Off Topic

[Phalaris]

This question is tossed in as a search for info, not to stir up trouble ..

For years, I\'ve read the figs people talk about frequent races as though it\'s a bad thing - as though four races in six weeks is an unusual, taxing thing. It hasn\'t been all that long since it was perfectly ordinary for Preakness and Belmont horses to have four races within a month and a half or so, perhaps even exceptional if they didn\'t.

Have these methods of analyzing races evolved since then? How exactly do they address the topic of horses improving or maintaining form and the frequency of starts?

[Mall]

And when horses did race much, much more often than they do now, say about 30 yrs ago when the bounce theory was conceived, the theory made a great deal more sense, although as far as I can tell until recently no one ever conducted any statistically valid research on the subject. IMHO, you can say the same thing about a no. of sheet & non-sheet handicapping theories, in that they were either never tested in the 1st place or have not been reconsidered as dramatic changes have taken place in racing. In many cases their \"validty\" rests on the proposition that they have been repeated over & over again. Unless you plan on doing the statistical work yourself PP, or are lucky enough to have the right connections, I wouldn\'t expect much in the way of change over the next 10 yrs or so.

[derby1592]

Good question. TGJB had some comments on this a while back. Modern training methods, nutrition and drugs (some legal and some not so legal) have tranformed today\'s equine athlete into a running machine that can routinely operate at peak levels that were seldom seen in the past. Very similar to the top track and field athletes of today as compared to their predecessors.

The problem with the equine athlete is that all of that power rests on 4 spindly legs that were probably not designed for such repeated high levels of stress.  

I guess the bottom-line is that yesterday\'s horse simply did not run fast enough to bounce. At least not very often. Today\'s horse can get cranked up to run incredibly fast races even at 2. Races fast enough to overstress the physique and cause a reaction.

At least, this is the theory...

Chris

[Phalaris]

I\'ve got a lot of data, including scores of chart books and day-of classic past performances back to 1949, but I know nothing about sheets figures. How else might one statistically explore the \"bounce\" phenomenon?

[Mall]

My admittedly intuitive take on this is a little different than yours Chris. Back when it was not unusual for a horse to run upwards of 20 times, horses would establish a level of ability, say for purposes of example a TG 8. Let\'s say the horse in question runs a 4 or 5. Despite the out-of-the-ordinary effort, the horse would nonetheless run its \"regular turn\"(ie short rest) and flop, or as it was came to be called \"bounce.\" In contrast, horses today, while they may run faster, do not run nearly as often & many trainers both consult sheets and sheets players and/or know and understand the bounce concept. As a result, horses do not bounce as often as they used to, which is what the research seems to indicate. Despite this, sheets sellers and sheets users seem IMHO to be operating on the assumption that there has been no change in the last 30 yrs, not to mention the related question of whether a significant no. of so-called bounces today have anything to do with the original concept.

PS to PP: I\'ll give your latest post some thought & get back to you, but I have to admit that I\'ll also be thinking about how & why you\'re storing info back to around the time I was born.

[Phalaris]

I\'m a racing historian and researcher. It used to be my real job - now it\'s just a hobby that consumes a significant portion of our house.

[Alydar in California]

Mall wrote: \"...sheets sellers and sheets users seem IMHO to be operating on the assumption that there has been no change [in how often horses run and in how much their trainers understand bouncing] in the last 30 years...\"

Can we agree that 30 years ago, sheet handicappers looked at horses\' entire careers: figures, spacing, overall wear and tear, etc.? When did they stop taking these things into consideration when judging whether a horse would bounce? Why did they stop? Did they stop?

   If they didn\'t stop, then aren\'t they taking into consideration the changes (spacing, wear and tear, etc.) you mention?

Mall also wrote: \"...horses do not bounce as often as they used to, which is what the research indicates.\"

   Does the research take into consideration spacing and wear and tear? If it doesn\'t, see above. If it does, and if it shows that given the same spacing and wear and tear they had 30 years ago, horses are less likely to bounce today, doesn\'t this suggest that the reasons for less bouncing lie outside the area of spacing and wear and tear?

[Mall]

Legitimate points. I obviously have no way of knowing exactly what individual sheets players were thinking 30 yrs ago or today when they assess whether a particular horse will or will not bounce. I\'d also agree that part of the theory is that each situation must be considered on its own merits. However, if you look at the explanation & comments on the sites, I think you\'ll find that they are pretty much taken from the Odds, so there does not seem to have been any restatement or modification of the theory. Nor do I recall ever reading or hearing any of the main proponents of the theory ever suggest the possibility that it should be reconsidered in light of major changes which have taken place over the years. Nor do I know of any published research that considers whether & to what extent horses which might be expected to bounce are in fact bouncing. Let me end by asking you & the others interested in this topic a question: Using a category you feel most familiar with, what % of horses which show significant improvement, as you define & explain it, would you expect to bounce in their next start? What I\'m suggesting is that I think that the actual answer is going to be different than you might anticipate.

[Alydar in California]

Mall: Here is a quote from Friedman. It\'s over a year old:

 \"Starting in the 80s an increasing number of horses paired up tops that previously more often produced bounces. By the late 80s, early 90s this development reached the level that still exists today in my opinion. I don\'t think that there has been any increase in pair ups of tops for 5 to 10 years. My impression is that 5-10 percent of horses off of weak (but not ridiculous) tops pair and 10-20 percent of horses off of decent looking tops pair up (I\'m not including 2 and 3yos in their early development in these samples).\"

[Mall]

It appears there are in fact at least a few things I\'ve missed over the yrs, but I\'m guessing that this quote appeared on the Bd, a concept foreign to me until what it is now, 6 mos ago? One thing I have learned during that time is not to be surprised both that you knew about this quote & were able to retrieve it on short notice.

I assume that an example of a \"ridiculous\" top would be the 1 War Emblem moved to on 3/17, and an example of a decent looking top would be the 4 Magic Weisner ran on 3/30. Aha, you say, 3yos in their early development were excluded from the sample.(as an aside, was there any mention of the size and/or the process used to select the sample?)

Although I did not say so in my original post, the excluded group, which I would expand to include still developing 4yos & in some specific instances very lightly raced 5yos, is what interests me for the same reason W. Sutton gave, namely that\'s where the money is, in this case in terms of 20-1 or higher horses who actually have a chance to and actually do win races. Despite the dramatic difference in their tops, my \"impression\" would be that both WE & MW would have a chance closer to 50% to either pair their tops or run within 3 pts of their tops( which would include a small fwd move & the so-called small bounce).

Equally important is what to expect in the next race after the pair. In both of the above examples, the horses moved fwd at high odds, so the question is whether a pair is a sign that a horse such as MW will, in the words of the TG analysis, make the fwd move needed \"just to become relevant.\" The reason that question is important is that the best and perhaps one of the only logical ways to find live shots is to project that a horse has a percentage chance of running its best ever no. which is greater than its actual odds. My argument is that when a lightly raced horse pairs up, that is a sign that the chances that the horse will run a new and many times a dramatic new top are greatly increased, a situation which BTW is likely to be present in the Belmont.

Finally, if all horses who run significant new tops(5 pts) are included, and if small(within 2pts) bounces are excluded, the research I\'ve seen is that highest percentage quoted by Robes is off by close to a factor of 3.

[Mall]

I think you would 1st have to establish some reasonable proxy for sheet nos.(some combination of the old drf speed & variant nos?), decide on your definition of a bounce, have access to pps for at least 5 races prior to the classic days you indicate you do have, and know the no. of races as a 2yo & 3yo. In other words, I\'m not sure if there\'s any way to do what you want to do unless you\'re have access to drf databases & are able to enlist some of the computer wizards on this Bd to help you. Sorry I couldn\'t come up with a better answer.

[Phalaris]

I have what were official DRF lifetime past performances of all the Derby, Preakness and Belmont starters for all those years - proper East Coast DRF lines, too, that have all the info. (If you\'re familiar with older West Coast DRF PPs, you\'ll know what I mean.) Although they lack some of the features of the current ones, I definitely have the info you specify. Do you think using the old speed rating/variant would at least shed some light on the subject?

[Anonymous User]

I tend to agree with Chris that in order to win a race an any respective level it takes a little more effort than it did 30 years ago. Legal drugs to help the horse run faster. Illegality is an issue as well. Add to the equation inbreeding to sprinty unsound stallions and you\'ve got a pretty good recipe for the bounce. But the number alone doesn\'t say much about whether the horse will bounce in his next race.

I know WE is his grandson, but I still believe Mr. Prospector was generally bad news for the breeding industry. But when his sons were crossed with sound mares you sometimes get a pretty good horse.

[derby1592]

Based on some of the other comments on this string, I wanted to clarify and expand on what I had written previously.

Modern methods (e.g., better training routines, nutrition and drugs) enable a horse (even a slow one) to get the maximum effort possible out of its natural physique (whatever that might be). This type of effort will stress the horse much more than the less-than-maximal effort that was typically acheived under \"old-fashioned,\" \"hard-boot\" training methods.

An analogy might help make this clearer. I could decide to take up power lifter using \"old-fashioned methods\" and I would get stronger but not nearly as strong as I would if I used modern methods (e.g., modern training routines and equipment, nutrition and drugs).

Using the old methods, let\'s assume that I might be able to eventually peak out at a bench press of 250 lbs, which would be stressful but probably would not be pushing the limits of what my joints and ligaments, etc. could handle. I could probably repeat my peak \"max lift\" several times a week without much recovery time required between efforts.

Using the new methods, I might be able to eventually peak out at 350 lbs, maybe more, which would be much closer to stress levels that are likely to damage joints, ligaments, etc. I might need weeks, months, or years between peak efforts at such a high level or I may not ever be able to repeat the peak performance due to some sort of major injury. In general, the recovery period is likely to be much longer between peak efforts using modern methods than it would be using the traditional methods.

Now take a good look at thoroughbred\'s legs and make the analogy-replacing running at max speed with power lifting.

Then maybe it starts to make a little more sense...

Chris

[Alydar in California]

Chris: Excellent analogy. Please regale us with a story about your weightlifting days.

Mall: I was just trying to show that sheet sellers do think about the changes in the sport. I wasn\'t endorsing Friedman\'s percentages.

\"Was there any mention of the size and/or the process used to select the sample?\"

No. I believe that these percentages did not come from a formal study.

I am the last person on earth you need to convince of the importance of doing pattern studies.

Finally, you need to learn \"Plever logic.\" Since I quoted Friedman, I am obsessed with Friedman. And you are obviously obsessed with Willie Sutton. God help us both.