"Faster than they used to be"

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

classhandicapper wrote:


>
> 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.
>

Firstly, generational comparison is a nice thought. Practically, (even for a figure man), its not feasible for all the reasons we are pouring over. Great horses are great horses in their era. Thats about as far as you can take it. How many big races did they win against their contemporaries. I\'d remind everyone that despite his Triple Crown and track records, Secretariat was very mortal on some days. He was impressive in the Belmont and otherwise good when it counted and thats why we remember him. So, maybe I can\'t say that Ghostzapper is NOT the new Doc. But, I\'m still a fan and I said it.

Regarding the figure making. Lost ground is lost ground. It results in running more distance. If the Belmont rail was dead, (all the jocks in the colony know it goes bad there at times), T-Graph will note it in their sheets. I agree however that unless the dead rail is caught it can impact the figures. Especially when the \"projection method\" is used. There needs to be a certain amount of correalation with the other days races, but I believe TGJB looks carefully at that, especially on a day when he assigns a negative six.

I also agree that pace or lack thereof and track bias can result in aberration figures. I agree that once you assign an \"apple\" and that apple is \"bad\" it can impact subsequent performance figure apples, spoiling some along the way. I favored Birdstone to run big in the Belmont in part for these reasons. (Still didn\'t cash)

Time will tell. If Ghostzapper stays sound and really is a negative six horse he\'s gonna demolish the horses he faces next year. If he\'s not hes gonna get beat and that defeat will probably come at 10 marks. I\'m planning two speeches. The one I hope to give is \"I told you so, I\'m the greatest ever\", but I\'ve been wrong enough with T-Graph to know I have to have my concession speech ready. I hope the others here doubting the negative sixes will be as prepared to concede too.

One last item. How do you quantify the cheating?



Post Edited (11-16-04 11:17)

[twoshoes]

CH,

Frankly yes. Speed is bred to speed far more today looking for the Classic distance runner than it was at that point. Add to that the fact that allowing Grade I runners to race on lasix had a tremendous effect on the breeding industry. They were in fact free to roll the dice with animals that weren\'t capable of handling the rigors of the type of campaign you mention. Medication was an out. I\'m no expert, but in my opinion we are seeing the result of -
1) Breeding more for speed and less for stamina and the things (infirmities)that inherently come with that.
2) Medication and nutritional advancement
3) The likely increase in foul play that comes with a masking drug like lasix.

All in all it makes sense to me that Jerry is probably right and that given the above we are seeing the breed as a whole somewhat faster than it was years ago and also more fragile.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

twoshoes wrote:

>
> All in all it makes sense to me that Jerry is probably right
> and that given the above we are seeing the breed as a whole
> somewhat faster than it was years ago and also more fragile.
>

Agreed

CtC

[jimbo66]

CtC and Twoshoes,

Speed is bred to speed far more today.  Yes.

Horses are more fragile today.  Yes.

Drugs can impact performance.  Yes.

Conclusion - Jerry is probably right and horses are much faster today.  No way to get here from the first three points.  Especially not at 10 marks.

Horses are bred with more sprint pedigree influences and many precocious pedigrees as well, with all the money to be made in 2 year old races.   But to assume that building more speed into the breed and less stamina, would result in horses running 10 marks at speed figures representing 10 lengths faster than the last generation, is not a conclusion that I can draw.  And I don\'t see how you can draw it.

I don\'t know why you don\'t see how critical it is that the Superintendent at Churchill Downs saying the track is the same or FASTER now than it was 20 years ago, is a HUGE problem for Jerry\'s thesis.

[HP]

Here\'s what the track supe at Churchill said in the article.

\"As far as making tracks deeper now as compared to 20 years ago, I don\'t necessarily believe that,\" Lehr said. \"If anything, it\'s the opposite. I\'ve been here a long time and, at Churchill, we haven\'t done anything to change the track.\"

A few things spring to mind, but if I was writing this article I would\'ve asked a follow up question.  He says, regarding \"making tracks deeper,\" -- \"if anything, it\'s the opposite.\"  Does that mean the track has less cushion?  And if it\'s \"the opposite\" as he says, how is it that they \"haven\'t done anything to change the track.\"

As it stands, I\'m not sure I know what this guy means...because there seems to be some contradiction between these two sentences...  

HP

[twoshoes]

Jim - I didn\'t draw that conclusion. You have a stunning ability to read right past the point. I wrote - \"we are seeing the breed as a whole somewhat faster than it was years ago and also more fragile.\" I did write that I thought Jerry was right but I have no way to quantify to what degree. I wrote somewhat with regard to the crops as a whole - I\'ll leave the degree to which that is the case to the experts. I don\'t make figures and I\'m not qualified to comment, but if I thought Jerry were way off base I would never use the product. I do. It\'s only my opinion but I think there is ample evidence to support it.

[TGJB]

If I start dealing with every point everyone makes I will get even less work done today than yesterday, and again, it would be nice if everyone read carefully the original series in the archives-- you could see what the scientists in England came up with, for example.

But just a note on CD-- as I said, I would like to know exactly what the super was asked, and what he said. As I mentioned in the series, there are a number of things that have been changed at the NYRA tracks-- depth of cushion, depth (and material) used for the base, and soil content (notably percentage of sand and clay). From what I have been told, that percentage was also changed at least once and possibly as many as 3 times at CD over the last 15 years or so. And from what I\'ve been told virtually all tracks have a higher sand content than those of the 70\'s and 80\'s, which will slow times down when the tracks are dry. Those of us who were playing horses back then remember that when it rained, tracks would get MUCH slower, and stay that way for days as they dried out-- you don\'t see those soupy tracks any more, and the reason is the percentage of sand.

[jimbo66]

Twoshoes,

Jerry\'s figures say that horses are running 10 lengths faster at 10 marks than they did 20 years ago.  

When you say you agree with Jerry, it seems you are agreeing with that assertion as well.

As for not using the product if you thought he was wrong about this, I am not sure it is relevant.  Comparing horses from one generation to the next might make for interesting debate, but the reality is that we only need Jerry to be right about how horses are running NOW against each other and whether the relative scale is off versus 20 years ago, is really not that relative to using T-Graph for races that are happening today.

And thanks for recogning my \"stunning ability\" to read past the point....

Chucles,

>I agree however that unless the dead rail is caught it can impact the figures<

That\'s a key point.

Sometimes if a jock sticks a horse in the 4 path he will run just as fast as if he was on the rail even though he ran further by being outside. Sometimes the inside is death. Sometimes the outside is death.

>How do you quantify the cheating?<

I can\'t.



Post Edited (11-16-04 15:49)

twoshoes,

I agree with you completely. Both the breed and the training are changing. I just think it is mistake to assume that it is all for the better/faster - especially at different distances.

Second, are we really sure we have better stock now?

Many of our better yearlings are exported to Europe, Japan, and elswhere to race.  So are some of our better stallions.

I think it might also make sense to look at the foal counts. If they are declining or increasing that could have an impact on overall quality.



Post Edited (11-16-04 15:53)

[TGJB]

CH-- I respect your opinions, and as you know in some areas I don\'t necessarily disagree with you. But you are inadvertently creating a situation that\'s a problem for me-- I\'ve addressed your points many times before, and as you continue to post the same positions here I\'m faced with the choice of taking the time to answer them at length every time you post them, or letting them stand unanswered, which could make those who haven\'t been around here for long think there is no answer. I don\'t like either choice, and I don\'t like the third one, either.

Listen, I like the theoretical discussions and I\'m glad they are taking place here, and I appreciate that you think we make good figures. Just do me a favor and don\'t pose things as \"flaws with TG\"-- keep it theoretical.

TGJB,

No problem. Understood.

I find these discussions stimulating so when they do come up I do like to participate -even if it gets repetitive.

[twoshoes]

Jim - You\'re welcome. All kidding aside, it\'s clear you\'re passionate about these things and that\'s a good thing. As to your comment above - I do think it\'s relevant. The same methodology that has horses getting faster is used to make these figures every day and I tend to trust it based on my experience. From Are Horses Getting Faster - \"The best way to compare horses from generation to generation is through using accurate performance figures, since their whole purpose is to compare horses which run on different days, over different tracks. The one caveat is this: you can't do it with figures that use claiming pars that anchor the data base in place by ASSUMING that the breed does not improve over time. That becomes a self fulfilling prophecy by definition—if you decide the claimers can't improve (particularly ridiculous given the move-up trainers), the figures for the stake horses can only improve if they get better RELATIVE to the claimers.\" That makes sense to me and I \'ll leave my contribution to this string at that.

Mark

[jimbo66]

That is a good point Mark, the one that you made pointing out that if you assume claiming pars don\'t/can\'t improve, then the only way horses get faster is if stakes horses improve relative to claimers.  That doesn\'t make sense.  I agree.

Maybe the answer is in the middle though.  Figures are moving faster quicker at T-Graph than at Beyers or Rags.  Maybe horses are getting faster, but not necessarily at the rate that Jerry is showing.

I am stealing a comparison from Michael D. on this board, but do you really believe that War Emblem\'s 2:01.3 on the lead a few years ago is 10 lengths faster than Unbridled\'s 2:02.0 while wide in 1990.  We are only talking about 10 years ago, not generations ago.  Do you really believe that Smarty Jones is the fastest 3 year old ever?

>do you really believe that War Emblem\'s 2:01.3 on the lead a few years ago is 10 lengths faster than Unbridled\'s 2:02.0 while wide in 1990.<

As far as I am concerned he was fast enough. I ran a -11 on the way to the cashier. :-)



Post Edited (11-16-04 16:24)