Some of this has been covered in various posts, but I want to get this clear and on the record, so here goes.
The point of making figures is to assign the ones that are most likely to be accurate, to be the most accurate representation of how the horses performed, given what it is you are supposed to be measuring. The only way we have to do that is by using the past figure histories of the horses that ran in the races we are assigning figures for, and that part is not in dispute between Ragozin and myself. The argument comes in deciding exactly which past figures to look at-- specifically, whether it is correct to ASSUME that exactly the same conditions exist for different races that you are assigning figures for. I have shown as a factual matter that Ragozin\'s dogmatic assertion that that is a good idea is wrong-- both with examples like the separate watering of the two Belmont grass courses (Len combined them for variant purposes as a matter of course), and with the scientific evidence of those who have studied the physical properties of actual racetracks (The Expo presentation in the archives section,and some of \"Are Racehorses Getting Faster\"). But the best evidence for those who do not make figures comes not with theoretical discussions, but with examples.
Briefly, for those that have not followed the discussion, if you did all the dirt races on Breeders\' Cup day assuming track speed stayed constant, the Distaff came up very slow. It looks like Ragozin-- who does NY himself-- may have taken off about a point from that race himself, but that also could be a function of slight differences in our speed chart, wind estimates, or wind formulas, (especially given the long straightaway). Regardless, he essentially did the race with the rest of the day, not cutting it loose like I did-- which I would have done even if I did not know that they had watered the track only once during the day, and the Distaff was the first dirt race after that.
I posted this before, but I want to get it all in one post, so I\'m going to go over it again. ON RAGOZIN\'S FIGURES, not mine, the field for the Distaff had run 74 times this year, and 33 times had run more than 3 points worse than what their top was at any given time (45%). That\'s a pretty decent sampling-- if you did a similar study for previous Distaffs you would probably find something in the same general ballpark. Well, the way Len did the race, he gave 12 of the 13 worse than 3 points off their tops (and 9 of those more than 6 points off their tops, by the way). There has been quite a bit of discussion on this site as to the right way to calculate the chances of all 12 running that bad, with the most generous being Jimbo\'s at one in 2 thousand.
Which doesn\'t seem like the most likely configuration, the one that is most likely to be accurate.
Now, one could take the position (as Friedman did at the Expo) that all permutations are possible over time. That may be, but you are still supposed to come up with the scenario that is MOST LIKELY, given all the available information (like watering). And since we know from the science that making assumptions about the track staying the same, even without having specific information, is a bad idea (that\'s what got Len into trouble with the 2 Belmont grass courses) there is no basis for using that assumption when it directly opposes the histories of the horses in the race or races in question. Conditions might be the same, and might not, but ASSUMING either is a mistake.
But lets say you accept Len\'s position, which is that this 2,000-1 shot came in. If so, it wouldn\'t happen too often, would it?
Well, here\'s the thing. Just from looking at Ragozin\'s BC sheets-- and not looking too hard at that-- there are two other obvious examples of the same kind of thing. One is the last 2 dirt races on 7/27 (opening day) at Saratoga, where they sealed the track in the middle of the card, and Friedman said that didn\'t matter, it was right to treat all the dirt races as being run over exactly the same track. Adieu and Folklore came out of those races:
Folklore (earliest first, and ommitting fractions) 21-14-13-18-10-5-9
Adieu 11-14-20-9-14-16
The 18 for Folklore is a WIN on 7/27 in the GII Adirondack. Adieu was a close fourth, and got a 20. And all the horses that ran in those 2 races (with the exception of the winner of the other one) will look like that. Which is why I predicted AT THE TIME that they would all \"jump forward\" next time on Ragozin, like Folklore and Adieu did (8 and 11 points respectively).
The other, of course, is the Gold Cup. Last 5 for the ones that I have sheets on, because they ran back in the BC, next to last being the Gold Cup:
Imperialism 3-8-1-13-4
Flower Alley 3-0-0-15-0
Suave 5-6-3- 9-1
Sun King 5-5-2-11-6
Borrego 8-5-2- 5-4
This is not the whole field, but the ones that I don\'t have were beaten even worse than the top 4, and got even worse figures. So every starter (INCLUDING Borrego) ran at least 3 points worse than his top, on Ragozin, in the Gold Cup. And the ones other than Borrego ran MUCH worse.
Mathematically, what is the chance of these examples happening with just the small group running in the BC races?
That aside-- I\'ve done this before to make a point, but I\'m going to do it again to make sure it\'s clear:
If you believe those Ragozin numbers, you are saying that if Imperialism ran as \"well\" as he did in the BC (he finished 8th in the Sprint) one race earlier, he would have won the Gold Cup.
You are saying that if Flower Alley had run his BC race one start earlier, he would have beaten Borrego in the Gold Cup by 15 lengths (and the third finisher by 25 lengths).
Same thing for Suave-- he ran fifth in the Classic, and that effort would have won the Gold Cup by 12 lengths.
And of course, you are saying that Borrego ran better when finishing 10th, beaten 10 lengths, than in winning the Gold Cup by 4.
Jerry,
I know you\'ve been busy lately, but I was curious whether you agree with my interpretation that the difference in the philosophies of you and Len (in my post of 11/8 re: Rags rationale) lies in that fact that Len is mainly concerned with sample size while you are more concerned with a representative sample?
Also wondering if you got a chance to look at how the Brisnet class and speed ratings seem to reflect the respective methodologies of you and Len.
Bob
I added a few numbers
Rags ....................................... Thoro
Imperialism 3-8-1-13-4 ............. 1, 2, 1, 2, 1
Flower Alley 3-0-0-15-0 ........ . -1, -2, -2, 5, -2
Suave 5-6-3- 9-1 ................ 1, 2, 0, 0, -1
Sun King 5-5-2-11-6 .............. 0, 0, -1, 2, 2
Borrego 8-5-2- 5-4 ............... 2, 0, 0, -3, 0
Perfect Drift 4-6-1-6-2 .......... 0, 0, 0, 0, -2
Sir Shackleton 9-7-5-3-5 .......... 2, 0, 0, 0, 0
My question is \"What is the probability that these horses not bounce?\"
According to your numbers, they don\'t bounce (hardly ever) which is not believable. Horses are not machines. They are athletes that have ups and downs as any athlete does.
The point of \"if Imperialism ran the 4 in the Gold Cup he would have won\" is nonsense. I guess you would also say if Silver Train ran his 0+ Sheet # for his win the the BC Sprint in the JCGC, he would have won by a mile. Those comparisons can\'t be made. It just doesn\'t make sense.
Jake,
Flower Alley bounced from a -2 to a 5; that\'s a 7 pt. bounce.
Sun King bounced from a -1 to a 2; that\'s a 3 pt. bounce.
Borrego bounced from a -3 to a 0; that\'s a 3 pt. bounce.
Am I missing something, how does Silver Train\'s 0+ in a SPRINT translate to a \"win by a mile\" in the JCGC when the winner ran a -3? Yes, horses aren\'t machines, but the good ones are pretty consistent---that\'s what makes them good and these are the best ones still racing. But please don\'t change your opinion, it helps our prices.
Jake,
If you really want to make a good counterpoint to Jerry\'s posting, then point to a figure or figures that Tgraph gave to a horse that doesn\'t make sense. There are people here that will listen to your point and consider it. This ain\'t the Ragozin board with a bunch of groupies all claiming to hit every race because of Len\'s great figures.... Making a general statement about too many pairups is a statement lots of people here have heard before.
The examples Jerry gave are pretty poignant, even if nobody who uses Rags is listening. Jake, do you really believe that Borrego paired up his JC Gold Cup race in the Breeders Cup? Do you really believe 12 of 13 horses in the Distaff bounced 3 points or more? If you do, that is your prerogative. If the Rags users all believe that, then Len Friedman would do Jim Jones proud, he must have unbelievable personal charisma. You guys are beyond giving \"blind faith\" to the figures. Don\'t they have to make sense to you Jake? I assume if you are paying $25 for a product you have a sophisticated enough level of understanding of the game to see that something makes no sense.
I do believe that the BC Classic was a much faster race than the JCGC.
How Thoro has Borrego reacting from the JCGC to the BC is a # that I disagree with.
How Thoro has Perfect Drift\'s race prior to the BC as a 0 on an off track is another # that I disagree with. Was that effort as good as his Pacific classic race? No.
The 0+ of Silver train was being compared to the 5\" of Borrego (Rag #) not the
-3 of Thoro.
Did Imperialism only bounce 1 point (from a 1 to a 2) from his 7 furlong sprint win off the layoff to his JCGC race? No.
I could go on....
I\'m not saying Rags is 100% correct, but neither is Thoro.
Jimbo,
That is a very fair and \'calm\' response.
Jerry made a very compelling argument. After reading all the facts over the years, I am very impressed with the insights Jerry regularly provides on this site. I am also quite impressed with his willingness to address specific issues such as the recent discussions on the Cal. figs.
Any objective player of \'numbers\' whether they are Beyers, Rags, Fotias, Henry Kuck etc. etc. has to be impressed with Jerry\'s attention to detail, his constant search for the \'truth\' (all the work with watering, cushions, Porcelli etc.).
Some time back, I called the TG office with what I thought was a Sam Houston discrepancy. ( a turf race that looked like Rags Gold Cup--a bunch of horses that all had huge bounce numbers off the same race). They checked it and corrected it ...(it was no big deal). I liked the way they handled the question and the professionalism they exhibited.
As someone who has used both products and has a lot of respect for LF, JH and crew, one would have to be blind not to see that Rags has the Gold Cup plain wrong.
Jimbo\'s suggestion that one refutes Jerry with specific examples is spot on.
This is my first post. I have been betting horses for 40yrs. The first bet I made was at Monmouth I was 5yrs old 5 to win on Mr. Brick he won. I started using the sheets(Rags.) about 15yrs ago.I spent alot of time at Pha.& Garden state with all rags users. I drove from central NJ 70 miles because Norm took good care of his rags customers.I did use TG at times also. I thought rags had better numbers than TG when they were done by hand.I changed to TG when he went to the bound hard copy book.It was a better product & a better deal than rags. IMO this is when TG started to leave rags behind. The discrepancy in the numbers between TG & rags have been going on for yrs.I found this out at Saratoga because I used TG but still new a lot or rags user\'s wanted nothing to do with TG but I still got to look at rags sheets also. I would find big differences in some horse numbers 75% of the time TG would be a lot lower.On TG you would use the horse & rags he would be a toss.The TG horse would run to his number & would win or be in the number.If you had rags you wouldn\'t have the horse.I spent yrs trying to convince the rags people to switch to TG by showing them the discrepancy between the products.I have converted a few but the rags people are very loyal.So the point is TG has left rags in the dust. If rags has been making mistakes for yrs what does that say about his numbers today or tomorrow.For the TG user it is to are benefit if rags doesn\'t have it right.JB keep up the good work & thanks for a great product.
Jake,
the super in the classic paid over $12g. the favorite won, and one of the horses that took money came in 2nd. you say the TG had the Hawthorne GC too fast. well, two horses that came out of that race rounded out that super, one at 14-1, and one at 70-1 (longest shot on the board). do you really want that Haw figure slower? you are less likely to come up with super frolic and the $12g super if you make that race slow.
Michael,
\"do you really want that Haw figure slower?\"
I thought he was implying that the Pacific Classic should be faster and that Perfect Drift ran poorly in the slop at HAW.
Make the P.C. faster and....
PD\'s number in the BC makes more sense.
Super Frolic\'s overall sheet is more consistent.
Borrego looks better coming into the JCGC.
Of course if you did that, someone like me might say that Super Frolic ran \"great\" that day given his trip. Wait a minute I already did that and no one agreed. :-)
Kudos to c.h. and Go horse for their respective threads.
Problem I have is with all the \"handicappers\" on this board.
Yes t.g. has moved to another plateau...and yes its like pulling teeth to convince a raggie (much less flipping one),but why is it so damn important to prove this point when as a raggie has already stated on this board \"if t.g. is so good,why do raggies send so much more money thru the windows?\"
Can\'t you see that winning this battle can only cost us all money down the road?...after all this isn\'t Christianity your fighting about.
PARTYpokerON!
\"If you believe those Ragozin numbers, you are saying that if Imperialism ran as \"well\" as he did in the BC (he finished 8th in the Sprint) one race earlier, he would have won the Gold Cup.\"
Jerry,
I am confused here. Could you elaborate. Thanks.
david,
I agree with you. For a horseplayer, it is way smarter to keep quiet if you have a special insight or information that you believe is more accurate.
For a seller of information, it is way smarter to convince the entire pool of potential customers that your figures are better.
Personally, I think the customers should be stressing the pluses and minuses of the methdologies and not the individual suspect figures. You want to understand \"why\" the figures are different so you can understand whose thinking and method you prefer.
Unfortunately, doing that is very tedious and complicated to explain. It\'s even more difficult for people that haven\'t made figures to understand unless it\'s expressed exceptionally well. Whenever I try it, it isn\'t received very well anywhere. I believe the best approach is somewhere in between the two camps so no matter where I post I am usually pissing someone off and confusing the rest. :-)
Michael,
I think what Jerry is saying is that Rags had the Gold Cup so slow that it could have been won by Imperialism with the same figure he earned in his 8th place finish in the BC Sprint.
Bob
Bob,
What\'s the point? What does the 6f race have to do with the Gold Cup? I must have missed something here.
Michael,
If the same lousy figure he earned running so poorly in the Sprint would have been good enough to win the Gold Cup, there is something obviuosly wrong with the figures. The Gold Cup figure was so low that even the figure earned in a crumby 8th place performance in the Sprint would have topped it. It\'s highly unlikey that this race could have been so slow relative to the other race, hence the figure is suspect.
Bob
Bob,
One race has nothing to do with the other. 6F races will never validate or discredit the accuracy of 10f figures. Failing to address this point, you are simply giving an opinion that Ragozin got the JCGC too slow, with no evidence. While I appreciate your response, I was not looking for other poster\'s opinions on the JCGC figure.
Michael-- Bob did define the point I was making. We all understand that horses can\'t all run all distances (although in this case Imperialism did run third {?} in the Derby at 1 1/4). But in theory identical speed figures are supposed to represent equivalent efforts at different distances. And if that\'s true, what Ragozin is saying is that Imp\'s BC effort (8th) was better than Borrego\'s Gold Cup effort-- if he ran to the same level at 1 1/4 he would have won the Gold Cup by 3 lengths, when you use the fractional points (1 1/2 points better than Borrego\'s Gold Cup).
Bob-- the funny thing is that Davidrex\'s joke about Christianity was more to the point than sample size. As far as I can tell, they do it that way for the same reason that a lot of things in this business are done-- they\'ve always been done that way. Which is why I keep using the word dogma-- I\'m not kidding.
I have not looked at the Brisnet ratings, but the ones that are most similar conceptually in a lot of ways (and take it even further) are TimeForm. Those guys don\'t have fractions to work with, and many races in Europe have false paces, so final time is not relevant. Additionally, they have 3 day meets over screwy courses with hills, and very few races at comparable distances to work with. So they have to go by the horses-- the plus is that almost all races are on turf, and turf horses are very consistent.
\"And if that\'s true, what Ragozin is saying is that Imp\'s BC effort (8th) was better than Borrego\'s Gold Cup effort-- if he ran to the same level at 1 1/4 he would have won the Gold Cup by 3 lengths, when you use the fractional points (1 1/2 points better than Borrego\'s Gold Cup).\"
Jerry,
You say \"if he ran to the same level at 1 1/4\". Horses just don\'t duplicate 6f form at 10f very often. Why mix the two? Are these general performance figures or speed figures?
Michael-- they are performance figures, since they include things like weight and ground. And what Ragozin is saying is that the same level of performance-- by Imperialism or someone else-- that was good enough to finish 8th in the BC Sprint, was good enough to win the Gold Cup by 3 lengths. And remember, Borrego KILLED that field.
But you don\'t have to look at Imperialism\'s 6f effort to get hold of this. The other 4 horses I mentioned ran at 1 1/4 miles both times-- do you think Suave ran well enough in the Classic to win the Gold Cup by 12 lengths?
Meanwhile, here\'s another one. You might recall that I did a pop quiz about Healthy Addiction before the BC-- pointing out that on Ragozin, she was the fastest filly (best top) going into the Distaff, based on her win (by a nose) over Fencelineneighbor in a restricted stake at Del Mar. He gave her 1 1/2 for that effort.
Same as he gave Pleasant Home for winning the Distaff.
Think Fencelineneighbor could have cleared Ashado and the others by nine on her best day?
Jerry,
Thanks for the reply. The explanation that Len overly emphasis the value of sample size in no why conflicts with the explantion that he is dogmatic. He just is very dogmatic in his beleif that a larger sample size is the main thing that matters - that\'s the rationale that he gives in his book. He, therefore, lumps in all the races to get a larger sample. You realize that a representaive sample is more important than just a large one so you\'re not afraid to break races loose to more accurately reflect the conditions present in a particular race.
I see the similarity of your figures with Timeform. They are, in effect, horse to horse comparisons of horses running under the same conditions, i.e. the same race. IMO, This minimizes the effect of weird final times and false paces becuse the main criteria is not the absolute final time or fractions, but instead the relation of the horses times to each other. They are a reflection of a horse\'s performance relative to other horses running under the same conditions. Unless I\'m mistaken, this is a lot like what you do.
Bob
Bob-- Right.
This \"sample size\" question comes up a lot in different forms. Getting a large sampling is the basis for using pars (all 25k claimers), and the whole idea of the \"projection method\" is to get a representative sampling (the horses in THIS 25 claimer). One thing that people who haven\'t made figures generally don\'t realize is that while you usually only use the winners when using pars, you use all the figures of all the horses in a race (to various degrees) when using the projection method, which expands your sample size.
When you start a speed (or performance) figure data base, you have to go with large population averages (pars)-- you don\'t have figures for individual horses to work with. Once you have some broad data to work with, you begin to refine it in the specific (regression analysis, I believe-- Tony?) by using the histories of the horses that run in each race you are looking at.
In essence, Ragozin is making a mistake of logic (which doesn\'t enter into things if it is a matter of faith/dogma). He is using aspects of the broad average (par) approach in specific figure situations-- lumping things together to get quantity, not identical quality.
Michael,
I think the problem is you think that Jerry is saying the a horse who runs a given figure in a sprint is always capable of running the equivalent figure in a route. Of course this is, not true and would not be a valid way to compare figures. However, that\'s not what Jerry\'s point is based on. It\'s based on the assumption that the top level sprinters will run approximately equivalent figures as top routers at the same level. If a methodology gives an 8th place sprinter a better rating than the top finishing router, than the figures are not showing proper equivalence- which is an important purpose of figures.
Let me put it another way. In baseball, an outfielder needs different skills than a 1st baseman but it is still possible to say one is a better ball player than the other. Let\'s say someone has come up with a way of rating players and, according to his figures, a 1st baseman who is in the bottom 10% of the league at his position is rated above the best outfielder in the league. Woudn\'t you think there was something wrong with how this guy was coming up with his figures?
Same principle here - a method that gives an 8th place finisher in a Grade 1 sprint a higher perfromance rating than the winner of a Grade 1 route does not seem very accurate. It\'s either greatly overrating the sprinters or greatly underratting the routers. In this case the additional evidence from other horses in the race indicates that it was the route (the JCGP) figure that was to low.
Hope this clears it up.
Bob
Bob wrote: \"It\'s based on the assumption that the top level sprinters will run approximately equivalent figures as top routers at the same level.\" IMO, a horrible assumption (can of worms there).
I\'m out the door. Good discussion, I\'ll get back...............
I think the issue isn\'t whether a sprint figure should be \"theoretically\" equal to a route figure. IMO, it definitely should be even though they are different horses with different talents.
The questions are whether final time alone tells you how well the horses ran, who measured the final time better, did one of the figure makers incorporate something into his figure that the other didn\'t (which could account for the difference), do you want the figure maker to incorporate others things into the figure besides final time, ground loss and weight.
CH-- as you know, I deleted your previous post. I\'m letting this one stand as an abstract statement. You take one step down the path of making this another self-indulgent discussion of the things you always try to monopolize this board with, and you are gone. Try me.
I am trying my best to have a conversation that deals with \"ALL\" the issues without getting the post deleted or pissing you off, but that is very difficult in an environment where the first causes the other two. The truth is it is impossible to discuss the variant and figure issues here unless it is limited to the parameters that keep everyone from actually understanding ALL the issues.
I was going to try to bring a bit of diversity to the board today by raising the subject of the French riots, the causes and solutions. However, I envisioned the following post in reply, and it just took the wind from my sails:
Most of the posters here haven't studied riots and don't understand the arguments and issues in coming to a proper analysis of their causes. It is too tedious and time-consuming to explain to those who haven't. Whenever I try it, it isn\'t received very well anywhere. When I post I usually anger some people and confuse the rest. My points would get deleted or attacked anyway, and no one would appreciate it.
Oy vey . . .
CH-- Yeah, that\'s the problem. Like I\'ve said before, you\'re a martyr.
I am complaining that you won\'t allow your customers (of which I am one) to discuss ALL the potential issues behind large differences in figures for races like the JCGC. You just deleted one that was short and direct and that didn\'t mention any forbidden topics. Imagine if I got specific.
CH-- I allow my customers to discuss things WITHIN REASON. You fill this board with hot air, constantly and repetitively, and I\'m not going to allow it any more. The people who post and read here are not doing it to listen to you navel gaze and say the same things ad nauseum. If you don\'t get that-- and it is clear that you either don\'t or do not recognize any one else\'s interests as being of any consequence-- tough. I suggest you set up your own website, where you can have further conversations with yourself.
Michael,
So in denying equivalence you are saying that there is no justification in saying that Silver Train, in winning the BC Sprint, turned in a better performance than A Bit \'O Gold did in the Classic, and if somebody gave BOG a better figure than ST it would make sense?
Studies of time and class pars of thousands of races all show that the realtionship of winning times (and speed figures) to class levels hold up across all distances. That means that if the winning figure for the average Grade 1 stake at 10 furlongs is, let\'s say, a 0, the average winning figure for Grade 1 stakes at 6 furlongs will also be 0. Same story for every other commonly run distance. Not speculation, the reasearch bears it out. Figures would lose much of their great utlity if they didn\'t reflect equivalent performances at different distances. Figures would then be no more useful than final times and Jerry, and all the other figure makers, would just be wasting their time.
Hey, Jerry, you haven\'t just been wasting your time, have you? I don\'t think so.
Anyway, be glad to continue discussion, Michael.
Bob
Bob,
re the \"studies\" and \"research\" - sounds interesting. where can i find that info. thanks.
and Bob, we have discussed the evolution of the breed many times on this board. Jerry HAS NOT said that the breed has developed equally at different distances. He has said he is not sure. Therefore, there is no way he would (or possibly could) blindly assign equal figures to top horses at different distances without taking into account what is actually happening on the track.
Michael,
Anyone who makes figures has to first compile a data bank to research and establish the equivalent figures for all distances at every class level.
Beyer in most of his books lists his results as does Quinn in \"Figure Handicapping\". Dr. Quirin, a mathematics professor, conducted a multi-year computer study at his university including over 100 north American tracks and reports them in his books, \"Winning at the Races - Computer discoveries in Thoroughbred Handicapping\", and his later work, \"Thoroughbred Handicapping - State of the Art\". Gordon Pine does an annual compelation of par times for all distances and class levels for all tracks as well, though I\'m not sure if he translates times to figures (it\'s available from the DRF). Charles Carol in \"Handicapping Speed\" gives a very detailed analysis showing the equivalnce of times across class levels and increasing distances.
I\'m sure Jerry himself has such a data base and he can help you with questions about that. Furthermore, from my own experience, when once upon a time I had much more free time, I used to make speed figures and first researched the relationship of times and figures to class. I actaully developed a mathmatical formula to predict equivalent times at different distances and it matched the actual par times and speed figures from results taken from NY tracks across all class levels. This showed that if one correctly compiles speed ratings, they should show the equivalnce of performance for the same class level at all distances.
So yes, the research shows equivalence of performance for a class level across all commonly run distances.
Bob
Michael,
The studies I have done on average winning figure by class/distance suggest that sprint and route figures are equal for each class. Thank goodness for that.
I am less certain about the very highest level - Grade 1 sprinters and routers.
There are way fewer Grade 1 sprints than routes each year. So there are sample size issues.
Also, IMO some horses are better at one or the other but those that are versatile enough to do either (Congaree would be an example) tend to become routers because the purses are bigger, the breeding opportunities are better etc.... So I think the very best routers tend to be a little better than the very best sprinters on average.
I know you have some theories about changes in the breed etc... Perhaps the gap has narrowed or flip flopped.
Bob,
Thanks for the info. Have the times of 10f races improved as fast as the times of 6f races (over the years)? Thanks.
.....
I just bring up the point because here are the fastest (in terms of times) 10f races of all time:
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
look at the dates of those races. if you track down the fastest 6f races of all time, you will find that the races are much more recent. is the breed evolving equally at different distances?
Michael,
Jerry has also NOT said the breed has not developed equally at all distances. If there is research evidence for this supposed disparity, I\'d like to see it.
True evolution can take thousands or millions of years - we are still genetically identical to our Cro Magnon ancestors. You are really refering to the subtle genetic changes brought about by selective breeding over a few generations. Actually, Jerry has not said that the improvement of racehorse is a result of breeding. My take is that modern drugs are a more likely explantion, but I\'ll let Jerry speak for himself on that. I see no evidence that sprint records are falling faster than routes.
Even if one grants that selective breeding for speed is making sprinters faster than routers, the effect of a a few years breeding could in no way create such a disparity that would make a badly beaten horse finishing 8th in a sprint race better than the same level route race daylight winner. Especially since Imperialism isn\'t really that good at 6 furlongs, so his figure should really be even lower than Boreggo\'s, not better as the sheets claim.
It is hardly fair to say that Jerry is \"blindly\" assigning figures when all the research (see my last post) backs up his methodolgy and the equivalance of correctly made speed figures across distances. Especially since his figures come from projections based on the reality of \"everyday racing\".
By the way, in case I\'m sounding like an apologist for Jerry, I do have some other disagreements with his methodologies and am not 100% convinced horses are getter significantly faster (though it\'s possible), let alone faster at some distances than others. That would make the argument against equivalence even weaker.
Bob
Bob wrote: \"Jerry has also NOT said the breed has not developed equally at all distances. If there is research evidence for this supposed disparity, I\'d like to see it.\"
Bob,
You would like to see it? Bob,if you want to blindly give equal figures to top horses at different distances, you need to have research on this subject ALREADY, and it needs to support your theory. Everything you have typed in here is based on an assumption that has no merit. Now you opine that the DEGREE of evolution is too small to account for significant differences, again, with no evidence. Think about it Bob. If you breed a small, speedy Carson City filly to Montbrook, you could get a very fast 6F horse, but are very unlikely to get a very fast 10F horse. If you look at the potential times this horse could put up at those respective distances, we are not talking about miniscule differences. If all of the sudden, the Carson City/Montbrook cross starts to resemble the breed as a whole, you definitely don\'t want to blindly give a \"0\" to the best sprinter and a \"0\" to the best 10f horse. Fortunately today\'s breed does not look like that, but if you look at the way Storm Cat and Mr Prospector blood dominates the game today, you might want to ask the question: \"in terms of equivalance at different distances, is this the same breed we had thirty years ago?\" I don\'t have the definitive answer to that question (just an opinion), so I would be very weary of attaching pars that don\'t move in relation to distance.
Michael,
If all the research I've cited in my post is not evidence of equivalence of figures across different distances, I don't know what is. I am not giving an idle opinion about selective breeding and evolution but speaking from my training in biology including evolutionary genetics and equine breeding. As I said, evolution is a term that biologists correctly apply to changes in a species that take huge periods of time. Selective breeding speeds up the process a bit but breeding could not account for the huge degree of change that would suddenly make a terrible performance in a sprint superior to a winning performance in a route of similar class. To rate it as such is a clear indication that figures one is assigning are out of touch with reality, which is what this thread is all about. Furthermore, even if your unwarranted assumption that's sprinters have become amazingly superior to router were true, Imperialism is by no means a superior horse at 6 F. To say that his performance at this distance would be superior to Borrego's at his best distance is absurd on the face of it.
By the way, I am not saying that the errors in the Rags figures come from his failure to understand equivalence, because he does. That is something every successful figure maker knows. That's why figures are so useful. The problem with the contradiction between the Sprint and Gold Cup has nothing to do with the difference in distance. The same inconsistencies are evident even with races of the same distance. It's a flaw in methodology.
If Jerry would make his figures solely on pars then, yes, the concept of equivalence would be self-serving because it's built into the pars, and though there was equivalence initially, just using pars could perpetuate it. But by using projections this huge shift in equivalence you claim would be evident. Since Jerry is the one actually doing this, I would call on him to explain this even better I could.
Bob
Michael,
\"I don\'t have the definitive answer to that question (just an opinion), so I would be very weary of attaching pars that don\'t move in relation to distance.\"
If you don\'t trust that the classing system is at least reasonably efficient and that the figure pars for sprint and routes being equal for all classes proves the point, there is only one other way I can think of to test it.
You would have to study the small pool of very versatile horses that are winning at the same class running both long and short distances and look at their figures. Within that group, there would probably still be some biases, but it would be a better group to study than the more random groups of sprinters and routers within the same class.
If you find a speed figure pattern within that smaller group, you may be on to something. In other words, if most of the Grade 1 7F horses that have also won Grade 1 races at 10F have slower figures going 10F (or vice versa), there is something worth investigating further.
Michael-- an old friend was in town last night, and I had too much to drink and too little sleep, so I don\'t want to get in a long conversation about this now-- maybe in the next couple of days, if necessary. But a couple of things.
1-- There used to be far more 1 1/4 races than now, which gave horses far more chance to run fast.
2-- you will note tht a lot of those fast times were in California, which used to have lightning fast tracks. That is no longer true-- you don\'t see the fast 6f times there now either.
3-- without getting into a long thing about this, speed chart \"pars\" are originally set up based not on a theoretical relationship between distances, but on averages based on the times horses at similar levels actually run at each distance. To put it differently, if things happen to change the breed to make them not run as well going long, the right thing to do would be to change the pars-- you are supposed to end up with the winning figures for different distances coming out the same. Not for each individual class, and not necessarily with a specific small group of horses, but overall.
\"the right thing to do would be to change the pars-- you are supposed to end up with the winning figures for different distances coming out the same. Not for each individual class, and not necessarily with a specific small group of horses, but overall.\"
You are saying that the time chart would have to be changed if changed relationships could be demonstrated across the entire breed, correct?
That makes sense to me, but it might be more difficult to prove that than to just study specific groups of very versatile horses.
The overall quality of sprinters vs. routers could be different because of different financial incentives and other factors. That might confuse what the relationships should be for versatile horses.
Michael,
Yes, I wouldn\'t be too surprised to see that there have been more current. improvements in 6F times than 10 F times. Part of this is a function that there are increasingly more sprints offered than routes and there are several more opportunities to lower records at the shorter distance. I\'d like to see what the trend is with average times of all races run at these distances is.
You also cannot assume that sprinting and routing are like totally different sports like basketball and race riding, for instance. In B-ball, height is a crucial attribute. The same factor would be an almost impossible handicap to a jockey. There is also not the extreme difference one sees in track where races range from 100 meters to over 26 miles (the dash is less than .002% of the marathon). On the other hand, 6F is 60 % of 10F and almost 70% of 9F. There is a tremendous degree of overlap of common factors, such as stride efficiecy, cardiovascular function etc, so that such a huge improvement in sprinters alone without some correspounding route improvement, enough to account for the absurd inconsistencies of the figures for the Sprint and Gold Cup, is unbelievable.
You see, it\'s not so much as issue of whether or not there has been an increase.
the research I\'ve sited shows that, at least at the time it was done, equivalency held. The question is, not have sprint performances improved recently, but if so, have they done so to such incredible extent vs. routes to justify throwing the principle of equivalences and thinking that the figures for the BC Sprint Vs. the Gold Cup make sense? The answer is clearly no. The research, genetics and physiology all point to this.
Bob
thanks for the response Jerry. just a few things:
1. why were there more 10f races in the past? it\'s not because racing fans like watching shorter races these days. think maybe it\'s because horses are better built to run shorter than they used to be?
2. i\'m pretty sure track speed has nothing to do with historical relationships between times and distances. from the info i can gather, it seems as though times of 6f races have improved at a quicker rate that the times of 10f races. now i did not do a scientific study here, and might not have it right. seems to me this is a critical issue though when discussing the issue of distance pars.
anyway, if we amend your original statment to say \"Imperialism\'s \"performance\" in the BC sprint really wasn\'t as good as the \"performance\" of the winner of the JCGC, and figures which imply that don\'t look right\", i could buy that. i just have trouble with placing horse\'s 6F performances in actual 10f races and saying they would have won that particular race based on their 6f run. this was my only original point, and a valid one at that. hard to believe it got twisted around so easily.
now get home early and get some rest - a lot of good racing tomorrow.
Michael-- my work day is just starting, can\'t go home.
In the broadest sense they don\'t card the long races because they don\'t fill them. That may or may not reflect the horses\' actual ability, I\'m not arguing with you-- I don\'t know.
I wasn\'t saying that track speed has anything to do with distance relationships, although it might (fatigue curves might change with deeper, slower, more tiring tracks). What I was saying is that those California tracks, in those years, gave horses an opportunity to run that particular distance over very fast tracks, and that specific opportunity no longer exists. In fact, there are very few chances for good horses to run that distance on dirt at all.
\"I wasn\'t saying that track speed has anything to do with distance relationships, although it might (fatigue curves might change with deeper, slower, more tiring tracks). \"
IMO, that\'s another good theoretical argument for breaking out races on occasion.
When did they make the rule that says the relationship between varying distances is constant from day to day regardless of whether a track is deep and tiring or hard as a rock?
I never read that rule. Most people just assume that\'s the case.
I\'d be willing to bet the relationship between 1/4 mile and 1 mile is a lot different for me depending on whether I am running at the beach or on a paved highway. I might not even be able to finish at the beach.
In fact, for people that believe in biases like speed favoring tracks etc... there might be an explanation buried in there for why some styles of horses seem to outperform their figures on some days.
Bob,
I have to agree with Michael, that of all the points that Jerry made, the one about Imperialism was one that I gave less credence to.
You mention that you have done research in the field. Logically, What we are doing with the breed in the U.S. should cause a dichotomy between the sprint performances and route performances. We have very few distance sires left, we breed speed over speed now. The thoroughbred is quicker but more fragile and also likely to be less fast over the further distance of ground. Genetics have to have an impact here. It is intentional and tracks have adjusted so that there are less and less 1 1/4 races. More and more horses are found \"wanting\" at the longer distances. Doesn\'t it make sense that under such conditions, the figures for races 1 mile and under should be increasing at a faster rate than races at 1 1/4 and over? It does to me, and to at least some others.
On a related topic, since you have studied gentics and physiology, what do you think the chances are that horse\'s speeds are accelerating year over year at the rate that Jerry has them accelerating? I don\'t want to start that whole thread again, but I am curious as to what you think. Do you think the breed\'s evolution is such that with each new crop we are seeing marked incremental increases in speed like we have seen the past few years? Does it raise your eyebrows at all?
Jim,
Those are good questions and I'll try to give them the thoughtful answers they deserve. The notion that sprint times have gotten drastically better than route times is perhaps possible because of the recent obsession with breeding for speed. However a lot of "common sense" notions don't hold up when subjected to research. To anyone not taught differenty it's "very apparent" that the world is flat and was commonly believed until somebody sailed past the horizon and didn't fall off.
That's why we go to all the time and expense to do research. Just because more sprint records seem to be broken recently than route records can have other explanations. There are more sprints than routes being written so of course there are more chances for sprinters to break records. This is because trainers are less interested in routes, but this may be caused by the false belief many of them have that routes are harder on their horses than sprints, when in fact the faster intense pace of a sprint may be more likely to cause injuries, so lack of staying ability may not be the explanation for the loss of interest in distance races. Besides records are broken by the freakish exceptions which are not always good representatives of the population as a whole. We statisticians call then "outliers" and prefer to compare populations by taking the means or medians and then see if the differences are just caused by normal variability (standard deviations), or are really significant. I'd like to see that kind of study.
The notion that horses have "evolved" dramatically in the last 2 or 3 decades has to be examined carefully. When most people hear the word evolution they think about the huge changes that typically take thousands or millions of years to occur. The effects of selective breeding in a shorter period of time are much less extreme. Yes they have been breeding for sprint speed but I seriously doubt horse breeders, who are still using the traditional philosophy of "just breed the best to the best and hope for the best", would suddenly be producing much faster sprinters than they were able to for the couple of centuries that preceded. I don't think the gene pool is that drastically different. I think of the extent of inbreeding, or the lack of it is a factor, but that's a little too lengthy a topic to get into in one post. Ask me about that later. If horses are indeed faster, I think it has more to do with drugs than genetics. Chemistry has obviously improved over the last few years. If anything drugs are more likely to work by warding off fatigue that would help routers rather than the speed of sprinters.
Even if sprinters were faster, there is considerable overlap in the factors that make a horse good at any distance so, again, a drastic improvement in sprinters over routers is unlikely.
Plus if sprinters were getting faster, the sprint pars would reflect that and the equivalent times for routes could be adjusted to reflect that, and equivalence would be maintained.
I think the most important point is that even if sprinters are getting faster than routers, how can it be to the extent that a poor 8th place finish in a sprint is a better performance than a big win in a route at a similar class level. Especially when the "sprinter", Imperialism, is not really good at 6 panels and the route winner loves the 10-furlong distance, to give Imperialism the better figure is especially absurd. Maybe the 8th place winner in a race of Thoroughbreds is a better runner than the winner in a race of Clydesdales but we're talking about the same species here.
As far as how I feel about Jerry's theory that horses, all horses, are getting faster, I am of 2 minds here. It is possible due to drugs. On the other hand, I think that sometimes Jerry gives a slightly inflated figure, as in the Gold Cup, due to underestimation of the effects of pace. I can hear you all already, " Oh no, now Class is going to chime into this" LOL. Seriously, the effect of speed, like wind, is exponential. KE = ½ MV squared. Kinetic Energy = Mass x Velocity squared. That's why all attempts to quantify it linearly are doomed to failure. That means that slight deviations from level pace (1 sec or so) have little affect either way, and Jerry is correct in ignoring it. Wide deviations, like this year's Derby, are devastating and the "hot pace" designation tells you those close to it are probably screwed. Sometimes we have a middle ground where the pace is very fast, though not insane, but yet faster than some horses used to make the figure are acustomed to. I think in the Gold Cup, Flower Alley, Lava Man and the rabbit bombed and had no part in the determination. However, Suave and Sun King ran significantly faster early than in their top efforts but still were givin credit for close to their tops. I think this may have inflated the final figure. Maybe not a lot, but since figures influence future figures, if this happens often enough, over the years the figures float upwards. Just a possible explanation, like the drug theory. In any case, I don\'t think it\'s genetic.
Bob
Michael D. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> anyway, if we amend your original statment to say
> \"Imperialism\'s \"performance\" in the BC sprint
> really wasn\'t as good as the \"performance\" of the
> winner of the JCGC, and figures which imply that
> don\'t look right\", i could buy that. i just have
> trouble with placing horse\'s 6F performances in
> actual 10f races and saying they would have won
> that particular race based on their 6f run. this
> was my only original point, and a valid one at
> that. hard to believe it got twisted around so
> easily.
Bingo, Michael. By George, you\'ve got it - almost.
That Imperialism\'s performance in the Sprint (as indicated by his figure) should not be better than the winner of the Gold Cup (as indicated by his figure) is EXACTLY what Jerry and I have been saying all along. You cannot believe this however, unless you realize that figures for different races are comparable, regardless of differences in distance. Otherwise, why bother with figures, rather than just working with final times? I think you are confusing this with the assertion that Imperialism could duplicate his 6F figure in the 10 F Gold Cup and win there. That would be incorrect and nobody here is asserting anything of the kind. He obviuosly didn\'t. Figures ARE performance ratings and few horses perform equally well at all distances. We\'re talking about comarability of performances among winners at the same class level accross different distances.
Bob
bob,
I won\'t chime in other than saying your thinking is the same as mine on one of the issues you addressed. :-)
I would like to toss out one question/observation related to genetics/evolution.
How many people out there would prefer breeding to some of the better stallions of today over Seattle Slew, Alydar, Danzig etc... (assuming they were alive and healthy right now) on the assumption that those former great racing and breeding stars were genetically inferior to the horses of today?
Class,
I was just kidding about you chiming in. I was making more fun of the abuse you sometimes take than I was of you. LOL
Sometimes I even agree with you.
As for breeding to the older stallions. If they were genetically inferior, obviuosly, they shouldn\'t be bred to, unless one were looking for a specific trait - stamina, soundness, etc. However, As I\'ve said, I don\'t think the gene pool has changed significantly in the past few years. A possible exception might be for unsoundness. Nasty things seem to get establihed quicker than desirable traits. By breeding for speed over soundness, I think breeders are paying the price in unsound horses without getting as much of the desired benefit of speed.
Nature seems to punish mistakes faster than it rewards attempts at improvement. Throw in the influence of drugs, and horses are running faster on unsound legs.
A recipe for breakdowns.
Bob
Bob,
Jerry said Imperialism would have won the JCGC. Are you even aware of what we are talking about here?
.....
and Bob, just a bit of background here. i asked the original question because Jerry has often used figures in races at different distances to defend past figures. at times he will say a 1m turf figure looks correct because a horse came back to run similar figures at longer distances. at times he will say a 6f figure looks correct because a horse came back to run similar figures at 1m. as much as i disagree with your view on distance pars, this has nothing to do with pars. in a general sense, it does have to do with mixing and matching races at different distances.
Guys-- I want to point out that I never said that genetic improvement was the major factor in improved performance. If it were simply a matter of that, track and field records wouldn\'t be falling all the time. And in general, humans wouldn\'t be far bigger and stronger than they were a hundreed years ago (at 25 years a generation, as opposed to about 1/3 that for horses).
And they don\'t even breed humans for athletic performance.
could you comment on this. you go on to use flower alley and borrego in the same type comparison. you are not giving general performance views, you are placing horses in different races, even giving the number of beaten lengths if they were involved. those were both 10f races, so really no issue there, but what\'s the reason for saying Imp would have won the JCGC with his sprint performance (on Ragozin).
Michael-- I damn sure didn\'t say Imperialism would have won the Gold Cup. I was talking about what Ragozin was saying, and the quote was \"If you believe those Ragozin numbers, you are saying that if Imperialism RAN AS \"WELL\" as he did in the BC (8th in the sprint) one race earlier, he would have won the Gold Cup\". (Emphasis added).
As Bob has been saying (and as I said in an earlier post) we all understand that horses have different distance limitations. Performance figures are not supposed to be used to say that a horse that can run a 4 at 6f can run it at 1 1/4 miles (although in this case, again, Imperialism ran his 3yo top at 1 1/4). What we are saying is that a horse that ran a 4 sprinting and a horse that ran a 4 routing gave equivalent performances. And if you read my original statement in that context, I think it will read differently.
By the way, if we only used figures at the same distance when making figures, we wouldn\'t be able to make figures-- there would not be enough historical data to use. This ain\'t the trotters, where they run a mile all the time.
\"Michael-- I damn sure didn\'t say Imperialism would have won the Gold Cup. I was talking about what Ragozin was saying, and the quote was \"If you believe those Ragozin numbers, you are saying that if Imperialism RAN AS \"WELL\" as he did in the BC (8th in the sprint) one race earlier, he would have won the Gold Cup\". (Emphasis added).\"
Jerry,
You certainly did say Imperialism would have won the JCGC if you accept Ragozin figures (which is obviously what we are talking about here). Why? I would like to think you were talking about performance in a general sense, but in the line below, you make the same type comprison, EVEN GIVING EXACT BEATEN LENGTHS. Again, that was apples/apples, but the Imp comparison is not. When you talk in terms of \"equivalent performance\", like you do in your post here, things are pretty clear.
As for your last point - just comparable conditions is all I look for, not exact same conditions.
We are getting hung up on the \"winning a race with vastly different conditions\" vs \"equivalent performance\" distinction. I get your point, just think things get distorted a bit (a lot at times) if you get away from \"equivalent performance\".
I asked a question earlier, I would be interested in reading your opinion:
\"if the Carson City/Montbrook cross starts to resemble the breed as a whole, you definitely don\'t want to blindly give a \"0\" to the best sprinter and a \"0\" to the best 10f horse. Fortunately today\'s breed does not look like that, but if you look at the way Storm Cat and Mr Prospector blood dominates the game today, you might want to ask the question: \"in terms of equivalence at different distances, is this the same breed we had thirty years ago?\"
Michael-- I said if he (and they) ran as well as they did, in figure terms, on another day.
Michael,
Agreed, I think the discussion digressed because of confusion between the statements that a) There is equivalence of performance at the same class level at different distances, and
b) That this implies that the same horse will show this equivalency at all distances.
As to your question, I am skeptical that the TB gene pool has changed so radically in the last few decades relative to the last 300 years or so of selective breeding. Jerry's research does indicate that horses may have gotten faster overall but not for genetic reasons but, more likely, due to drugs. Moreover, he has observed this improvement in general and not limited to sprints. I have seen no evidence that the average times of sprinters have gotten better relative to the average times of routers. If so, Jerry and all the other figure makers would have seen it in his figures, the same way he saw it overall, and corrected it to restore equivalency. Otherwise the figures would lose almost all utility.
Remember we are not just talking about sprinters getting faster, but that they are getting faster RELATIVE to routers. There is considerable physiological overlap in the factors that make both sprinters and routers better runners (stride efficiency, cardiovascular function, etc.) so it would be very unlikely to be able improve one over the other. In any case, it would take much much longer than improving one trait over an unrelated one.
Even in the unlikely event that sprinters have improved over routers, the probability is near zero that the difference is so extreme as to make an 8th place performance in a sprint better than the winning performance of a router at the same class level.
In short, even if breeders have been breeding more for speed lately:
a) There is no evidence that sprinters have become better than routers in the given time frame.
b) Even if this were so, it could not be enough to make a poor sprinter better than an excellent router.
c) It is inconceivable that figure makers would not have picked this up and adjusted their pars so as to maintain equivalency. As Jerry has said, without the equivalency of performances for each class level, he could not even begin to make figures and I would have no faith in using them.
Hope this answers your question.
Bob
\'If you believe those Ragozin numbers, you are saying that if Imperialism ran as \"well\" as he did in the BC (he finished 8th in the Sprint) one race earlier, he would have won the Gold Cup.\'
Not everybody liked this analogy. I thought it was great. In fact, I used the same logic at CD this year (Derby Day infield). In the first race, a horse named Northern Stag was running. I recall that he was coming off a -5 TG effort. It would have taken many a mint julep for me to believe that this NW1 would fit in well with a horse like Ghostzapper, and as I threw the figs away I could be heard muttering something about the worth of the paper they were printed on...