Go Back   Pace and Cap - Sartin Methodology & The Match Up > Hat Check - How Can We Help You? > Matchup Discussion
Mark Forums Read
Google Site Search Get RDSS Sartin Library RDSS FAQs Conduct Register Site FAQ Members List Search Today's Posts

Matchup Discussion Matchup Discussion and Practice

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-25-2016, 12:23 PM   #1
kpmats10
AlwNW2X
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 26
Fulcrum vs. Match Up

I recently read Pace Makes the Race and have been applying the fulcrum method to try and determine today's pace of the race.

I'm also reading the red match up manual now and ordered the Hat's original Match Up book.

I have more reading of the red manual to do to really understand exactly what the Hat is trying to teach. My contenders in the example races don't match his. But early on, it's hard for me to tell the difference between what Pizziola is saying and what the Hat is saying. I know the fulcrum is ideally using the last paceline, but is the match up across all pacelines? Is it also in a competitive race or is it just the fastest times?

Clarification anyone?
kpmats10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2016, 01:29 PM   #2
Mitch44
Grade 1
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: The Villages, Fl.
Posts: 3,705
'"The Hat" never believed in the fulcrum and told me that at a seminar. He also stated that to the whole audience and is on record on old tapes as saying specifically that. He more or less used a horses whole chart to obtain what the horse normally could do at the different calls and then used that against the match-up that it would face today.

What Pizziola used (fulcrum) was never endorsed by him or the Sartin group. There are many reasons why the last line could be incorrect, all of which Pizziola never takes into consideration. Perhaps the horses last line was on a very fast turf course such as GP or SA and todays race is on the dirt. Etc. etc.

I personally believe if your interested in the match-up stick to Bradshaw's teaching and forget about any Pizziola teachings or you'll continue to be from the state of confusion.

Mitch44
Mitch44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2016, 01:46 PM   #3
kpmats10
AlwNW2X
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 26
I'm trying to get out of the land of confusion. I don't agree that last race is always most indicative of today fo the reasons you stated.
kpmats10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2016, 03:02 PM   #4
Bill V.
The egg man
 
Bill V.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Carlsbad, California
Posts: 10,005
quote

Hi Mitch

Quote:
What Pizziola used (fulcrum) was never endorsed by him or the Sartin group.
Its my opinion your statement is not entirely true.
kpmats10 says he is using the fulcrum method from Pace Makes The Race

The official title of the book is Pace Makes The Race an Introduction to the Sartin Methodology

Pizzola was one of 4 authors of the book
Mr.Bradshaw was not involved. So The Hat has a right to not agree with all of books content, But I disagree with you when you say the fulcrum method is not nor never was endorsed by the Sartin Methodology.

The book PMTR is official literature in the history of the Methodology.
Howard Sartin himself is a co author. I believe there are methods in the follow ups and in the book that Howard did not fully agree with but he published them, If the contributor could prove to him these methods worked,

Later after PMTR was published, Howard asked and his name and his contributions were removed, But when asked he simply said that he felt the
book was too simplistic and that he had better tools for getting higher mutuals.


I feel the fulcrum method in PMTR has some faults but I still use it
confidently, Using only the last line and finding the fastest POR 2nd call were the horse was beaten less than 5 lengths at todays distance, track, and surface. and the line is not unusual for the horse , Aberrant. If none of these factors apply, there is no fulcrum,
There is no reason you have to use a non representative line. You do not necessarily have to make a fulcrum in every race, Even in the book,
Pizzola shows a example of a non fulcrum race/ winner.

Thanks
Bill
Bill V. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2016, 06:43 PM   #5
Mitch44
Grade 1
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: The Villages, Fl.
Posts: 3,705
Well from a technical point I'll agree Bill that PMTR was part of the Sartin Methodlogy. It also began my understanding of Sartin material and I still believe it has many merits when one understands it. In fact I always consult TPR for a beginning to readout interpretation.

However I won't concede that either the "Doc" or "The Hat endorsed it nor believed in it.
The "Doc" gave them free reign to produce the book and perhaps his reasons for removal were to use some tact at the time. All I know is that neither believed in it. If one wants to use it that's their prerogative however it has nothing to do with "The Hats" match-up techniques if that's what some one is attempting to learn. It actually confuses the hell out of them and to a large extent those also choosing correct pace lines.

A traveler has to choose their own route to success but it remains doubtful at best they can travel in both directions. For clarification they are two different approaches, but one can take any path they want. Bottom line is the fulcrum has nothing at all to do with Jimmies match-up.

Mitch44
Mitch44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2016, 10:26 PM   #6
shoeless
Grade 1
 
shoeless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,149
If what you say is true about the fulcrum then why is it in a article Pizzolla wrote for FU #8

Last edited by shoeless; 09-25-2016 at 10:30 PM.
shoeless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2016, 07:33 AM   #7
Mitch44
Grade 1
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: The Villages, Fl.
Posts: 3,705
Yes and that's precisely my point. That is Pizziols take or his method etc. It is not Bradshaw's match-up and he never did endorse it nor believed in it. If you really want to learn the match up then stick to the originator and master of it and that is Bradshaw's match up. Basically it is in that article because that is Pizziola's take on it not Bradshaw's.

The fact of the matter is the match up was conceived by Bradshaw and he is the expert and master of it. He graciously has shared it with us. If one chooses to not learn from an expert and the best then that's their choice. I wish them the best.

That is the main point of my original post, to clear up those confused by the opposite and contradicting methods of the two.
Mitch44

Last edited by Mitch44; 09-26-2016 at 07:37 AM.
Mitch44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2016, 09:37 AM   #8
Bill V.
The egg man
 
Bill V.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Carlsbad, California
Posts: 10,005
what works for you

Hi Mitch

I am happy we are on the same page, that the fulcrum is and was part of the Methodology toolkit. I wish all who want to learn the match up nothing but the success they seek.

Thank you Shoeless, for the link to the fulcrum in follow up #8
I found the articles about PBS numbers in follow up #11 interesting as well.

Good Skill
Bill
Bill V. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2016, 08:30 PM   #9
shoeless
Grade 1
 
shoeless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,149
My question is that you say Doc never endorsed the fulcrum if that is the case then why was it in the fu's in the first place.

I thought that the purpose of the fu's was to teach others about the Sartin Methodology
shoeless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2016, 11:27 PM   #10
Mark
Grade 1
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 318
Michael Pizzolla

I was in a Sartin seminar in Las Vegas, I don't know what year it was. I think it was at the Dunes, which is no longer there. As the seminar was starting these young attractive gals appeared in the kind of costume that you might think would be worn to deliver a singing telegram. They started handing out pamphlets at the end of each table, asking that they be distributed down to all the attendees. Everyone was kind of in shock, they didn't know whether it was a Sartin handout or what. Fairly quickly some of the Sartin people started collecting them but I took my time and looked at the material. It was photocopied articles and written information about Doc Sartin, all of it very un complementary. It claimed that his Psychology was mail order and that his background had contained some brushes with the law. Literally, it had Doc in tears and both Brohammer and Bradshaw went up to the podium and spoke in the Doc's defense. My understanding was that this was the work of Michael Pizzolla. He had started marketing his own material and past performance download and my understanding was that he was trying to convert the large following of Doc Sartin to his own programs and such. I learned later from another individual that is now dead but was a major contributor to "Pace Makes the Race" that a disagreement arose concerning the distribution of the profits from that book. Doc published it through O'Henry House and therefore controlled the distributions. Pizzolla thought he got screwed and that caused the fracture of the relationship.
Regardless, Pizzolla's methods in his attempt to disgrace Doc Sartin and injure him personally and professional have made it impossible for me to ever consider anything the Pizzolla has been involved with.
Beyond that, Match Up analysis begins at the gate and is specifically focused on 1st call horse position. Additionally, Bradshaw was responsible for the advent of visual Running Styles and a horse's preference for a specific position at the 1st Call which allowed him to put forth his top effort. As far as I know he was the first individual to recognize the psychological aspects of the horse. These are flesh and blood beings that have instinctive behavior based on herd mentality that fight or quit when in competition.
There are many handicapping concepts and factors that can indicate potential horses. Certainly horses in contention at the 2nd Call have a better opportunity to win the race, But to ignore everything that has occurred prior to that point in the race to me is not using all the information available to you. It works given certain pace scenarios but misses a great many sustained winners that benefit from intense early pace contention.
I began the serious study of the Match Up nearly 3 1/2 years ago when I found the Hat Check blog on this website. I had read the old Red Match Up manual and Jim's first book but I just didn't understand it. Due in large part to Richie P, I was slowly able to digest the information and organize it.
I would venture the guess that due to its simplicity, without long experience and careful record keeping by track and distance, it is hard to make a profit using Fulcrum based analytical tools like TPR.
Mark is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Matcher GeorgeC5614 Matchup Discussion 14 05-19-2015 05:19 PM
Jim Bradshaw's 5 Step Approach to learning the Matchup RichieP Hat Check - How Can We Help You? 1 05-25-2009 09:52 AM
Patten Match; 2Jan9Aqu; that's today chris Selections 4 01-02-2009 04:10 PM
The Match Up and destrcutive interference Tim Y General Discussion 0 12-06-2008 09:10 PM
The Match Race that never was Tim Y General Discussion 0 12-04-2008 08:34 PM


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:25 PM.