Quote:
Originally Posted by For The Lead
With regard to item #4 on the above list, are you speaking of sprint lines in route races, route lines in sprint races, or sprint lines in sprint races and route lines in route races?
i.e.- 5.5f to 7f, 7f to 6f and etc.
8.0f to 8.5f, 8.5f to 8.3f and etc.
Many times you will find that a horse who runs early at 7f will run as a presser or sustained when turned back to 5.5f or 6f, as just one example.
|
FTL,
I was referring to sprint lines in route races, or route lines in sprint races. If today is a route and a horse has recent decent sprint lines and recent so-so route lines, I'd err on the side of representing it from the routes rather than the sprints, unless much older performance shows it has run better in routes, when fit, than recently, and recent sprint lines project well and show a more later energy disbursement balance.
If today is a sprint and I have only recent routes, I'll give it a go to see if there is some brilliant early speed - but I am usually dubious about such a scenario for the win (though in-the-money should not be excluded).
Again, as a principle, when possible, I'd try to minimize the distance equalization required. I guess that means I'd prefer projecting a 7f in a 8f route to using a 6f or 5.5f line. I can appreciate that a 7f line turned back to a 6f or shorter could change the energy distribution, but if there's nothing else to go on, I use it. Over the great number of events, I personally prefer the consistency that regular projection/extraction routines provide me, or the other line selection principles (along with using Total Energies and Speed Ratings, which I didn't discuss) - to trusting myself with a jazz approach (one time this, next time that). A traffic cop or board of governors on method, if you will. I'm sure there are many levels of finesse possible here, and some may possess a more refined tool box.
Ted