"Faster than they used to be"

Here\'s some stats on crop sizes and imports/exports of horses.

http://www.jockeyclub.com/factbook.asp?section=12


http://www.jockeyclub.com/factbook.asp?section=5


Source:

http://www.jockeyclub.com/factbook.asp



Post Edited (11-16-04 16:23)

[twoshoes]

Well there you have it - Classhandicapper is 10 lengths faster than Ghostzapper at 10 marks. I\'m glad this string got us somehwere.

[twoshoes]

   

Jim - That wasn\'t my point it was Jerry\'s taken from the original string on this subject. Have a look in the archives. It\'s worth the read.

Mark

[P.Eckhart]

Maybe you are refering to something other survey, but if it was the irish one using timeform, I thought their conclusion was that poorer horses were now better, not that the best horses were now better which I thought was the point of this debate.

Don\'t think they could argue that anyway on the basis of ratings given the top 6 timeform ratings are from the 1940\'s 50\'s & 60\'s.

[TGJB]

I quote the article in question (it\'s a study, not a survey) extensively in the \"Are Racehorses Faster\" posts that can be found in the archives. It was done by some pretty serious guys, and appeared in Scientific American.

I have to say that a lot of you guys (not you, P.E., you\'re just coming in) are taking the lazy way out here, which is annoying considering the amount of work I put into the original posts. If you want to challenge my conclusions, read the damn series so you understand the logic, which deals with most if not all of the issues raised here recently. Michael (or anybody else), if you want info about specific tracks go do your own research.

I did some for the articles, and not so that I would know what was going on-- I knew that from looking at data day to day that you guys never see. I did it to try and find out WHY.

Anyway, we\'re posting the series again here. Read it and try and understand it if you\'re going to challenge me on it.

TGJB,

Based on all the commentary, I think there are several questions that need to be answered.

1. If horses are faster, have they improved equally at both short distances and long distances? (you should have this answer in your database)

2. If horses are faster, have they improved as much as your figures suggest or is there a bias in your methodology that is making your figures get faster at a rate that is not consistent with improvement? (could exist in either direction)

3. Is it possible that selective breeding has not produced faster and better horses as one would assume? Perhaps there have been some unforeseen negatives. For example, few would argue that today\'s horses are as sound and rugged as a couple of decades ago.  Something went wrong! Could the use of drugs (legal and illegal) that enhance track performance have allowed bad and/or less premier genes to get into the gene pool that in prior decades would have been eliminated because races were cleaner?

4. Other than the instances where figure makers are making all their figures \"based on\" or \"anchored to\" pars like Rags, why isn\'t everyone else\'s figures showing that horses are faster?

5. Are standardbreds as advanced as thoroughbreds in their development as a breed or have they simply been in a period where improvement was more likely in general and even more likely in degree because of immaturity relative to thoroubreds?

Here are also some \"intuitive\" counter possibilities to your view. There\'s no science here, but these are things that IMO are worth thinking about.

In general, at least a portion of the improvement in human athleticism is related to the fact that there are many more humans in the world now and a higher percentage of them take sports very seriously because of the financial rewards and changing politics.    

1. The crop of registered yearlings is smaller now than it was in the late 80s.  

2. A higher percentage of our best yearlings are sent to Europe, Asia, and elsewhere in the world now than in prior decades.

3. A higher percentage of our best stallions are sent overseas and/or remain there after racing overseas.

4. There has been a handful of figures earned recently that intuitively don\'t make sense to anyone based on subjective evaluations when lined up against the universally recognized top horses of just a \"handful\" of years ago.

I\'m not looking to get into a long debate with you because I don\'t know the answers.   I\'m not even taking a position here.  I just wanted to point out some of the counter possibilities that are swirling around in my head. Your own case speaks for itself.



Post Edited (11-16-04 19:59)

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

jimbo66 wrote:

> 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

Jimbo, I read what the individual at Churchill supposedly said. I like to bet Churchill because I have a feel for it. But I have to say this: Outside of Texas the worst State for credibility in racing is Kentucky. I don\'t trust what that guy said and don\'t know why he said it. Either he didn\'t know what he\'s talking about or he perceived the question as a threat and answered it in a manner he thought was the best way to go. Typically, Churchill is tight for Derby Day. It was certainly very fast the year Monarchos won the Derby. Most other times of the year I believe Churchill plays slower.

CtC

[Michael D.]

CtC,
so if some of the track superintendents across the country come out and say that tracks are not that much slower than they used to be (which would basically ruin TGJB\'s entire argument), are you just going to come out and say that they are wrong, or they are crooks? please, expand on your theory of why you do not trust the CD track super? you have made a very important point, one that needs further explanation.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

Michael D. wrote:

> CtC,
> so if some of the track superintendents across the country come
> out and say that tracks are not that much slower than they used
> to be (which would basically ruin TGJB\'s entire argument), are
> you just going to come out and say that they are wrong, or they
> are crooks? please, expand on your theory of why you do not
> trust the CD track super? you have made a very important point,
> one that needs further explanation.

Apparently, we have fallen into the \"Are racetrack surfaces changing\" in regard to answering the question \"Are Horses really getting faster\".

Firstly, some anecdotal information. I use to handicap Gulfstream when it was a greased lighting strip. It was resurfaced around 1990. The color changed and it became significantly slower. I remembering seeing Rubianos maiden win go in about 1:12 is my recollection. You saw the Florida Derby time from this year. I\'ll grant you that we didn\'t see the best horses in the crop that race, but there were some decent horses in that field.

Secondly, heres the Kentucky Derby winners raw times. I read them as getting significantly faster from 1896 to 1973. Do you think horses were getting faster in that period or perhaps the track was getting faster? If you look at the times from 1973-2004 my feeling is they have become slower than the years 1962-1973. Why is that? Are horses suddenly getting slower or is the track changing?:

http://www.derbypost.com/pastwinners.html


Heres a little Churchill factoid about their dirt course composition. Not much clay in it is there? With less clay than than some of the other tracks do you think its generally faster or slower?:

http://www.churchilldowns.com/bet_the_races/understanding/301/TrackConditions/Dirt.html

Lone Star Park was resurfaced not long ago:

http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/todaysnewsarchive/9377

and a blurb regarding the changing nature of the Lone Star strip:

http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/arlingtonpark.asp?intID=38290103

"The red dirt composition of the old main track, perceived as hard and fast, is gone. In its place is a brown dirt with a mixture of silt, sand and organic fibers. There is a good consistency to the surface, and it is regularly watered down.
Like Santa Anita, the track should play favorably to horses that are athletic and have an ability to show speed, as opposed to long-galloping horses that take their time finding their best run.\"

Finally a little blurb about Arlingtons cushion:

Arlington Cushion 5.5 inches:
http://www.advantagesportsbetting.com/horse/arlington-park.html

I know track composition is changing. Why is it necessary to prove it? I know it is, but I\'m still gonna beat Ghostzapper and I\'ll say when.

CtC



Post Edited (11-17-04 03:43)

Chuckles,

>but I\'m still gonna beat Ghostzapper and I\'ll say when.<

They all get beat due to variations in form, trip, injury etc....  Top horses are also usually more vulnerable in a brand new season.

However, regardless of whether you think Ghostzapper is really a -6, there\'s no doubt he\'s a top notch horse.

1. His overall record is excellent in terms of wins per start, winning margins relative to quality of competition, versatility at different distance and on different track conditions etc...

2. In one of his losses he was actually TONS (and I mean TONS) the best. In the loss at Saratoga in the 7F sprint as a 3 year old the track was playing heavily towards speed on the inside. He made a monstrous move from way back on the far outside to just miss. On a neutral track he wins by daylight and that was well before he even got good. His subsequent performance verifies my opinion of the loss.

I don\'t view him as the best horse I have ever seen despite the figures, but there\'s no doubt in my mind it\'s going to take a \"terror\" to beat him \"IF\" he comes back as good as he left - even at 10F - which may not be his best distance.



Post Edited (11-17-04 10:20)

Chuckles,

>If you look at the times from 1973-2004 my feeling is they have become slower than the years 1962-1973. Why is that? Are horses suddenly getting slower or is the track changing?:<

The difference is a little less than 4/5 of a second. However, if you throw out a few extreme cases like Sunday Silence and Smarty Jones on very sloppy tracks (I don\'t have all the track conditions handy right now to do an appropriate comparison) the difference narrows by about 1/5. It narrows further if you don\'t arbitrarily start and end at the exact years that help make your case. (data mining)

I think there are really 2 issues here that keep getting mixed up as if they are black and white and they are \"NOT\".

1. Are horses getting faster?

2. Are they getting faster at the rate suggested by TG?

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

classhandicapper wrote:

> Chuckles,
>
> The difference is a little less than 4/5 of a second. However,
> if you throw out a few extreme cases like Sunday Silence and
> Smarty Jones on very sloppy tracks (I don\'t have all the track
> conditions handy right now to do an appropriate comparison) the
> difference narrows by about 1/5. It narrows further if you
> don\'t arbitrarily start and end at the exact years that help
> make your case. (data mining)
>
> I think there are really 2 issues here that keep getting mixed
> up as if they are black and white and they are \"NOT\".
>
> 1. Are horses getting faster?
>
> 2. Are they getting faster at the rate suggested by TG?

Jerry\'s right, the \"real fast recently\" phenomena goes back to about 2000. (Aptitude) Horses were on a gradual improve until that time and then Wazzap!!!!!!!!! Presto Chango. Anyone got any idead why?

By the way, CH, run the figures again from 1962-1978 and then 1979-Present. (Which is closer to Jerry\'s contention re: modern composition)  Theres a distinct pattern in those finishing times and I didn\'t do the math to see it. I can see it at a glance. Jerry can too.

CtC



Post Edited (11-17-04 10:55)

Chuckles,

>Jerry\'s right, the \"real fast recently\" phenomena goes back to about 2001. Horses were on a gradual improve until that time and then Wazzap!!!!!!!!! Presto Chango. Anyone got any idead why?<

If that is correct it obviously can\'t be selective breeding. I also doubt it is new training methods or nutrition because I haven\'t heard of any recent miracles. The best guess is illegal drugs, steroids, etc... I have several issues with that though.

The best Europeans still come here and kick our butt on turf. Sometimes they even run well on dirt with turf horses in the BC. They are supposedly much cleaner over there.

>By the way, CH, run the figures again from 1962-1978 and then 1979-Present. (Which is closer to Jerry\'s contention re: modern composition)<

Similar. A few fifths.

[Michael D.]

TGJB,
i read the posts when you wrote them. in my opinion, they say almost nothing relevant to the issue at hand (sorry, just one guys opinion). and for your comment \"read it and understand it if you are going to challenge me\", i think you wasted your time on all those posts, and people have to understand one thing: longer race times are not getting all that much faster, and your longer race figs are getting much, much faster. very simple here TGJB, we just need to find out if every track in the country is much, much slower than it once was. i will read through CtC\'s last post, seems he  might be able to provide some real proof. i am open minded here, and will gladly say that today\'s horses run 10f races ten to twenty lengths faster than they did ten to fifteen years ago, i just need some real proof, that\'s all i\'m looking for. CtC, thanks for all the info, i will read through it later today and respond.

[TGJB]

I haven\'t got time to get into all the individual angles that have come up, but I do want to address a point CH raised, about whether other figure makers tie their figures to pars.

A few years ago (5?) I had a discussion with Friedman on the Ragozin board under an alias. He said at that time that the reason their figures could be used to compare horses from different generations is that they use claiming pars, I showed him the holes in that, we went back and forth for a while, he said he saw my point. He didn\'t find out it was me until a couple of years later, when I mentioned it here.

This past February, at the DRF Expo, the question came up, and this time Len said no, they didn\'t tie their figures to pars. This could have been just because he knew what would happen to him there if he said otherwise (as I recall I said something like \"Boy, that\'s news to me\"), or it could be because they actually changed what they were doing because of my comments on their site. I don\'t know, but I have noticed that over the last few years the relationship between our figures and theirs has held pretty steady, after changing quite a bit over the previous decade. So they may have changed what they are doing, albeit way too late to use for accurate comparisons of different generations. And it is worthy of note that they too have GZ as the fastest horse of all time.

Now, my impression is that on that panel Beyer said they used claiming pars. I could be wrong-- I\'ll watch the DVD again when I get a chance. But even if the situation is what you described, that they use pars for only some tracks, that will act as a drag on your figures (to say nothing of creating an imbalance).