Comments

Jessica,

Great work and a big help in handicapping. Love the fact that I was able to learn of you doing this through Equidaily too! Well done!

Patrick - Portland Meadows

- Posted by patrick, October 20, 2007 2:19 PM

Wonderful work, Jessica! You need to resurrect this come Preakness time.

- Posted by EJXD2, October 20, 2007 5:14 PM

Glad someone has put this out there. I work with the folks at ESPN and every year we get to Pimlico and debunk the myth of "tighter" turns. It is basic geometry. An oval one mile around can only have slight differences in the curvature of the turns. We measured (using Google Earth)the curvature and found that Churchill is actually "tighter" by 1/1000th of a degree. The only thing that differs on various racetracks is the placement of the finish line and the point where they measure the length of the stretch. We only have a few seconds in an eight hour broadcast to make the point. You've got it on the web for all to see now. Good job.

- Posted by Rolly Hoyt, October 20, 2007 6:57 PM

How a horse handles the turns is certainly important but a more prominent factor at Monmouth this year will be the composition of the soil.

Its reputation for favoring speed horses is no urban legend. This will be evidenced in the BC Sprint where 14 runners are set to go (Mach Ride, a major contender, was recently scratched).

Attla's Storm, trained by the red-hot Richard Schosberg, and Bordonaro (who is 10 for 19 lifetime) will be ones to focus on in this race. These two speedburners raced each other into defeat in last year's BC Sprint at Churchill. They are both exceptional runners. If one draws much more favorably than the other, it could be the deciding factor. Attila's Storm has a win over the Monmouth surface to his credit, Bordonaro does not. To round out this longshot trifecta, I would also consider Park Avenue Ball, the classic horse for the course.

Good luck.

- Posted by Jim, October 21, 2007 6:24 AM

interesting comparisons but the CD stretch is 1234.5 ft long and much longer than the stretch at MTH and more than the 59ft you indicated

- Posted by Peter Mallett, October 21, 2007 10:28 AM

Your turns analysis has been WIDELY discredited. See:

http://www.racing.saratoga.ny.us/posts/86302.html

- Posted by Bill, October 22, 2007 8:17 AM

Thanks for the comments.

Peter, you're right that the Churchill stretch is 1234.5 feet versus 990 at Monmouth. The difference is made up by the slightly longer straights on both sides and Churchill's finish line placement.

Bill, I wouldn't call those comments "widely" discrediting, especially as the poster's complaint is limited to the Belmont-Monmouth pairing and he's making a mistake in his approach, something other Derby Listers have pointed out. The question is one of angle of curve/curve radius, not scale.

- Posted by Jessica, October 22, 2007 8:28 AM

Pimlico's turns may have the same angle as those found at Churchill, but the turns at Pimlico are not banked as much, which is what gives jockeys the feeling of tighter turns.

Another thing about banked turns--they help closers more than speed types. Front runners do far better at Pimlico than at Churchill. Closers are moving faster than the frontrunners (or otherwise they wouldn't be closing but just plodding along in the rear) and are better able to maintain their momentum if the turn is banked. Think of short track speed skating in the Olympics. Obviously zero bank since it's ice and if you have watched this sport for even a few minutes you can see it's physically impossible to pass while turning.

Northfield Park has some of the most highly banked turns in harness racing and closers rallying wide are able to build up a lot more speed coming out of the final turn than closers at another half-mile track like Maywood Park where the turns are not banked as much.

- Posted by Johnny Racetracks, October 23, 2007 1:18 AM

Jessica,

With all due respect, I explained as simply as possible on an internet racing forum the inaccuracy of your statement, which paraphrased, stated that, "other than SA, the turns at MTH mostly closely resemble those of BEL." I can't think of a track off the top of my head in North America that has turns configured more differently than the majority of thoroughbred tracks than Belmont (Kentucky Downs and the 6-1/2 furlong downhill turf course at SA excluded).

Trust me when I tell you that I thoroughly understand the geometry of radius of curves. I chose to use a simple image which I posted to a website to point out that symmetrically nesting a one mile oval track image inside a 1-1/2 mile oval image to make a comparison of turn configuration is misleading and flawed. The resident expert on math on the forum agreed with me completely. I chose to use a simple diagram rather than go into an elaborate explanation of radius of curve, since a picture is worth a thousand words, there's not a lot of geometry mavens around these days, and my intention was to make my explanation simple and brief, yet understandable.

I think my diagram quickly and simply illustrates the glaring DIFFERENCE between the turn configuration of the two tracks in question. I've posted the link for your readers to check it out for themselves if they choose.

As far as your "widely discrediting" comment is concerned, why is it relevant whether one person or many pointed out your error? Does it make you any less wrong? As a responsible and reliable turf journalist, can't you just admit you were wrong? We all make mistakes.

For some reason, many turf journalists have a problem understanding some of these track configuration concepts. Another example of a respected and well-read turf writer not grasping another track configuration concept, and mis-stating the facts, is the recent article in the Louisville Courier-Journal by Jennie Rees.

In her BC article the other day, she talks about stretch lengths, and states that the shorter the length of the stretch (the distance from the end of the home turn to the wire), the closer the starting gate for a two-turn race has to be placed to the clubhouse turn. Actually, the exact opposite is true.

I apologize if calling attention to your mistake bothered you, but one of the last things our sport needs is our journalists disseminating mis-information. I consider your response above to your error to be inapppropriate and lacking substance.

Respectfully,
Jim Dennis

- Posted by jim dennis, October 25, 2007 2:18 AM

Jim, thanks for the comments. I replied to your Derby List post last weekend with the results of one of my calculations -- which could well be wrong, since I'm hardly a geometry maven -- and which I respectfully point out you didn't reply to then and you don't address now. Let's exchange math -- I'm genuinely interested in solving the Belmont-Monmouth turn problem to satisfaction with more than diagrams.

- Posted by Jessica, October 25, 2007 7:52 AM