JB,
Sounds like there are some people on this board who absolutely are with you that horses are getting faster and they are very confident in the numbers that compare this generation with older generations of horses.
There are some that think you are off on this.
But there is a middle group, at least I think so. I have read everything you posted on here for the past 12 months and have also read your piece for the Expo. All logical to me and for what it is worth (not much), I think you prove your point that horses are getting faster.
The question I have is whether you are wrong about the rate at which they are getting faster. The 2 1/2 inch cushion versus 3 inch cushion, explains 20 years ago versus today. But on the T-Graph figures, horses are getting faster YEAR over YEAR, not just now versus 5 years ago or 10 years ago. I for one, find it hard to believe that nutrition, science, etc. can make horses faster as quickly as reflected on your numbers.
For example, last year we had the fastest 3 year old ever in Smarty Jones, followed by the fastest horse ever, in Ghostzapper.
I questioned you about this last year after the Monmouth race, saying it seemed unlikely for the fastest 3 year old and fastest horse ever to occur months apart.
Now, this year, we had two 3 year olds run as fast or faster than Smarty in preps, and 2 others run negative 2\'s. That means this year\'s crop of 3 year olds has 4 of the 5 fastest 3 year olds ever!!! On top of that, we had a negative 5 for Northern Stag. So, Northern Stag is now the 2nd fastest horse ever.
My point is that it is very easy to be convinced by your case that horses are getting faster, however it is more difficult to agree with the rate they are getting faster at. Genetics on horses would be driving an improvement rate maybe never seen in any other species? Maybe this last sentence is a little anti-climactic, but anyway, I hope I made my point.
Jimbo--
1-- the cushion is now 4 inches on some days, according to Litfin. I\'ll be interested in seeing what Miff finds out about this-- Litfin also says they recently added even more sand.
2-- I didn\'t say it was all genetics. I don\'t think it is.
3-- There have been occasional huge figures thrown before by horses who never got back to them, like the Baffert 3yo who ran the huge 7f figure a few years ago in March(?).
Also remember that because of the difference in generational length, the one year difference between one crop and another is roughly the same as 3 years in human terms-- almost as much as one Olympics to the next. If you look back at the \"Racehorses getting faster\" piece you will also see that thoroughbreds haven\'t improved as much as humans or standardbreds.
But yes, the last couple of years have been something else. And Sightseek was every bit as good for fillies as the other two were for their divisions.
Jimbo,
I am in your camp on this.
There are at least a few counter forces working against the \"MUCH faster\" theory.
The pool of horses is actually smaller now than it was in many past years. Plus some of the best horses and stallions of that smaller pool have moved overseas to race and breed as rich foreigners bid up the prices and shipped them elsewhere.
That\'s a lot different than the vast increase in human population and the higher percentage of that population that is now in a position and economically motivated to participate in athletic competition.
I think most people think horses are probably getting faster over time. It\'s degree that\'s tough to prove.
Jerry,
So, have they made these changes to the cushion in 2004 and then again in 2005? If so, I wonder why they are changing the cushion so often.
I believe I understand your implication that it isn\'t all genetics. Cheating is even harder to gauge then the increase in speed. But I have to tell you, I would be SHOCKED to find out that the number of cheaters in 2004 and 2005 is so much greater than the number of cheaters in other years. Cheating has been around for years. Maybe the \"juice\" is better, but then we have the issue again that this is not being captured in the numbers of Beyer. I guess you would say this goes back to his methodology of using \"pars\".
I am not a scientist and to be perfectly honest, it was probably my worst subject. But, I don\'t think your assumption that the shorter the generation length is, the more likely there is to be more rapid evolution/advancement, is correct. Otherwise, wouldn\'t cockroaches, bees and salmon, with their short life cycles and quick \"new generations\", be advancing more quickly than humans on the evolutionary scale?
Jimbo,
Beyer\'s public record isn\'t very long.
However, IMHO, there are more and higher 120s given out these days than there were when he first starting publishing them in The Racing Times.
In fact, if you look at Picking Winners (his first book) he says that Secretariat used to run figures in the upper 120s (128/129). But if you look REALLY CLOSELY, the scale from that book is higher than the one he uses now. If memory serves me, it\'s about 16 points higher. That means BIG RED was earning 112/113 on the current scale.
I\'ve never seen a public comment from Beyer on that, but I\'ve long wondered about it.
Also, I used to make figures for NY using that scale when the book first came out. Regardless of my skill level at the time, I wasn\'t totally incompetent. I don\'t recall giving out a figure on that scale that would approximate a 120 on the scale he uses now. Some of the biggest figures I remember were Great Contracter over Forego, General Assembly in the Travers (wet track), and a few Bid races.
So IMHO, horses are faster based on Beyer\'s scale also.
Post Edited (05-31-05 15:16)
I don\'t go back to the 70s, so I can\'t comment. I know Beyer gave out plenty of mid 120s to Formal Gold, Will\'s Way, and Skip Away. Bertrando and Groovy I think also got those type numbers at least a couple times. Aptitude had at least one huge one as well. I\'m sure there are more, so I\'m not really sure if they are getting any faster. (Never on turf though, Daylami 119 best I remember)
CH,
Not sure JB is going to want this posted here, but I would love to understand what you mean by \"look REALLY CLOSELY\" at the beyer figures (you are saying his scale changed). I remember reading last year from Beyer that Ghostzapper ran AS FAST as Secretariat. Not 12 lengths faster.....
You have emailed me before, maybe we can/should take the Beyer part of this offline.
Jimbo,
I can\'t account for his comments vs. what is in his books. That\'s why I have long wondered about it myself. I\'ll take a look at the book again when I\'m home.
Beyer,
Those are the main ones I remember also.
Include me in the emails please. One thing, the scale changing wouldn\'t really change the final figures most likely, just the variants. Unless of course the goal was to change the figures, something like Jerry adding 5 points to all numbers to reduce the number of negative figures. He could add 5 points to his scale, or change the race variants by 5 points.
CH,
The more I think about your post, the more I disagree.
How many horses has Beyer gone into the 120\'s on in the past few years?
Ghostzapper and Bellamy Road. I think that\'s it. And by now, everybody except Chuckles the Clown and Silver Charm, realize Ghostzapper is a very fast horse.
Beyerguy is right, there were similar 120+ numbers for Skip Away, Formal Gold and Will\'s Way. I actually thought Groovy was 132, but I could be off on that.
Beyer called this year\'s group of the 3 year olds, the worst in years. Jerry has 4 of the 5 fastest 3 year olds ever in this year\'s class. (That was before the figure from Saturday\'s Peter Pan, which has the potential to be big....)
There is a difference between the two views.
Actually, I have no problem with that discussion taking place here-- I would be interested in hearing more about scale changes. And yes, pars have something to do with the whole question.
As far as I know, cockroaches aren\'t being selectively bred for speed. Although now that I think about it, the ones in my apt are awful fast...
Yes, I think the drugs are getting better-- in two of the places where I researched my article, I found references to a performance ceiling caused by oxygen debt. Hmmm...
From what Porcelli told me, tracks believe a slower track is a safer track. They don\'t WANT races run too fast-- so they add cushion. When tracks or grass courses get hard, trainers scream at track superintendents.
Beyer,
\"Unless of course the goal was to change the figures, something like Jerry adding 5 points to all numbers to reduce the number of negative figures.\"
I think that\'s what happened, but I can\'t be certain. I\'ll double check when I\'m home and e-mail you so we can get this off line here. I don\'t want to give out false information. I\'m working from memory.
I do recall many things like 6F in 113 used to be equal to 80 and now it\'s 64/65, but I\'ll have to actually check some of class pars he used.
Post Edited (05-31-05 15:32)
Jimbo,
I think it\'s pretty clear that TG figures are getting faster at a faster rate in recent years.
Beyer gave out a bunch of other 120s in the last few years, but my memory isn\'t what it used to be. :-)
He gave 123 to an undefeated horse in CA that beat MDO a couple of years back. There was an eclipse award sprinter and a few other sprinters that earned 120s also just off the top of my head.
If his figures are getting faster, its not rapidly. It certainly feels that they are getting faster to me though and I paid pretty close attention to the major stakes races over the years.
Post Edited (05-31-05 20:21)
Jerry,
The cockroaches in your apartment aside, selective breeding for speed in the U.S. is a given. However, this is at the expense of stamina. As such, isn\'t much more plausible and likely that the figures for sprints should be increasing faster than the figures for distance races? i think Michael D brought this up a while back, saying that there was a possibility that the distance races on T-Graph are too fast, but the sprints more accurate, caused by tying the shorter figures to the longer figures when projecting, not considering the likely bias that today\'s breed is quicker but not likely to be as fast going a distance of ground.
I think that argument was left at \"prove it\", which he didn\'t and I can\'t.
It is just that the numbers are increasing at a rate which is hard to justify, even with all of the contributing factors you named. The Derby results are only 1 race and you can\'t build a case around 1 race, but damn all those extremely fast horses and a plodder wins.
How many people can actually accept that Northern Stag at equal weights, beats Smarty Jones by 3 lengths, if they each run their best race? Not to mention trouncing Cigar, Skip Away and that generation by 10+ lengths.
Looks to me like the New York horses always get the highest Beyer Speed Figures. I think it\'s the same hype that surrounds the Yankees. Everyone - even Beyer\'s figures are caught up in the Big Apple hype.
Spoken like a true West Coaster!
Jerry,
Someone in the race office is trying to see if they can get me a copy of the ongoing posted sheet showing the cushion depth each day from back when to present.
I have two other sources which seem to indicate that during the past nine months on 8 occasions(at 5 different major tracks), the surface was faster than normal on big race days.Even considering that on big race days we see the fastest horses, there would seem to be reason to believe that the surface was scraped, purely from the raw times w/wind.
Your comments regarding tracks generally trying to keep surfaces slower is confirmed by several people with knowledge of racing surfaces around the country(California tracks may be the exception)
In any event,if I can get this all together and cull it to posting size, we should be able to have a meaningful discussion analyzing the data as it relates to your figs and horses getting much faster.
Jimbo said
\"How many people can actually accept that Northern Stag at equal weights, beats Smarty Jones by 3 lengths, if they each run their best race? Not to mention trouncing Cigar, Skip Away and that generation by 10+ lengths.
Jim,
In fairness to the Northern Stag fig, you will see, over time, that wet fast race tracks can produce ridiculous figs which I have found to be:
1.Accurate on future wet tracks only.
2.Total throw out figs when evaluating the same horse on a dry surface.
I believe the figure makers have not yet \"mastered\" the manner in which to calculate wet fast tracks/variants. I think they may be missing just how forgiving that type of surface is to certain runners.
I have Picking Winners and The Winning Horseplayer in front of me.
It\'s clear that Beyer changed the numeric rating he assigns a race given a final time of \"X\".
6F in 1:13 is a 64 in TWH and an 80 in PW.
7F in 126.1 is a 65 in TWH and an 80 PW.
Less clear are the pars he uses for determining the speed of the track and the final figure because one is for NY and one is SA. There is also the obvious complication of claiming prices slowly inflating over the time that elapsed between the two books.
If he has made changes to the final figures, it certainly appears to be less than the 16 points I guessed at earlier. The 16 points is just the change to the time chart. (beyerguy was right about that).
However in PW he says that 6F stakes for older males in NY for one season averaged 1:10. That\'s a 106 on the new scale.
In TWH (the later book) he says that stakes at SA had an average figure of 114.
The ALW races have a similar difference.
It\'s more or less impossible for me to tell exactly what has changed in his final figures and by how much.
Back to the 120s:
Here\'s a few others besides Ghostzapper from the last few years.
Candy Ride 123
Cajun Beat 120
Congaree 120
Medaglia d\'Oro 120
Aldebaron 122
Shake You Down 121
Swept Overboard 122, 122
Kona Gold 123
Xtra Heat 120
Aptitude 123
Post Edited (05-31-05 19:53)
23 horses have broken the 1:59 mark at 10f
1:57 4/5
spectacular bid SA 1980
1:58 1/5
noor GGF 1950
quack Hol 1972
in excess Bel 1991
1:58 2/5
affirmed Hol 1979
greinton Hol 1985
1:58 3/5
swaps Hol 1956
round table Hol 1957
j.o. tobin Hol 1977
affirmed SA 1979
turkoman Hia 1986
1:58 4/5
native diver Hol 1967
figonero Hol 1969
gladwin Haw 1970
group plan Haw 1974
pay tribute Hol 1976
tiller SA 1979
go west young man Hol 1980
alysheba Med 1988
martial law SA 1989
pleasant tap Bel 1992
1:58.89
lemon drop kid Bel 1992
1:58.97
skip away Bel 1997
if i could find evidence that all of the tracks across the country are much, much slower than they used to be, i would be more willing to buy the fact that horses run 10-15 lengths faster than they used to at 10f. even then, i would take \'bid or affirmed against todays speedballs at 10f if i was getting 10-15 lengths.
Miff-- I\'m definitely interested in the raw information, even if it is anecdotal, about cushion depth, soil content etc. Much less so about other\'s opinions of speed of tracks on big days relative to other days (that\'s what I do for a living). Definitely interested in factual information about those days relative to others regarding scraping, depth, etc.
Jimbo-- I\'m not sure how one could prove or disprove the distance theory. From an internal figure making point of view, it becomes a very complicated question-- when you originally set up speed charts, you do it based not on some theoretical equivalents, but (to oversimplify) on the average winning time at different distances. If the relationship changes because horses as a group don\'t handle routes as well, what do you do with the speed chart? Just shooting from the hip here, haven\'t thought it out, don\'t have time to now...
This is from 1992 to 2003. Beyer\'s
Fastest 2yr--- Trust N Luck 02\' and Hook and Ladder 99\' ( 110 )
3yr--- Concerned Minster 00\' and Rock and Roll 98\' ( 121 )
Sprints--- Artax 99\' ( 124 )
Races more than a mile--- Formal Gold 97\' and Will\'s Way 97\' and Gentlemen 97\' ( 126 )
Turf--- Fastness 96\' and Daylami 99\' and Silvano 01\' ( 118 )
Ky Derby fig\'s from 92\' up to 03\'
107-105-112-108-112-115-107-108-108-116-114-109 <--2003
Also the 120 and up in this time period, it was ran atless 59 times
Post Edited (05-31-05 18:43)
Now Mineshaft was a fast horse on Rag and TG, but beyer gave him 118 for his top.
This is for races a mile or longer the years, for the top fig horse.
97-97-97-93-97-97-97-03-01-97-98-98-92-00-97-97-02-00-98-97
Now getting back to the great GZ, he was given a 122 for the met mile and he has rec. a 124-128 and a 120 in the past.
\"If the relationship changes because horses as a group don\'t handle routes as well, what do you do with the speed chart?\"
I think the only way to deal with something like this is to examine the PPs and speed figures of those rare horses that seem versatile enough to be equally successful across various distances to create a more accurate chart.
As far as we know everyone\'s original charts were biased to begin with in whatever way the breed was biased.
In the past, I always felt that the very best routers were superior to the very best sprinters even when their figures were similar. On the rare occasions that one of those Grade 1 power routers dropped back in distance, they tended to blow the best sprinters out.
I\'m less sure that\'s still true or at least to the same extent it was a long time ago.
Post Edited (05-31-05 19:14)
Michael D. , According to this site, Flying Paster was 3-1/4 lengths behind Spectacular Bid in the SA 1980 record race so his time was around 158.2. http://www.horsehats.com/SpectacularBid.html
Post Edited (05-31-05 19:31)
On TG figs, for the BC.C from 99\' to 2004. The top two horses figs.
99\' = 2.2 and 0.2
00\' = 0 and -1.0
01\' = 1.2 and 1.2
02\' = -2.2 and -0.2
03\' = -3.0 and -1.2
04\' = -4.2 and -4.1
yes, thanks. those were the 23 races that went under 1:59. it\'s been a while. GZ just about did it last year. i doubt he can do it at Bel, but it would be nice to see. he\'s an amazing animal, and the sport needs a new superstar.
I\'ll presume the Thorograph calculation of their formula for making figures has been a constant from their beginning (otherwise any horse\'s improvement couldn\'t be measured). The Question on this topic then, is: are \"figures\" (any of them, Thorograph, Beyer, etc.) really an objectively accurate way of assessing a racehorse\'s quality? Either the method of calculating figures is wrong or off, or the figures are rock solid and rachorses have improved leaps and bounds in the last 10 years.
For the record, I don\'t know how to calculate figures, nor do I know what goes into Thorograph\'s calculations. As a buyer of their stuff, I do have questions on \"what\" factors get weighted, and \"how\" that\'s decided. Here\'s an extrapolated example of the question I have.
The 2004 Thorograph Breeder\'s Cup Seminar had a single mantra repeated for scores of horses: those \"shipping-in\" and encountering the \"warmer climate\" of Texas could be significantly disadvantaged. This mantra was based on the assumption that horses from the east coast in 2003 ran poorly, or below expectations (based on their sheets going in, most probably). The heat wave at Santa Anita in 2003 was given as the central explanation for their poor efforts.
If that\'s true, then those most disadvantaged by any California-based Breeders Cup would be the Europeans, for no horses come farther or from cooler autumn climates than they do. And the factual evidence of their results tells otherwise: Lashkari, Last Tycoon, Miesque, Arcangues and Spinning World all won in California. If you toss in some brave narrow losses by Theatrical (in \'86), Trempolino, and Ski Paradise, it weakens the reasoning further.
In 2003 that same reasoning goes on life support, since the Europeans probably had their best overall showing in a Cup ever: Six Perfections won; Islington-L\'Ancresse-Yesterday went 1-2-3 in the Filly Turf; and High Chaparral-Falbrav in the Turf. All done in the stifling heat at Santa Anita.
So, if the weather and shipping were given as precautions to consider for wagering in 2004 (in spite of the evidence), isn\'t it fair to question Thorograph as to whether the criteria for making figures, or decisions about what to weigh is objective or accurate? I\'m asking honestly, not disrespectfully. This is about whether or not figures as such are really relevant.
I worked in racing for a long time. I agree with what I presume is Thorograph\'s take that perfomances are being medically enhanced. But if this explains the jumps for all or most figures, then why make figures at all, since we\'ll never know what or how much which horse got of what \"medicine\"?
It happens even at the cheap tracks where I worked. I saw trainers who couldn\'t spell the word \"horse\" suddenly start ripping off wins in spades; one in particular that won more races in one meet than he\'d won in the whole 13 years I worked there. Let someone try to convince me he woke up one morning and discovered how to train, or that he just got a world beating bunch of $3,500 claimers. The explanation for that kind of turnaround can only be one thing.
i thought i read a quote by beyer somewhere they had a problem with figure creep that they had to go back and redo a bunch of numbers.
i\'m sure jerry has forgotten more about figure making than i\'ll ever know, but it seems that using a projection method would lead to an upward bias over time. (upward bias for beyer, downward bias for tg) my basis for this is weak, being just a thought experiment.
Actually, Beyer wrote they had to usually go back and ADD a point or two to all figures as they didn\'t project enough improvement when making daily variants.
Kev posted,
On TG figs, for the BC.C from 99\' to 2004. The top two horses figs.
99\' = 2.2 and 0.2
00\' = 0 and -1.0
01\' = 1.2 and 1.2
02\' = -2.2 and -0.2
03\' = -3.0 and -1.2
04\' = -4.2 and -4.1
Does anyone have the Beyers and Rags for the same races for comparison.Looks like app a 10 length improvement in 6 years on the top fig.
Beyer\'s, just for the winner\'s.
90\' 116
91\' 120
92\' 114
93\' 114
94\' 115
95\' 117
96\' 115
97\' 120
98\' 116
99\' 118
00\' 116
01\' 117
02\' 116
03\' 119
04\' 124
Rag\'s
99\' 2+
02\' 0\"
03\' -2
04\' -1
I don\'t have 00\' or 01\'
I would love to see the actual Beyer quote about adjusting figures retroactively for \"creep\" one way or the other, and the rationale and methodology involved. If anybody knows where that can be found, let me know.
JB,
I also recall that quote and I\'m sure I can find it for you eventually. I just don\'t recall where I saw it. When I find it I will definitely post it and the source.
I believe the problem goes back to before he started publishing figures in the DRF.
It was a problem of shrinking figures.
I think he wasn\'t projecting enough improvement in the figures of some lightly raced young horses and it was very slowly dragging his figures down.
Post Edited (06-02-05 13:16)
Page 114 of \"The Winning Horseplayer\" 1983.
\"The projection method produces extremely accurate figures, but it also causes one subtle problem - a problem I had once thought was due to my personal errors until I found that it troubles almost everyone that makes figures this way. When handicappers make their projections, they tend not to anticipate enough improvement for horses who win races. If the projections are lower than they should be, the resultant figures are lower than they should be. And after a while the handicapper will notice that all his figures seem to be shrinking.......When I first encountered this problem my figures were shrinking so fast that I could barely compare recent races to ones that had been run two months earlier. Fortunately, the remedy for this problem is a simple one. At the end of each month, I review all the results and compare the figure of each race with the par figure for that class. If I find that the races have been run, on the average, one point slower than par, I will retroactively add one point to all my variants and figures for the month\". 1983
NOTE-- this is what I was talking about when I said pars would affect your figures long term if used ANYWHERE in the process. I don\'t know whether Beyer (or those doing some of his circuits) still do this (there are strong indications they do something like it, having to do with the relationships between circuits), but if you bring your figures back to an artificial \"par\", you will not be able to see whether horses as a group are getting better or worse. I had this conversation with Friedman on the Rag board a few years ago, and touched on it at the DRF Expo.
Time-Form does something like this as well.
TGJB,
I agree with you.
I don\'t know if there is any tying back to pars these days, but I know that the cross circuit check is computerized based on the actual figures.