HOW FAST are horses getting faster

[Uncle Buck]

Looks to me like the New York horses always get the highest Beyer Speed Figures. I think it\'s the same hype that surrounds the Yankees. Everyone - even Beyer\'s figures are caught up in the Big Apple hype.

Spoken like a true West Coaster!

[miff]

Jerry,

Someone in the race office is trying to see if they can get me a copy of the ongoing posted sheet showing the cushion depth each day from back when to present.

I have two other sources which seem to indicate that during the past nine months on 8 occasions(at 5 different major tracks), the surface was faster than normal on big race days.Even considering that on big race days we see the fastest horses, there would seem to be reason to believe that the surface was scraped, purely from the raw times w/wind.


Your comments regarding tracks generally trying to keep surfaces slower is confirmed by several people with knowledge of racing surfaces around the country(California tracks may be the exception)

In any event,if I can get this all together and cull it to posting size, we should be able to have a meaningful discussion analyzing the data as it relates to your figs and horses getting much faster.

[miff]

Jimbo said

\"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.


Jim,

In fairness to the Northern Stag fig, you will see, over time, that wet fast race tracks can produce ridiculous figs which I have found to be:

1.Accurate on future wet tracks only.

2.Total throw out figs when evaluating the same horse on a dry surface.

I believe the figure makers have not yet \"mastered\" the manner in which to calculate wet fast tracks/variants. I think they may be missing just how forgiving that type of surface is to certain runners.

I have Picking Winners and The Winning Horseplayer in front of me.

It\'s clear that Beyer changed the numeric rating he assigns a race given a final time of \"X\".

6F in 1:13 is a 64 in TWH and an 80 in PW.  

7F in 126.1 is a 65 in TWH and an 80 PW.

Less clear are the pars he uses for determining the speed of the track and the final figure because one is for NY and one is SA. There is also the obvious complication of claiming prices slowly inflating over the time that elapsed between the two books.

If he has made changes to the final figures, it certainly appears to be less than the 16 points I guessed at earlier. The 16 points is just the change to the time chart. (beyerguy was right about that).

However in PW he says that 6F stakes for older males in NY for one season averaged 1:10. That\'s a 106 on the new scale.

In TWH (the later book) he says that stakes at SA had an average figure of 114.

The ALW races have a similar difference.

It\'s more or less impossible for me to tell exactly what has changed in his final figures and by how much.

Back to the 120s:

Here\'s a few others besides Ghostzapper from the last few years.

Candy Ride 123
Cajun Beat 120
Congaree 120
Medaglia d\'Oro 120
Aldebaron 122
Shake You Down 121
Swept Overboard 122, 122
Kona Gold 123
Xtra Heat 120
Aptitude 123



Post Edited (05-31-05 19:53)

[Michael D.]

23 horses have broken the 1:59 mark at 10f

1:57 4/5
spectacular bid SA 1980

1:58 1/5
noor GGF 1950
quack Hol 1972
in excess Bel 1991

1:58 2/5
affirmed Hol 1979
greinton Hol 1985

1:58 3/5
swaps Hol 1956
round table Hol 1957
j.o. tobin Hol 1977
affirmed SA 1979
turkoman Hia 1986

1:58 4/5
native diver Hol 1967
figonero Hol 1969
gladwin Haw 1970
group plan Haw 1974
pay tribute Hol 1976
tiller SA 1979
go west young man Hol 1980
alysheba Med 1988
martial law SA 1989
pleasant tap Bel 1992

1:58.89
lemon drop kid Bel 1992

1:58.97
skip away Bel 1997

if i could find evidence that all of the tracks across the country are much, much slower than they used to be, i would be more willing to buy the fact that horses run 10-15 lengths faster than they used to at 10f. even then, i would take \'bid or affirmed against todays speedballs at 10f if i was getting 10-15 lengths.

[TGJB]

Miff-- I\'m definitely interested in the raw information, even if it is anecdotal, about cushion depth, soil content etc. Much less so about other\'s opinions of speed of tracks on big days relative to other days (that\'s what I do for a living). Definitely interested in factual information about those days relative to others regarding scraping, depth, etc.

Jimbo-- I\'m not sure how one could prove or disprove the distance theory. From an internal figure making point of view, it becomes a very complicated question-- when you originally set up speed charts, you do it based not on some theoretical equivalents, but (to oversimplify) on the average winning time at different distances. If the relationship changes because horses as a group don\'t handle routes as well, what do you do with the speed chart? Just shooting from the hip here, haven\'t thought it out, don\'t have time to now...

[kev]

This is from 1992 to 2003. Beyer\'s

Fastest 2yr--- Trust N Luck 02\' and Hook and Ladder 99\' ( 110 )

3yr--- Concerned Minster 00\' and Rock and Roll 98\' ( 121 )

Sprints--- Artax 99\' ( 124 )

Races more than a mile--- Formal Gold 97\' and Will\'s Way 97\' and Gentlemen 97\'  ( 126 )

Turf---  Fastness 96\' and Daylami 99\' and Silvano 01\'  ( 118 )

Ky Derby fig\'s from 92\' up to 03\'
107-105-112-108-112-115-107-108-108-116-114-109 <--2003

Also the 120 and up in this time period, it was ran atless 59 times



Post Edited (05-31-05 18:43)

[kev]

 
Now Mineshaft was a fast horse on Rag and TG, but beyer gave him 118 for his top.

This is for races a mile or longer the years, for the top fig horse.

97-97-97-93-97-97-97-03-01-97-98-98-92-00-97-97-02-00-98-97

Now getting back to the great GZ, he was given a 122 for the met mile and he has rec. a 124-128 and a 120 in the past.

\"If the relationship changes because horses as a group don\'t handle routes as well, what do you do with the speed chart?\"

I think the only way to deal with something like this is to examine the PPs and speed figures of those rare horses that seem versatile enough to be equally successful across various distances to create a more accurate chart.

As far as we know everyone\'s original charts were biased to begin with in whatever way the breed was biased.

In the past, I always felt that the very best routers were superior to the very best sprinters even when their figures were similar. On the rare occasions that one of those Grade 1 power routers dropped back in distance, they tended to blow the best sprinters out.

I\'m less sure that\'s still true or at least to the same extent it was a long time ago.



Post Edited (05-31-05 19:14)

[asfufh]

Michael D. , According to this site, Flying Paster was 3-1/4 lengths behind Spectacular Bid in the SA 1980 record race so his time was around 158.2.  http://www.horsehats.com/SpectacularBid.html



Post Edited (05-31-05 19:31)

[kev]

On TG figs, for the BC.C from 99\' to 2004. The top two horses figs.

99\' = 2.2 and 0.2
00\' = 0 and  -1.0
01\' = 1.2 and 1.2
02\' = -2.2 and -0.2
03\' = -3.0 and -1.2
04\' = -4.2 and -4.1

[Michael D.]

yes, thanks. those were the 23 races that went under 1:59. it\'s been a while. GZ just about did it last year. i doubt he can do it at Bel, but it would be nice to see. he\'s an amazing animal, and the sport needs a new superstar.

[Millennium3]

I\'ll presume the Thorograph calculation of their formula for making figures has been a constant from their beginning (otherwise any horse\'s improvement couldn\'t be measured). The Question on this topic then, is: are \"figures\" (any of them, Thorograph, Beyer, etc.) really an objectively accurate way of assessing a racehorse\'s quality? Either the method of calculating figures is wrong or off, or the figures are rock solid and rachorses have improved leaps and bounds in the last 10 years.

For the record, I don\'t know how to calculate figures, nor do I know what goes into Thorograph\'s calculations. As a buyer of their stuff, I do have questions on \"what\" factors get weighted, and \"how\" that\'s decided. Here\'s an extrapolated example of the question I have.

The 2004 Thorograph Breeder\'s Cup Seminar had a single mantra repeated for scores of horses: those \"shipping-in\" and encountering the \"warmer climate\" of Texas could be significantly disadvantaged. This mantra was based on the assumption that horses from the east coast in 2003 ran poorly, or below expectations (based on their sheets going in, most probably). The heat wave at Santa Anita in 2003 was given as the central explanation for their poor efforts.

If that\'s true, then those most disadvantaged by any California-based Breeders Cup would be the Europeans, for no horses come farther or from cooler autumn climates than they do. And the factual evidence of their results tells otherwise: Lashkari, Last Tycoon, Miesque, Arcangues and Spinning World all won in California. If you toss in some brave narrow losses by Theatrical (in \'86), Trempolino, and Ski Paradise, it weakens the reasoning further.

In 2003 that same reasoning goes on life support, since the Europeans probably had their best overall showing in a Cup ever: Six Perfections won; Islington-L\'Ancresse-Yesterday went 1-2-3 in the Filly Turf; and High Chaparral-Falbrav in the Turf. All done in the stifling heat at Santa Anita.

So, if the weather and shipping were given as precautions to consider for wagering in 2004 (in spite of the evidence), isn\'t it fair to question Thorograph as to whether the criteria for making figures, or decisions about what to weigh is objective or accurate?  I\'m asking honestly, not disrespectfully. This is about whether or not figures as such are really relevant.

I worked in racing for a long time. I agree with what I presume is Thorograph\'s take that perfomances are being medically enhanced.  But if this explains the jumps for all or most figures, then why make figures at all, since we\'ll never know what or how much which horse got of what \"medicine\"?

It happens even at the cheap tracks where I worked. I saw trainers who couldn\'t spell the word \"horse\" suddenly start ripping off wins in spades; one in particular that won more races in one meet than he\'d won in the whole 13 years I worked there. Let someone try to convince me he woke up one morning and discovered how to train, or that he just got a world beating bunch of $3,500 claimers. The explanation for that kind of turnaround can only be one thing.

[mikemd]

i thought i read a quote by beyer somewhere they had a problem with figure creep that they had to go back and redo a bunch of numbers.

i\'m sure jerry has forgotten more about figure making than i\'ll ever know, but it seems that using a projection method would lead to an upward bias over time.  (upward bias for beyer, downward bias for tg)  my basis for this is weak, being just a thought experiment.

[beyerguy]

Actually, Beyer wrote they had to usually go back and ADD a point or two to all figures as they didn\'t project enough improvement when making daily variants.