I have no opinion on the race at this point but I post these for comment:
Sheets: 2 yo top: 7+, 3 yo races: 7+, 7+
TG: 2 yo top: 5, 3 yo races: 3, -1
subtracting 3 points from RAG to equate to TG you get 4+, 4+ and 4+ so they are within a point or so except for the Ashland where they are 4 1/2 points apart. RAG thinks the Asland was slooooow. Nobody fired except the winner I guess.
so there you have it:
Scenario 1, she wins:
Sheets: Forging 3 yo, waiting to explode
TG: We had the Ashland right!
Scenario 2, she looses:
Sheets: She was just too slow
TG: She bounced
Medication scenario:
She wins: Allday and Dutrow juiced her
She looses: Allday and Dutrow were too afraid of using the \"good stuff\" during Derby Week.
All plausable, all destined to gobble up more than the required amount of bandwidth.
The normal 3-4 point spread between TG and Rags seems to be a thing of the past.I compare figs with a Raggie. Some are-5-6-7pts off,mostly ordinary races as opposed to big races.
The greater \"distance\" in the two scales seems to mostly be faster TG figs.
I\'ve read about how tracks are getting slower and horses are getting faster and it is interesting and makes some sense because of the selective breeding but the TG fig inflation of the last few years seems illogical. Looking in the archives i see that a horse named Pro Prado ran 3 consecutive 1\'s last year making him one of the fastest spring 3 year olds of all time up until the last few years. Faster than Charismatic, Real Quiet, Silver Charm all of them.
Doesn\'t seem right does it? I would think the way to check to see if the bred is getting faster is look at the grass races. I think grass course records do seem to fall but not 3-6 points worth over a few years.
BB,
Pro Prado is one of many \"poster\" horses who get inflated figs because they race wide.I remember him being a \"suck up\" rat that liked it wet.
Shocking that this thread has generated no response from JB.
Neck deep in Derby analysis, I guess..
Jimbo-- right, I just got here.
On the figure, I ask anyone with any common sense to tell me that they think Sis City ran no faster winning the Ashland by ten than she did at two.
Blind Switch-- it\'s all percentages, that\'s why we have Thoro-Patterns. The test of the figures will be not just how SC runs in this race, but how she AND OTHERS out of the race run in other races, in terms of figures. If you guys have seen the other ones out of the Ashland who are in the Oaks, imagine how they ALL would look if you add 3 or 4.
Bob-- there is a whole presentation in the archives here about horses getting faster. I did a lot of work-- you should read it.
On that note I have to point out Watchmaker\'s wednesday column. After all the stuff I have had to endure (and addressed in the archives presentation) about times not getting faster while horses run better numbers, he points out that 5 of the 10 fastest of 130 Derbies have ocurred in the last 9 years-- as evidence the track is faster.
\"This is no coincidence, because it\'s not like the Thoroughbred breed has suddenly become so much better\".
Deaf frogs abound.
JB,
Very self serving, Watchmaker is clearly referring to the racetrack management scraping the surfaces to produce OOO\'S and AHHH\'S from the crowd on big race days.
How fast would Fager or Sec run on Wood Day?
Miff, you are missing the point. I know what Watchmaker is saying-- and the assumption he is making when he does. \"Frog with no legs is deaf\".
I\'m not doing this whole thing again, but as I said previously, Secretariat ran over a 2 1/2 inch cushion at Belmont, and it is now 3 1/2. The one day a couple of years ago that it was only 3 inches, Najran ran a 1:32 mile. How fast would he have gone over 2 1/2? Who was it that ran over a scraped track?
Of course, tracks do try to juice things up on big days, but that doesn\'t mean that t-breds are not getting faster (and frailer). Indeed, the whole point of t-bred racing and breeding is to \"improve the breed,\" which means make them faster.
Look what animal husbandry and breeding has acheived with other animals -- dogs, cats, birds, etc. And think about how much more money is and has been in the t-bred industry relative to the others. So, if you can bred a dog to look like a cat and vis versa, surely you can breed faster horses. So, it should surpirse no one that t-breds ARE actually getting faster on average all the time and will slowly continue to do so.
(Unfortunately, they also seem to be getting frailer, too. But that is another issue.)
JB-
I have read the archive presentations - several times. I find it fascinating and insightful especially since this has occurred to almost no one - how Mike Watchmaker could have the job that he does and never have read your stuff is mind boggling.
However its still possible you are wrong. Its hard to buy that Pro Prado would make Secretariat look like a high priced claimer. Ok logically the breed should get faster to a point although eventually it must level off. Horses will not be running a mile in 10 seconds some day no matter how good our training methods. Its a question of degree.
It seems to me if you want to test and quantify the theory it would be easy - just examine the track records of grass racing where there is no cushion issue. I did a litle research on that today by looking up the records for Epsom Derby winners over the last 100 years. The record is Dante (2:26 4/5) in 1945. In the last 25 years the fastest is Lammtarra (2:32 3/5) in 1995. They aren\'t getting any faster over there, at least not at a mile and a half (which could be the issue - we\'re breeding for speed).
My other question is why would they all get so much faster in the last 3 years?
During wartime the Derby would be run at Newmarket not Epsom.
good catch. still, times haven\'t improved much. certainly not in the last 10 years or 3 years.
BB,
\"My other question is why would they all get so much faster in the last 3 years?\"
Figures are faster, horses ain\'t.
I think it\'s almost impossible to prove whether horses are getting faster or not using speed figures. I know most people here wouldn\'t agree with that, but IMHO all figure makers have biases built into their interpretations of the results whether they think so or not. Not all those biases are the same either. Even though some figure makers try to correct for those biases, the methods are not perfect.
IMHO it\'s very obvious that a person\'s view on which factors impact final time and which don\'t can lead to a self-fulfilling movement (or lack of movement) in the figures over time because of how they interpret results.
I think the cushion depth idea would have a lot of merit if we had data from a lot of tracks over a long period of time.
I also think a study of turf racing would have some merit even though the races develop differently and that could impact the results to some degree.
In the end, I don\'t think it matters much because if they are getting faster, they aren\'t improving fast enough to impact our wagering.
miff,
Fager would have run a 1:45:2 Wood Day.
Secretariat would have chased him.
Bellamania in that same race finishes in 1:49 beaten 18 lengths.
Bob-- if you want we can take a brief look at this in a couple of weeks when Derby stuff dies down. But in fact someone once did a study, and I\'m pretty sure it was of the Epsom Derby, showing that the average time had improved in every decade. Might have been in the Scientific American article I quoted.
As for grass races in general-- paces are much slower, especially in Europe, and can affect final time-- that\'s why we have \"S Pace\" notations. Nevertheless, there were some unbelievably fast grass times last year-- I did a post in response to Frank raising the same issue right around the last BC. If you do a search you can probably find it.
I\'m pretty sure Watchmaker does read this site, given some of what he has written. And he was at the Expo, where I talked about it.
JB - ok sounds good. I\'m a breeder (and handicapper) in kentucky and i think its important to try to understand what\'s going on. I don\'t think the tactics in grass racing has changed over the years and therefore the course records and average times should be valid.
I\'ll look for that post.
When you guys compare Pro Prado to Secretariat, think about it like this. How many 100m sprinters today would absolutely demolish Jesse Ownes? Or better yet, Carl Lewis? It doesn\'t detract from their greatness one iota.
The point is well taken except that in the Pro Prado case it would be like comparing me to Carl Lewis, not the top sprinters of the day.
Clearly there is something wrong with the Pro Prado figs.
Alan/Jerry,
If you were to red board certain postings that our brethern could be directed to....many of these pertinate but repetitive questions could be addressed.
It is beyond me why someone w/your great depth of knowledge has to repeat this stuff.
Alan are you married? If not we should talk about my lovely daughters...Jerry stay the hell away from my babies!
Miff\'s ground loss issues aside, ponder this-- if Pro Prado\'s Oaklawn figures are wrong, so are Smarty Jones\'.
JB - Good point. So be it.
Bloodline Bob, I posted a graph of Epsom Derby times here a while back.
http://www.thorograph.com/hold/63.pdf
BB,
Compare today\'s human sprinters to those of the mid 70s. It isn\'t even close, college kids today routinely beat the best times of 30 years ago.
Why should horse racing be any different? Horses are bred for this, not so for people, at least that we know about.
BG - thanks for the graph.
I see huge improvement from 1840-1920 and minimal since then. Is that what you see?
I found a site which has the Yellow Ribbon winners 1977-2000. Stakes record is Queen to Conquer in 1:58 3/5 in 1981.
is there a good site that you know of to find this kind of thing?
Beyerguy,
On humans and other species you are correct, on horses you are wrong. Horse are NOT bigger or heavier/stronger today.With the exception of BR this year, horses like Fager and Sec make most of todays runners look like ponies, size wise.
The big ones used to be 17 hands and 1200 pounds back then and thats what they are now. I believe JB got caught up in the \"improved species\" theory without doing the research,I did. They are not bigger, stronger and imo not faster, sandy tracks et al.
miff-
agreed. another fly in the faster track ointment is that many tracks have switched to a limestone base which Jerry mentions in his treatise. that makes the tracks harder and arguably faster, offsetting the cushion effect.
maybe thats why they\'re all breaking down too.
beyer,
I tend to think the horses of today are a lot faster than those of 50+ years ago.
I am less certain they are getting faster at the same rate now as when there was more room for improvement or at the rate suggested by the speed figures.
One thing I will point out is that the population of human beings has exploded in recent decades and so have the financial rewards for elite athletes. Those are two huge reasons to think human athletes are a lot better.
On the flip side, the horse racing industry has to some extent seen shrinking or flat crop sizes in recent years and many of the best horses have been exported to other parts of the world for racing and breeding purposes. So the US pool is probably thinner in size and quality. Plus, since most owners lose money, it\'s not like there\'s a huge new financial incentive involved. Those are all headwinds against the idea that horses are improving in leaps and bounds currently.
I don\'t know the answer, but I wouldn\'t be shocked if someone proved they are getting faster, but at a rate a lot slower than the figures suggest.
Don\'t forget the \"science\". How is it that 15 years ago 300 lbs was big for an NFL lineman and now it is small for a major college lineman. How is it that Ben Johnson was so much faster than every other human being on earth and how can Bonds suddenly be so dominant at this late stage of his career. We all know the answers and if you think it is not going on at the top echelons of horse racing while it is going on at the top echelons of every other sport you are kidding yourself. Horses are getting faster at an alarming rate that doesn\'t seem natural and that is because it is not.
I think that the idea that the breed must level off at sometime is incorrect. Indeed, Roger Bannister ran the first recorded sub-4 mile decades ago and the record is nearer 3:40 now. And, even though no one is using eugenics to breed faster humans, the records keep going down. Human track runner\'s are not leveling off, so why should horses?
Moreover, with t-breds, eugenics ARE consciously applied and the time between generations are even shorter. Thus relatively rapid improvments in overall, absolute performance are to be expected. So, I would be very surprised if a decent handicap horse today couldn\'t handle a hypothetical Secretariat simply because the contemporary horse should have genetic advantages (possibly passed on from Big Red himself). In sum, we can pad the tracks to slow the real times or not, but if the performance figs don\'t show a speed inflation, then the figs are not accurate across generations (they may, however, be accurate for comparisons within a given generation).
With the above in mind, I am not worried about the Sheets\' incorrect assumption that all generations of horses are equal (10K claimer as a constant), as I don\'t bet Bandini vs. Secretariat. But, what does worry me is that the Sheets fail to account for the fact that track variants change over the course of a given card and are not necessarily the same for sprints and routes. Likewise, Beyer is often too cowardly to give out big numbers when he see them run right before his very eyes. When I buy TG, what I am personally buying better (not infallible) judgment regarding variants for individual races and hence more accurate figs on average.
Often, Beyer numbers, the Sheets, and TG will all say about the same thing about a horse. Obviously, Bellamy Road ran a whopper last out. Anyone can tell you that. But when the figs vary across brand, TG is on the mark more often because JB calulates them as he sees them and is less restrained by the prejudices that blind his competitors.
For instance, why shouldn\'t I believe that Bandini ran well in the BG? Looked damn fast to me from the rail and on the clock. So why is Beyer only giving him a 103? Did Frankel\'s horse really fun that poorly in second -- I doubt it. That doesn\'t mean I don\'t think Bandini may have had help reaching a big fig based on pace and track conditions and may not run that good again this year. But, nobody\'s final-time figs accounts for track bias and internal pace (nor should they). That\'s for us \'cappers to do with the figs after thay are otherwise objectively calculated.
Why do you think bigger horses are faster? Wouldn\'t Clydesdales dominate then?
As a matter of physics, sleeker horses with frailer legs are likely to go faster, at least until they break down. Charismatic would be a good contemporary example.
While Dr. Fager might have beaten Charismatic in Sumo wrestling or in races over pavement, but I doubt he could do it on a track with a good 3 1/2 inch cushion.
\"While Dr. Fager might have beaten Charismatic in Sumo wrestling or in races over pavement, but I doubt he could do it on a track with a good 3 1/2 inch cushion.\"
Would you rather see a match race between Dr. Fager and Seattle Slew or Charismatic and Pro Prado? :-)
hi, you got this dead-on, 110% correct, could i email you privately, mine is tallstar181@aol.com
Charismatic would waltzed away from Fager and Seattle Slew. So, sure put a contemporary horse with at least a rats chance in hell.
A security guard buddy of mine who learned to follow the races in his home country of jamaica and now is a big race fan here in nyc handed me a print ouy of an online ragozin insider :road to the triple crown page of the thoroughbred times dated 4-22 and it\'s says amoung other things that the andromedas\'s hero colt may relish the extra furlong in the derby ... it doesn\'t exactly hit home w/ resonence and to me seem\'s to be a very neophetic approach and a disservice to those who have an interest in racing and speed figures . Ragozin along with some of their assocites (who\'s names will thusly remain unmentioned here) are sounding and behaving more and more like government agencies - keep your wallet in your front pocket ...