Full sheets with the numbers they ran on BC day are available in the RBR. A few points:
1-- It was obvious going in that trips would be important, and boy, were they. Some were predictable, some were not, which is little solace to those of us who bet Bwana Charlie from the rail.
2-- Some of the first lasix horses jumped up, which was predictable, but overall the European figures held up extremely well.
3-- We gave out our first dead rail on turf ever. It wasn\'t simple-- I only gave it to those who spent a significant amount of time there (basically on 2 turns, whether in a 2 or 3 turn race), but as you will see it\'s pretty clear. Interestingly enough, I have been told the jockeys said the inside path was bad as well.
4-- The day was very easy to do-- look at each race and see what happens if you add or subtract from it (keep in mind you have to adjust everyone in the race by the same amount). You would think that on a day when so many horses ran to their figures we would have done better...
TGJB wrote:
3-- We gave out our first dead rail on turf ever. It wasn\'t simple-- I only gave it to those who spent a significant amount of time there (basically on 2 turns, whether in a 2 or 3 turn race), but as you will see it\'s pretty clear. Interestingly enough, I have been told the jockeys said the inside path was bad as well.
Within context of the bulleted point, I\'m assuming you mean the jocks said the inside turf path was bad. I thought inside dirt was good unless you were up against the rail. More evidence in my opinion that Kitten\'s Joy was denied a placing by Better Talk Now.
Was just reviewing your numbers for the Cup. Nothing raised my eyes until I got to the Juvenile. I know it was after the Juvenile fillies and it was slower than the filly race. I\'m not of the opinion the track was slowing down in consideration of the Classic and I think you probably feel the same way. Nevertheless, I was surprised by Afleet Alex\'s number. My feeling is he overcame a tough break and an off poorly designation might account for equaling the previous number in what I felt was a much better race effort wise. He was much further behind at the first call than he has been in the past and the horses he paced against he\'d seen before. It may be as simple as you calling the start more cleanly than I interpreted it.
Then your Classic gave me pause. I\'m sure you realize you gave Pleasantly Perfect a near top on a likely injury and RIM a huge top. And Funny Cide the worse race of the year. (Personally I think it was even worse than scored.) Birdstone retired lame and his effort looks in line with an injury bothering him. The other efforts look good to me. If they are I realize that means the money earners ran fast. I\'ll defer to your ground loss calculations.
I\'ve learned the hard way that doubting your figures is not a good way to profit. I need to study Lonestar and BC Day some more. I\'ve got some very odd feelings about that day. Did your guys clock the races and are you comfortable with the offical clock and run ups in the juveniles? I\'m very skeptical of standards in Texas racing.
Post Edited (11-03-04 20:28)
To the best degree one could watch on television how horse\'s appeared during the post parade , I watched intently but I\'m not exactly sure (then or now) what I saw . I did notice most definately and with certainty that many horse\'s coming out of those tight turns into the straight aways practically had to vault from their last stride on turn to their first stride on strecth .
Saturday was a major Disapointment for me as well but I did manage to get lucky enough too have one Singletary winner on the day ...
Post Edited (11-04-04 07:12)
The day was very straightforward, despite the track condition going from good to fast. It actually got about 2 1/2 points faster during the day, mostly between the Distaff and Fillies, meaning I added more to the Juvenile and Classic than the earlier races-- if I kept the track the same speed, they would have gotten even better figures in those races. But it would be hard to find a day that came out any tighter-- if you change anyone in a race you have to change all of them, and lots of numbers would come out funny.
Sorry I missed them. Can you post a link where I can download them?
Thanks
TGJB,
given a 10f race between smarty and GZ, assuming equal ground loss, who do you think wins? also, in terms of lengths, how much faster do you think GZ is than AP Indy and easy goer were in their day (let\'s make it a 10f race at bel). very tough question, but i think a very important one, given your theory on today\'s horses.
Jerry,
A couple of comments/questions. Let me preface by saying I don\'t make figures and am not questioning the ones you posted, but they do raise a couple of questions.
1. In hindsight, betting against Ashado was a miserable idea (I did this and I guess so did you). According to your figures, she bounced 4 points and still won in a \"laugher\". Granted, she got a great trip, but with the rail post and paucity of speed in the race, that was a probability. I bet Tamwheel, because I thought she would save ground on the lead through soft fractions. How GREAT would Island Fashion have had to run to compete in this race from the outside? (a horse you liked and I also used on top in many tickets) I just find it hard to believe that Ashado won that easily running 4 points off her top.
2. The figure to Wilko strikes me as shocking. I think you said the track got faster as the day went on. The Juvenile race got a lousy number from Beyer (and Rags I am told), especially in comparison to the Juvy fillies. Logically, I expected the numbers to reflect that the race \"fell apart\", but instead you have Wilko going through the roof (for him)
Jim,
I tend to agree with your Ashado analysis, but remember in the BC she lost no ground and carried 5lbs less than her previous start.
Having said that I was very suspicious of her Ph Park minus fig along with Abbondanza\'s Ph Park minus fig on the same day. I checked the charts and spoke to a Ph Park regular who uses the Rags and he said the surface at Ph Park was like CEMENT on Saturday 10/2 and he felt the figs awarded by TG were too fast considering the surface.I guess there are differences of opinion.
ashado looks like a one paced animal to me. i think she would have run a better # if she had clear run the whole way (that is, not explosive enough to make up the difference in the final eighth). can\'t blame JR though, getting to the wire first is what counts. how many times did JR\'s mounts finish in front of horses who ran better figs on BC day? at least a few i would imagine.
I had a little trouble with those negative PHA numbers also, but I had no reason to completely ignore them. I just refused to make a bet based on them.
Post Edited (11-06-04 15:31)
I guess you all are discussing Abondanza. He led the Sprint til about the 1/8th pole so I think the Philly number probably has some merit. He caved late but he was running off a big top and its possible he bounced. That 1:08 at Philly was on a short freshing as well.
CtC
Post Edited (11-05-04 13:15)
1-- The BC numbers can be found in ROTW.
2-- Racehorses are so much faster (and tracks so much slower) that comparison between generations is unfair. SJ was the best spring 3yo on figures ever, Sightseek the best mare, GZ the best horse. With no development, SJ\'s top would be 4 points slower than GZ\'s-- but that\'s about average development from spring 3yo to late 4yo. There is no way to know whether SJ would have developed that much, but in effect all 3 were about the same for what they were, meaning age and sex.
3-- I\'m pretty sure we posted that Ashado Philly Park race on the board a week or two ago, you should be able to find it with a search. If you look at the whole race you will see that it is tight as a drum. By the way, BC is one of the few days of the year that I see Ragozin\'s figures, and he also had her running a big new top. Not that I would care if he didn\'t.
I used Ashado heavily, because of the weight and ground. The one I didn\'t use was Storm Flag Flying. I also used the two that got the best figures in the race (SJ and IF). Ground loss was a very big deal in this year\'s BC.
4-- The Wilko figure was very straightforward, both in how it fit with the day and within the race itself-- he was the only horse that ran a new top, and only AA even paired up. Ragozin actually had the race significantly FASTER than we did-- we average about 3 points faster than them on dirt, and they had that race only one point slower.
5-- Given the effect ground loss played, the comment about Velasquez is interesting. The BC figures are there along with their paths (rounded off), and if someone wants to break the trips/jockeys/results down they can. In the case of Ashado, the rail helped, and the track configuration combined with bad posts killed several horses. In all seriousness, they should hold the damn thing at Churchill every year-- neutral sight, long stretch, used to handling big crowds, in the center of the racing universe. The BC is not like other races throughout the year-- the fields are bigger. Imagine if they ran the Derby at Lone Star with a 20 horse field.
I agree that Lone Star was not a good location, but I\'d hate to see Churchill get the event every year. Its America\'s Day at the Races (excuse me) and I think racing fans that attend the races at \"top flight\" tracks across the country have a right to see the event locally every now and then. Plus some horses don\'t handle certain strips. Its not fair to an Easy Goer to have the event at Churchill every year.
I\'d like to see the thing at Saratoga. Limit the number of tickets if space is a problem. Same for Del Mar and Oaklawn or even Keeneland. I\'d like to see Pimlico get it. Maybe even Woodbine. Have they had one at Woodbine?, I forget. What about the Fair Grounds, or even Philadelphia Park or Delaware Park or Suffolk Downs? I would have loved to have seen one at Hialeah. Just limit attendance a little if space is at a premium. Those that are really local race fans and want to go will be first in line. All of the sites I listed have a solid history in racing. They deserve a chance to hold it without having a shiny exterior like Arlington.
CtC
\"2-- Racehorses are so much faster (and tracks so much slower)\"
Have they also slowed all the grass courses in America? Why has there not been a flurry of track records on the grass seeing as racehorses are so much faster now?
I think the only thing so much faster are the speed figures and not the horses.
Frank
Anyone playing the Big A must be aware of the incredible run Dutrow is on. The overall performances of his horses since the beginning of the Aqueduct meet is \"Oscar Like\".Must be the Nutrition program, again.
The theory over the years has become that a softer, slower surface is a safer one. With dirt tracks that means more cushion, with grass courses it probably means more water. Don\'t know if it\'s true on dirt, but on grass an awful lot of horses break down when the course is dry and hard, and horsemen scream.
Nevertheless, there was a stretch this summer with some awfully fast grass races, some of which took place in your neck of the woods-- Royal Regalia ran a mile in 1:31:4 and change, Soaring Free seven furlongs in 1:19:1. Special Ring went 1 1/8th in 1:45:4 around 2 turns in the Eddie Read, Artie Schiller 1:45:2 in the Jamaica. There were at least 3 mile races on the Belmont turf in 1:32 and change. Shaconage went 1 1/8th in 1:46:3 at CD, with 2 others within 1 1/2 lengths-- and they were all fillies.
I came up with all of those with 5 minutes thought and a quick look at the BC pp\'s. There are probably quite a few more examples.
\"3-- We gave out our first dead rail on turf ever.\"
Hmmmm. Was many years before any kind of dead rail was included in any sheets, of course the boys in the grandstand kept track of them for probably 30 years (or more) before that.
I suspect there might have been a few dead rail turf courses over the last decades that might have been overlooked as well. Just a wild guess.
There have been several years at Santa Anita and late in the meet at Gulfstream where the Entire Turf Course could have been considered dead.
Silver Charm wrote:
> There have been several years at Santa Anita and late in the
> meet at Gulfstream where the Entire Turf Course could have been
> considered dead.
>
lol
I would like to make one point about a difference between various figures makers that I believe accounts for some of the patterns in the figures we have noticed in recent years.
When some figure makers attempt to interpret results they generally think it is more likely the winner ran a figure approximating its \"expected\" performance (or slightly better) and some of the others runners (especially those well beaten) ran a figure equal to or \"SLOWER\" than what was \"expected\".
The reason for that is that if you believe in the impact of trips other than just ground lost (meaning pace, position, bias, quality of competition etc...) you would tend to think that a horse maximizes its figure when it gets a perfect all around trip against easy opponents. It would therefore run a bit slower against more competitive horses, against more competitive paces, when it\'s out of position etc...
That type of thinking will generally lead to flat figures over the years.
On the flip side, if your assumption is that some of these well beaten horses ran to their expected figures regardless of positon, pace, and competitive quality issues, your figures will tend to get faster and faster over time because the only way some of the figures can make any sense is if you assume the winner ran quite a bit faster then expected.
I am talking about a very minor and slow process, but one that IMO certainly exists. I see it all the time.
Without making a judgement, I\'m almost certain this is one factor in the different figure trends we\'ve seen between various popular figure makers over the years.
Post Edited (11-06-04 16:32)
It is true that if one takes a broad approach that is that simple the figures creep in one direction or another, and it is also true that individual figure makers have tendencies that make them more or less conservative-- Ragozin, for example, treats off tracks the same way he did when he was starting out, when the tracks reacted markedly differently to water. He gives out far fewer good numbers (especially tops) on off tracks, which is incorrect since the newer tracks of the last decade or so have more sand, and are for the most part just fast tracks which happen to be wet, as opposed to the sticky, slower clay tracks of the past.
But in general it\'s not that simple, since you have to move the figures you assign for each race as a solid grid, and look carefully at how the number you assign fits into the context of the various horses. To see what I\'m talking about, take a look at the BC numbers we posted. Look at each race, and see what adding or subtracting one point, two, three etc. to all the horses in it does to each horse-- and that\'s not even dealing with the question of seperate variants and thinking about the day as a whole, which I have spent a lot of time discussing.
Figures are funny things. The only reason we are having this debate is because horses are suddenly running negative 6.5\'s. Negative 3 and 4 were hard enough to deal with and now we have to factor neg. 6.5 The numbers I look at essentially are at all time highs as well.
I have come to have a simple rule. Trust T-Graph explicitly unless theres some oddities involved with the day itself. Changing track conditions, unascertained bias, something along those lines. T-Graph says GZ ran neg 6.5\'s at 9 marks. I tend to believe them. Which is not to say I\'m convinced GZ ran a neg 4 in the Classic, but I do understand the sliding grid application and assigning him a neg. 4 works out pretty good for most of the field.
T-Graph is the gold standard. If you are able to isolate an issue, you have the opportunity to score nicely. However for the once in a blue moon race where I think I\'m onto something that they are not, I\'m exposed to 20 other races that are solid and unimpeachable. Its also possible that when I do find an issue I\'m lucky rather than good and I understand that.
Last year I was convinced Read the Footnotes ran faster against Second of June in the Fountain of Youth than T-Graph scored him. I thought it was a big top. I remember some talk about the Remsen being \"up figured\" compared to the other fig makers and therefore the fig T-Graph assigned in the F.O.Y. was perhaps a top and that could have explained his bounce in the Florida Derby. At least thats what I recall. At any rate I was convinced it was very fast, bounce fast, and I decided upon Value Plus and hooked him up in myriad combinations. One other horse scared me. Friends Lake and I put him atop Value. The only horse I did so with. Good Thing. Very Good Thing. :) In hindsight, I was lucky because The Cliff\'s Edge was a better horse than those two. Just not at the time is all. What happened to all those horses anyway? RTF, Second of June, Silver Wagon, Friends Lake. Strawberries!
Anyway I suspect T-Graph may have gotten the Classic wrong. The race to a great extent fell apart with injuries and traffic and pace issues and I suspect a bias. But even then I\'m only talking 2 points in my estimation. When RIM and GZ wax me next time with negative 5\'s I\'ll offer T-Graph my sincere apologies.
:)
CtC
looks like straight line is the TCE heir apparent. like that strawberry road on the back.
Post Edited (11-06-04 18:51)
if you tie 12f and 10f #\'s to 8f and 9f #\'s, you are likely to come up with a database full of longer route #\'s that are too fast. horses are bred more for speed than distance than they uesed to be, and are running short races much faster than they used to, but longer routes only a bit faster. most numbers i look at (both running times and other speed figures) confirm this. TGJB, your dogmatic approach to figure making, along with a conversation you had with a track superintendent is the only evidence you can give that today\'s horses are running longer races faster than they used to. go back and look at some of the times \'bid, easy goer, ap indy and a few of the others ran. unless you can give SPECIFIC REASONS why every single track in the country has gotten a lot slower, your route #\'s are very hard for me to believe in relation to the route figs you gave out ten years ago.
Post Edited (11-06-04 18:30)
Dogmatic? You got the wrong sheetmaker, Michael.
According to NYRA track superintendent Porcelli, many tracks, maybe all, have gone to higher sand, less clay, and more cushion, to make them safer and so they can dry faster. To cite the example I have used before-- when Secretariat, Bid et al were running, Belmont had a 3 inch cushion. It now has a 4 inch cushion. There was only one day in 2003 where there was a 3 1/2 inch cushion-- the day Najran ran the 1:32 mile.
There are lots of reasons to think horses should be getting faster, which I discuss in more depth in the articles that can be found in the archives here. Keep in mind that 25 years is a generation for humans, about 3 generations for horses-- Secretariat is to horses as Jesse Owens is to humans, and there are a LOT of high school kids running faster than Jesse Owens now.
What makes it LOOK so shocking is the artificial barrier of \"negative\" numbers. Lower is faster was a great idea by Ragozin (the difference between a 7 and a 4 is easier to deal with than between a 104 and a 107), but it creates the false impression that horses are moving into some unnatural terrain.
i need SPECIFIC EVIDENCE that most tracks around the country are much slower than they used to be. your entire database of longer route race #\'s depends on this point, as your route race figs are getting faster than other figure makers. do you have any info on CD, Hol, SA, GP, Pim, LRl, and all of the other major tracks? some would argue that that CD surface is actually faster than it used to be. this would probably be a long term project, but could you provide specific evidence that the top twenty major tracks in the country are a lot slower than they used to be (please do not direct me towards a conversation you had with a single track superintendent or older posts, i will just drop this if you do not want to address the top tracks around the country).
Ultimately the evidence is measured by how fast the horses run compared to how fast the same horses have run in the past, which is reflected in the figures-- without having that to tie things to, even the information that the track is deeper and sandier would have no meaning. If you want to know about specific tracks in terms of depth etc, you can contact the track supers yourself, assuming they have been there long enough to know. Porcelli had been at at a conference of guys who do what he does (hosted I believe by the guy who does it at Philly Park), and looked back into the records as far back as the 80\'s for NYRA tracks at my request.
As for the distance figures-- we do studies to make sure the figures for sprints and routes line up at each track. As I pointed out in a post about a year ago here (you might try the search engine) Ragozin pretty obviously was not doing so, at least for SoCal in 03, but may have started to after I made an issue of it, because their sprint/route relationship there changed (we knew ours were right because of the studies I mentioned). In general, the difference has to do with their unwillingness to split one and two turn races, which often results in giving the sprints figures that are too good, and robbing the routes. Another poster here once suggested that the one turn routes at Belmont came up fast on Ragozin compared to routes at other tracks-- I wouldn\'t be surprised.
There is no doubt that today\'s racing surfaces have been \"slowed\" at many tracks for soundness reasons.JB correctly points out that the generation has changed and that horses run faster figs today.
The ABSOLUTE offset to that is that 25 years ago they did not have the legal and illegal drugs and technologys that are now enhancing performances. Let\'s call the faster surfaces of 25 years ago and the improved legal and illegal drugs/technologys of today a wash.
For all those who did not see Big Red or Dr. Fager, let me say that IMO the Mineshaft\'s and Ghost Zapper\'s of today (fastest figs on record) would have been little competition to those \"true\" freaks at equal weights.
The numbers today have ground loss factored in which is frequently the firmer racing path and no adjustment is made. A horse running four wide around the turn at Belmont is often running in a much firmer path than the horse on the rail and yet the wide runner gets a better fig.Those wide figs have been highly misleading when trying to establish the true faster runner in a race. I can only imagine that this wide beneficial path situation exist at other tracks also.
Mineshaft was a good horse. He was defeated in his eclipse year and he did dodge the big dance. I don\'t put Mineshaft in the \"greats\" category. I understand he ran a negative five or thereabouts with a wide. Wasn\'t it even in the losing effort? I forget.
Dr Fager was the world record miler. Additionally, he beat the very best at 10 marks when they didn\'t throw a suicide rabbit at him. I facetiously called Ghostzapper \"The New Doc\". GZ hasn\'t won a grade I at 6 marks. I\'m not sure they had graded racing in Doc\'s day but he beat the best at six marks as well. GZ is no Doc Fager. He\'s no Dancing Spree for that matter. Spree won grade I\'s at 6 to 10 marks.
Ghostzapper ran one of his neg 6.5\'s in the slop against nothing. I believe it is a neg 6.5 but its inherently suspect.
Ghostzapper then ran his second neg. 6.5 against a horse that matched him stride for stride on what was obviously a cooked surface at Belmont. Two fastest ever speed horses at the same time on a wicked strip? Maybe.
GZ then had a negotiated pace and a wicked surface play to his advantage in the Classic.
I\'m dying to saddle up against GZ and RIM in 10 mark contests next year. I don\'t know with whom. So many have fallen by the wayside recently but others will emerge. Funny is not done. If Tagg were juicing this guy would be all the raves.
Theres not many 10 mark races for older horses in the East any longer and I\'m quite convinced its easier to run juiced in the East than it is in the West, so if GZ dodges the 10 mark races he\'s gonna be tough to beat. But I don\'t respect him. I think he\'s cheating and I have the cure.
CtC
Post Edited (11-07-04 10:19)
TGJB,
thanks for the response. i like your product and will continue to buy it as long as you include all of the valuable features. you have not convinced me, however, that today\'s horses run 10 furlong races ten lengths faster than they did ten years ago, as your figures claim. this is a major concern of mine.
CtC wrote
\"Funny is not done. If Tagg were juicing this guy would be all the raves.\"
lol
Would anyone be surprised if Funny is taken away from Tagg?
Michael, you\'re welcome. You know, another point to keep in mind relates to what Miff said below-- drugs are a fact of life in this game, and the only way to handle them in your figures is to give them better ones, since from a practical point of view we have to be able to compare horses to each other, and don\'t get a drug-beaten-length allowance. The addition of lasix, steroids and other drugs have made a big difference (in the case of steroids, not just with horses), and that doesn\'t even count direct performance enhancers, the effects of which we all have to deal with as handicappers when horses change hands. Does this make them \"better horses\"? No. Does it make them run faster? Try betting against them.
I actually was contacted by both the Thoroughbred Times and Thoroughbred Daily News on the subject of horses getting faster in the last couple of days, and the articles should be appearing soon.
Hey CtC,
How about the Breeders Cup at the New mexico State Fairgrounds? Then you can factor in shipping to a desert climate, mile high altitude, the tumbleweed factor (if one blows in front of a horse and he steps on it - ouch!) LOL
Post Edited (11-07-04 14:07)
ronwar wrote:
> CtC wrote
>
> \"Funny is not done. If Tagg were juicing this guy would be all
> the raves.\"
>
> lol
>
> Would anyone be surprised if Funny is taken away from Tagg?
>
Well, its all about money and until they stop it, I\'d probably want a level playing field too. What are you gonna do otherwise, lose with good horses? Like Frankel really comes up with these many good horses year after year.
Banged Churchills 8th today.....murdered it. Can\'t wait to see what T-Graph did with Strength and Honor.
Churchill EVERY year?
Sorry, Bel is still the best facility for
world class racing, even if it means some distance races will be contested at one
turn.
How about every fourth or fifth year BC is
held at European venue with all BC races held on turf. I know there are many logistical probs (medication, time difference) but BC at age 20 needs a shot
in the arm
>But in general it\'s not that simple, since you have to move the figures you assign for each race as a solid grid<
I understand what you are saying and doing.
I am talking about the \"very marginal decisions\" in interpreting results that can be influenced by subjective views on trips etc...
It doesn\'t matter much to me one way or the other because I don\'t have to bet on Secretariat vs. Ghostzapper. :-) The process of slowly shrinking/expanding/flat figures happens so slowly it doesn\'t matter much to me as a bettor.
I\'m just trying to explain it.
Beyer\'s figures have been very flat over the years - probably because they are anchored to or doublechecked against pars fairly often (which can be a problem as you have described).
Rags figures appear to be getting slowly faster.
Yours are also getting faster, but faster than Rags.
JB,
I know you are probably not going to concede this point, but \"if\" there are impacts on final time that result from position, pace, quality of competition, and other aspects of trip there are going to be occasions when you might overrate a race.
Here is one example:
If a very dominant horse that usually runs a -2 happens to get in a 3 way duel with horses that usually run a +1 and he draws off to win by much more than that difference in speed suggests, there are 2 ways to intepret that result.
1. The -2 ran a faster race than a -2 and the +1s ran back to their race.
2. The two +1s were used up chasing after a superior horse and ran equal performances but slower than expected. The -2 ran back to his -2.
Isolated incidents like #1 would tend to lead to figures that are getting faster and faster over the very long haul (ever so slowly and imperceptably) and they might not be correct.
IMHO, you may be 100% correct that horses are getting faster. I do not know, but you present a fairly compelling case for that. However, you might also be overstating how much faster they are getting because of a bias in your thinking about the impact of various aspects of trip.
Just wondering:On horses running 10 lengths faster than 10 years ago at 10 furlongs per TG figs (I assume this is correct) , does anybody have any info on how much faster humans have gotten (say, at a mile) in the last ten years? Is the speed increase in humans taking into account the differences (# of feet per length,etc.)comparable to horses? Asfufh
Asfufh,
Here is a link about the progression of world records at 100 meters (there was some confusion, for me anyway, between these records and those for 100 YARDS).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Record_progression_100_m_men
Looks like they have knocked off eight tenths of a second since 1912. So the World\'s Fastest Humans have gotten about 10% faster.
HP
I don\'t think 100m is a good criteria for thoroughbreds maybe quarter horses. I would also look at 200m, 400m and probably the mile is the best comparison for horses.
In \"Are Racehorses Improving, Part 2\", which can be found in the archives here , I went into a lot of this, and mentioned that the mile record for humans has improved almost 2% since 1982, when we began making figures. If you use 1:40 for an equine mile it\'s one hundred seconds, making the equivalent 2% come out to two seconds, which by memory is about 8 points (I\'m too lazy to look it up). The mile record for humans had been improving at a much faster rate over the previous 50 years or so, as well.
If anyone is seriously interested in this subject I strongly recommend they read all 3 articles in the archives.
I agree with you OPM. I would think there was some exponential time/distance relationship, and now I will quickly drop out of this as I don\'t really know what I\'m talking about. Others with more computer and search engine talent could probably find whatever they felt they needed regarding other distance records. I do remember watching the original World\'s Fastest Human, Bob Hayes. My talents lie elsewhere. HP
The change in Racing Surfaces for Humans, over the years, is a lot less dramatic than the change in Racing Surfaces for Horses. And for the Horses that kind of dramatic change might be not only be year-to-year and day-to-day but Race-to-Race. (See Chilukki Day)
The impact of wind in Track causes the time to be thrown out