Andy Beyer: Harvard Days

[andtheyreoff]

Stumbled upon this today: a series of articles "R. Andrew Beyer" (who knew his first name wasn't Andrew?) wrote for the Harvard Crimson from 1962 to 1966. There's a few in here about racing:

http://www.thecrimson.com/writer/8686/R.andrew__Beyer/

[Greyfox]

He was an interesting guy.
Even back then he had firm ideas:
In one of the articles he wrote:

"Maxim number two is to ignore West Coast horses, no matter how solid they look on paper. In 91 years only one invader from California has been able to win the Derby--the great Swaps."

California Chrome upset that Maxim.

[Spiderman]

He was an interesting guy.
Even back then he had firm ideas:
In one of the articles he wrote:

"Maxim number two is to ignore West Coast horses, no matter how solid they look on paper. In 91 years only one invader from California has been able to win the Derby--the great Swaps."

California Chrome upset that Maxim.

I'll Have Another, Cali invader won in the year prior to Chrome. I think there were a few others, too.

Beyer has an outstanding record . . . of losing selections in KY Derby.

[castaway01]

I'll Have Another, Cali invader won in the year prior to Chrome. I think there were a few others, too.

Beyer has an outstanding record . . . of losing selections in KY Derby.

Hilarious how you'd point out horses from 50 years after the article was written as reasons it was inaccurate back then.

[cj]

Hilarious how you'd point out horses from 50 years after the article was written as reasons it was inaccurate back then.

Hilarious and sad at the same time. From the point it was written, how long did it take a California horse to win? I remember Ferdinand in 1986, but before that, which winner was Cali based?

[ronsmac]

Hilarious and sad at the same time. From the point it was written, how long did it take a California horse to win? I remember Ferdinand in 1986, but before that, which winner was Cali based?Affirmed ran in the east as a 2yo but the west as a 3yo.

[cj]

Affirmed ran in the east as a 2yo but the west as a 3yo.

Yep...not sure how that would be counted. Any before that? I'm just saying it seems like it held up a while after he wrote it. Nothing lasts forever.

[ReplayRandall]

Yep...not sure how that would be counted. Any before that? I'm just saying it seems like it held up a while after he wrote it. Nothing lasts forever.


Beyer wrote that Derby piece on April 30, 1965 just days before Lucky Debonair won the Derby. As a two-year-old in 1964, Lucky Debonair made one start at the Atlantic City Race Course, where he finished out of the money. Sent to race in California at age three, the unheralded colt was ridden by Bill Shoemaker. He finished second in the San Felipe Stakes, and won the San Vicente Handicap, both at Santa Anita Park in Arcadia. He was a supplementary entrant in the West Coast's most important race for three-year-olds, the Santa Anita Derby. Under Shoemaker, Lucky Debonair won the race by four lengths and set a new stakes record of 1:47.00, a time that has been equaled but not broken.....Bottom-line, Beyer was wrong immediately after one of his first horse racing columns, almost 50 years ago.

[thaskalos]

Beyer wrote that Derby piece on April 30, 1965 just days before Lucky Debonair won the Derby. As a two-year-old in 1964, Lucky Debonair made one start at the Atlantic City Race Course, where he finished out of the money. Sent to race in California at age three, the unheralded colt was ridden by Bill Shoemaker. He finished second in the San Felipe Stakes, and won the San Vicente Handicap, both at Santa Anita Park in Arcadia. He was a supplementary entrant in the West Coast's most important race for three-year-olds, the Santa Anita Derby. Under Shoemaker, Lucky Debonair won the race by four lengths and set a new stakes record of 1:47.00, a time that has been equaled but not broken.....Bottom-line, Beyer was wrong immediately after one of his first horse racing columns, almost 50 years ago.
I was wrong 13 times...and that was just in the last four and a half hours. This is a tough game...

[cj]

Beyer wrote that Derby piece on April 30, 1965 just days before Lucky Debonair won the Derby. As a two-year-old in 1964, Lucky Debonair made one start at the Atlantic City Race Course, where he finished out of the money. Sent to race in California at age three, the unheralded colt was ridden by Bill Shoemaker. He finished second in the San Felipe Stakes, and won the San Vicente Handicap, both at Santa Anita Park in Arcadia. He was a supplementary entrant in the West Coast's most important race for three-year-olds, the Santa Anita Derby. Under Shoemaker, Lucky Debonair won the race by four lengths and set a new stakes record of 1:47.00, a time that has been equaled but not broken.....Bottom-line, Beyer was wrong immediately after one of his first horse racing columns, almost 50 years ago.

And then not again until 1986?

Seriously though, who cares? Anybody that writes about big races is going to be wrong a whole lot more than they are write.

What I found interesting is that there was a 9 horse field for the Derby in one of those years. That is just crazy!

[ReplayRandall]

And then not again until 1986?

Seriously though, who cares? Anybody that writes about big races is going to be wrong a whole lot more than they are write.

What I found interesting is that there was a 9 horse field for the Derby in one of those years. That is just crazy!


Hitting that spiked eggnog already, CJ? Merry Christmas and Happy New year!

[ReplayRandall]

I was wrong 13 times...and that was just in the last four and a half hours. This is a tough game...


Go have some spiked eggnog with CJ, you'll forget today's tough breaks........Happy Holidays Gus......

[cj]

Hitting that spiked eggnog already, CJ? Merry Christmas and Happy New year!

You too...

Particularly when it comes to the Derby, I find those types of "trends" (no california based horse, no horse that didn't start at two, no horse without 3 preps, dosage too high, etc, etc) pretty laughable. They were the advent of backfitting in my opinion, and they all did or will fall apart as racing changes.

[thaskalos]

Go have some spiked eggnog with CJ, you'll forget today's tough breaks........Happy Holidays Gus......
Happy Hollidays to you too Randall. I admit that losing bothered me back when I was still new in the game...but I've had a lot of experience with it since then...and it has now become second-nature to me.

[cj]

Happy Hollidays to you too Randall. I admit that losing bothered me back when I was still new in the game...but I've had a lot of experience with it since then...and it has now become second-nature to me.

Being able to not let losses bother you is a must for a serious player, at least not bother you for more than about a minute.

[thaskalos]

Being able to not let losses bother you is a must for a serious player, at least not bother you for more than about a minute.
We often see football players celebrate wildly when they score an impressive touchdown...and some one will go over and advise them to "act like they've been there before".

I remind myself of that after a big loss.

[Show Me the Wire]

Being able to not let losses bother you is a must for a serious player, at least not bother you for more than about a minute.

Why live in the past, when there is opportunity in the future?

[Robert Fischer]

Try to remain on an even keel.

That's why I always yell, swear, complain, and then over-bet my bankroll.

[dilanesp]

Yep...not sure how that would be counted. Any before that? I'm just saying it seems like it held up a while after he wrote it. Nothing lasts forever.

Affirmed ran in the west at 2 as well. And at 4. He was definitely west coast based.

[dilanesp]

And then not again until 1986?

Seriously though, who cares? Anybody that writes about big races is going to be wrong a whole lot more than they are write.

What I found interesting is that there was a 9 horse field for the Derby in one of those years. That is just crazy!

Majestic Prince beat a wonderful New York horse, Arts and Letters, in 1969 after running in the Santa Anita Derby.

[dilanesp]

You too...

Particularly when it comes to the Derby, I find those types of "trends" (no california based horse, no horse that didn't start at two, no horse without 3 preps, dosage too high, etc, etc) pretty laughable. They were the advent of backfitting in my opinion, and they all did or will fall apart as racing changes.

They do it with the Breeders Cup too.

It's a sample size problem. 100 races is nothing, statistically.

[dilanesp]

One other thing. Hill Gail shipped in from California to win the Derby before Swaps. So Beyer wasn't even right when he wrote that.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Affirmed ran in the west at 2 as well. And at 4. He was definitely west coast based.

I had to pull out the racing almanac on this - it shows Affirmed raced nine times as a 2 yr old, with one of those starts on the west coast. Wasn't he east coast based -- BEL?

[Tom]

Try to remain on an even keel.

That's why I always yell, swear, complain, and then over-bet my bankroll.

Stand up, smack the guy sitting next to you over the head with your rolled up form, then move on to the next race! Works for me. Or, worked for me!

[PhantomOnTour]

You too...

Particularly when it comes to the Derby, I find those types of "trends" (no california based horse, no horse that didn't start at two, no horse without 3 preps, dosage too high, etc, etc) pretty laughable. They were the advent of backfitting in my opinion, and they all did or will fall apart as racing changes.
The bolded part above is not laughable to me, and I basically abide by it, although I will admit that I was going to play Hoppertunity this year before his injury.
He would have the been the first Derby horse I ever used on top without 2yr old experience.

[dilanesp]

I had to pull out the racing almanac on this - it shows Affirmed raced nine times as a 2 yr old, with one of those starts on the west coast. Wasn't he east coast based -- BEL?

He trained out here a lot. Laz had established an operation in SoCal by 1977 and he won the Hollywood Juvenile between starts in New York against Alydar, and then was stabled here from November 1977 through May 1978 and November 1978 through July 1979.

If you want to say he was ALSO New York based, that's fine, but his rivalry with Alydar was definitely seen as West versus East at the time.

[Stillriledup]

Losses only bother me if i feel i screwed it up somehow. If i love my bet and have a great feeling about it, those don't bother me one iota. The ones that bother me the most are ones i feel that i'm "pressing" or betting a race i shouldnt' be playing because i'm on steam, things like that. I think the key is for super competitive people who are really hard on themselves that its ok to let losses bother you, but its vital not to let losses AFFECT you.

As long as the loss doesn't hurt my next wager or make me do something stupid at the windows, i'm perfectly fine having that loss REALLY bother me. When losses stop bothering me, that's when i'll start to worry.

[dilanesp]

The bolded part above is not laughable to me, and I basically abide by it, although I will admit that I was going to play Hoppertunity this year before his injury.
He would have the been the first Derby horse I ever used on top without 2yr old experience.

It will eventually be broken.

Think about it-- it's basically a proxy for number of starts. And the number of starts of Derby starters has gone way, way down.

I think Curlin a few years ago came pretty close to winning the Derby without a 2 year old start (and with only 2 starts lifetime).

Actually, if we were having this conversation in the 1980's, it would be pointed out that not only has no horse that didn't start as a 2 year old won the Derby since forever, but at that time no horse who hadn't been listed within the top 10 pounds on the Experimental Handicap (i.e., essentially nobody who didn't perform well in 2 year old stakes) had won since forever. That changed as the number of starts of Derby starters went down as well.

The reality is we have entered an age where trainers and owners act very irresponsibly and enter the Derby off one good start. In that era, it's only a matter of time before some horse wins the Derby with no 2 year old starts.

[biggestal99]

Affirmed ran in the west at 2 as well. And at 4. He was definitely west coast based.

How could he have faced alydar so many times if he raced on the west coast, his base was whereever alydar was.

Allan

[clocker7]

After moving to the states, Canonero II had only 2 starts before the KD.

Dmr.

[clocker7]

Determine in ran in the Derby Trial before winning the 1954 KD. Before that, he ran 21 times, exclusively in CA.

Hol, Dmr, GG, SA, and BM.

[clocker7]

In 1904, Elwood ran 17 times earlier in the year at Ascot Park, an LA forerunner to the first Santa Anita Park. Then he went directly to Louisville and scored. One of the earlier dates entailed finishing behind His Eminence, the 1901 winner.

This is fun. :D

[clocker7]

And don't overlook Donau. His first 15 races were on the West Coast, primarily at Lucky Baldwin's old Santa Anita. But two were in Oakland.

Not sure, but outlawing racing in CA might have moved him east out of necessity.

[clocker7]

Tomy Lee began on the West Coast (6 starts). Shipped back east for the Champagne and the Garden State, he came up short. Then back to CA for winter racing (San Vicente and San Felipe). A win at the Blue Grass before winning the roses.

[Valuist]

It will eventually be broken.

Think about it-- it's basically a proxy for number of starts. And the number of starts of Derby starters has gone way, way down.

I think Curlin a few years ago came pretty close to winning the Derby without a 2 year old start (and with only 2 starts lifetime).

Actually, if we were having this conversation in the 1980's, it would be pointed out that not only has no horse that didn't start as a 2 year old won the Derby since forever, but at that time no horse who hadn't been listed within the top 10 pounds on the Experimental Handicap (i.e., essentially nobody who didn't perform well in 2 year old stakes) had won since forever. That changed as the number of starts of Derby starters went down as well.

The reality is we have entered an age where trainers and owners act very irresponsibly and enter the Derby off one good start. In that era, it's only a matter of time before some horse wins the Derby with no 2 year old starts.

Curlin may have won the Eclipse for top 3YO but he was a far back non threatening 3rd in the Derby. He was never in position that he looked like he had a shot at winning.

[dilanesp]

Curlin may have won the Eclipse for top 3YO but he was a far back non threatening 3rd in the Derby. He was never in position that he looked like he had a shot at winning.

And what did he do in his very next start?

I repeat, he came very close to winning the Derby. He was 1 race away.

[dilanesp]

In 1904, Elwood ran 17 times earlier in the year at Ascot Park, an LA forerunner to the first Santa Anita Park. Then he went directly to Louisville and scored. One of the earlier dates entailed finishing behind His Eminence, the 1901 winner.

This is fun. :D

That's a good one. The first LA Ascot Park was a mile track at Central and Florence, in Watts. It was a few miles directly to the east of what is now Hollywood Park, and operated at a time when LA was tiny before the film industry came here and the city started to grow.

It's hard to believe that track would produce a Derby winner but it did.

[Stillriledup]

That's a good one. The first LA Ascot Park was a mile track at Central and Florence, in Watts. It was a few miles directly to the east of what is now Hollywood Park, and operated at a time when LA was tiny before the film industry came here and the city started to grow.

It's hard to believe that track would produce a Derby winner but it did.

I'm always fascinated by defunct tracks, didn't Las Vegas have a tbred track a half a century ago? There's also a track in Phoenix i think that's sitting there and hasn't been used in decades and hasn't been demolished to my knowledge.

[dilanesp]

I'm always fascinated by defunct tracks, didn't Las Vegas have a tbred track a half a century ago? There's also a track in Phoenix i think that's sitting there and hasn't been used in decades and hasn't been demolished to my knowledge.

Las Vegas had a track, but I have only been able to find snippets of information about it. (For instance, there's a little article at Autotote's website about the totalisator they installed at it.)

The Pheonix track you are thinking of is a harness track in Goodyear, Arizona. The grandstand is visible from I-10 and is a landmark. It was built in the 1960's and ran two seasons. When it closed, the owners (at the time) of Turf Paradise bought it for the sole purpose of preventing anyone else from buying it and running races there in competition with Turf Paradise.

The track itself is long, long gone, though you can see a bare outline of it from satellite photos. The barns and parking lots are gone as well. But the grandstand-- which was clearly a very modern design when it was built in the 1960's-- is completely intact.

There's plenty of information about this on the web. Start here (https://www.google.com/search?q=goodyear+arizona+racetrack&client=opera&hs=Vse&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=o26bVKqxC8u2oQT1_oLYCg&ved=0CAsQ_AUoBA&biw=1242&bih=600) and here (http://www.sbnation.com/2013/7/11/4514706/phoenix-trotting-park-goodyear-arizona-ghost-racetrack) .

EDIT: Here's (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/apr/29/sad-saga-horse-racing-las-vegas/) a good recent article on the Las Vegas track.

[PhantomOnTour]

And what did he do in his very next start?

I repeat, he came very close to winning the Derby. He was 1 race away.
Correct....or in other words, he was short on seasoning, and that seasoning should have come in the form of a start during his 2yr old season.

May have won the Derby or even the Triple Crown

[dilanesp]

Correct....or in other words, he was short on seasoning, and that seasoning should have come in the form of a start during his 2yr old season.

May have won the Derby or even the Triple Crown

I would rarely go so far as to say that another handicapper's opinion is dumb. But with respect, this one is.

Curlin had 2 starts going into the Derby. He very well needed a third start. But there's ZERO logic to saying that it arbitrarily had to come before December 31 of the previous year, and that if it came after January 1 of that year, it wouldn't have helped him.

Anyone who seriously believes that is basically saying that arbitrary calendar dates, rather than the actual physical condition of horses, is what determines the results of races.

Frankly, there is basically zero difference between winning the Preakness in one's 4th start, over one of the best Derby winners of his era (2 year old and BC Juvenile Champion, 3rd in the BC Classic), with no experience as a 2 year old, and winning the Derby the same way. If there was really some magic to starting as a 2 year old and winning the Derby, it would apply just as much to the Preakness, run against the same horses at almost the same distance just 2 weeks later.

Anyone who looks at Curlin and says "that just proves you can't win the Derby without a 2 year old start" is learning the exact wrong lesson.

[Stillriledup]

I would rarely go so far as to say that another handicapper's opinion is dumb. But with respect, this one is.

Curlin had 2 starts going into the Derby. He very well needed a third start. But there's ZERO logic to saying that it arbitrarily had to come before December 31 of the previous year, and that if it came after January 1 of that year, it wouldn't have helped him.

Anyone who seriously believes that is basically saying that arbitrary calendar dates, rather than the actual physical condition of horses, is what determines the results of races.

Frankly, there is basically zero difference between winning the Preakness in one's 4th start, over one of the best Derby winners of his era (2 year old and BC Juvenile Champion, 3rd in the BC Classic), with no experience as a 2 year old, and winning the Derby the same way. If there was really some magic to starting as a 2 year old and winning the Derby, it would apply just as much to the Preakness, run against the same horses at almost the same distance just 2 weeks later.

Anyone who looks at Curlin and says "that just proves you can't win the Derby without a 2 year old start" is learning the exact wrong lesson.

I'm a fan of POT, so i wouldn't be critical of him here, but you are correct that an arbitrary date means nothing.

Also, many of those horses who lost the derby who didnt race at 2 didn't actually lose because they didnt race at 2, they lost for another reason as the "2" was 5 months or more in the rear view mirror, so something that happened 5 months prior isnt' really much of a factor on May 1-7th.

A lot of it backfitting.

[PhantomOnTour]

I would rarely go so far as to say that another handicapper's opinion is dumb. But with respect, this one is.

Curlin had 2 starts going into the Derby. He very well needed a third start. But there's ZERO logic to saying that it arbitrarily had to come before December 31 of the previous year, and that if it came after January 1 of that year, it wouldn't have helped him.

Anyone who seriously believes that is basically saying that arbitrary calendar dates, rather than the actual physical condition of horses, is what determines the results of races.

Frankly, there is basically zero difference between winning the Preakness in one's 4th start, over one of the best Derby winners of his era (2 year old and BC Juvenile Champion, 3rd in the BC Classic), with no experience as a 2 year old, and winning the Derby the same way. If there was really some magic to starting as a 2 year old and winning the Derby, it would apply just as much to the Preakness, run against the same horses at almost the same distance just 2 weeks later.

Anyone who looks at Curlin and says "that just proves you can't win the Derby without a 2 year old start" is learning the exact wrong lesson.
Glad to see you're in the Christmas spirit...thx for the compliment regarding my opinion.
You keep saying that an arbitrary date cannot eliminate someone from winning the Derby, and yet it hasn't happened in 130 some odd years.
It's not the date, it's the conditioning a juvy receives prior to that initial start that makes the difference, imo.
Before a horse makes his actual racing debut he has been thoroughly conditioned (presumably) on the track, starting gate, and maybe even the paddock area. There's a lot to learn for a youngster, and going from unraced to Derby winner in 5mths (or less than 4 in Curlin's case) is asking a heck of a lot.

And yes, the Preakness is an ENTIRELY different animal from the Derby.
Lining up against 19 opponents before a raucous crowd in only your 3rd lifetime start (I don't care how brilliant you are Indian Charlie, or Curlin, or Desert Hero) simply doesn't compare to a much smaller and usually less ruggedly run race like the Preakness.

Merry Christmas to you.

[PhantomOnTour]

Glad to see you're in the Christmas spirit...thx for the compliment regarding my opinion.
You keep saying that an arbitrary date cannot eliminate someone from winning the Derby, and yet it hasn't happened in 130 some odd years.
It's not the date, it's the conditioning a juvy receives prior to that initial start that makes the difference, imo.
Before a horse makes his actual racing debut he has been thoroughly conditioned (presumably) on the track, starting gate, and maybe even the paddock area. There's a lot to learn for a youngster, and going from unraced to Derby winner in 5mths (or less than 4 in Curlin's case) is asking a heck of a lot.

And yes, the Preakness is an ENTIRELY different animal from the Derby.
Lining up against 19 opponents before a raucous crowd in only your 3rd lifetime start (I don't care how brilliant you are Indian Charlie, or Curlin, or Desert Hero) simply doesn't compare to a much smaller and usually less ruggedly run race like the Preakness.

Merry Christmas to you.
I was incorrect with Indian Charlie, who raced at age two...was thinking of Pulpit.

[dilanesp]

Glad to see you're in the Christmas spirit...thx for the compliment regarding my opinion.
You keep saying that an arbitrary date cannot eliminate someone from winning the Derby, and yet it hasn't happened in 130 some odd years.
It's not the date, it's the conditioning a juvy receives prior to that initial start that makes the difference, imo.
Before a horse makes his actual racing debut he has been thoroughly conditioned (presumably) on the track, starting gate, and maybe even the paddock area. There's a lot to learn for a youngster, and going from unraced to Derby winner in 5mths (or less than 4 in Curlin's case) is asking a heck of a lot.

And yes, the Preakness is an ENTIRELY different animal from the Derby.
Lining up against 19 opponents before a raucous crowd in only your 3rd lifetime start (I don't care how brilliant you are Indian Charlie, or Curlin, or Desert Hero) simply doesn't compare to a much smaller and usually less ruggedly run race like the Preakness.

Merry Christmas to you.

130 years is nothing, at 1 race a year. That's a sample size of 130 (or 132, really).

You can't do a presidential poll with a 132 person sample size. You can't do serious health study with a 132 person sample size. You can't determine a poker winrate based on 132 hands, or a handicapping winrate based on 132 races.

If you look at 132 events, inevitably some sort of noisy statistics are going to be true. We went a long time between geldings winning the Derby. We went a long time where you had to have 6 starts or more. We went a long time, as I mentioned before, with horses on the Experimental Handicap. And dosage. And a ton of other things.

It is true that physical conditioning is important. But what's wrong is talking about it in terms of an arbitrary calendar date. There isn't anything magical about January 1, which, by the way, DOESN'T EVEN FALL THE SAME NUMBER OF DAYS BEFORE EVERY DERBY. In other words, in years where the Derby is on May 7, your cut-off date is 6 days earlier than in years where the Derby is on May 1.

Finally, your statements about the Preakness are pure rationalization. Is the Derby a slightly harder race because of field size, slightly longer distance, and slightly earlier? Sure. Is it significantly harder? No way. It's basically just as hard to win the Preakness. Indeed, in the Preakness, the horses have a race under their belt and a lot of the bad horses are eliminated. Some Preaknesses, such as the 1997 running, draw better fields than most Derbies. By the way, the one Curlin won was one of them-- that was a MUCH more difficult race to win than the Derbies won by Super Saver and Mine that Bird were, and yet you are acting like since it was 2 weeks later there's no way the 2 year old race criterion could possibly be relevant.

There's just no actual reasoning here when you cut through it. Something has happened because of a small sample size, and rather than thinking, "small sample size, I need more data", you have constructed a complex theory that supposedly explains it even though if such an elaborate theory were true we'd see it play out in other races and we don't.

The Curse of Apollo will be broken, it will happen sometime fairly soon, and you will lose a lot of money on that Derby because you threw out the winner based on a completely arbitrary criterion.

[Robert Fischer]

Curlin is a neat example.
I think he drew the 2 post Kentucky Derby, and a horse named Sedgefield was the 1 post on the rail.

The inside can be tough in the derby.

The rail kind of opened up and Sedgefield ended up getting a really nice pocket to run in(which combined with a moderate pace, allowed Sedgefield to overachieve and finish 5th even though the public had him about 60-1).

However, jockey Robby Albarado let Curlin break naturally and settle into stride (and get shuffled back quite a bit) rather than be a little more aggressive and follow Sedgefield into that nice pocket trip.

Tough to criticize Albarado's ride in hindsight.

That was the biggest difference for Curlin, in at least being able to tackle Hard Spun in the Derby.

Of course you had Street Sense get a dream trip with Borel starting 20 lengths back and riding the rail with perfect timing, so even if Curlin had been given a chance to get Hard Spun, he'd still have another 2+ lengths to fend off Street Sense.

In terms of performance, it was debatable which horse ran better.

[clocker7]

I'm always fascinated by defunct tracks, didn't Las Vegas have a tbred track a half a century ago? There's also a track in Phoenix i think that's sitting there and hasn't been used in decades and hasn't been demolished to my knowledge.

See:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=42053

I think that it opened in September of 1953. Decent horses ran there including Chanlea, A Gleam, and War Allies.

[Stillriledup]

See:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=42053

I think that it opened in September of 1953. Decent horses ran there including Chanlea, A Gleam, and War Allies.

Thanks 7, appreciate the link. :ThmbUp:

[garyscpa]

This was a nice discussion, but Curlin had three starts before the Kentucky Derby.

[classhandicapper]

I think everyone is right.

1. The Derby sample sizes are generally too small to draw any strong conclusions.

2. If you add "odds' to the equation (were a lot of the horses that failed a short price?) the angle gains some power despite the small sample.

3. The game is always changing. So so will the stats.

4. IMO it helps to have a higher level of conditioning and seasoning if you are trying to win the Derby because of the crowd, deep high quality large field, and longer distance.

5. I don't think it matters much how and when you get that seasoning, but it's tough to squeeze enough of it into just a few starts in a few months at 3.

I've seen a few lightly raced rushed horses that looked like major contenders going into the Derby run poorly relative to expectations. We've even seen experienced horses not handle it (Damascus).

6. Merry Christmas

[PhantomOnTour]

130 years is nothing, at 1 race a year. That's a sample size of 130 (or 132, really).

You can't do a presidential poll with a 132 person sample size. You can't do serious health study with a 132 person sample size. You can't determine a poker winrate based on 132 hands, or a handicapping winrate based on 132 races.

If you look at 132 events, inevitably some sort of noisy statistics are going to be true. We went a long time between geldings winning the Derby. We went a long time where you had to have 6 starts or more. We went a long time, as I mentioned before, with horses on the Experimental Handicap. And dosage. And a ton of other things.

It is true that physical conditioning is important. But what's wrong is talking about it in terms of an arbitrary calendar date. There isn't anything magical about January 1, which, by the way, DOESN'T EVEN FALL THE SAME NUMBER OF DAYS BEFORE EVERY DERBY. In other words, in years where the Derby is on May 7, your cut-off date is 6 days earlier than in years where the Derby is on May 1.

Finally, your statements about the Preakness are pure rationalization. Is the Derby a slightly harder race because of field size, slightly longer distance, and slightly earlier? Sure. Is it significantly harder? No way. It's basically just as hard to win the Preakness. Indeed, in the Preakness, the horses have a race under their belt and a lot of the bad horses are eliminated. Some Preaknesses, such as the 1997 running, draw better fields than most Derbies. By the way, the one Curlin won was one of them-- that was a MUCH more difficult race to win than the Derbies won by Super Saver and Mine that Bird were, and yet you are acting like since it was 2 weeks later there's no way the 2 year old race criterion could possibly be relevant.

There's just no actual reasoning here when you cut through it. Something has happened because of a small sample size, and rather than thinking, "small sample size, I need more data", you have constructed a complex theory that supposedly explains it even though if such an elaborate theory were true we'd see it play out in other races and we don't.

The Curse of Apollo will be broken, it will happen sometime fairly soon, and you will lose a lot of money on that Derby because you threw out the winner based on a completely arbitrary criterion.
Thanks for your concern and warning.
I understand your point, but there's no need to come at me personally, as you've done twice.
Yes, sure, a horse will eventually win the Derby again with no 2yr old experience (Strodes Creek ran 2nd about 20yrs ago)...and I even stated that I was going to play Hoppertunity this year...but that runner would have to have shown some absolute brilliance & maturity early on to even make the race, which would most likely result in an underlaid price for a race like the Derby.

[PhantomOnTour]

130 years is nothing, at 1 race a year. That's a sample size of 130 (or 132, really).

You can't do a presidential poll with a 132 person sample size. You can't do serious health study with a 132 person sample size. You can't determine a poker winrate based on 132 hands, or a handicapping winrate based on 132 races.

If you look at 132 events, inevitably some sort of noisy statistics are going to be true. We went a long time between geldings winning the Derby. We went a long time where you had to have 6 starts or more. We went a long time, as I mentioned before, with horses on the Experimental Handicap. And dosage. And a ton of other things.

It is true that physical conditioning is important. But what's wrong is talking about it in terms of an arbitrary calendar date. There isn't anything magical about January 1, which, by the way, DOESN'T EVEN FALL THE SAME NUMBER OF DAYS BEFORE EVERY DERBY. In other words, in years where the Derby is on May 7, your cut-off date is 6 days earlier than in years where the Derby is on May 1.

Finally, your statements about the Preakness are pure rationalization. Is the Derby a slightly harder race because of field size, slightly longer distance, and slightly earlier? Sure. Is it significantly harder? No way. It's basically just as hard to win the Preakness. Indeed, in the Preakness, the horses have a race under their belt and a lot of the bad horses are eliminated. Some Preaknesses, such as the 1997 running, draw better fields than most Derbies. By the way, the one Curlin won was one of them-- that was a MUCH more difficult race to win than the Derbies won by Super Saver and Mine that Bird were, and yet you are acting like since it was 2 weeks later there's no way the 2 year old race criterion could possibly be relevant.

There's just no actual reasoning here when you cut through it. Something has happened because of a small sample size, and rather than thinking, "small sample size, I need more data", you have constructed a complex theory that supposedly explains it even though if such an elaborate theory were true we'd see it play out in other races and we don't.

The Curse of Apollo will be broken, it will happen sometime fairly soon, and you will lose a lot of money on that Derby because you threw out the winner based on a completely arbitrary criterion.
Actually, the sample size is much smaller than 132...why would you assume every field had a non raced 2yr old, and only one at that? Only about 7 or so runners have even tried this in the last 20yrs....with Curlin being the best of them.

Statistically speaking, the Derby is harder to win because there are more runners, period. I won't even get into the matter of trips, which are overwhelmingly more hazardous on the 1st Sat in May than the 3rd.

Again, your are stuck on dates instead of the experience factor. Great runners like Curlin can get a lot of useful experience in a race like the Derby, while some others get the crap scared out of them.

I didn't construct any theory, others did and I happen to agree with them. And it's not complex at all....pretty simple actually. Just for kicks, what did you find so complex about it?

[dilanesp]

Actually, the sample size is much smaller than 132...why would you assume every field had a non raced 2yr old, and only one at that? Only about 7 or so runners have even tried this in the last 20yrs....with Curlin being the best of them.

Statistically speaking, the Derby is harder to win because there are more runners, period. I won't even get into the matter of trips, which are overwhelmingly more hazardous on the 1st Sat in May than the 3rd.

Again, your are stuck on dates instead of the experience factor. Great runners like Curlin can get a lot of useful experience in a race like the Derby, while some others get the crap scared out of them.

I didn't construct any theory, others did and I happen to agree with them. And it's not complex at all....pretty simple actually. Just for kicks, what did you find so complex about it?

Basic statistical literacy says that when you have a tiny sample size, in general you should assume any particular effect is probably noise.

That's the simple theory.

"Oh, there's some special thing about the Derby that makes it different from every other race because there's 20 horses (which isn't even always true) instead of 14 and it occurs about 125 days after January 1 instead of 139 and it's approximately 2,000 meters instead of 1,900 meters and therefore it's impossible or almost impossible for a horse to win if his first start is on January 1 whereas so long as the start comes on December 31 he has sufficient seasoning" is the complex theory.

EDIT: I should expand on the 20 horses thing.

The reasoning about the Curse of Apollo is based in part on the idea that the Derby has a 20 horse field and therefore you need that seasoning to survive that tough experience.

But for most of the years of the Curse, the Derby almost never had 20 horses. 20 horse fields in the Derby are for the most part a product of modern owners and trainers who act like jerks and enter any horse who runs decently in a prep race in the Derby. In the past, though, it didn't work like that. Citation's Derby had six horses in it. Majestic Prince's had 8. Secretariat's Derby had 13. Affirmed's had 11. As late as 1997, we had a Derby that didn't even require the auxiliary starting gate.

So most of the data in this alleged "statistic" about horses not winning the Derby without 2 year old experience was compiled in an era when the Derby was often just like an ordinary horse race and not a 20 horse scrum.

So how can the "reason" for this statistic be that you need conditioning to run in that big field????

[rastajenk]

... modern owners and trainers who act like jerks and enter any horse who runs decently in a prep race in the Derby...How is that being a jerk? Why would you run in a Derby prep in the first place if you didn't have Derby dreams?

[dilanesp]

How is that being a jerk? Why would you run in a Derby prep in the first place if you didn't have Derby dreams?

While the arbitrary January 1 date is incorrect, people are correct that in general having plenty of races before going in the Derby is better practice.

That is what used to happen. Look at old Derbies and you will find plenty of horses with 10, 15, even 20 starts. And horses who won a Derby prep in March would then run in 2 more in April, and wouldn't run in the Derby if their form wasn't consistent.

Nowadays lots of folks clog up the starting gate and track with undeserving animals just to be there. And they run in one prep, qualify on points or earnings, and then don't run anymore because they know their horse might get exposed if they do.

The people who act that way are jerks. They are risking their horses, amd deliberately not giving them sufficient preparation because they are afraid they may not get to run if they prepare the horse properly.

[thaskalos]

While the arbitrary January 1 date is incorrect, people are correct that in general having plenty of races before going in the Derby is better practice.

That is what used to happen. Look at old Derbies and you will find plenty of horses with 10, 15, even 20 starts. And horses who won a Derby prep in March would then run in 2 more in April, and wouldn't run in the Derby if their form wasn't consistent.

Nowadays lots of folks clog up the starting gate and track with undeserving animals just to be there. And they run in one prep, qualify on points or earnings, and then don't run anymore because they know their horse might get exposed if they do.

The people who act that way are jerks. They are risking their horses, amd deliberately not giving them sufficient preparation because they are afraid they may not get to run if they prepare the horse properly.

Frankly...I don't understand this kind of thinking. We know that the horse owners in this game are not motivated by the money-making potential in owning horses...and now we want to deny them whatever "prestige" they see in entering a horse in the Derby?

Not to mention that there have been enough outrageous winners in that race to give even the faintest hope a little encouragement.

[Tom]

You mean like Mine That Bird? :rolleyes:

Hey, if clogging the starting gate were a problem, CD is the cause of it.
They insist on putting 20 horse in it.
Don't blame anyone else.

[dilanesp]

You mean like Mine That Bird? :rolleyes:

Hey, if clogging the starting gate were a problem, CD is the cause of it.
They insist on putting 20 horse in it.
Don't blame anyone else.

Well, they are A cause of it.

But don't let the owners off the hook. For most of the Derby's history, there was no limit at all, and yet field sizes over 14 or so were highly uncommon.

Churchill imposes the limits they DO impose because owners and trainers didn't used to be stupid and are now.

[the little guy]

Well, they are A cause of it.

But don't let the owners off the hook. For most of the Derby's history, there was no limit at all, and yet field sizes over 14 or so were highly uncommon.

Churchill imposes the limits they DO impose because owners and trainers didn't used to be stupid and are now.

No, they imposed the limit after the 1974 Derby ( i.e. 40 years ago ) when 22 horses ran and they felt that was too much.

You talk like some sort of authority, when in fact you get much more wrong than right.

[Cratos]

No, they imposed the limit after the 1974 Derby ( i.e. 40 years ago ) when 22 horses ran and they felt that was too much.

You talk like some sort of authority, when in fact you get much more wrong than right.
Thanks for the clarity and did CD's decision have anything to do with the bottle throwing incident?

[dilanesp]

No, they imposed the limit after the 1974 Derby ( i.e. 40 years ago ) when 22 horses ran and they felt that was too much.

You talk like some sort of authority, when in fact you get much more wrong than right.

The 1981 Kentucky Derby (21 starters) would like a word with you.

You talk like some sort of authority, when in fact you get much more wrong than right.

More seriously, the 20 starter limit and graded earnings / point system was something that evolved over the course of several years, during a time when the average field size was increasing, and was in fact a response to the perception that there were too many people entering the Derby just because they wanted to be there.

[cj]

The 1981 Kentucky Derby (21 starters) would like a word with you.

You talk like some sort of authority, when in fact you get much more wrong than right.

More seriously, the 20 starter limit and graded earnings / point system was something that evolved over the course of several years, during a time when the average field size was increasing, and was in fact a response to the perception that there were too many people entering the Derby just because they wanted to be there.

From the Kentucky Derby web site:

The Kentucky Derby field has been limited to
20 starters since 1975 – the year after 23 horses
contested the 100th anniversary of the Derby in 1974.
At least 20 horses have entered the race every year
since 2004, and 12 of the last 14 years.


I could not find an explanation of why 21 were allowed in 1981, but obviously an exception was made for some reason.

[dilanesp]

From the Kentucky Derby web site:

I realize the official history is that the field size was strictly limited to 20 after 1974, but the truth is the 20 starter / graded stakes earnings rule was something that evolved over several years (and has continued to evolve in recent years), and as I noted, they did, in fact, run 21 horses in 1981. The rule was firmly in place by the mid-1980's and there were some horses who missed the Derby in that decade because of the rule (no horse was excluded from the Derby in the 1970's on earnings).

And the reason the rule evolved is because of the perception that people enter horses who don't belong in the Derby just to be in the race. (This isn't a problem limited to the Derby by the way, cf., Rick's Natural Star.)

[Saratoga_Mike]

I realize the official history is that the field size was strictly limited to 20 after 1974, but the truth is the 20 starter / graded stakes earnings rule was something that evolved over several years (and has continued to evolve in recent years), and as I noted, they did, in fact, run 21 horses in 1981. The rule was firmly in place by the mid-1980's and there were some horses who missed the Derby in that decade because of the rule (no horse was excluded from the Derby in the 1970's on earnings).

And the reason the rule evolved is because of the perception that people enter horses who don't belong in the Derby just to be in the race. (This isn't a problem limited to the Derby by the way, cf., Rick's Natural Star.)

The rule was in place in 1981, but there was a court challenge - pls see link

http://www.si.com/vault/1981/05/11/825621/the-stampede-for-the-roses-a-monster-field-of-21-horses-burst-from-the-gates-at-the-107th-kentucky-derby-but-at-the-finish-pleasant-colony-the-fat-mans-colt-was-heading-the-herd

[dilanesp]

For those truly interested in the tortured history of the 20 horse limit, here it is-- Churchill originally announced that it would no longer accept more than 20 entries for the Derby in 1975. However, because that was not written into the conditions of the race, it was subject to a Kentucky state racing commission rule that said that a track was not permitted to take a coupled entry while excluding a horse with separate ownership from a race. Thus in 1981, the first time they invoked the rule, they started 21 horses.

In 1982, they changed the rule, by writing the graded stakes earnings limitation into the conditions of the race, so it was not subject to the state rule on coupled entries. And it's been 20 since then, though they have since tinkered with the formula for which 20 horses get in (moving to a points system and then changing the points formula).

[cj]

For those truly interested in the tortured history of the 20 horse limit, here it is-- Churchill originally announced that it would no longer accept more than 20 entries for the Derby in 1975. However, because that was not written into the conditions of the race, it was subject to a Kentucky state racing commission rule that said that a track was not permitted to take a coupled entry while excluding a horse with separate ownership from a race. Thus in 1981, the first time they invoked the rule, they started 21 horses.

In 1982, they changed the rule, by writing the graded stakes earnings limitation into the conditions of the race, so it was not subject to the state rule on coupled entries. And it's been 20 since then, though they have since tinkered with the formula for which 20 horses get in (moving to a points system and then changing the points formula).

In other words, Andy had it right. Thanks.

[rastajenk]

And me, too, before it got sidetracked. Why is someone a jerk if his horse "ran decently" in a prep and that someone has every expectation of it doing so again in the Derby, and who knows, with some racing luck, might not only earn a major piece of the purse, but show something that hasn't been revealed yet? Why is that being a jerk?

[the little guy]

And the reason the rule evolved is because of the perception that people enter horses who don't belong in the Derby just to be in the race. (This isn't a problem limited to the Derby by the way, cf., Rick's Natural Star.)

It's impressive how despite continually being wrong ( it seems like some combination of making things up and not knowing what you are talking about ) you just keep on saying incorrect and/or illogical things.

For instance, if one applies logic to your above ( and incorrect ) assertion, one would have to ask how Churchill arrived at 20 as the number that precludes people from entering horses that don't belong ( you know...like Mine That Bird ). But, why try to be logical.

By the way, nobody saw Affirmed and Alydar as an East vs. West rivalry ( except maybe you ). They met six times, on the East Coast, as 2YOs. I guess the next question would be how this would be possible if one was a West Coast horse.

[the little guy]

The 1981 Kentucky Derby (21 starters) would like a word with you.

You talk like some sort of authority, when in fact you get much more wrong than right.

More seriously, the 20 starter limit and graded earnings / point system was something that evolved over the course of several years, during a time when the average field size was increasing, and was in fact a response to the perception that there were too many people entering the Derby just because they wanted to be there.


This is GOLD.

[clocker7]

Some day there will a big accident on the front side that will make this conversation moot. A sensible fourteen starters will result.

However, I sense the need for a prestigious, alternative, 10 furlong straightaway Derby (similar to the old Futurity course, built for unlimited starters) so that every egomaniac with an animal having four legs (horse, dog, cat, whatever) can get a party table for his pals. And so that every gambler without a sense of sport can get his ultimate jollies.

[classhandicapper]

IMO, 20 horses is too many. It causes too many extreme trips in dirt racing.

The problem with limiting the field further is that horse development and suitability to 10F is more complex than any limited set of rules can capture. We want to make sure we get all the best horses.

Even with 20, we've seen instances of horses that probably deserved a shot not get in (or at least at risk) and others we know don't belong qualifying and muddying up the race because the owner wanted to run. If the field was reduced further, we'd have some very big controversies.

I don't see any way around it unless we added a layer of subjectivity where the first "X" horses are selected by rules and the remaining few are selected by qualified committee. My fear there is that politics would get involved and then I'd really want to puke.

[classhandicapper]

Derby Field Sizes through 2012

http://www.kentuckyderby.com/sites/kentuckyderby.com/files/u64720/Field%20Size%20%282013%29.pdf

[clocker7]

IMO, 20 horses is too many. It causes too many extreme trips in dirt racing.

The problem with limiting the field further is that horse development and suitability to 10F is more complex than any limited set of rules can capture. We want to make sure we get all the best horses.

Even with 20, we've seen instances of horses that probably deserved a shot not get in (or at least at risk) and others we know don't belong qualifying and muddying up the race because the owner wanted to run. If the field was reduced further, we'd have some very big controversies.

I don't see any way around it unless we added a layer of subjectivity where the first "X" horses are selected by rules and the remaining few are selected by qualified committee. My fear there is that politics would get involved and then I'd really want to puke.
Not me.

A race featuring MOST of the best 3yos in which traffic becomes a lesser variable is far preferable to me. I want actual talent to prevail, not incessant bumping or some lucky, lightning-bolt ride along the rail.

Every major sport tends to protect its better teams, ones that have developed a track record over a "regular" season. Do they possibly eliminate a team that might becoming healthier and dangerous for a playoff run ... sure. But big fricking deal. Life isn't perfectly fair.

[bisket]

IMO, 20 horses is too many. It causes too many extreme trips in dirt racing.

The problem with limiting the field further is that horse development and suitability to 10F is more complex than any limited set of rules can capture. We want to make sure we get all the best horses.

Even with 20, we've seen instances of horses that probably deserved a shot not get in (or at least at risk) and others we know don't belong qualifying and muddying up the race because the owner wanted to run. If the field was reduced further, we'd have some very big controversies.

I don't see any way around it unless we added a layer of subjectivity where the first "X" horses are selected by rules and the remaining few are selected by qualified committee. My fear there is that politics would get involved and then I'd really want to puke.

I still say Drosselmeyer was the horse that got robbed by the rules.... I loved that horse from his first 1 1/8 mile race at Gulfstream. He missed the derby by a few bucks, won the Belmont and the next year the Classic. I've never heard it mentioned anywhere, but IMOP he's the reason Churchill changed the conditions a few years back.... I missed the super on him in the Belmont because I didn't have Game On Dude. I collected in the Classic the next year though. I had the exacta, tri, and super in that one. Bought me a timeshare...

[classhandicapper]

Not me.

A race featuring MOST of the best 3yos in which traffic becomes a lesser variable is far preferable to me. I want actual talent to prevail, not incessant bumping or some lucky, lightning-bolt ride along the rail.

Every major sport tends to protect its better teams, ones that have developed a track record over a "regular" season. Do they possibly eliminate a team that might becoming healthier and dangerous for a playoff run ... sure. But big fricking deal. Life isn't perfectly fair.

As I said, the problem then becomes determining who deserves a shot at all that money and potential stallion value?