Thanks Alan + Question for Jerry

[jimbo66]

Alan,

Nice job again this weekend up at Saratoga.  Talking the races over with you is a learning experience and is much appreciated.  After all, most of us can still learn.  The only two people I know that KNOW EVERYTHING THERE IS TO KNOW, are my wife and Chuckles the Clown......

Jerry,

I wanted to get your view on a topic I was discussing with Alan.  The origin of the question was my assertion that I thought Forestry was a pretty good turf sire and Alan felt he was dirt and the Tgraph figures did say that on average, his dirt offspring run about 1 point faster than his turf offspring.  However, the conclusion from that stat is the issue.  I take that as decent turf breeding, because I struggle with the statement that \"a six is a six is a six.  A six on dirt is the same as a six on turf\".  My problem with that is that the top of the scales are not in synch.  I could buy a six on dirt being six on turf, if the best dirt figures were somewhat similar to the best turf figures.  But that isn\'t the case.  We have had horses running negative 5\'s and 6\'s on dirt, albeit rarely.  Somewhat less rarely, we have horses running negative 2\'s and 3\'s, at least the better graded stakes dirt horses.  However, each year, the best turf numbers seem to be right around 0.  In the years I have been using your product, I don\'t remember seeing a negative 3 on turf.  So, if the top of the scales are not the same or at least similar, how can the \"middle of the scales\" be similar?

Thanks

Jim

[dodie]

great question, jimbo, let me just chime in that this has been a great block for me when trying to evaluate the runners coming from europe that are trying dirt for the first or second time in north america.  I\'m consistently impressed with how accurate the european turf numbers are when strictly compared to north american turf numbers, but they definately don\'t compare to n. amercan dirt no\'s.
i\'d really appreciate some imput from jb or allen.  how do u get those european no\'s so accurate, and why don\'t they translate to dirt?

[Ill-bred]

The turf numbers don\'t translate well because final time is much less meaningful in turf racing than on dirt.

[TGJB]

Jimbo-- this question has come up several times over the years. I believe the figures are on par with each other-- that if you could find some way to write the question the right way, that the population as a whole is equally fast on dirt and turf. Yes, there are fewer big numbers, and I don\'t know why that is (slower paced races that bunch the fields and less drugs are two possiblities, as is the emphasis on speed and dirt in pedigrees). But I think that horse for horse the numbers are right. And so far, on poly, which both dirt and grass horses appear to handle, the figures seem to hold together.

[miff]

\"But I think that horse for horse the numbers are right. And so far, on poly, which both dirt and grass horses appear to handle, the figures seem to hold together\"

JB,

On present Del Mar poly, there are few horses, if any, that can actually run/perform as fast as they do on a dirt surface. You are talking about performance figs projected off previous dirt figs without any regard for raw time. The reality is that horses run MUCH slower on the DEL MAR poly surface and only projection makes them pair their dirt performances.

It\'s a fig makers leap of faith to suggest that horses at Del Mar are ACTUALLY performing as fast as they do on dirt.Maybe you can make performance figs that way, but horses are running slower across the board in the real world of racing and I\'m not speaking raw time alone.Del Mar poly is extremely unkind in returning energy and horses cannot physically perform to their dirt norm. Thats science not projection.


Mike

[TGJB]

Yeah, that\'s science.

If you go back and listen to \"Changing Track Speeds\", you will find that a real scientist, Mick Peterson, who has studied more actual track surfaces than anyone other than George Pratt of M.I.T. (also quoted at length), said that the way we measure \"track speed\" is the most accurate way available.

But don\'t let that get in your way. Stick with \"science\", and raw times. Because it\'s not like some of us, using our figures, are beating the crap out of those DMR races, or buying horses based on those figures to win big races over poly.

[miff]

Nice try, now stay on point, horses cannot perform \"par\" on a surface returning less energy and creating early exhaustion.Has zero to do with those killing the betting windows or buying horses.

Mike

[jimbo66]

Geez Miff,

You hijacked my turf-dirt figure discussion into another \"I hate poly\" thead!

Ok, I hate poly as well and agree with everything you say.


Jerry,

I hear your answer, but it isn\'t one of the clearest to be honest.  I will try to research your old threads to see if you covered it in more detail.  

It doesn\'t make logical sense that we are talking about one breed, the thoroughbred, and we say that the breed as a whole runs the same on turf as they do on dirt (dirt horses run as fast on dirt as turf horses run on turf), but that the fastest dirt horses are far faster, relatively speaking on their best day, then the turf horses are on their best day.  Either the scale slides across the board, as I suspect it might, or the bottom of the scale is equally as skewed, meaning the slowest dirt horses are much slower than the slowest turf horses.  

Turf races aren\'t rare enough for it to be a statistical explanation that the reason there are so many high dirt figures is that there are so many more races on dirt and you get more aberations.  

As an aside, but somewhat related.  You have covered many times on this board that \"horses are getting faster\" and at a considerably faster rate than any other major figure maker suggests.  And your case is good.  But I don\'t see that same rapid increase in turf figures over the last 5-7 year period that I see in the dirt figures.  Why wouldn\'t turf horses be getting faster?  Your figures adjust for the changing track cushion strategy on dirt surfaces, so it can\'t be the way track maintenance is treating either turf or dirt courses.

And one more time for you Miff, I hate poly as well.

[TGJB]

I\'m going home. But I have to say, what is really annoying about this is not that you have no idea what you are talking about, and haven\'t spent any time doing reasearch about the actual science. It\'s that you have no problem talking that way to someone who knows about as much as anyone about this, has done some reasearch, and makes his living dealing with EXACTLY the question of how fast horses run over different surfaces. Show some respect.

[TGJB]

Jimbo-- there are other strings, you might be able to find them, but they cover pretty much the same ground. Again, if you can figure out the right query (tougher than it looks), we can run it easily enough. But a) so far the figures seem to hold up on neutral surfaces, and b) there are far fewer really bad figures run on grass, for whatever that\'s worth.

Again, the possible reasons for less improvement (if it\'s true) could have to do with the slow paces, lack of drugs, pedigrees slanted elsewhere, etc. But wo knows.

[miff]

Jim,

Watching the yanks, really nothing to do with my poly opinion.It\'s not possible that ALL horses are running SLOWER on poly because it would not look good on a piece of paper.Energy return, means nothing.

Wonder why a horse that can only run 4,4,4, on turf and 1,1,1 on dirt cannot be running 3,3,3, on poly.TG figs and the scale would still be correct, the question is how do they pair or run their norm on that unforgiving surface.How can runner \"par\" on that uniquely debilitating surface??


Mike

[miff]

n

[fkach]

Jimbo,

IMO, it\'s at least conceivable that the smaller population of turf horses relative to dirt horses in the U.S. is at least partially responsible for the best turf horses having slower figures \"on average\" than the best dirt horses.  The very fact that Europeans come here and dominate so frequently strongly suggests that our best turfers really aren\'t all that great anyway. So having slower figures at the top is not totally shocking.

The other issue is one of pace. It\'s very obvious to me that slow paces tend to tighten the finishes between horses. The best horses can only seperate themselves from their inferior rivals by so much when the real running is limited to 2-3 furlongs instead of an entire race. Even this year\'s Bluegrass demonstrated that.

Personally, I think no one is measuring turf \"performance\" properly even if they are measuring \"time\" well. (though our host would probably disagree with me strongly ;-)  

IMO, a length is more significant on turf than on dirt. It may not be more significant in terms of time, but it is more significant in the same way that a length is more siginificant at a sprint distance than at 12 furlongs. All beaten lengths charts reflect the latter.  

If you think of most turf races as a combination of several furlong gallops and 2F-3F sprint races, it becomes clearer that beating your opponent by a couple of lengths in a turf race is very important.  

If all beaten lengths scales for turf were adjusted to reflect the way turf races typically develop (giving more signficance to each beaten length), both the bottom and top of the figures would spread out and more closely match dirt racing. IMO, they would then measure performance better, but stop measuring final time.

Just to be clear, my suggestion would raise other problems. On the occasions a turf pace is faster than usual, many of the horses tire more perceptably. As a result, the margins tend to spread out a lot more like dirt races. So my technique would stop working and a more classic beaten lengths chart would work better.

The reality is that there is no real answer to measuring turf performance perfectly because \"pace\" impacts the margins and times in very complicated and different ways.  

IMO measuring differences in time is different than measuring differences in ability. TG and other speed figures measure time. That difference and insight is not generally understood, but is a source of greater understanding of race results when it \"clicks\".  

I hope that makes sense or at least gets your gears churning. :-)

This is obviously something I\'ve given a great deal of thought to because I get more pleasure out of trying to understand the game than I do from betting on it. Some of the mysteries of turf racing are just starting to come together for me after years of less satisfactory results relative to dirt. Unfortunately, it\'s not always easy to translate greater understanding into greater profits. ;-)

[jstrcehors]

As everyone knows. Turf racing in this country is dominated by European horses. Especially out here on the west coast. One should also take notice that these are not the best of the lot. Seldom do we see the top group horses being sold to the US. Few select Stables bring these quality horses over.(Juddmonte,Darly,etc) Some of these group horses may show up here to benefit the usage of Lasix. Most people who purchase horses from Europe want horses with conditions nw 1x etc. Hope that helps.

[miff]

JB,

They have run less than 300 races on Del Mar poly, hardly enough for anyone to definitely nail down whats actually happening performance wise. Any research on dirt surfaces may not be relevant to this very different del mar poly.

It\'s possible that horses are just unable to perform as well as their norm, is what I inferred, not that the figs are wrong.Incidentally,I have read several artcles on how energy return to a running human/animal affects its overall performance and they all confirm the same thing.

Mike