MINESHAFT

[jbelfior]

TGJB--

I see where you are quoted in this week\'s Thoroughbred Times (back page adv. for MINESHAFT and Lane\'s End).

\"What he is is the fastest of all time....\"

It does not say what the rest of the quote was, but I\'m assuming you meant in the last 20 years.


Joe B.

[TGJB]

This is news to me, and I\'m investigating.

[TGJB]

The quote was pulled from an interview with Steve Haskin that ran in Bloodhorse in early October. In the larger discussion I made the points that horses have gotten faster (more on that soon) and that we have been making figures for 21 years. In the ad (which I haven\'t seen) they evidently just used the sexy quote.

[jbelfior]

TGJB--

I figured that was what you said; regardless, it would be tough to imagine a better performance rating than a negative 5.

Joe B.

[Silver Charm]

TGJB and Staff,

Congratulations, when the Blueblood establishment of Kentucky is referencing your work you have achieved success on two fronts:

1)You have been accepted by one of the toughest to penetrate "clicks" in the world.


2)Your work must be "damn good" or they would just ignore you.

Congrats and continued future success.

TGJB,

I am erally looking forward to your article about horses getting faster. Intergenerational comparisons of all sorts have always fascinated me.  

I\'m sure you will have a very rational way of demonstrating your case.

However, if you don\'t mind, no matter how convincing you are, I\'m going to hold onto my gut feeling that Secretariat, Spectacular Bid, Seattle Slew, Affirmed, and Dr Fager are among the great horses of the past that at their peaks would have gotten the best of the Mineshaft of 2003 no matter what the numbers say.  :-)

[Michael D.]

TGJB,
at 8f and up, looking at the aqu track records, seems as though horses have gotten slower. they must have run thousands of races at 8 and 9f since the records were set. did they change the layout of that track at some point?

[TGJB]

I\'m actually sitting down to write this right now, and will work on it as I get a chance over the next couple of days. I was able to find things that related (some more directly than others) to the questions here (there are several). Michael raised one that I addressed a while back when I posted about the discussion I had with NYRA track superintendent Jerry Porcelli. I actually hope to have him review what I write before I post it, but the answer to that one is that not the configuration, but the track itself that has changed.

My guess is that a trip to the Keenland Library would yield an awful lot on this general subject.

As for the great horses CH mentioned-- if I remember correctly, Babe Ruth had at least one year where he hit more homers than any other TEAM did. Think he would lead the league in homers if he played today with the same body and skills he had then? And don\'t anybody say he would be a hundred years old...

Which doesn\'t mean he wasn\'t the greatest player of all time.

[Mall]

Babe Ruth\'s body wasn\'t any worse than Tony Gwynn\'s, and he seemed to be able to hit the ball pretty well. There have been any number of great, overweight hitters over the yrs. The last few yrs notwithstanding, hand eye coordination is at least as important as a steroid enhanced weight lifter\'s body.  More important, the pitching \"talent\" nowadays is so diluted that an argument can be made that many clubs have two or more starters who wouldn\'t have made it to AAA during Babe\'s era. Babe faced much, much better pitching than today\'s sluggers do, though many say he still didn\'t have to face the best of his day, as they were relegated to the Negro leagues. Bottom Line: In most yrs today\'s hitters would be vying to complete the exacta if the Sultan was still around.

TGJB,

I actually agree with you completely. I have a soft spot for the great horses of the late 70s. (and Dr Fager in the 60s) :-)

I\'ve engaged in an endless number of debates about Ruth, Gehrig, Cobb, Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano, Nicolas, Tiger etc...

However, I suspect the changes in most competitive human sports like boxing, baseball, golf, tennis, etc... are much more complex to analyze because there have been huge advances and changes in equipment, stadiums, courses and rules that impacted the game and the stats too.  

Track and field is very clear though. People are faster.  

Since there\'s almost no question at all  there have been huge advances in human training, nutrition, etc.. since the 20s it\'s hard to argue with you about Ruth.

However, how about if we just go back to the time of Mays, Mantle, and Aaron which is more in line with the horses I mentioned?  Then it\'s a little tougher (let\'s exclude steroids as a factor)

I guess there have been training and  nutritional advances for horses in just the last 30 years, but I\'d still take Spectacular Bid as a 4YO over Mineshaft. :-)

[Michael D.]

TGJB,
my point is: sprinters might have improved a lot more than the routers, mainly because of the increased focus on speed in the breeding industry....
take a look at track records across the country; most 9 and 10f records were set at least a few years ago, while most sprint records were set recently. changing track conditions can\'t account for this......just something to look at before making a major adjustment to your entire database.

[derby1592]

I was going to resist entering this fray and then TGJB and Mall had to go and bring up baseball.

This sort of debate is always amusing but typically a waste of time and I am afraid if you \"exclude steroids as a factor\" you may be missing the main point regarding what has changed in recent years both in human and equine sports.

Steroids and other drugs along with better nutrition and high-tech equipment and training, etc. are the major cause of improved performance in both.

Babe Ruth on Steroids and Human Growth hormone...I shudder at the thought...

\"Never let the fear of striking out get in your way\" - Babe Ruth (MLB career strikeout leader and arguably the greatest baseball player of all time).

Also not bad advice for playing the ponies...


Chris



Post Edited (11-11-03 00:16)

[HP]

Chris is right and there are so many other factors at work besides the obvious fixation on the medicine cabinet.

Mall,

\"Babe faced much, much better pitching than today\'s sluggers do...\"

You\'re out on a limb here. Asides from steroids.

For one thing, Babe Ruth never had to face the flamethrowers of today in the late innings. That\'s a lot of at bats over 20 years. Sure he would have turned around Kyle Farnsworth a few times, but I wonder how many of the Babe\'s homers were hit late in games off of guys who would have been home sleeping today?

And just how mediocre were some of those white guys the Babe get to beat up on?

Tough call, but I\'d lean the other way and say the Babe would be very good but nowhere near as dominant in today\'s game. However, the Babe could distinguish himself by pitching in the rotation as well.

Comparing horses of different eras may be even more pointless. Let\'s imagine what Mineshaft\'s \"figures\" would look like if he ran on the same schedule as the greats of yesteryear. Could he pop a minus five if he carried 132 pounds (or more) every ten days? We\'ll never know.

HP

[jbelfior]

I\'ll throw my 2 cents worth in. I too am looking forward to TGJB\'s write-up.

My feeling is that today\'s sprinters are quicker due to the changes in breeding (a point well made by Michael D.) Not sure about the routers.

As for that MINESHAFT vs SPECTACULAR BID. I\'ll take the \'Bid if the race is in California; I\'ll take MINESHAFT at Belmont.

PS: I\'ll take SEATTLE SLEW up to a 1 1/4 against anyone anytime.


Good Luck,
Joe B.

[gowand]

If the medicine cabinet is playing even 1/10th of the role in racing that it is playing in professional and div 1 college sports we might as well pack it in.