HOW FAST are horses getting faster

[jimbo66]

JB,

Sounds like there are some people on this board who absolutely are with you that horses are getting faster and they are very confident in the numbers that compare this generation with older generations of horses.  

There are some that think you are off on this.  

But there is a middle group, at least I think so.  I have read everything you posted on here for the past 12 months and have also read your piece for the Expo.  All logical to me and for what it is worth (not much), I think you prove your point that horses are getting faster.  

The question I have is whether you are wrong about the rate at which they are getting faster.  The 2 1/2 inch cushion versus 3 inch cushion, explains 20 years ago versus today.  But on the T-Graph figures, horses are getting faster YEAR over YEAR, not just now versus 5 years ago or 10 years ago.  I for one, find it hard to believe that nutrition, science, etc. can make horses faster as quickly as reflected on your numbers.  

For example, last year we had the fastest 3 year old ever in Smarty Jones, followed by the fastest horse ever, in Ghostzapper.

I questioned you about this last year after the Monmouth race, saying it seemed unlikely for the fastest 3 year old and fastest horse ever to occur months apart.  

Now, this year, we had two 3 year olds run as fast or faster than Smarty in preps, and 2 others run negative 2\'s.  That means this year\'s crop of 3 year olds has 4 of the 5 fastest 3 year olds ever!!!  On top of that, we had a negative 5 for Northern Stag. So, Northern Stag is now the 2nd fastest horse ever.  

My point is that it is very easy to be convinced by your case that horses are getting faster, however it is more difficult to agree with the rate they are getting faster at.  Genetics on horses would be driving an improvement rate maybe never seen in any other species?  Maybe this last sentence is a little anti-climactic, but anyway, I hope I made my point.

[TGJB]

Jimbo--

1-- the cushion is now 4 inches on some days, according to Litfin. I\'ll be interested in seeing what Miff finds out about this-- Litfin also says they recently added even more sand.

2-- I didn\'t say it was all genetics. I don\'t think it is.

3-- There have been occasional huge figures thrown before by horses who never got back to them, like the Baffert 3yo who ran the huge 7f figure a few years ago in March(?).

Also remember that because of the difference in generational length, the one year difference between one crop and another is roughly the same as 3 years in human terms-- almost as much as one Olympics to the next. If you look back at the \"Racehorses getting faster\" piece you will also see that thoroughbreds haven\'t improved as much as humans or standardbreds.

But yes, the last couple of years have been something else. And Sightseek was every bit as good for fillies as the other two were for their divisions.

Jimbo,

I am in your camp on this.

There are at least a few counter forces working against the \"MUCH faster\" theory.

The pool of horses is actually smaller now than it was in many past years. Plus some of the best horses and stallions of that smaller pool have moved overseas to race and breed as rich foreigners bid up the prices and shipped them elsewhere.

That\'s a lot different than the vast increase in human population and the higher percentage of that population that is now in a position and economically motivated to participate in athletic competition.  

I think most people think horses are probably getting faster over time. It\'s degree that\'s tough to prove.

[jimbo66]

Jerry,

So, have they made these changes to the cushion in 2004 and then again in 2005? If so, I wonder why they are changing the cushion so often.

I believe I understand your implication that it isn\'t all genetics.  Cheating is even harder to gauge then the increase in speed.  But I have to tell you, I would be SHOCKED to find out that the number of cheaters in 2004 and 2005 is so much greater than the number of cheaters in other years.  Cheating has been around for years.  Maybe the \"juice\" is better, but then we have the issue again that this is not being captured in the numbers of Beyer.  I guess you would say this goes back to his methodology of using \"pars\".  

I am not a scientist and to be perfectly honest, it was probably my worst subject.  But, I don\'t think your assumption that the shorter the generation length is, the more likely there is to be more rapid evolution/advancement, is correct.  Otherwise, wouldn\'t cockroaches, bees and salmon, with their short life cycles and quick \"new generations\", be advancing more quickly than humans on the evolutionary scale?

Jimbo,

Beyer\'s public record isn\'t very long.

However, IMHO, there are more and higher 120s given out these days than there were when he first starting publishing them in The Racing Times.

In fact, if you look at Picking Winners (his first book) he says that Secretariat used to run figures in the upper 120s (128/129). But if you look REALLY CLOSELY, the scale from that book is higher than the one he uses now. If memory serves me, it\'s about 16 points higher. That means BIG RED was earning 112/113 on the current scale.

I\'ve never seen a public comment from Beyer on that, but I\'ve long wondered about it.  

Also, I used to make figures for NY using that scale when the book first came out. Regardless of my skill level at the time, I wasn\'t totally incompetent. I don\'t recall  giving out a figure on that scale that would approximate a 120 on the scale he uses now. Some of the biggest figures I remember were Great Contracter over Forego, General Assembly in the Travers (wet track), and a few Bid races.

So IMHO, horses are faster based on Beyer\'s scale also.



Post Edited (05-31-05 15:16)

[beyerguy]

I don\'t go back to the 70s, so I can\'t comment.  I know Beyer gave out plenty of mid 120s to Formal Gold, Will\'s Way, and Skip Away.  Bertrando and Groovy I think also got those type numbers at least a couple times.  Aptitude had at least one huge one as well.  I\'m sure there are more, so I\'m not really sure if they are getting any faster.  (Never on turf though, Daylami 119 best I remember)

[jimbo66]

CH,

Not sure JB is going to want this posted here, but I would love to understand what you mean by \"look REALLY CLOSELY\" at the beyer figures (you are saying his scale changed).  I remember reading last year from Beyer that Ghostzapper ran AS FAST as Secretariat.  Not 12 lengths faster.....

You have emailed me before, maybe we can/should take the Beyer part of this offline.

Jimbo,

I can\'t account for his comments vs. what is in his books. That\'s why I have long wondered about it myself. I\'ll take a look at the book again when I\'m home.

Beyer,

Those are the main ones I remember also.

[beyerguy]

Include me in the emails please.  One thing, the scale changing wouldn\'t really change the final figures most likely, just the variants.  Unless of course the goal was to change the figures, something like Jerry adding 5 points to all numbers to reduce the number of negative figures.  He could add 5 points to his scale, or change the race variants by 5 points.

[jimbo66]

CH,

The more I think about your post, the more I disagree.

How many horses has Beyer gone into the 120\'s on in the past few years?  

Ghostzapper and Bellamy Road.  I think that\'s it.  And by now, everybody except Chuckles the Clown and Silver Charm, realize Ghostzapper is a very fast horse.  

Beyerguy is right, there were similar 120+ numbers for Skip Away, Formal Gold and Will\'s Way.  I actually thought Groovy was 132, but I could be off on that.  

Beyer called this year\'s group of the 3 year olds, the worst in years.  Jerry has 4 of the 5 fastest 3 year olds ever in this year\'s class.  (That was before the figure from Saturday\'s Peter Pan, which has the potential to be big....)

There is a difference between the two views.

[TGJB]

Actually, I have no problem with that discussion taking place here-- I would be interested in hearing more about scale changes. And yes, pars have something to do with the whole question.

As far as I know, cockroaches aren\'t being selectively bred for speed. Although now that I think about it, the ones in my apt are awful fast...

Yes, I think the drugs are getting better-- in two of the places where I researched my article, I found references to a performance ceiling caused by oxygen debt. Hmmm...

From what Porcelli told me, tracks believe a slower track is a safer track. They don\'t WANT races run too fast-- so they add cushion. When tracks or grass courses get hard, trainers scream at track superintendents.

Beyer,

\"Unless of course the goal was to change the figures, something like Jerry adding 5 points to all numbers to reduce the number of negative figures.\"

I think that\'s what happened, but I can\'t be certain. I\'ll double check when I\'m home and e-mail you so we can get this off line here. I don\'t want to give out false information. I\'m working from memory.

I do recall many things like 6F in 113 used to be equal to 80 and now it\'s 64/65, but I\'ll have to actually check some of class pars he used.



Post Edited (05-31-05 15:32)

Jimbo,

I think it\'s pretty clear that TG figures are getting faster at a faster rate in recent years.

Beyer gave out a bunch of other 120s in the last few years, but my memory isn\'t what it used to be. :-)

He gave 123 to an undefeated horse in CA that beat MDO a couple of years back. There was an eclipse award sprinter and a few other sprinters that earned 120s also just off the top of my head.

If his figures are getting faster, its not rapidly. It certainly feels that they are getting faster to me though and I paid pretty close attention to the major stakes races over the years.



Post Edited (05-31-05 20:21)

[jimbo66]

Jerry,

The cockroaches in your apartment aside, selective breeding for speed in the U.S. is a given.  However, this is at the expense of stamina.  As such, isn\'t much more plausible and likely that the figures for sprints should be increasing faster than the figures for distance races?  i think Michael D brought this up a while back, saying that there was a possibility that the distance races on T-Graph are too fast, but the sprints more accurate, caused by tying the shorter figures to the longer figures when projecting, not considering the likely bias that today\'s breed is quicker but not likely to be as fast going a distance of ground.

I think that argument was left at \"prove it\", which he didn\'t and I can\'t.

It is just that the numbers are increasing at a rate which is hard to justify, even with all of the contributing factors you named.  The Derby results are only 1 race and you can\'t build a case around 1 race, but damn all those extremely fast horses and a plodder wins.  

How many people can actually accept that Northern Stag at equal weights, beats Smarty Jones by 3 lengths, if they each run their best race?  Not to mention trouncing Cigar, Skip Away and that generation by 10+ lengths.