I give up on the ROTW thread.
Finley\'s article on the DRF quotes Jerry and a few others regarding the debate as to whether horses are faster than they used to be. Jerry taking the side that they are much faster.
I hear Jerry\'s point and don\'t have the information or inclincation to agree or disagree.
But, if Jerry is right about the track cushion, why is the Superintendent at Churchill saying that the assertion about the track surface is not true, that it hasn\'t changed in the 20 years since he has been there.
It would seem to me that he has no ulterior motive to lie (at least none that I can think of).
I kind of find the third person\'s opinion that sprints are getting faster but routes are not, to be interesting. Sounded a bit stupid at first thought, but you keep hearing from breeders and breeding experts that the current breed of horses in the US are much more speed oriented and very little stamina and durability is in the breed.
Probably not valid to make this comparison. But I for one, find it much easier to believe that Barry Bonds is a superior home run hitter to Hank Aaron, than to believe that Smarty Jones is faster than Secretariat was.
You can\'t take Secretariat\'s Triple Crown or his track records away from him. Smarty had a chance to be mentioned in the same breath and he proved mortal at the distance.
Distance is what seperates good horses from the great ones. I believe theres a lot of truth in the notion that the modern horse is quick short but lacking long. Unfortunately, Ghostzapper ruined my parade, but I still think the score is going to be evened with that horse. The longer the race the better my handicapping generally is. I still can\'t believe the only time our horses see 12 marks on dirt is in June at three years old. The Breeders Cup Classic should be 12 marks and the preps will follow.
CtC
Can\'t find the Finley article on the DRF site. Where is it?
espn.com
not DRF.
so far, the only evidence you have provided backing up your theory that today\'s horses run 10f and longer a lot faster than they used to is a CONVERSATION WITH A SINGLE TRACK SUPERINTENDENT. every professional in the biz knows that today\'s horses are bred more for speed as opposed to stamina than they used to be. i want to believe your theory, but you really need to provide some evidence (please do not direct me towards older posts, they say nothing).
As far as the Finley piece goes:
1-- I would like to know exactly what the questions were to the CD track super. In either 2000 or 2001 a higher percentage of clay was added, enough to be visible to the naked eye and change the color of the track according to Elliot Walden. That was also when the times for the Derby started getting faster again, which is either because of the change in track surface or because the horses were getting faster, take your pick. Point being, if he didn\'t tell Finley that, what other things were left out-- it\'s not all about cushion depth. It\'s also about soil content, moisture etc.
2-- The stat about number of fast times at longer distances is misleading for several reasons, one of which is that the number of longer races has diminished, and another of which is that a lot of the longer races are run at Belmont, which is clearly a lot slower.
3-- Michael, again, I\'m not interested in proving anything to you. I\'m interested in making accurate figures, and I\'m reporting what I have found while doing it. I know what\'s happening by the methods I use to measure track speed-- what we\'re talking about here are the possible reasons for it.
if the number of longer races has diminished then common sense dictates that HORSEMEN AND TRAINERS ARE NOT BREEDING AND TRAINING THEIR HORSES TOWARDS THOSE RACES AS MUCH AS THEY USED TO. SO: WHY WOULD THEY BE RUNNING THESE RACES A LOT FASTER????? JUST DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. AND THERE YOU GO AGAIN, POINTING TOWARDS A SINGLE TRACK SUPER AND A SINGLE TRACK SURFACE TO MAKE A CASE FOR EVERY HORSE AND EVERY TRACK IN THE COUNTRY. I am just pointing out that you need to get track superintendents all over the country to say that tracks are a lot slower than they used to be, or else the longer distance #\'s that you give out today just don\'t jive with the ones you gave out ten, or even five years ago (unbridled getting a positive \"4\" for his derby run, and war emblem gets negative \"0.5\"??)
1-- You are making an assumption about the breeding part, and the horsemen are definitely buying and training towards the classics, to the point of burning up horses doing it.
2-- I mentioned a specific track super because he was the one quoted in the article.
3-- Again, I don\'t need to do anything at all unless I care about convincing you, which I don\'t. What you don\'t get is that I measure track speed for a living-- that\'s how I know it\'s happening. And by the way, I gave Finley another quote which he didn\'t use, which concerns why other figure makers (specifically Beyer) don\'t have horses running faster-- it has to do with using fixed pars for claiming horses as a base. If you assume that the average horse is not getting better it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. I also pointed Finley to Porcelli, but he was clearly looking for something he could use on the other side. Which is fine.
Amazing how those swimming pools get faster at every Olympics.
The idea that horsemen/trainers are, as per Michael\'s quote, \"NOT BREEDING AND TRAINING THEIR HORSES TOWARDS THOSE RACES AS MUCH AS THEY USED TO,\" does not strike me as 100% accurate.
Although I might not know as much about breeding, etc. as some who post here, I can\'t recall coming across too many articles about horsemen/trainers who want to pay a fortune for sprinters. Most of what I read involves a quest for a horse who can win The Big Ones (Derby and Other Spring 3yo Classics and BC Races -- Only One Of Which Are A Sprint). This is still The Dream.
I think I know what Michael is driving at since I would agree that the last few decades have seen an increase in sprint-types vs. stamina-types -- but I would argue that horsemen and trainers are still very conscious of getting some stamina for their money. Certainly U.S. breeders have made different decisions than the Euros... But if you want to talk about common sense, ask the guys who spend money at the yearling sales if they want a Grade I sprinter or a Derby horse and see what they say.... I\'ve only been to one sale (at Ocala) and I think I have a \"common sense\" answer to this question. So the idea that horsemen/trainers are not focused on this type of horse is at least debatable.
Also, since we\'re talking about common sense, if you\'re going to argue that Jerry is wrong about this -- since horses are NOT getting faster they are either
1) the same speed as they were 20/40 years ago
or
2) slower than they were 20/40 years ago.
I may argue that horses are not THAT much faster than they were 20/40 years ago (a matter of DEGREE), but I can\'t argue points (1) or (2) with any conviction. Judging by the performance records in most sports I follow (incl. that interesting track and field argument from awhile ago on this board), most athletes seem to be getting a little better over time. How they are getting better is a separate argument! But the idea that horse racing is in a separate universe, and horses are either staying the same speed or slowing down doesn\'t make sense.
I would love to see someone make the opposite argument -- based on either (1) or (2) above...
HP
I think Jerry has made an excellent case that horses are getting faster. However, I think TG figures are getting faster faster than horses are actually improving.
I think this is due to methodology.
I think ignoring the negative impact of pace on the final time of some races plus giving out faster figures to horses that run wide on tracks where it\'s often the best place to be (or neutral at worst) has the long term impact of slowly inflating figures.
I base this opinion primarily by watching the main stakes horses and races, but I suspect it is true in general throughout the country.
IMO, there are sometimes figures given to horses that are inflated due to large margins that are the result of the negative impact of pace on some contenders. Those inflated figures then bias/influence the projections of future figures.
Post Edited (11-15-04 16:54)
care to comment on the unbridled vs WE figs? how about the positive \"3.5\" you gave AP Indy for winning the \'92 BC classic at GP in 2:00.00, while giving a # well into the negative range to a horse that won a 10f stake in around 2:03 at GP a year or two ago. answers to these questions would prove your point (a point that very well could be correct, but one which must be questioned). and again, saying that one track superintendent told you that some tracks have gotten slower will not prove your point...... and by the way, forget me, i can\'t imagine you are proving anything to anybody on the issue of these long distance #\'s.
hp,
correct, many horsemen go to the sales looking for derby winners, but just look at the big races these days. many more big races are run at 9f today, when years ago you saw most of the major races at 10f and 12f. this COULD be the reason why many of the 10f and 12f track records were set years ago (or it could be that every track in the country is much slower than it used to be. has not been proven either way yet).
Post Edited (11-15-04 16:55)
Comment on what? I must have said in 50 different posts that the way you know how fast the track is is by seeing how fast horses run over it compared to how they have run in previous races. This is how we do it on a day to day basis, and it\'s how we compare horses who have run over different tracks, on different days, under different conditions. It\'s also how you compare horses from different eras.
Michael, do your own homework, and stop asking me to do it for you. My \"comments\" are the figures I make for a living, and have had a considerable amount of sucess using, most publicly in buying and managing horses. I know they are right because I see how they work internally. You don\'t get to see that, and want to come at it a different way, fine-- do some research. I\'ll be interested in seeing what you come up with. Keep in mind that NYRA (and especially Porcelli) are a lot more evolved than most, and many may not have a coherent strategy, good records, or someone who has been there long enough to know or who is willing to talk. As I mentioned once here, I did have a conversation once with the track super at a MAJOR racetrack (big enought to host the BC) who told me the track gets faster as the day goes on because \"the horses are faster later in the day\".
But let me ask you this-- we know that NYRA has made significant changes over the last 20 years that have had the effect of significantly slowing the tracks down (detailed in \"Are Racehorses Getting Faster\", archives). Does it stand to reason that the leader in the industry would be the only one behaving this way? Do you think tracks don\'t look at what each other are doing? Do other businesses work that way?
Remember-- they are not thinking in terms of speed, they are thinking in terms of safety. Do a search here for Porcelli\'s interview with Charlie Moran to see how much heat they get from horsemen.
Michael,
What you say is true, but...
are these guys able to walk around and say, \"hey, that one looks like a good 9f horse, but he won\'t make 10-12f.\"
or do they say
\"hey, that one may be able to run all day.\"
I think you\'ll get more of the latter (especially when there is big money on the line). I don\'t think they shave it that close. If they think a horse has stamina, they think he can get 10f if they think he can get 9f. I could be wrong...
On a slight tangent, in my observation, quite a few horses have won at 9f (and 10f) over the past few years and at first glance at their pedigrees, you might say, \"hey, that horse can\'t get the distance...\" So maybe the \"speed\" slant in breeding is being further encouraged by the success of some of these unlikely....successes!
In terms of the larger question, Jerry looks at every track every damn day, and I\'ve got to believe his overview has some merit based on his experience. Every figure maker has to make \"the leap\" with that subjective final variant, and I have some amount of faith in Jerry on this since I have gotten positive results with his data over a period of years.... Other than that, it\'s probably impossible for me or anyone else to conclusively prove this case, except for some of the \"common sense\" points I made above.
HP
Jerry,
Not sure why the comment about \'not caring to convince anybody\'. I would have thought this thread would be more interesting to you.
I have no opinion on this, but am a very curious bystander.
Yes, you are a \"figure maker\", so your opinion carries weight, you make figures for a living.
But, Andy Beyer and his group are also figure makers and they make figures for a living, so their opinion carries weight too. They presumably have spent a similar amount of time as you have and come up with a different conclusion.
You point a lot to Jerry Porcelli. I don\'t know him and I am willing to give him \"expert\" status, but the Finley article quotes a guy with same job at Churchill Downs. He presumably is an expert also. The fact that they seem to disagree, makes thsi debate worth having and at least \"questionable\".
As for the human being - animal correlation, that is questionable too, as proof. Human beings are quicker/faster/stronger because of advances in nutrition, training technology and regimens and other reasons. Not sure horses reap the same benefits as humans and especially not sure if it happens at the same rate. Are bears bigger and stronger than they were 50 years ago, do eagles have better vision, ??
This whole topic and your view, which is contrary to Beyers, if proven correct, would seem to be a bit of a coup d\'etat for you.
But \"I am Jerry Brown and I do figures for a living\" isn\'t enough substantive evidence.
But your choice whether you want to pursue the discussion.
At least it should be more interesting to you than the ROTW discussion.........
ok...... i will drop this, and try to find out on my own if every track in the country is much, much slower than it used to be (i know some are slower because of safety reasons, but it has not been proven that they all are). nice conversation, speak to everyone later.
Jim-- briefly, because I\'ve shot my whole day doing this--
1-- Beter\'s position is based on an ASSUMPTION about horses staying at the same speed, which is what the use of claiming pars is at heart. This subject came up briefly at the Expo, and if you have the DVD you can see some of his other \"reasons\", which include that there haven\'t been any recent triple crown winners-- you could drive a truck through the holes in that one.And by the way, it\'s unlikely they have spent the time I have thinking about this, and definitely untrue that Andy or anyone else has done as many track days as I have.
2-- I commented on the CD guy in an earlier post in this string. We don\'t have enough information about CD to have a real conversation about this, as I said.
3-- I\'ve posted many times about the horse/human question, and if you read the series in the archives you\'ll see a lot of it. I doubt bears are being selectively bred, fed, trained, and drugged to make them run faster-- although if there was purse money in it and you could bet on it, they probably would be. Also, I doubt that size of the foal crop has increased dramatically with bears-- a point I don\'t think I have brought up before.
It\'s not that I don\'t want to pursue the discussion. It\'s that I don\'t want to pursue it AGAIN. It took me some research and quite a lot of time to write that \"Are Racehorses Getting Faster\" stuff the first time-- it would help if everyone read it carefully before bringing up issues I\'ve already addressed.
Jimbo(knowingly or not) hit close to a good point. The fact of the matter is that horses today have superior nutrition as well as lasix, blue boots, jugs, nebulizers etc (drugs aside)Many of these \"today\" items \"help\" a horse but were not available 20-40 years ago.
If you have been close to the game for the last 20-40 years, it is impossible to conclude that the so called faster horses of today could even compete on par with the truly great/fast horses of years past Like Secretariat or Dr.Fager to name a couple.
Go the Hall Of Fame archives and give an unbiased common sense look at the replays of SEC or FAGER and then see if you think that Mineshaft or GZ would even be competitive, with their big minus TG figs, against them. I saw them all and I wish I could bet on the \"slower\" horses of yesterday, all things being equal.
Horses may be getting faster TG FIGS today but no way are they faster, IMO.
>1-- Beter\'s position is based on an ASSUMPTION about horses staying at the same speed, which is what the use of claiming pars is at heart. <
Are we 100% sure about this?
1. \"We\" know for certain Beyer makes projection based figures for all the major circuits the same as TG, Rag etc.... He does not use par times for major circuits, only minor circuits. So if the horses were getting faster, so would his figures.
2. \"I\" know for certain he spot checks figures for horses changing circuits by using his/drf computer database of figures.
3. \"I\" have never seen him adjust a whole series of figures down to bring them back in line with the claiming pars. His figures would also get faster over time unless he occasionally went back and downgraded them to bring them in line with pars.
Like I\'ve said repeatedly, you\'ve made an excellent case that horses are getting faster in general.
However, I think there is no clear evidence about whether or not sprinters are getting faster relative to routers. If you have long term pars for stakes horses in sprints vs. routes I\'d lke to see them.
I also think there are aspects of your methodolgy (based on your expressed handicapping beliefs) that in my mind could bias your figures towards getting faster. Maybe you are right, but your figures are getting faster at too fast a rate relative to the improvement of the horses. I think you should consider some of the pace, quality of competition, and bias issues that many handicappers swear by that if correct would be biasing your figures towards getting faster via your exclusion.
Michael D. wrote:
> care to comment on the unbridled vs WE figs? how about the
> positive \"3.5\" you gave AP Indy for winning the \'92 BC classic
> at GP in 2:00.00, while giving a # well into the negative range
> to a horse that won a 10f stake in around 2:03 at GP a year or
> two ago. answers to these questions would prove your point (a
> point that very well could be correct, but one which must be
> questioned). and again, saying that one track superintendent
> told you that some tracks have gotten slower will not prove
> your point...... and by the way, forget me, i can\'t imagine you
> are proving anything to anybody on the issue of these long
> distance #\'s.
>
Mike the whole genesis of speed figures is that a 2:03 at 10 marks is sometimes the equivalent or better than a 2:00 flat. Now, I realize theres lots of lengths between those two final times on the same speed track, but track speeds are not consistent. What are you argueing? I accept the premise that a professional figure maker has a better grasp of how fast/slow a surface is playing. If you don\'t accept that premise the alternative is to dismiss speed figures entirely.
I will concede this: The fewer two turn races in the days sample the more a fast two turn race figure is subject to attack. Theres something else too. Horses are clearly getting faster. Why shouldn\'t they? Add to the process of the genetic and nutritional search for speed, the chemical search for performance and they are clearly faster. Which is not to say that a modern day Secretariat wouldn\'t still beat them all. He\'d be the beneficiary of the same advancements.
CtC
Post Edited (11-15-04 19:51)
Consider the contrary position. With all the improvements in training, nutrition, shoeing, medication (legal and otherwise) horses are NO faster than when Beyer starting making his figures 30 years ago.
Does that make ANY sense to anyone out there?
CtC,
the CD track super (a veteran of 28 yrs) says the CD surface is not any slower than it was ten years ago, in fact it might be faster. look at the TG figs at 10f (from the past ten years). look at the times of the 10f races. what point am i making?? are you serious?? doesn\'t anybody who spends a few thousand $ a year on the TG product care that longer distance times around the country are not getting much faster, and TGJB can not give any evidence that the tracks (all of them) are getting slower, yet he is making today\'s horses ten, sometimes twenty lengths faster at these distances?? the right answer?? i have no idea to be honest, but doesn\'t anybody out there want just a little bit of proof? just a little bit?
Class Handicapper, you make a good case. Granted, since JB is making figures for 10 tracks a day, he has insight that others of us don\'t have. But I think it is fair to say that one of two key \"flaws\" in his methodogoly would have the potential to skew the figures.
Just another point, which admittedly is not scientific in nature. In 2004, Jerry gave out the fastest figure to any 3 year old EVER to Smarty Jones and also the fastest figure EVER to any horse in Ghostzapper. Even if we accept the fact that there have been incremental changes in racing surfaces over the past 30 years, do we really think that there is enough change from 1 year to the next to overcome the statistical anomaly that we would have the fastest 3 year old every and the fastest horse ever, in the same year. Does anybody out there really believe that Smarty Jones was the fastest three year old of all time? This has turned out to be an awful group of 3 year olds as none has established themselves against older horses and outside of smarty, the group is pretty non-descript.
Without doing my own research (which admittedly is the lazy way out), it is easier for me to believe CH\'s thesis that there are some fundamental flaws in T-Graph logic that is leading to horses getting faster too quikly on Jerry\'s figures, than it is to believe that we have the fastest 3 year old of all time and the fastest horse of all time in 2004.
Here are some track records (year) from the end of 2003, at 10.0F
Aqu 1968 CD 1973 GP 1984
Arl 1977 Del 1987 Haw 1970
Bel 1991 Dmr 2003 Holly 1985
BM 1968 Ell 1988 Kee 1993
Lrl 1996 Mth 1962 Pim 1988
SA 1980 Sar 1979 Woodbine 1996
In 1990 there was 547 races ran 10F or longer and in 2003 there were only 400.
From 1992 to 2003 races more than 8.0F, beyer had 7 out of the top 10 was in 1997 the fastest.
Thats the top ten, but now you can add in GZ number on top. The highest he had Mineshaft fig was a 118 and rank real low on the list.
Fastest 2yr 2002 TRUST N LUCK 110
\" \" 3yr 2000 CONCERNED MINISTER 121 and ROCK AND ROLL
\" \" sprint 1999 ARTAX 124
\" \" Turf 1996-99-2001 a 118
Just a little fun fact time.
Michael D, I do know the day Secretariat ran his blistering Belmont Stakes the track was wicked fast and I don\'t mean to take that away from Secretariat. He went in 2:24, no other Belmont winner has been able to go faster than 2:26 raw time.
Look at Ghostzappers Woodward
45:3
1:08:3
1:33:1
1:46:1
He came home a little slow, but those fractions are motoring. I have to defer to Jerry here because I did not break this card down. But the Woodward is a one turn race. If Jerry says its a negative 6, from what I can see here, I tend to believe him.
Jimbo made a very good point and its the statistical likelihood of having the fastest 3yr old and fastest older horse both pop record performance figures in the same year. This would be an anomoly in past years and you can add to that a Horse ran GZ to a dead tight finish in that negative six Woodward. Its clear we have a dilemma. The question of course is: \"Whats going on here?\" Is Jerry ready for the old folks home? OR Are some horses running out of their hooves? And not to further confuse, but has anyone asked themselves if GZ and RIM really were that much better than Pleasantly Perfect?
Finally, consider this: Two of those monster efforts were by the unusal suspects and then theres Romans and Servis. Should we be keeping our eye on them? And what about Zito? Is he suddenly coming up with a golden touch?
CtC,
i guess i just need to know why \'bid ran 1:57 and change (i think), and is so much slower than today\'s horses. if somebody could give me some info about the SA strip, and why it was that many lengths faster than it is today, i would be very happy. i\'m not asking for a lot here.
if that bear today was being trained by \"one of those guys\" He would be BIGGER and FASTER than the bears of 20 yrs ago.
>Consider the contrary position. With all the improvements in training, nutrition, shoeing, medication (legal and otherwise) horses are NO faster than when Beyer starting making his figures 30 years ago.
Does that make ANY sense to anyone out there?<
Does it make any sense that 3yos used to be able to run a prep race between the Preaknes and the Belmont and finish off the season soundly after another 10 races and now after 5 or so races they are carted off in a wagon dead for the season?
I think both the breed and the training has changed. It doesn\'t make much sense to me that horses are not getting faster (especially sprinter/milers), but I find the rate we are seeing now on TG highly suspicious because I can identify things in the methodology that produce a \"faster\" bias.
Chuckles,
>If Jerry says its a negative 6 (ghostzapper), from what I can see here, I tend to believe him.<
It was a -6 based on the methodology Jerry uses. However, there were 2 contributers to that -6 that are suspect.
1. IMHO, the outside paths were a bit faster than the inside paths that day. So if you lost ground, it didn\'t cause you to run slower. A chunk of ghostzapper\'s -6 was ground lost. He ran WAY OUT on the track.
2. That pace was too fast for a couple of the other less talented contenders. It caused several of them to be beaten by a little more than expected based on their figures coming in.
Once you give him the -6, you then use that -6 to help determine the next figure. If you are doing things like that for all the horses their figures will keep getting faster.
Jerry will argue that all the figures fit perfectly, but IMO that is because he is \"always\" building his beliefs about the lack of impact from pace, quality of race, competitive battles, and bias issues into his track variants and thus biasing the figures faster.
If I am correct, it\'s not really a handicapping issue because TG\'s figures are better than the others and because the \"faster\" bias develops so slow it doesn\'t impact gambling results. It just impacts generational comparisons.
Post Edited (11-16-04 09:55)
JB,
I am a long time student of the game and TG user, as you are.In the first instance, the physical attributes of horses today vs generations past have NOT changed like humans(taller, heavier, stronger).The comparison of new/old generation humans(Jesse Owens) would be reasonable, but not horses. I have observed horses close up and they are physically the same for the most part.
We are all aware of the current \"move up\" drugs etc however who are these horses who are TEN LENGTHS faster than SEC,FAGER,SLEW and many others.It\'s easy to voice an opinion of todays horses being faster, but one should be able to show some examples.
Incidentally, the idea of it being impossible to compare horse generations is a little weak since there are volumes of refernce data going back. Human comparison I agree is too subjective.
I would be interested to hear your thoughts.
Mike
classhandicapper wrote:
>
> It was a -6 based on the methodology Jerry uses. However, there
> were 2 contributers to that -6 that are suspect.
>
> 1. IMHO, the outside paths were a bit faster than the inside
> paths that day. So if you lost ground, it didn\'t cause you to
> run slower. A chunk of ghostzapper\'s -6 was ground lost. He ran
> WAY OUT on the track.
>
> 2. That pace was too fast for a couple of the other less
> talented contenders. It caused several of them to be beaten by
> a little more than expected based on their figures coming in.
>
> Once you give him the -6, you then use that -6 to help
> determine the next figure. If you are doing things like that
> for all the horses their figures will keep getting faster.
>
> Jerry will argue that all the figures fit perfectly, but IMO
> that is because he is \"always\" building his beliefs about the
> lack of impact from pace, quality of race, competitive battles,
> and bias issues into his track variants and thus biasing the
> figures faster.
>
> If I am correct, it\'s not really a handicapping issue because
> TG\'s figures are better than the others and because the
> \"faster\" bias develops so slow it doesn\'t impact gambling
> results. It just impacts generational comparisons.
>
Firstly, generational comparison is a nice thought. Practically, (even for a figure man), its not feasible for all the reasons we are pouring over. Great horses are great horses in their era. Thats about as far as you can take it. How many big races did they win against their contemporaries. I\'d remind everyone that despite his Triple Crown and track records, Secretariat was very mortal on some days. He was impressive in the Belmont and otherwise good when it counted and thats why we remember him. So, maybe I can\'t say that Ghostzapper is NOT the new Doc. But, I\'m still a fan and I said it.
Regarding the figure making. Lost ground is lost ground. It results in running more distance. If the Belmont rail was dead, (all the jocks in the colony know it goes bad there at times), T-Graph will note it in their sheets. I agree however that unless the dead rail is caught it can impact the figures. Especially when the \"projection method\" is used. There needs to be a certain amount of correalation with the other days races, but I believe TGJB looks carefully at that, especially on a day when he assigns a negative six.
I also agree that pace or lack thereof and track bias can result in aberration figures. I agree that once you assign an \"apple\" and that apple is \"bad\" it can impact subsequent performance figure apples, spoiling some along the way. I favored Birdstone to run big in the Belmont in part for these reasons. (Still didn\'t cash)
Time will tell. If Ghostzapper stays sound and really is a negative six horse he\'s gonna demolish the horses he faces next year. If he\'s not hes gonna get beat and that defeat will probably come at 10 marks. I\'m planning two speeches. The one I hope to give is \"I told you so, I\'m the greatest ever\", but I\'ve been wrong enough with T-Graph to know I have to have my concession speech ready. I hope the others here doubting the negative sixes will be as prepared to concede too.
One last item. How do you quantify the cheating?
Post Edited (11-16-04 11:17)
CH,
Frankly yes. Speed is bred to speed far more today looking for the Classic distance runner than it was at that point. Add to that the fact that allowing Grade I runners to race on lasix had a tremendous effect on the breeding industry. They were in fact free to roll the dice with animals that weren\'t capable of handling the rigors of the type of campaign you mention. Medication was an out. I\'m no expert, but in my opinion we are seeing the result of -
1) Breeding more for speed and less for stamina and the things (infirmities)that inherently come with that.
2) Medication and nutritional advancement
3) The likely increase in foul play that comes with a masking drug like lasix.
All in all it makes sense to me that Jerry is probably right and that given the above we are seeing the breed as a whole somewhat faster than it was years ago and also more fragile.
twoshoes wrote:
>
> All in all it makes sense to me that Jerry is probably right
> and that given the above we are seeing the breed as a whole
> somewhat faster than it was years ago and also more fragile.
>
Agreed
CtC
CtC and Twoshoes,
Speed is bred to speed far more today. Yes.
Horses are more fragile today. Yes.
Drugs can impact performance. Yes.
Conclusion - Jerry is probably right and horses are much faster today. No way to get here from the first three points. Especially not at 10 marks.
Horses are bred with more sprint pedigree influences and many precocious pedigrees as well, with all the money to be made in 2 year old races. But to assume that building more speed into the breed and less stamina, would result in horses running 10 marks at speed figures representing 10 lengths faster than the last generation, is not a conclusion that I can draw. And I don\'t see how you can draw it.
I don\'t know why you don\'t see how critical it is that the Superintendent at Churchill Downs saying the track is the same or FASTER now than it was 20 years ago, is a HUGE problem for Jerry\'s thesis.
Here\'s what the track supe at Churchill said in the article.
\"As far as making tracks deeper now as compared to 20 years ago, I don\'t necessarily believe that,\" Lehr said. \"If anything, it\'s the opposite. I\'ve been here a long time and, at Churchill, we haven\'t done anything to change the track.\"
A few things spring to mind, but if I was writing this article I would\'ve asked a follow up question. He says, regarding \"making tracks deeper,\" -- \"if anything, it\'s the opposite.\" Does that mean the track has less cushion? And if it\'s \"the opposite\" as he says, how is it that they \"haven\'t done anything to change the track.\"
As it stands, I\'m not sure I know what this guy means...because there seems to be some contradiction between these two sentences...
HP
Jim - I didn\'t draw that conclusion. You have a stunning ability to read right past the point. I wrote - \"we are seeing the breed as a whole somewhat faster than it was years ago and also more fragile.\" I did write that I thought Jerry was right but I have no way to quantify to what degree. I wrote somewhat with regard to the crops as a whole - I\'ll leave the degree to which that is the case to the experts. I don\'t make figures and I\'m not qualified to comment, but if I thought Jerry were way off base I would never use the product. I do. It\'s only my opinion but I think there is ample evidence to support it.
If I start dealing with every point everyone makes I will get even less work done today than yesterday, and again, it would be nice if everyone read carefully the original series in the archives-- you could see what the scientists in England came up with, for example.
But just a note on CD-- as I said, I would like to know exactly what the super was asked, and what he said. As I mentioned in the series, there are a number of things that have been changed at the NYRA tracks-- depth of cushion, depth (and material) used for the base, and soil content (notably percentage of sand and clay). From what I have been told, that percentage was also changed at least once and possibly as many as 3 times at CD over the last 15 years or so. And from what I\'ve been told virtually all tracks have a higher sand content than those of the 70\'s and 80\'s, which will slow times down when the tracks are dry. Those of us who were playing horses back then remember that when it rained, tracks would get MUCH slower, and stay that way for days as they dried out-- you don\'t see those soupy tracks any more, and the reason is the percentage of sand.
Twoshoes,
Jerry\'s figures say that horses are running 10 lengths faster at 10 marks than they did 20 years ago.
When you say you agree with Jerry, it seems you are agreeing with that assertion as well.
As for not using the product if you thought he was wrong about this, I am not sure it is relevant. Comparing horses from one generation to the next might make for interesting debate, but the reality is that we only need Jerry to be right about how horses are running NOW against each other and whether the relative scale is off versus 20 years ago, is really not that relative to using T-Graph for races that are happening today.
And thanks for recogning my \"stunning ability\" to read past the point....
Chucles,
>I agree however that unless the dead rail is caught it can impact the figures<
That\'s a key point.
Sometimes if a jock sticks a horse in the 4 path he will run just as fast as if he was on the rail even though he ran further by being outside. Sometimes the inside is death. Sometimes the outside is death.
>How do you quantify the cheating?<
I can\'t.
Post Edited (11-16-04 15:49)
twoshoes,
I agree with you completely. Both the breed and the training are changing. I just think it is mistake to assume that it is all for the better/faster - especially at different distances.
Second, are we really sure we have better stock now?
Many of our better yearlings are exported to Europe, Japan, and elswhere to race. So are some of our better stallions.
I think it might also make sense to look at the foal counts. If they are declining or increasing that could have an impact on overall quality.
Post Edited (11-16-04 15:53)
CH-- I respect your opinions, and as you know in some areas I don\'t necessarily disagree with you. But you are inadvertently creating a situation that\'s a problem for me-- I\'ve addressed your points many times before, and as you continue to post the same positions here I\'m faced with the choice of taking the time to answer them at length every time you post them, or letting them stand unanswered, which could make those who haven\'t been around here for long think there is no answer. I don\'t like either choice, and I don\'t like the third one, either.
Listen, I like the theoretical discussions and I\'m glad they are taking place here, and I appreciate that you think we make good figures. Just do me a favor and don\'t pose things as \"flaws with TG\"-- keep it theoretical.
TGJB,
No problem. Understood.
I find these discussions stimulating so when they do come up I do like to participate -even if it gets repetitive.
Jim - You\'re welcome. All kidding aside, it\'s clear you\'re passionate about these things and that\'s a good thing. As to your comment above - I do think it\'s relevant. The same methodology that has horses getting faster is used to make these figures every day and I tend to trust it based on my experience. From Are Horses Getting Faster - \"The best way to compare horses from generation to generation is through using accurate performance figures, since their whole purpose is to compare horses which run on different days, over different tracks. The one caveat is this: you can't do it with figures that use claiming pars that anchor the data base in place by ASSUMING that the breed does not improve over time. That becomes a self fulfilling prophecy by definition—if you decide the claimers can't improve (particularly ridiculous given the move-up trainers), the figures for the stake horses can only improve if they get better RELATIVE to the claimers.\" That makes sense to me and I \'ll leave my contribution to this string at that.
Mark
That is a good point Mark, the one that you made pointing out that if you assume claiming pars don\'t/can\'t improve, then the only way horses get faster is if stakes horses improve relative to claimers. That doesn\'t make sense. I agree.
Maybe the answer is in the middle though. Figures are moving faster quicker at T-Graph than at Beyers or Rags. Maybe horses are getting faster, but not necessarily at the rate that Jerry is showing.
I am stealing a comparison from Michael D. on this board, but do you really believe that War Emblem\'s 2:01.3 on the lead a few years ago is 10 lengths faster than Unbridled\'s 2:02.0 while wide in 1990. We are only talking about 10 years ago, not generations ago. Do you really believe that Smarty Jones is the fastest 3 year old ever?
>do you really believe that War Emblem\'s 2:01.3 on the lead a few years ago is 10 lengths faster than Unbridled\'s 2:02.0 while wide in 1990.<
As far as I am concerned he was fast enough. I ran a -11 on the way to the cashier. :-)
Post Edited (11-16-04 16:24)
Here\'s some stats on crop sizes and imports/exports of horses.
http://www.jockeyclub.com/factbook.asp?section=12
http://www.jockeyclub.com/factbook.asp?section=5
Source:
http://www.jockeyclub.com/factbook.asp
Post Edited (11-16-04 16:23)
Well there you have it - Classhandicapper is 10 lengths faster than Ghostzapper at 10 marks. I\'m glad this string got us somehwere.
Jim - That wasn\'t my point it was Jerry\'s taken from the original string on this subject. Have a look in the archives. It\'s worth the read.
Mark
Maybe you are refering to something other survey, but if it was the irish one using timeform, I thought their conclusion was that poorer horses were now better, not that the best horses were now better which I thought was the point of this debate.
Don\'t think they could argue that anyway on the basis of ratings given the top 6 timeform ratings are from the 1940\'s 50\'s & 60\'s.
I quote the article in question (it\'s a study, not a survey) extensively in the \"Are Racehorses Faster\" posts that can be found in the archives. It was done by some pretty serious guys, and appeared in Scientific American.
I have to say that a lot of you guys (not you, P.E., you\'re just coming in) are taking the lazy way out here, which is annoying considering the amount of work I put into the original posts. If you want to challenge my conclusions, read the damn series so you understand the logic, which deals with most if not all of the issues raised here recently. Michael (or anybody else), if you want info about specific tracks go do your own research.
I did some for the articles, and not so that I would know what was going on-- I knew that from looking at data day to day that you guys never see. I did it to try and find out WHY.
Anyway, we\'re posting the series again here. Read it and try and understand it if you\'re going to challenge me on it.
TGJB,
Based on all the commentary, I think there are several questions that need to be answered.
1. If horses are faster, have they improved equally at both short distances and long distances? (you should have this answer in your database)
2. If horses are faster, have they improved as much as your figures suggest or is there a bias in your methodology that is making your figures get faster at a rate that is not consistent with improvement? (could exist in either direction)
3. Is it possible that selective breeding has not produced faster and better horses as one would assume? Perhaps there have been some unforeseen negatives. For example, few would argue that today\'s horses are as sound and rugged as a couple of decades ago. Something went wrong! Could the use of drugs (legal and illegal) that enhance track performance have allowed bad and/or less premier genes to get into the gene pool that in prior decades would have been eliminated because races were cleaner?
4. Other than the instances where figure makers are making all their figures \"based on\" or \"anchored to\" pars like Rags, why isn\'t everyone else\'s figures showing that horses are faster?
5. Are standardbreds as advanced as thoroughbreds in their development as a breed or have they simply been in a period where improvement was more likely in general and even more likely in degree because of immaturity relative to thoroubreds?
Here are also some \"intuitive\" counter possibilities to your view. There\'s no science here, but these are things that IMO are worth thinking about.
In general, at least a portion of the improvement in human athleticism is related to the fact that there are many more humans in the world now and a higher percentage of them take sports very seriously because of the financial rewards and changing politics.
1. The crop of registered yearlings is smaller now than it was in the late 80s.
2. A higher percentage of our best yearlings are sent to Europe, Asia, and elsewhere in the world now than in prior decades.
3. A higher percentage of our best stallions are sent overseas and/or remain there after racing overseas.
4. There has been a handful of figures earned recently that intuitively don\'t make sense to anyone based on subjective evaluations when lined up against the universally recognized top horses of just a \"handful\" of years ago.
I\'m not looking to get into a long debate with you because I don\'t know the answers. I\'m not even taking a position here. I just wanted to point out some of the counter possibilities that are swirling around in my head. Your own case speaks for itself.
Post Edited (11-16-04 19:59)
jimbo66 wrote:
> I don\'t know why you don\'t see how critical it is that the
> Superintendent at Churchill Downs saying the track is the same
> or FASTER now than it was 20 years ago, is a HUGE problem
Jimbo, I read what the individual at Churchill supposedly said. I like to bet Churchill because I have a feel for it. But I have to say this: Outside of Texas the worst State for credibility in racing is Kentucky. I don\'t trust what that guy said and don\'t know why he said it. Either he didn\'t know what he\'s talking about or he perceived the question as a threat and answered it in a manner he thought was the best way to go. Typically, Churchill is tight for Derby Day. It was certainly very fast the year Monarchos won the Derby. Most other times of the year I believe Churchill plays slower.
CtC
CtC,
so if some of the track superintendents across the country come out and say that tracks are not that much slower than they used to be (which would basically ruin TGJB\'s entire argument), are you just going to come out and say that they are wrong, or they are crooks? please, expand on your theory of why you do not trust the CD track super? you have made a very important point, one that needs further explanation.
Michael D. wrote:
> CtC,
> so if some of the track superintendents across the country come
> out and say that tracks are not that much slower than they used
> to be (which would basically ruin TGJB\'s entire argument), are
> you just going to come out and say that they are wrong, or they
> are crooks? please, expand on your theory of why you do not
> trust the CD track super? you have made a very important point,
> one that needs further explanation.
Apparently, we have fallen into the \"Are racetrack surfaces changing\" in regard to answering the question \"Are Horses really getting faster\".
Firstly, some anecdotal information. I use to handicap Gulfstream when it was a greased lighting strip. It was resurfaced around 1990. The color changed and it became significantly slower. I remembering seeing Rubianos maiden win go in about 1:12 is my recollection. You saw the Florida Derby time from this year. I\'ll grant you that we didn\'t see the best horses in the crop that race, but there were some decent horses in that field.
Secondly, heres the Kentucky Derby winners raw times. I read them as getting significantly faster from 1896 to 1973. Do you think horses were getting faster in that period or perhaps the track was getting faster? If you look at the times from 1973-2004 my feeling is they have become slower than the years 1962-1973. Why is that? Are horses suddenly getting slower or is the track changing?:
http://www.derbypost.com/pastwinners.html
Heres a little Churchill factoid about their dirt course composition. Not much clay in it is there? With less clay than than some of the other tracks do you think its generally faster or slower?:
http://www.churchilldowns.com/bet_the_races/understanding/301/TrackConditions/Dirt.html
Lone Star Park was resurfaced not long ago:
http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/todaysnewsarchive/9377
and a blurb regarding the changing nature of the Lone Star strip:
http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/arlingtonpark.asp?intID=38290103
"The red dirt composition of the old main track, perceived as hard and fast, is gone. In its place is a brown dirt with a mixture of silt, sand and organic fibers. There is a good consistency to the surface, and it is regularly watered down.
Like Santa Anita, the track should play favorably to horses that are athletic and have an ability to show speed, as opposed to long-galloping horses that take their time finding their best run.\"
Finally a little blurb about Arlingtons cushion:
Arlington Cushion 5.5 inches:
http://www.advantagesportsbetting.com/horse/arlington-park.html
I know track composition is changing. Why is it necessary to prove it? I know it is, but I\'m still gonna beat Ghostzapper and I\'ll say when.
CtC
Post Edited (11-17-04 03:43)
Chuckles,
>but I\'m still gonna beat Ghostzapper and I\'ll say when.<
They all get beat due to variations in form, trip, injury etc.... Top horses are also usually more vulnerable in a brand new season.
However, regardless of whether you think Ghostzapper is really a -6, there\'s no doubt he\'s a top notch horse.
1. His overall record is excellent in terms of wins per start, winning margins relative to quality of competition, versatility at different distance and on different track conditions etc...
2. In one of his losses he was actually TONS (and I mean TONS) the best. In the loss at Saratoga in the 7F sprint as a 3 year old the track was playing heavily towards speed on the inside. He made a monstrous move from way back on the far outside to just miss. On a neutral track he wins by daylight and that was well before he even got good. His subsequent performance verifies my opinion of the loss.
I don\'t view him as the best horse I have ever seen despite the figures, but there\'s no doubt in my mind it\'s going to take a \"terror\" to beat him \"IF\" he comes back as good as he left - even at 10F - which may not be his best distance.
Post Edited (11-17-04 10:20)
Chuckles,
>If you look at the times from 1973-2004 my feeling is they have become slower than the years 1962-1973. Why is that? Are horses suddenly getting slower or is the track changing?:<
The difference is a little less than 4/5 of a second. However, if you throw out a few extreme cases like Sunday Silence and Smarty Jones on very sloppy tracks (I don\'t have all the track conditions handy right now to do an appropriate comparison) the difference narrows by about 1/5. It narrows further if you don\'t arbitrarily start and end at the exact years that help make your case. (data mining)
I think there are really 2 issues here that keep getting mixed up as if they are black and white and they are \"NOT\".
1. Are horses getting faster?
2. Are they getting faster at the rate suggested by TG?
classhandicapper wrote:
> Chuckles,
>
> The difference is a little less than 4/5 of a second. However,
> if you throw out a few extreme cases like Sunday Silence and
> Smarty Jones on very sloppy tracks (I don\'t have all the track
> conditions handy right now to do an appropriate comparison) the
> difference narrows by about 1/5. It narrows further if you
> don\'t arbitrarily start and end at the exact years that help
> make your case. (data mining)
>
> I think there are really 2 issues here that keep getting mixed
> up as if they are black and white and they are \"NOT\".
>
> 1. Are horses getting faster?
>
> 2. Are they getting faster at the rate suggested by TG?
Jerry\'s right, the \"real fast recently\" phenomena goes back to about 2000. (Aptitude) Horses were on a gradual improve until that time and then Wazzap!!!!!!!!! Presto Chango. Anyone got any idead why?
By the way, CH, run the figures again from 1962-1978 and then 1979-Present. (Which is closer to Jerry\'s contention re: modern composition) Theres a distinct pattern in those finishing times and I didn\'t do the math to see it. I can see it at a glance. Jerry can too.
CtC
Post Edited (11-17-04 10:55)
Chuckles,
>Jerry\'s right, the \"real fast recently\" phenomena goes back to about 2001. Horses were on a gradual improve until that time and then Wazzap!!!!!!!!! Presto Chango. Anyone got any idead why?<
If that is correct it obviously can\'t be selective breeding. I also doubt it is new training methods or nutrition because I haven\'t heard of any recent miracles. The best guess is illegal drugs, steroids, etc... I have several issues with that though.
The best Europeans still come here and kick our butt on turf. Sometimes they even run well on dirt with turf horses in the BC. They are supposedly much cleaner over there.
>By the way, CH, run the figures again from 1962-1978 and then 1979-Present. (Which is closer to Jerry\'s contention re: modern composition)<
Similar. A few fifths.
TGJB,
i read the posts when you wrote them. in my opinion, they say almost nothing relevant to the issue at hand (sorry, just one guys opinion). and for your comment \"read it and understand it if you are going to challenge me\", i think you wasted your time on all those posts, and people have to understand one thing: longer race times are not getting all that much faster, and your longer race figs are getting much, much faster. very simple here TGJB, we just need to find out if every track in the country is much, much slower than it once was. i will read through CtC\'s last post, seems he might be able to provide some real proof. i am open minded here, and will gladly say that today\'s horses run 10f races ten to twenty lengths faster than they did ten to fifteen years ago, i just need some real proof, that\'s all i\'m looking for. CtC, thanks for all the info, i will read through it later today and respond.
I haven\'t got time to get into all the individual angles that have come up, but I do want to address a point CH raised, about whether other figure makers tie their figures to pars.
A few years ago (5?) I had a discussion with Friedman on the Ragozin board under an alias. He said at that time that the reason their figures could be used to compare horses from different generations is that they use claiming pars, I showed him the holes in that, we went back and forth for a while, he said he saw my point. He didn\'t find out it was me until a couple of years later, when I mentioned it here.
This past February, at the DRF Expo, the question came up, and this time Len said no, they didn\'t tie their figures to pars. This could have been just because he knew what would happen to him there if he said otherwise (as I recall I said something like \"Boy, that\'s news to me\"), or it could be because they actually changed what they were doing because of my comments on their site. I don\'t know, but I have noticed that over the last few years the relationship between our figures and theirs has held pretty steady, after changing quite a bit over the previous decade. So they may have changed what they are doing, albeit way too late to use for accurate comparisons of different generations. And it is worthy of note that they too have GZ as the fastest horse of all time.
Now, my impression is that on that panel Beyer said they used claiming pars. I could be wrong-- I\'ll watch the DVD again when I get a chance. But even if the situation is what you described, that they use pars for only some tracks, that will act as a drag on your figures (to say nothing of creating an imbalance).
JB,
>Now, my impression is that on that panel Beyer said they used claiming pars. I could be wrong-- I\'ll watch the DVD again when I get a chance. But even if the situation is what you described, that they use pars for only some tracks, that will act as a drag on your figures (to say nothing of creating an imbalance).<
1. He and/or his partners are creating projection figures for the major circuits. I can't give you a complete list. I might be able get that information from a friend at the DRF who is in a position to know. Whether casual glances at class pars are used in making marginal decisions about track speed I do not know, but if they are, it would have a small impact.
2. The very small tracks where he is using par times will only act as a drag if you are correct in your assumption that the horses are getting faster.
3. If we assume you are right (by any rate) those par time figures "would" act as a small drag. However, Beyer crosschecks figures by computer when horses change circuits. If any circuit is found to be consistently out of line, they make adjustments – I would assume in favor of the track with the higher quality figures but I do not know. I think this issue is a better case for saying that his small track figures are almost worthless than it is for saying all his figures are anchored by pars. I think it\'s unlikely enough small track horses ship into the major circuits to screw up the projection quality figures on the major circuits.
4. Maybe his figures "are" getting a little faster, just not at the same rate. When they first started publishing the Beyer figures I did a multi-year study of his par times in NY. If I ever have a chance, I'll do it again but just at the graded stakes level to see if I notice anything. It's very time consuming for me.
5. I generally crosscheck the Beyer figures with another set of Beyer scale figures for NY made independently by a very competent guy using the projection method. They are not equal on a day to day/race to race basis, but there has been no noticeable divergence. The figures haven\'t improved sharply. The maker provides me with pars from time to time.
I hope this helps. (much of this information about process comes from my friend at the DRF. He is very sharp and knows.)
Post Edited (11-17-04 19:23)
Should you be helping out your comp.?? By telling him their doing something wrong. Keep it on the down low, dude.
Jerry, what about grass races?? are those races getting faster or slower and has the surface changed much??
Kev, there was an exchange about 10-14 days ago about this. If you search using \"Frank\" as author you\'ll find it, and my response.
classhandicapper wrote:
> JB,
>
> >Now, my impression is that on that panel Beyer said they used
> claiming pars. I could be wrong-- I\'ll watch the DVD again when
> I get a chance. But even if the situation is what you
> described, that they use pars for only some tracks, that will
> act as a drag on your figures (to say nothing of creating an
> imbalance).<
I\'m probably too far out of the figure loop to thoroughly understand this \"break off\" from pars tenent. I always felt pars were subject to change and needed to be revised with current year times to be relevant. However, I think some correalation with a \"base\" is necessary to figure a days sample, especially when something like a single two turn race is involved. I keep \"rough pars\" in my head and then watch the results to try and ascertain variance from final times. One way to do this is project the final time for each race you watch and modify your \"projected time\" with each race result to arrive at a rough \"variant\" for whats going on and consequently an estimation of individual efforts. Honestly, I don\'t know how a figure can be reliable without some reference to a \"par\". I trust the figure makers and only do this to spot anomolies, which can occur for a number of reasons.
CtC