"Faster than they used to be"

[jimbo66]

I give up on the ROTW thread.

Finley\'s article on the DRF quotes Jerry and a few others regarding the debate as to whether horses are faster than they used to be.  Jerry taking the side that they are much faster.  

I hear Jerry\'s point and don\'t have the information or inclincation to agree or disagree.  

But, if Jerry is right about the track cushion, why is the Superintendent at Churchill saying that the assertion about the track surface is not true, that it hasn\'t changed in the 20 years since he has been there.  

It would seem to me that he has no ulterior motive to lie (at least none that I can think of).

I kind of find the third person\'s opinion that sprints are getting faster but routes are not, to be interesting.  Sounded a bit stupid at first thought, but you keep hearing from breeders and breeding experts that the current breed of horses in the US are much more speed oriented and very little stamina and durability is in the breed.  

Probably not valid to make this comparison.  But I for one, find it much easier to believe that Barry Bonds is a superior home run hitter to Hank Aaron, than to believe that Smarty Jones is faster than Secretariat was.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

You can\'t take Secretariat\'s Triple Crown or his track records away from him. Smarty had a chance to be mentioned in the same breath and he proved mortal at the distance.

Distance is what seperates good horses from the great ones. I believe theres a lot of truth in the notion that the modern horse is quick short but lacking long. Unfortunately, Ghostzapper ruined my parade, but I still think the score is going to be evened with that horse. The longer the race the better my handicapping generally is. I still can\'t believe the only time our horses see 12 marks on dirt is in June at three years old. The Breeders Cup Classic should be 12 marks and the preps will follow.

CtC

[TGJB]

Can\'t find the Finley article on the DRF site. Where is it?

[jimbo66]

espn.com

not DRF.

[Michael D.]

so far, the only evidence you have provided backing up your theory that today\'s horses run 10f and longer a lot faster than they used to is a CONVERSATION WITH A SINGLE TRACK SUPERINTENDENT. every professional in the biz knows that today\'s horses are bred more for speed as opposed to stamina than they used to be. i want to believe your theory, but you really need to provide some evidence (please do not direct me towards older posts, they say nothing).

[TGJB]

As far as the Finley piece goes:

1-- I would like to know exactly what the questions were to the CD track super. In either 2000 or 2001 a higher percentage of clay was added, enough to be visible to the naked eye and change the color of the track according to Elliot Walden. That was also when the times for the Derby started getting faster again, which is either because of the change in track surface or because the horses were getting faster, take your pick. Point being, if he didn\'t tell Finley that, what other things were left out-- it\'s not all about cushion depth. It\'s also about soil content, moisture etc.

2-- The stat about number of fast times at longer distances is misleading for several reasons, one of which is that the number of longer races has diminished, and another of which is that a lot of the longer races are run at Belmont, which is clearly a lot slower.

3-- Michael, again, I\'m not interested in proving anything to you. I\'m interested in making accurate figures, and I\'m reporting what I have found while doing it. I know what\'s happening by the methods I use to measure track speed-- what we\'re talking about here are the possible reasons for it.

[Michael D.]

if the number of longer races has diminished then common sense dictates that HORSEMEN AND TRAINERS ARE NOT BREEDING AND TRAINING THEIR HORSES TOWARDS THOSE RACES AS MUCH AS THEY USED TO. SO: WHY WOULD THEY BE RUNNING THESE RACES A LOT FASTER?? JUST DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. AND THERE YOU GO AGAIN, POINTING TOWARDS A SINGLE TRACK SUPER AND A SINGLE TRACK SURFACE TO MAKE A CASE FOR EVERY HORSE AND EVERY TRACK IN THE COUNTRY. I am just pointing out that you need to get track superintendents all over the country to say that tracks are a lot slower than they used to be, or else the longer distance #\'s that you give out today just don\'t jive with the ones you gave out ten, or even five years ago (unbridled getting a positive \"4\" for his derby run, and war emblem gets negative \"0.5\"??)

[TGJB]

1-- You are making an assumption about the breeding part, and the horsemen are definitely buying and training towards the classics, to the point of burning up horses doing it.

2-- I mentioned a specific track super because he was the one quoted in the article.

3-- Again, I don\'t need to do anything at all unless I care about convincing you, which I don\'t. What you don\'t get is that I measure track speed for a living-- that\'s how I know it\'s happening. And by the way, I gave Finley another quote which he didn\'t use, which concerns why other figure makers (specifically Beyer) don\'t have horses running faster-- it has to do with using fixed pars for claiming horses as a base. If you assume that the average horse is not getting better it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. I also pointed Finley to Porcelli, but he was clearly looking for something he could use on the other side. Which is fine.

Amazing how those swimming pools get faster at every Olympics.

[HP]

The idea that horsemen/trainers are, as per Michael\'s quote, \"NOT BREEDING AND TRAINING THEIR HORSES TOWARDS THOSE RACES AS MUCH AS THEY USED TO,\" does not strike me as 100% accurate.

Although I might not know as much about breeding, etc. as some who post here, I can\'t recall coming across too many articles about horsemen/trainers who want to pay a fortune for sprinters.  Most of what I read involves a quest for a horse who can win The Big Ones (Derby and Other Spring 3yo Classics and BC Races -- Only One Of Which Are A Sprint).  This is still The Dream.  

I think I know what Michael is driving at since I would agree that the last few decades have seen an increase in sprint-types vs. stamina-types -- but I would argue that horsemen and trainers are still very conscious of getting some stamina for their money.  Certainly U.S. breeders have made different decisions than the Euros...  But if you want to talk about common sense, ask the guys who spend money at the yearling sales if they want a Grade I sprinter or a Derby horse and see what they say....  I\'ve only been to one sale (at Ocala) and I think I have a \"common sense\" answer to this question.  So the idea that horsemen/trainers are not focused on this type of horse is at least debatable.  

Also, since we\'re talking about common sense, if you\'re going to argue that Jerry is wrong about this -- since horses are NOT getting faster they are either

1) the same speed as they were 20/40 years ago

or

2) slower than they were 20/40 years ago.

I may argue that horses are not THAT much faster than they were 20/40 years ago (a matter of DEGREE), but I can\'t argue points (1) or (2) with any conviction.  Judging by the performance records in most sports I follow (incl. that interesting track and field argument from awhile ago on this board), most athletes seem to be getting a little better over time.  How they are getting better is a separate argument!  But the idea that horse racing is in a separate universe, and horses are either staying the same speed or slowing down doesn\'t make sense.  

I would love to see someone make the opposite argument -- based on either (1) or (2) above...  

HP

I think Jerry has made an excellent case that horses are getting faster. However, I think TG figures are getting faster faster than horses are actually improving.

I think this is due to methodology.

I think ignoring the negative impact of pace on the final time of some races plus giving out faster figures to horses that run wide on tracks where it\'s often the best place to be (or neutral at worst) has the long term impact of slowly inflating figures.  

I base this opinion primarily by watching the main stakes horses and races, but I suspect it is true in general throughout the country.

IMO, there are sometimes figures given to horses that are inflated due to large margins that are the result of the negative impact of pace on some contenders. Those inflated  figures then bias/influence the projections of future figures.



Post Edited (11-15-04 16:54)

[Michael D.]

 care to comment on the unbridled vs WE figs? how about the positive \"3.5\" you gave AP Indy for winning the \'92 BC classic at GP in 2:00.00, while giving a # well into the negative range to a horse that won a 10f stake in around 2:03 at GP a year or two ago. answers to these questions would prove your point (a point that very well could be correct, but one which must be questioned). and again, saying that one track superintendent told you that some tracks have gotten slower will not prove your point...... and by the way, forget me, i can\'t imagine you are proving anything to anybody on the issue of these long distance #\'s.

[Michael D.]

hp,
correct, many horsemen go to the sales looking for derby winners, but just look at the big races these days. many more big races are run at 9f today, when years ago you saw most of the major races at 10f and 12f. this COULD be the reason why many of the 10f and 12f track records were set years ago (or it could be that every track in the country is much slower than it used to be. has not been proven either way yet).



Post Edited (11-15-04 16:55)

[TGJB]

Comment on what? I must have said in 50 different posts that the way you know how fast the track is is by seeing how fast horses run over it compared to how they have run in previous races. This is how we do it on a day to day basis, and it\'s how we compare horses who have run over different tracks, on different days, under different conditions. It\'s also how you compare horses from different eras.

Michael, do your own homework, and stop asking me to do it for you. My \"comments\" are the figures I make for a living, and have had a considerable amount of sucess using, most publicly in buying and managing horses. I know they are right because I see how they work internally. You don\'t get to see that, and want to come at it a different way, fine-- do some research. I\'ll be interested in seeing what you come up with. Keep in mind that NYRA (and especially Porcelli) are a lot more evolved than most, and many may not have a coherent strategy, good records, or someone who has been there long enough to know or who is willing to talk. As I mentioned once here, I did have a conversation once with the track super at a MAJOR racetrack (big enought to host the BC) who told me the track gets faster as the day goes on because \"the horses are faster later in the day\".

But let me ask you this-- we know that NYRA has made significant changes over the last 20 years that have had the effect of significantly slowing the tracks down (detailed in \"Are Racehorses Getting Faster\", archives). Does it stand to reason that the leader in the industry would be the only one behaving this way? Do you think tracks don\'t look at what each other are doing? Do other businesses work that way?
Remember-- they are not thinking in terms of speed, they are thinking in terms of safety. Do a search here for Porcelli\'s interview with Charlie Moran to see how much heat they get from horsemen.

[HP]

Michael,

What you say is true, but...

are these guys able to walk around and say, \"hey, that one looks like a good 9f horse, but he won\'t make 10-12f.\"

or do they say

\"hey, that one may be able to run all day.\"

I think you\'ll get more of the latter (especially when there is big money on the line).  I don\'t think they shave it that close.  If they think a horse has stamina, they think he can get 10f if they think he can get 9f.  I could be wrong...  

On a slight tangent, in my observation, quite a few horses have won at 9f (and 10f) over the past few years and at first glance at their pedigrees, you might say, \"hey, that horse can\'t get the distance...\"   So maybe the \"speed\" slant in breeding is being further encouraged by the success of some of these unlikely....successes!  

In terms of the larger question, Jerry looks at every track every damn day, and I\'ve got to believe his overview has some merit based on his experience.  Every figure maker has to make \"the leap\" with that subjective final variant, and I have some amount of faith in Jerry on this since I have gotten positive results with his data over a period of years....  Other than that, it\'s probably impossible for me or anyone else to conclusively prove this case, except for some of the \"common sense\" points I made above.

HP

[jimbo66]

Jerry,

Not sure why the comment about \'not caring to convince anybody\'.  I would have thought this thread would be more interesting to you.  

I have no opinion on this, but am a very curious bystander.

Yes, you are a \"figure maker\", so your opinion carries weight, you make figures for a living.

But, Andy Beyer and his group are also figure makers and they make figures for a living, so their opinion carries weight too.  They presumably have spent a similar amount of time as you have and come up with a different conclusion.  

You point a lot to Jerry Porcelli.  I don\'t know him and I am willing to give him \"expert\" status, but the Finley article quotes a guy with same job at Churchill Downs.  He presumably is an expert also.  The fact that they seem to disagree, makes thsi debate worth having and at least \"questionable\".  

As for the human being - animal correlation, that is questionable too, as proof.  Human beings are quicker/faster/stronger because of advances in nutrition, training technology and regimens and other reasons.  Not sure horses reap the same benefits as humans and especially not sure if it happens at the same rate.  Are bears bigger and stronger than they were 50 years ago, do eagles have better vision, ??

This whole topic and your view, which is contrary to Beyers, if proven correct, would seem to be a bit of a coup d\'etat for you.  

But \"I am Jerry Brown and I do figures for a living\" isn\'t enough substantive evidence.  

But your choice whether you want to pursue the discussion.
 
At least it should be more interesting to you than the ROTW discussion.........