Probability

[Michael D.]

thanks for the response Jerry. just a few things:

1. why were there more 10f races in the past? it\'s not because racing fans like watching shorter races these days. think maybe it\'s because horses are better built to run shorter than they used to be?

2. i\'m pretty sure track speed has nothing to do with historical relationships between times and distances. from the info i can gather, it seems as though times of 6f races have improved at a quicker rate that the times of 10f races. now i did not do a scientific study here, and might not have it right. seems to me this is a critical issue though when discussing the issue of distance pars.

anyway, if we amend your original statment to say \"Imperialism\'s \"performance\" in the BC sprint really wasn\'t as good as the \"performance\" of the winner of the JCGC, and figures which imply that don\'t look right\", i could buy that. i just have trouble with placing horse\'s 6F performances in actual 10f races and saying they would have won that particular race based on their 6f run. this was my only original point, and a valid one at that. hard to believe it got twisted around so easily.

now get home early and get some rest - a lot of good racing tomorrow.

[TGJB]

Michael-- my work day is just starting, can\'t go home.

In the broadest sense they don\'t card the long races because they don\'t fill them. That may or may not reflect the horses\' actual ability, I\'m not arguing with you-- I don\'t know.

I wasn\'t saying that track speed has anything to do with distance relationships, although it might (fatigue curves might change with deeper, slower, more tiring tracks). What I was saying is that those California tracks, in those years, gave horses an opportunity to run that particular distance over very fast tracks, and that specific opportunity no longer exists. In fact, there are very few chances for good horses to run that distance on dirt at all.

\"I wasn\'t saying that track speed has anything to do with distance relationships, although it might (fatigue curves might change with deeper, slower, more tiring tracks). \"

IMO, that\'s another good theoretical argument for breaking out races on occasion.

When did they make the rule that says the relationship between varying distances is constant from day to day regardless of whether a track is deep and tiring or hard as a rock?

I never read that rule. Most people just assume that\'s the case.

I\'d be willing to bet the relationship between 1/4 mile and 1 mile is a lot different for me depending on whether I am running at the beach or on a paved highway. I might not even be able to finish at the beach.  

In fact, for people that believe in biases like speed favoring tracks etc... there might be an explanation buried in there for why some styles of horses seem to outperform their figures on some days.

[jimbo66]

Bob,

I have to agree with Michael, that of all the points that Jerry made, the one about Imperialism was one that I gave less credence to.  

You mention that you have done research in the field.  Logically, What we are doing with the breed in the U.S. should cause a dichotomy between the sprint performances and route performances.  We have very few distance sires left, we breed speed over speed now.  The thoroughbred is quicker but more fragile and also likely to be less fast over the further distance of ground.  Genetics have to have an impact here.  It is intentional and tracks have adjusted so that there are less and less 1 1/4 races.  More and more horses are found \"wanting\" at the longer distances.  Doesn\'t it make sense that under such conditions, the figures for races 1 mile and under should be increasing at a faster rate than races at 1 1/4 and over?  It does to me, and to at least some others.

On a related topic, since you have studied gentics and physiology, what do you think the chances are that horse\'s speeds are accelerating year over year at the rate that Jerry has them accelerating?  I don\'t want to start that whole thread again, but I am curious as to what you think.  Do you think the breed\'s evolution is such that with each new crop we are seeing marked incremental increases in speed like we have seen the past few years?  Does it raise your eyebrows at all?  

[bobphilo]

Jim,

Those are good questions and I'll try to give them the thoughtful answers they deserve. The notion that sprint times have gotten drastically better than route times is perhaps possible because of the recent obsession with breeding for speed. However a lot of "common sense" notions don't hold up when subjected to research. To anyone not taught differenty it's "very apparent" that the world is flat and was commonly believed until somebody sailed past the horizon and didn't fall off.
That's why we go to all the time and expense to do research. Just because more sprint records seem to be broken recently than route records can have other explanations. There are more sprints than routes being written so of course there are more chances for sprinters to break records. This is because trainers are less interested in routes, but this may be caused by the false belief many of them have that routes are harder on their horses than sprints, when in fact the faster intense pace of a sprint may be more likely to cause injuries, so lack of staying ability may not be the explanation for the loss of interest in distance races. Besides records are broken by the freakish exceptions which are not always good representatives of the population as a whole. We statisticians call then "outliers" and prefer to compare populations by taking the means or medians and then see if the differences are just caused by normal variability (standard deviations), or are really significant. I'd like to see that kind of study.
 The notion that horses have "evolved" dramatically in the last 2 or 3 decades has to be examined carefully. When most people hear the word evolution they think about the huge changes that typically take thousands or millions of years to occur. The effects of selective breeding in a shorter period of time are much less extreme. Yes they have been breeding for sprint speed but I seriously doubt horse breeders, who are still using the traditional philosophy of "just breed the best to the best and hope for the best", would suddenly be producing much faster sprinters than they were able to for the couple of centuries that preceded. I don't think the gene pool is that drastically different. I think of the extent of inbreeding, or the lack of it is a factor, but that's a little too lengthy a topic to get into in one post. Ask me about that later. If horses are indeed faster, I think it has more to do with drugs than genetics. Chemistry has obviously improved over the last few years. If anything drugs are more likely to work by warding off fatigue that would help routers rather than the speed of sprinters.
Even if sprinters were faster, there is considerable overlap in the factors that make a horse good at any distance so, again, a drastic improvement in sprinters over routers is unlikely.
Plus if sprinters were getting faster, the sprint pars would reflect that and the equivalent times for routes could be adjusted to reflect that, and equivalence would be maintained.
I think the most important point is that even if sprinters are getting faster than routers, how can it be to the extent that a poor 8th place finish in a sprint is a better performance than a big win in a route at a similar class level. Especially when the "sprinter", Imperialism, is not really good at 6 panels and the route winner loves the 10-furlong distance, to give Imperialism the better figure is especially absurd. Maybe the 8th place winner in a race of Thoroughbreds is a better runner than the winner in a race of Clydesdales but we're talking about the same species here.
As far as how I feel about Jerry's theory that horses, all horses, are getting faster, I am of 2 minds here. It is possible due to drugs. On the other hand, I think that sometimes Jerry gives a slightly inflated figure, as in the Gold Cup, due to underestimation of the effects of pace. I can hear you all already, " Oh no, now Class is going to chime into this" LOL. Seriously, the effect of speed, like wind, is exponential. KE = ½ MV squared. Kinetic Energy = Mass x Velocity squared. That's why all attempts to quantify it linearly are doomed to failure. That means that slight deviations from level pace (1 sec or so) have little affect either way, and Jerry is correct in ignoring it. Wide deviations, like this year's Derby, are devastating and the "hot pace" designation tells you those close to it are probably screwed. Sometimes we have a middle ground where the pace is very fast, though not insane, but yet faster than some horses used to make the figure are acustomed to. I think in the Gold Cup, Flower Alley, Lava Man and the rabbit bombed and had no part in the determination. However, Suave and Sun King ran significantly faster early than in their top efforts but still were givin credit for close to their tops. I think this may have inflated the final figure. Maybe not a lot, but since figures influence future figures, if this happens often enough, over the years the figures float upwards. Just a possible explanation, like the drug theory. In any case, I don\'t think it\'s genetic.

Bob  

[bobphilo]

Michael D. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> anyway, if we amend your original statment to say
> \"Imperialism\'s \"performance\" in the BC sprint
> really wasn\'t as good as the \"performance\" of the
> winner of the JCGC, and figures which imply that
> don\'t look right\", i could buy that. i just have
> trouble with placing horse\'s 6F performances in
> actual 10f races and saying they would have won
> that particular race based on their 6f run. this
> was my only original point, and a valid one at
> that. hard to believe it got twisted around so
> easily.

Bingo, Michael. By George, you\'ve got it - almost.

That Imperialism\'s performance in the Sprint (as indicated by his figure) should not be better than the winner of the Gold Cup (as indicated by his figure) is EXACTLY what Jerry and I have been saying all along. You cannot believe this however, unless you realize that figures for different races are comparable, regardless of differences in distance. Otherwise, why bother with figures, rather than just working with final times? I think you are confusing this with the assertion that Imperialism could duplicate his 6F figure in the 10 F Gold Cup and win there. That would be incorrect and nobody here is asserting anything of the kind. He obviuosly didn\'t. Figures ARE performance ratings and few horses perform equally well at all distances. We\'re talking about comarability of performances among winners at the same class level accross different distances.

Bob

bob,

I won\'t chime in other than saying your thinking is the same as mine on one of the issues you addressed. :-)

I would like to toss out one question/observation related to genetics/evolution.

How many people out there would prefer breeding to some of the better stallions of today over Seattle Slew, Alydar, Danzig etc... (assuming they were alive and healthy right now) on the assumption that those former great racing and breeding stars were genetically inferior to the horses of today?

 

[bobphilo]

Class,

I was just kidding about you chiming in. I was making more fun of the abuse you sometimes take than I was of you. LOL
Sometimes I even agree with you.

As for breeding to the older stallions. If they were genetically inferior, obviuosly, they shouldn\'t be bred to, unless one were looking for a specific trait - stamina, soundness, etc. However, As I\'ve said, I don\'t think the gene pool has changed significantly in the past few years. A possible exception might be for unsoundness. Nasty things seem to get establihed quicker than desirable traits. By breeding for speed over soundness, I think breeders are paying the price in unsound horses without getting as much of the desired benefit of speed.
Nature seems to punish mistakes faster than it rewards attempts at improvement. Throw in the influence of drugs, and horses are running faster on unsound legs.
A recipe for breakdowns.

Bob  

[Michael D.]

Bob,
Jerry said Imperialism would have won the JCGC. Are you even aware of what we are talking about here?
.....

and Bob, just a bit of background here. i asked the original question because Jerry has often used figures in races at different distances to defend past figures. at times he will say a 1m turf figure looks correct because a horse came back to run similar figures at longer distances. at times he will say a 6f figure looks correct because a horse came back to run similar figures at 1m. as much as i disagree with your view on distance pars, this has nothing to do with pars. in a general sense, it does have to do with mixing and matching races at different distances.  

[TGJB]

Guys-- I want to point out that I never said that genetic improvement was the major factor in improved performance. If it were simply a matter of that, track and field records wouldn\'t be falling all the time. And in general, humans wouldn\'t be far bigger and stronger than they were a hundreed years ago (at 25 years a generation, as opposed to about 1/3 that for horses).

And they don\'t even breed humans for athletic performance.

[Michael D.]

could you comment on this. you go on to use flower alley and borrego in the same type comparison. you are not giving general performance views, you are placing horses in different races, even giving the number of beaten lengths if they were involved. those were both 10f races, so really no issue there, but what\'s the reason for saying Imp would have won the JCGC with his sprint performance (on Ragozin).

[TGJB]

Michael-- I damn sure didn\'t say Imperialism would have won the Gold Cup. I was talking about what Ragozin was saying, and the quote was \"If you believe those Ragozin numbers, you are saying that if Imperialism RAN AS \"WELL\" as he did in the BC (8th in the sprint) one race earlier, he would have won the Gold Cup\". (Emphasis added).

As Bob has been saying (and as I said in an earlier post) we all understand that horses have different distance limitations. Performance figures are not supposed to be used to say that a horse that can run a 4 at 6f can run it at  1 1/4 miles (although in this case, again, Imperialism ran his 3yo top at 1 1/4). What we are saying is that a horse that ran a 4 sprinting and a horse that ran a 4 routing gave equivalent performances. And if you read my original statement in that context, I think it will read differently.

By the way, if we only used figures at the same distance when making figures, we wouldn\'t be able to make figures-- there would not be enough historical data to use. This ain\'t the trotters, where they run a mile all the time.

[Michael D.]

\"Michael-- I damn sure didn\'t say Imperialism would have won the Gold Cup. I was talking about what Ragozin was saying, and the quote was \"If you believe those Ragozin numbers, you are saying that if Imperialism RAN AS \"WELL\" as he did in the BC (8th in the sprint) one race earlier, he would have won the Gold Cup\". (Emphasis added).\"  

Jerry,
You certainly did say Imperialism would have won the JCGC if you accept Ragozin figures (which is obviously what we are talking about here). Why? I would like to think you were talking about performance in a general sense, but in the line below, you make the same type comprison, EVEN GIVING EXACT BEATEN LENGTHS. Again, that was apples/apples, but the Imp comparison is not. When you talk in terms of \"equivalent performance\", like you do in your post here, things are pretty clear.

As for your last point - just comparable conditions is all I look for, not exact same conditions.

[Michael D.]

We are getting hung up on the \"winning a race with vastly different conditions\" vs \"equivalent performance\" distinction. I get your point, just think things get distorted a bit (a lot at times) if you get away from \"equivalent performance\".

I asked a question earlier, I would be interested in reading your opinion:

\"if the Carson City/Montbrook cross starts to resemble the breed as a whole, you definitely don\'t want to blindly give a \"0\" to the best sprinter and a \"0\" to the best 10f horse. Fortunately today\'s breed does not look like that, but if you look at the way Storm Cat and Mr Prospector blood dominates the game today, you might want to ask the question: \"in terms of equivalence at different distances, is this the same breed we had thirty years ago?\"

[TGJB]

Michael-- I said if he (and they) ran as well as they did, in figure terms, on another day.