5F shorter in this case) the previous gallop holds very little importance. It can actually be viewed as a negative. I certainly don't want a horse that shows he wants to go further to be shortening up (unless the race is filled with need the leads). Think of it in the opposite way- A horse sprints 6F's then hits the wall on the gallop out. If he's entered at 1M in his next start, he's a toss. If he's entered at 5.5F's he's upgraded over the 6F distance because of a lousy gallop out.
The biggest use of analyzing a gallop out, is gauging if a horse wants more or less ground in his upcoming races. The exception is the horse with a troubled race that's not able to level until very late in the race.............now, I've analyzed gallop outs on replays for a very long time, and determined it the best way to determine the peak distance for a horse. But you don't have to believe me. The greatest claiming trainer in the game, Mike Mitchell, does the exact same thing. He is excellent at claiming horses and making them stakes quality distance horses. When asked about a year ago on a local radio station here how he has so much success claiming and getting horses to go longer, his response- "I watch the gallop outs."
The January 21st race, shows a good gallop horse by your horse. I'd expect 5.5F was too short, and better at a further distance...........it's also important to remember the gallop out is gauged against the level of competion the horse is running against.
op:
