"Faster than they used to be"

[Michael D.]

ok......  i will drop this, and try to find out on my own if every track in the country is much, much slower than it used to be (i know some are slower because of safety reasons, but it has not been proven that they all are). nice conversation, speak to everyone later.

[TGJB]

Jim-- briefly, because I\'ve shot my whole day doing this--

1-- Beter\'s position is based on an ASSUMPTION about horses staying at the same speed, which is what the use of claiming pars is at heart. This subject came up briefly at the Expo, and if you have the DVD you can see some of his other \"reasons\", which include that there haven\'t been any recent triple crown winners-- you could drive a truck through the holes in that one.And by the way, it\'s unlikely they have spent the time I have thinking about this, and definitely untrue that Andy or anyone else has done as many track days as I have.

2-- I commented on the CD guy in an earlier post in this string. We don\'t have enough information about CD to have a real conversation about this, as I said.

3-- I\'ve posted many times about the horse/human question, and if you read the series in the archives you\'ll see a lot of it. I doubt bears are being selectively bred, fed, trained, and drugged to make them run faster-- although if there was purse money in it and you could bet on it, they probably would be. Also, I doubt that size of the foal crop has increased dramatically with bears-- a point I don\'t think I have brought up before.

It\'s not that I don\'t want to pursue the discussion. It\'s that I don\'t want to pursue it AGAIN. It took me some research and quite a lot of time to write that \"Are Racehorses  Getting Faster\" stuff the first time-- it would help if everyone read it carefully before bringing up issues I\'ve already addressed.

[miff]

Jimbo(knowingly or not) hit close to a good point. The fact of the matter is that horses today have superior nutrition as well as lasix, blue boots, jugs, nebulizers etc (drugs aside)Many of these \"today\" items \"help\" a horse but were not available 20-40 years ago.

If you have been close to the game for the last 20-40 years, it is impossible to conclude that the so called faster horses of today could even compete on par with the truly great/fast horses of years past Like Secretariat or Dr.Fager to name a couple.

Go the Hall Of Fame archives and give an unbiased common sense look at the replays of SEC or FAGER and then see if you think that Mineshaft or GZ would even  be competitive, with their big minus TG figs, against them. I saw them all and I wish I could bet on the \"slower\" horses of yesterday, all things being equal.

Horses may be getting faster TG FIGS today but no way are they faster, IMO.

>1-- Beter\'s position is based on an ASSUMPTION about horses staying at the same speed, which is what the use of claiming pars is at heart. <

Are we 100% sure about this?

1. \"We\" know for certain Beyer makes projection based figures for all the major circuits the same as TG, Rag etc....  He does not use par times for major circuits, only minor circuits. So if the horses were getting faster, so would his figures.

2. \"I\" know for certain he spot checks figures for horses changing circuits by using his/drf computer database of figures.

3. \"I\" have never seen him adjust a whole series of figures down to bring them back in line with the claiming pars. His figures would also get faster over time unless he  occasionally went back and downgraded them to bring them in line with pars.

Like I\'ve said repeatedly, you\'ve made an excellent case that horses are getting faster in general.

However, I think there is no clear evidence about whether or not sprinters are getting faster relative to routers. If you have long term pars for stakes horses in sprints vs. routes I\'d lke to see them.

I also think there are aspects of your methodolgy (based on your expressed handicapping beliefs) that in my mind could bias your figures towards getting faster. Maybe you are right, but your figures are getting faster at too fast a rate relative to the improvement of the horses. I think you should consider some of the pace, quality of competition, and bias issues that many handicappers swear by that if correct would be biasing your figures towards getting faster via your exclusion.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

Michael D. wrote:

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

Mike the whole genesis of speed figures is that a 2:03 at 10 marks is sometimes the equivalent or better than a 2:00 flat. Now, I realize theres lots of lengths between those two final times on the same speed track, but track speeds are not consistent. What are you argueing? I accept the premise that a professional figure maker has a better grasp of how fast/slow a surface is playing. If you don\'t accept that premise the alternative is to dismiss speed figures entirely.

I will concede this: The fewer two turn races in the days sample the more a fast two turn race figure is subject to attack. Theres something else too. Horses are clearly getting faster. Why shouldn\'t they? Add to the process of the genetic and nutritional search for speed, the chemical search for performance and they are clearly faster. Which is not to say that a modern day Secretariat wouldn\'t still beat them all. He\'d be the beneficiary of the same advancements.

CtC



Post Edited (11-15-04 19:51)

[Catalin]

Consider the contrary position. With all the improvements in training, nutrition, shoeing, medication (legal and otherwise) horses are NO faster than when Beyer starting making his figures 30 years ago.

Does that make ANY sense to anyone out there?

[Michael D.]

CtC,
the CD track super (a veteran of 28 yrs) says the CD surface is not any slower than it was ten years ago, in fact it might be faster. look at the TG figs at 10f (from the past ten years). look at the times of the 10f races. what point am i making?? are you serious?? doesn\'t anybody who spends a few thousand $ a year on the TG product care that longer distance times around the country are not getting much faster, and TGJB can not give any evidence that the tracks (all of them) are getting slower, yet he is making today\'s horses ten, sometimes twenty lengths faster at these distances?? the right answer?? i have no idea to be honest, but doesn\'t anybody out there want just a little bit of proof? just a little bit?

[jimbo66]

Class Handicapper, you make a good case.  Granted, since JB is making figures for 10 tracks a day, he has insight that others of us don\'t have.  But I think it is fair to say that one of two key \"flaws\" in his methodogoly would have the potential to skew the figures.  

Just another point, which admittedly is not scientific in nature.  In 2004, Jerry gave out the fastest figure to any 3 year old EVER to Smarty Jones and also the fastest figure EVER to any horse in Ghostzapper.  Even if we accept the fact that there have been incremental changes in racing surfaces over the past 30 years, do we really think that there is enough change from 1 year to the next to overcome the statistical anomaly that we would have the fastest 3 year old every and the fastest horse ever, in the same year.  Does anybody out there really believe that Smarty Jones was the fastest three year old of all time?  This has turned out to be an awful group of 3 year olds as none has established themselves against older horses and outside of smarty, the group is pretty non-descript.  

Without doing my own research (which admittedly is the lazy way out), it is easier for me to believe CH\'s thesis that there are some fundamental flaws in T-Graph logic that is leading to horses getting faster too quikly on Jerry\'s figures, than it is to believe that we have the fastest 3 year old of all time and the fastest horse of all time in 2004.

[kev]

Here are some track records (year) from the end of 2003, at 10.0F

Aqu 1968  CD 1973   GP  1984
Arl 1977  Del 1987  Haw 1970
Bel 1991  Dmr 2003  Holly 1985
BM  1968  Ell 1988  Kee 1993
Lrl 1996  Mth 1962  Pim 1988
SA  1980  Sar 1979  Woodbine 1996

In 1990 there was 547 races ran 10F or longer and in 2003 there were only 400.
From 1992 to 2003 races more than 8.0F, beyer had 7 out of the top 10 was in 1997 the fastest.
Thats the top ten, but now you can add in GZ number on top. The highest he had Mineshaft fig was a 118 and rank real low on the list.
Fastest 2yr 2002 TRUST N LUCK 110
\"     \" 3yr 2000 CONCERNED MINISTER 121 and ROCK AND ROLL
\"     \" sprint 1999 ARTAX 124
\"     \" Turf   1996-99-2001 a 118
Just a little fun fact time.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

Michael D, I do know the day Secretariat ran his blistering Belmont Stakes the track was wicked fast and I don\'t mean to take that away from Secretariat. He went in 2:24, no other Belmont winner has been able to go faster than 2:26 raw time.

Look at Ghostzappers Woodward

45:3
1:08:3
1:33:1
1:46:1

He came home a little slow, but those fractions are motoring. I have to defer to Jerry here because I did not break this card down. But the Woodward is a one turn race. If Jerry says its a negative 6, from what I can see here, I tend to believe him.

Jimbo made a very good point and its the statistical likelihood of having the fastest 3yr old and fastest older horse both pop record performance figures in the same year. This would be an anomoly in past years and you can add to that a Horse ran GZ to a dead tight finish in that negative six Woodward. Its clear we have a dilemma. The question of course is: \"Whats going on here?\" Is Jerry ready for the old folks home? OR Are some horses running out of their hooves? And not to further confuse, but has anyone asked themselves if GZ and RIM really were that much better than Pleasantly Perfect?

Finally, consider this: Two of those monster efforts were by the unusal suspects and then theres Romans and Servis. Should we be keeping our eye on them? And what about Zito? Is he suddenly coming up with a golden touch?

[Michael D.]

CtC,
i guess i just need to know why \'bid ran 1:57 and change (i think), and is so much slower than today\'s horses. if somebody could give me some info about the SA strip, and why it was that many lengths faster than it is today, i would be very happy. i\'m not asking for a lot here.

[RICH]

if that bear today was being trained by \"one of those guys\" He would be BIGGER and FASTER than the bears of 20 yrs ago.

>Consider the contrary position. With all the improvements in training, nutrition, shoeing, medication (legal and otherwise) horses are NO faster than when Beyer starting making his figures 30 years ago.

Does that make ANY sense to anyone out there?<

Does it make any sense that 3yos used to be able to run a prep race between the Preaknes and the Belmont and finish off the season soundly after another 10 races and now after 5 or so races they are carted off in a wagon dead for the season?

I think both the breed and the training has changed. It doesn\'t make much sense to me that horses are not getting faster (especially sprinter/milers), but I find the rate we are seeing now on TG highly suspicious because I can identify things in the methodology that produce a \"faster\" bias.

Chuckles,

>If Jerry says its a negative 6 (ghostzapper), from what I can see here, I tend to believe him.<

It was a -6 based on the methodology Jerry uses. However, there were 2 contributers to that -6 that are suspect.

1. IMHO, the outside paths were a bit faster than the inside paths that day. So if you lost ground, it didn\'t cause you to run slower. A chunk of ghostzapper\'s -6 was ground lost. He ran WAY OUT on the track.

2. That pace was too fast for a couple of the other less talented contenders. It caused several of them to be beaten by a little more than expected based on their figures coming in.

Once you give him the -6, you then use that -6 to help determine the next figure. If you are doing things like that for all the horses their figures will keep getting faster.

Jerry will argue that all the figures fit perfectly, but IMO that is because he is \"always\" building his beliefs about the lack of impact from pace, quality of race, competitive battles, and bias issues into his track variants and thus biasing the figures faster.

If I am correct, it\'s not really a handicapping issue because TG\'s figures are better than the others and because the \"faster\" bias develops so slow it doesn\'t impact gambling results. It just impacts generational comparisons.



Post Edited (11-16-04 09:55)

[miff]

JB,

I am a long time student of the game and TG user, as you are.In the first instance, the physical attributes of horses today vs generations past have NOT changed like humans(taller, heavier, stronger).The comparison of new/old generation humans(Jesse Owens) would be reasonable, but not horses. I have observed horses close up and they are physically the same for the most part.

We are all aware of the current \"move up\" drugs etc however who are these horses who are TEN LENGTHS faster than SEC,FAGER,SLEW and many others.It\'s easy to voice an opinion of todays horses being faster, but one should be able to show some examples.

Incidentally, the idea of it being impossible to compare horse generations is a little   weak since there are volumes of refernce data going back. Human comparison I agree is too subjective.

I would be interested to hear your thoughts.

Mike