Blanket statements are dumb

[Charlie D]

The statement quoted by Tim is not a blanket statement btw, as you can see from the words "in this race"

Charles


Signiture is now as stated by The HAT

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by Charlie D

The statement quoted by Tim is not a blanket statement btw, as you can see from the words "in this race"

Actually, it is, since it “covers” ALL the races to which the quote applies.

[Charlie D]

"In this race" is making a statement on ONE race and being specific is not FTL??

[Charlie D]

There is a ton of speed in this race so it sets it up for a closer."


Now, i do not have a qualification in English, but the words bolded suggest singular reference, so how can it be a blanket statement???

[clore1030]

Originally Posted by Charlie D

The statement quoted by Tim is not a blanket statement btw, as you can see from the words "in this race"

Charles


Signiture is now as stated by The HAT

OK - that is now an entirely different statement. It is clearly documented as opinion rather than a declaration of fact.

As per the issue Tim's OP being a blanket statement, since he's citing that it's something heard often (and I have to agree there) it's more of blanketing in terms of occurances.

Now, I was specific enough to say that I hear this often from the talking heads on TV. Were they to develop the claim further, that would be one thing. But it's throwing a blanket over a group of speedsters without any indication that at least one may have some superiority in the early department.

On the other hand, they will go on to say that X closer has the best chance of that group.

I did in my first post state that if I find the early types are evenly matched in that department, I'm likely to pass. But that indicates that I've done the analysis to conclude that they are evenly matched.

The TV punters don't give me that detail, it's as if they see a bunch of "1s" in the first and second calls for a group of horses and assume a closer will win

But I assure you that they just about never break it down to fractional times and certainly not velocity. It's as if they are saying all "E" horses are the same in a given race. I know that the match up method is not that limited in its insight. It's as if the pundits have part of it, but not all of it.

They don't see it as "one horse gets out there and the others have to catch up." By saying that, Bradshaw (to my interpretation) is saying that a great early can get out there and still overcome the mediocre early competition. If one can't find the great early but does find a bunch of mediocre early types, then one starts looking at the OTE types. It's really quite the work of genius in its simplicity.

[Tim Y]

MIGHT work IF early and late speed had an equal chance, but they do not.

Mahl, Sartin, Bradshaw: "for every unit of energy lost to the second call, it takes two units of energy to make up for it late."

I contend that on many tracks that ratio is 1:3 or often, when it is sloppy it can be 1:4.

Then there are the timing problems the traffic problems etc.

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by Charlie D

There is a ton of speed in this race so it sets it up for a closer."


Now, i do not have a qualification in English, but the words bolded suggest singular reference, so how can it be a blanket statement???

The term "blanket" applies to ALL races such as the one that is currently in front of whomever is making the statement, "There is a ton of speed in this race so it sets it up for a closer." Although the speaker is talking about the race currently in front of him, he will make the same statement the next time he encounters the same type of race and will continue to do so over and over again with each such race he encounters. Therefore it is a blanket statement made by someone each and every time they encounter a race such as the one being described.

I have heard that same statement made so many times in my life I can't even imagine how many times I have heard it. Tim was simply saying the same thing. He has also heard this too many times to mention in his life and in most cases it is made without information sufficient enough to support such a statement with that much conviction.

A better way to phrase it might be, "wow, this race appears to have a lot of front runners in it. Maybe a closer can win." The two statements are similar, but not the same.

There is a post on this site for the 5th race at PEN tonight, in which the poster makes almost the same statement as the original statement being discussed here. I am not trying to berate the poster, but as Tim has already mentioned, many times in those types of races, it is the dominant early horse that wires the field and wins, NOT the closer. And so it was in the 5th race at PEN tonight.

[Charlie D]

All i see is a quoted statement that seems to refer to a siingle race and not one that refers to numerous races. So my understanding is it cannot be a blanket statement and giving such an opinion on a race does not deserve to be called dumb imho.

Just like Tims 1:3 ratio opinion does not deserve to be called dumb though some may state so.

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by Charlie D

All i see is a quoted statement that seems to refer to a siingle race and not one that refers to numerous races. So my understanding is it cannot be a blanket statement and giving such an opinion on a race does not deserve to be called dumb imho.

Just like Tims 1:3 ratio opinion does not deserve to be called dumb though some may state so.

You may look at any way you wish to look at it. You obviously don't want to see it any other way in spite of any explanations presented to you.

In the case of Tim's 1:3 ratio, it may be "an opinion" or maybe he has data to support it. I don't know.

[Charlie D]

I'm refering to the statement as it was presented by Tim so why should i see what you have added to suit yourself?