The BC had pretty much everything in figure making terms, tracks changing speed, dead grass rail, dead dirt rail for part of one day (as it dried). The good news is that we didn\'t have to deal with maiden races and we had big fields, so sample size was good for each race. The days were complicated, but not difficult, as you can see by the number of horses that ran tight to their previous figures. I\'ve been doing this a long time, but this is the first time in quite a while that doing the days and piecing the puzzle together was really fun.
Almost no two figure makers will do these days the same way. Those who don\'t use weight or ground by definition can\'t do them the same as we did, and those who do, but don\'t believe tracks change speed, are bound by their \"rules\" to get many races wrong, some by a lot, on Saturday especially.
The days with the figures they ran are in ROTW. If somebody has too much time on their hands, break out the Euros by Lasix/not, and see what percentage of each ran new tops.
Good job! The numbers seems solid enough IMO.
Okay, I\'ll make a list and will try to keep an open mind, just because I\'m really interested in this. I fear it will be easy to turn those findings into a kind of straw man argument though, given the dead rails, many \"off\" races in general, and the fact that it\'s simply much harder to carry ones A-game to the other side of the world. There is of course also a risk for self-fulfilling prophecies implied in this methodology, when it comes down to these things (I know it\'s not an easy exercise at all to get those relationships right, and overall I\'m quite impressed by TG\'s efforts).
Let\'s see how this looks (I\'ll just dig it out for now, as I\'m not sure a purely quantitative approach would make one any smarter in this case - I\'ll leave that for others if they must):
Friday (2yo\'s):
- So Perfect - Lasix - Pairs up her previous best (a 9)
- Queen of Bermuda - No lasix - a slight new top (from 9.5 to 9)
- Soldiers Call - Lasix - Off race, dead rail notion(1w)
- Sergei Prokofiev - Lasix - Off race
- Pocket Dynamo - No lasix - A bit off his best, but decent (11 vs 8.5)
- Well Done Fox - No lasix - no factor
- East - Lasix - Pairs up (from 8.75 to 8.5) (no X but comment says rail 3/8)
- Just Wonderful - Lasix - Pairs up clear top from last time out(lto), a 10, but does it on a dead rail (1w1w)
- The Mackem Bullet - No lasix - slightly off top (10.75 vs 8.5 lto), but she did so going further than ever before, and on a dead rail (1w1w)
- La Pelosa - 2nd time lasix - 5 points off the figure earned at woodbine with 1st lasix lto (12.75 now, 8 then). 12 would be a pair of prev best.
- Lily\'s Candle - No lasix - no factor
- Line of Duty - Lasix - 2 pt new top (8 vs 10.25). Partly dead rail, but no notion (2w1w)
- Arthur Kitt - Lasix - Pair of top (10), dead rail (1w1w)
- The Black Album - No lasix - Pair of top (11 vs 10.75). Not the smoothest run
- Anthony Van Dyck - Lasix - Off race
- Marie\'s Diamond - No lasix - Off race
Saturday:
- Lost Treasure - Lasix - 2-3 points off race
- Havana Grey - Lasix - Off race
- Wild Illusion - No lasix - slight new top (from 3.5 to 3) - reluctant in gate and tight in traffic
- Magic Wand - Lasix - pairs up lto (4 then, 4.5 now)
- Athena - Lasix - slight new top (4.75, from 5.25)
- Eziyra - Lasix - pairs up - not the smoothest of runs
- Princess Yaiza - Lasix - off race - dead rail notion (2w1w)
- Expert Eye - Lasix - slight new top (from 3 to 2.25)
- One Master - No lasix - 3 points off clear new top from lto (5.75 now, 2.5 then), but pairs up prev top and did it while running 1w1w on a dead rail
- Clemmie - Lasix - Slight new top (from 5.5 to 4.75)
- Lightning Spear - Lasix - Ran good enough (better than lto, 2 points off top)
- Happily - Lasix - Off race on a dead rail (1w1w)
- Gustav Klimt - Lasix - A tad off (5.25 now, 2.5 as best), off slowly
- Mustashry - Lasix - A bit off (4.5 now, 2 lto), horrible trip (off slow, rushed hard, faltered)
- I can fly - Lasix - 3 points off top (5.75 vs 2.5 lto), broke slowly, couldn\'t fly
- Enable - Lasix - 3 point new top. Pretty accomplished runner.
- Magical - Lasix - 3 and a half point new top.
- Waldgeist - No lasix - A bit off (4 vs 1.25 lto), step slow in start
- Talismanic - No lasix - Off race on a dead rail (1w1w) (7.5 now, 4.75 lto, 2 is the top (from last BC w/o lasix))
- Hunting Horn - Lasix - No factor
So, what to make of it? For one thing I see a few more excuses for the \"no lasix\"-horses this year, which adds to my suspicion that these numbers should not be used in a purely quantitative context. It\'s just randomness.
About the Euro/US relationship it\'s inconclusive (once more). Was it a tight call to make the turf even faster? From a pure projection point of view I guess it\'s tight between how it was done, and making it a point faster. A really messy race to make figures for.. I see the trainer and those that really has been following Enable says she was even better last year, that is interesting.. I\'m inclined to thinking that it\'s not as simple as a \"euro\'s\"-adjustment, it\'s more to it than that I think, and often I believe you get it quite right. But it\'s something about those top, top races and those that compete for the very first places I think, they seem to have a gear available that the figures don\'t pick up on (or the clock?). If they get to run their race, that is, the very best ones usually does. Uh-oh, the frowned upon class-word has arrived in my thoughts..
It\'s difficult. It really is. I doubt I will ever be sure about any of this.
Jerry, thank you for this detailed explanation. For the premium service that you provide, this insight is fantastic. Count me as a happy and pleased customer. Cheers!
I’m not questioning the number, but how does one explain Stormy Liberal’s jump up, at 6 no less?
I had exactly the same question. How does this happen at age six? That\'s like me running a 3:30 marathon at age 55 with a prior top of 3:54.
It’s like you running a lot faster than that. Probably the fastest grass figure ever.
Yeah, more like being a 330 marathoner and then dropping a 215 out of nowhere.
The NYC Marathon had a huge inside speed bias this year, as the barriers were moved out 15 feet on First Avenue, outside the bike lanes.
I’ve made numbers on the first 8000 finishers and hope to post the entire field soon. The figures will include a notatation for FTG. First time Gatorade.
C\'mon not much like a marathon at all. Like a sprint otherwise yes and jaw dropping.
Neither one of those guys could ever get a horse to win at 1 1/4 or beyond on the grass.
Good Luck,
Joe B
Have a look at Finnegans Wake
Ace Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I had exactly the same question. How does this
> happen at age six? That\'s like me running a 3:30
> marathon at age 55 with a prior top of 3:54.
Not really. Horses are not even physically mature until 5 or 6. They can then maintain their physical condition for several more years. Some of the best show jumpers are 10 or so.
It\'s just that in racing the good ones are retired young and few of the others can remain sound from the stress of racing for many years. Racing may accelerate the aging process, so yes, in some sense a 6YO race horse may be considered a bit past his prime. Apparently, Limousine Liberal has retained his form at 6 as a normal horse would.
Please.
Please what? You didn\'t know a horse can be in top shape at 6? Accelerator and California Chrome all ran their best races at 5, only a year younger. A 6YO horse is NOT equivalent to a 54 YO man. Not even close.
The only odd thing is that it took him so long to run such a big top or that a horse could increase his figure by so much from his previous race at any age. If you believe your own figures, than you must believe that this 6YO horse is not over the hill. Your own figures say that.
BTW, I mistakenly referred to Stormy Liberal as Limousine Liberal. My typo.
The statement I responded to was literally too ridiculous to deconstruct. If I did I would still be listing things that were wrong with it, and that’s not how I’m going to spend my Saturday night. But you might want to note for starters that he’s been six ALL YEAR.
I know that and it has no relevance to this discussion. I too have better things to do than waiting for you to respond to the points in my post, aside from insulting it with no basis. I\'ll be here when you have something substantive to make.
Tomorrow, if someone else doesn’t beat me to it.
Bob - nobody is suggesting that a 6 year old can’t still be competitive, or in some cases, run a new top, but show me another sheet where a fairly heavily raced 6 year old whose established top is a 2, suddendly runs a -5, faster than any turf horse has run before.
Well Bob, here is a link to an independent study that does not appear to support your unsubstantiated assertion.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4013968/
grinder Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well Bob, here is a link to an independent study
> that does not appear to support your
> unsubstantiated assertion.
>
> www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4013968/
Looked at the study and it shows that a racehorse peaks at about 4 1/2, very close to the 5 YO figure I stated. It then declines very slowly (almost plateaus) over the next few years. The standard deviation at 6 shows that a horse can run its best race at 6. A 6YO horse is NOT equivalent to a 54 YO man.
The study supports my statements.
I did say that it is unusual for a horse to take so long to run such a huge top. However the study posted by grinder shows that 6YO horses can be still run at their top level and still be within the standard deviation. The problem is not that the horse is so old. What is unusual is the size of the top and that it took so long to reach it but not incredible. Of course we\'re assuming that the figure is correct. If not then there may not be anything strange.
Either:
(A) The figure is correct and the horse can and did run such a new top at 6, or
(B) The figure is incorrect.
Take your choice.
You stated the following: \"Horses are not even physically mature until 5 or 6. They can then maintain their physical condition for several more years.\"
The authors of the study I referenced stated the following, when summarizing their findings: \"We find that a typical horse’s peak racing age is 4.45 years.\"
Further, their study (Table 4) found that the average 4 1/2 year old racehorse runs 5 points faster (Beyer scale) than a 6 1/2 year old racehorse. As such, contrary to your claims, racehorses have already peaked and are generally running slower speed figures by 6 years of age.
Therefore, the conclusions of their study do not support your statements.
Please look at the chart for average Beyers by age. There is a very gradual (almost imperceptible) decline from a horses peak at 4.45. And that is just the average. For a 6YO to be at top form is well within the standard deviation. An exceptional horse can even go beyond the standard deviation.
The horses TG figure shows that the horse can and did run this figure. If you don\'t believe that, then complain to JB about his figure.
The post I was responding to is that that a 6YO horse is like a 55 year old man. totally not supported by the evidence.
Bet Twice Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bob - nobody is suggesting that a 6 year old
> can’t still be competitive, or in some cases,
> run a new top, but show me another sheet where a
> fairly heavily raced 6 year old whose established
> top is a 2, suddendly runs a -5, faster than any
> turf horse has run before.
Since that is what the figure shows than your complaint is with the figure, not with me.
We all know who Peter Miller is and why that horse popped a big number.
wrongly1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We all know who Peter Miller is and why that horse
> popped a big number.
That would be another plausible explanation.
Wrongly1 wrote: \"We all know who Peter Miller is and why that horse popped a big number.\"
HARD WORK.
UP EARLY IN THE MORNINGS.
LET\'S A HORSE BE A HORSE.
Those are the only ones I can think of that would add up to a negative six.....
If you question Jerry\'s number by the way (bobphilo), then you better question Beyer also. “It is the highest figure we’ve ever assigned to a turf race,...\" Do you really think JB and Beyer both got it wrong? I haven\'t look at Timeform or Bris; maybe others can weigh in on how those two saw the race.
https://www.drf.com/news/jerardi-stormy-liberals-119-beyer-one-books
The most interesting question for me is why one haven\'t seen these huge negative numbers on turf before now. Maybe it is the beginning of a new trend. Yikes if that is the case..
I have no problem with the number. My issue is and was with you spouting off with some ridiculous argument, which at this point, I’m not even sure what that argument is. Probably best to let this go at this point.
Okay, you brought out my inner Sam Kinison.
1-- Effin SHOW HORSES?? SERIOUSLY??
I\'ll stipulate they\'re great at ten (though given your other pronouncements who knows). But what the hell have show horses got to do with racehorses? There are people who get better at games of skill as they get past 40 (I\'m assuming show horses have skills), but show me the ones who GET FASTER as they age. Now, there are some who may have gotten stronger, like Bonds and Clemens. Oh, wait...
2-- SOME horses are not \"physically mature\" until 5 or 6. SOME can maintain their physical condition for several years. SO WHAT??? How does even that address his point, let alone your silly pronouncement making it ALL horses? What does it have to do with this?
Yes, I\'ve given 8yos new tops. But a) there are outside factors that affect horse\'s performances, like barn changes, and they factor into almost if not all of them. And b) this was a heavily raced grass horse that ran a 7 1/2 point new top. He went in one shot from not in the top 100 fastest grass horses of all time to number one. Faster than Frankel, faster than Wise Dan, faster than whoever you want, by a lot. The second horse got weight and saved ground, but he\'s probably number two off his previous Servis induced figure.
3-- The \"good ones are retired young\" thing is a completely bogus logical fallacy. We have plenty of data on development from the tens of thousands that DON\'T get retired, you can look at the TGI\'s to track the stallions in that regard. Or you could if you looked at TG. There is no \"normal\", your pronouncement notwithstanding.
4-- Pete Miller used to train for me, we had a falling out years ago but we still are friendly enough when we see each other, and he has a great wife. But I feel compelled to point out the fastest DIRT figure of the BC was thrown by Roy H, who didn\'t jump as much THIS TIME in one shot, but developed 12 points from his 4yo top to get to a neg 6.
5-- I\'m not going to even get into your subsequent replies to other guys. You got off easier than you should have, either because they\'re being nice, don\'t care, or critical analysis is dead.
FWIW, Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer didn\'t peak until he was 9.
You\'re right. Won the Gravesend in the late December fog at Aqueduct off of the Pete Ferriola claim. 😜
Then how the degenerates at the Big A loved him as they shouted out with glee, Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer- you just ran a negative 3.
Good Luck,
Joe B.
Fairmount1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wrongly1 wrote: \"We all know who Peter Miller is
> and why that horse popped a big number.\"
>
> HARD WORK.
> UP EARLY IN THE MORNINGS.
> LET\'S A HORSE BE A HORSE.
>
> Those are the only ones I can think of that would
> add up to a negative six.....
>
> If you question Jerry\'s number by the way
> (bobphilo), then you better question Beyer also.
> “It is the highest figure we’ve ever assigned
> to a turf race,...\" Do you really think JB and
> Beyer both got it wrong? I haven\'t look at
> Timeform or Bris; maybe others can weigh in on how
> those two saw the race.
>
> https://www.drf.com/news/jerardi-stormy-liberals-1
> 19-beyer-one-books
I am not questioning Jerry\'s number. I\'m actually defending the possibility of a 6YO horses ability to run a big new top against all those that think he\'s too old. I\'m defending his number but he\'s taking it as an insult. It\'s those that can\'t believe the number that are criticizing Jerry\'s figure making accuracy.
TimeformUS is giving it a 128. I\'m asking Craig there what the horse\'s previous figures were and what he thinks about this.
Are you still here? Incoming... and well deserved.
Bet Twice Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have no problem with the number. My issue is
> and was with you spouting off with some ridiculous
> argument, which at this point, I’m not even sure
> what that argument is. Probably best to let this
> go at this point.
What ridiculous argument am I putting forth? The only way for the figure to be correct is that it is possible for a 6YO horse can run such a big new top. I am defending the figure by proving that a 6Y0 horse can run such a race. If you don\'t believe that you are the one questioning Jerry\'s figure. If you have trouble interpreting the study just look at the chart that shows the horses\' Beyers peak at 4.45 and decline very slowly in the following years.That is just the average horse. About half of all horses peak even later.
TGJB wrote:
\"5-- I\'m not going to even get into your subsequent replies to other guys. You got off easier than you should have, either because they\'re being nice, don\'t care, or critical analysis is dead.\"
I know many of the posters here and I\'m pretty sure it\'s not \"A\". And although \"C\" is almost certainly true, I don\'t think it\'s that one either. So it\'s gotta be \"B\". I mean, who wants to argue with someone who is so never wrong that he insists that writing \"Limousine\" instead of \"Stormy\" is a \"typo\"?
And what\'s the deal with noting someone has a \"great wife\" but failing to include Ralph Kiner\'s qualifier?
Fine. That\'s what I get for trying to defend your figure against those that can\'t believe that a horse can run such a big top at 6. Someone even misinterpreted a study claiming that it showed that a horse cannot do that and therefore your figure is bogus until I showed him how to interpret the study. I only answered this post because someone was making the absurd claim that a 6YO horse is equivalent to a 55 year old man. If you don\'t doubt that you know less about horses than I thought you did.
Okay, just let everybody say that your figure is impossible and come down on me for defending it and saying it was possible. Who needs this ungrateful shit.
Three thoughts:
1) You\'re obviously 55 years old. Or maybe 6. In any case: Yeez man, let it go..
2) You are misunderstanding the point of this discussion. I don\'t think anybody is questioning that Stormy Liberal ran a big new top at age 6. How big a new top is questionable, but I don\'t see how anyone could argue that he didn\'t run the race of his life, by far, and I haven\'t seen anyone credible doing it either. Certainly not on this board. It\'s how he could do that, that is troublesome. I think you stand pretty alone when you basically argue that it\'s due to randomness that is to be expected within a standard deviation. This was the fastest turf race ever per TG. The study you so desperately try to bend to your will, is not about athletes that already is challenging the boundaries of equine capabilities. Taleb has a brilliant name for people like you: IYI. Intellectual Yet Idiot ( https://medium.com/incerto/the-intellectual-yet-idiot-13211e2d0577 )
3) I think it\'s time now to repeat a little trick our dear Larry David has taught us, to get out of messes like these. I use it all the time! Lift up both your arms, well over your head, and say out loud: \"oh geez, forgive me guys. I am on the spectrum\".
Cut the crap. There’s not a person on this site challenging the figure. That’s a straw man.
Bobâ€" nice Kiner reference. He also said, “statistics are like bikinis. They show a lot, but not everythingâ€.
I thought yuz guys were talking about Roy H.
BB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TGJB wrote:
>
>
> I know many of the posters here and I\'m pretty
> sure it\'s not \"A\". And although \"C\" is almost
> certainly true, I don\'t think it\'s that one
> either. So it\'s gotta be \"B\". I mean, who wants to
> argue with someone who is so never wrong that he
> insists that writing \"Limousine\" instead of
> \"Stormy\" is a \"typo\"?
>
Its B.
Even I don\'t have the energy to argue with this guy. When has that ever happened?? Perhaps watching the Raiders every week has something to do with that.
This string goes down into the TG Clueless HOF.