The Belmont Winning Time

[RacingFan1992]

I gauge how well a horse runs by the time of the race. Secretariat holds the record for the 1 1/2 mile Belmont Stakes which was set in 1973. Prior to that the record was held by Gallant Man in 1957 with a time of 2:26 3/5. The record before that was tied between Count Fleet (1943) and Citation (1948) in 2:28 1/5.

The small minority of horses who get into the 2:26 club is amazing.
(1989) Easy Goer 2:26,
(1992) A.P. Indy 2:26.13,
(1988) Risen Star 2:26.40,
(2001) Point Given 2:26.56,
(1957) Gallant Man 2:26.60,
(1978) Affirmed 2:26.80, and
(1994) Tabasco Cat 2:26.82.

and to add to this list is American Pharoah who ran the Belmont in 2:26.65. To have a horse tie the old Belmont Stakes speed record shows the quality of this horse. Also the only other horse who Bob Baffert trained to win the Belmont was Point Given in 2001. I have knocked Bob and AP for various reasons but I take it all back due in part because of the winning time. Had AP won the race in 2:30 and change I would look at him in a different light. Welcome to the club of Triple Crown winners, American Pharoah.

[PaceAdvantage]

I smiled even wider when I saw that final time. This is a scary-good horse. He toys with all of us.

[RacingFan1992]

I thought SON OF A BITCH! it's gonna be 2:30+ but damn near dropped when it read 2:26 3/5. Just remember we all here liked the sport before it was cool.

[Relwob Owner]

I thought SON OF A BITCH! it's gonna be 2:30+ but damn near dropped when it read 2:26 3/5. Just remember we all here liked the sport before it was cool.

Exact same reaction. I thought 2:28-2:29 was likely and when I saw 2:26 3/5, I figured no one could poke holes in AP.....then, I saw some posts on here and realized that wasn't the case!

[Vinnie]

I did the very same thing PA... :) I was like "You GO AP"!!! :)

[PaceAdvantage]

Here's a few thoughts...for those who wanted Materiality to run with AP early, going by the chart, Materiality was only a 1/2 length behind AP after 4 furlongs...

And look at those internal fractions...pretty damn amazing:

24.06
24.77
24.58
24.58
24.34
24.32

Digest that for a moment...then get back to me about how this horse is a fake.

[PaceAdvantage]

He runs one of the fastest final times in Belmont Stakes history, actually gets FASTER as the race goes longer, and still there are people who are claiming this horse is "dressed up."

Friggin' hilarious...

[JustRalph]

He runs one of the fastest final times in Belmont Stakes history, actually gets FASTER as the race goes longer, and still there are people who are claiming this horse is "dressed up."

Friggin' hilarious...

and his ears were pricked and he seemed very comfortable. That's the impressive part if you ask me. I watched the after race after the gallop out and he didn't seem winded at all. My wife commented after watching the replay,

"he looks like he could have gone more'

If he was mine. He would never race again. I would put him up.

[Cicada]

I was very impressed. I felt the Derby was his toughest race by far. After that I felt he had a strong chance to win it all. Does that mean all the "fresh horses" meme goes south? This was the only horse to run the gauntlet of all three TC races.

[RacingFan1992]

I was very impressed. I felt the Derby was his toughest race by far. After that I felt he had a strong chance to win it all. Does that mean all the "fresh horses" meme goes south? This was the only horse to run the gauntlet of all three TC races.

DAMNIT CAROLYN! Well American Pharoah shut Mr. Coburn up who said it would never happen in his life time.

[SharpCat]

He runs one of the fastest final times in Belmont Stakes history, actually gets FASTER as the race goes longer, and still there are people who are claiming this horse is "dressed up."

Friggin' hilarious...

Runs the 2nd fastest Belmont Stakes of all the Triple Crown winners and they still not pleased. I wonder what they think about Seattle Slew, Citation, Assault, Count Fleet, Whirlaway, War Admiral, Omaha and Gallant Fox. There final times ranged between 2:28.20-2:31.60. What donkeys they must have been ;)

[Cratos]

I gauge how well a horse runs by the time of the race. Secretariat holds the record for the 1 1/2 mile Belmont Stakes which was set in 1973. Prior to that the record was held by Gallant Man in 1957 with a time of 2:26 3/5. The record before that was tied between Count Fleet (1943) and Citation (1948) in 2:28 1/5.

The small minority of horses who get into the 2:26 club is amazing.
(1989) Easy Goer 2:26,
(1992) A.P. Indy 2:26.13,
(1988) Risen Star 2:26.40,
(2001) Point Given 2:26.56,
(1957) Gallant Man 2:26.60,
(1978) Affirmed 2:26.80, and
(1994) Tabasco Cat 2:26.82.

and to add to this list is American Pharoah who ran the Belmont in 2:26.65. To have a horse tie the old Belmont Stakes speed record shows the quality of this horse. Also the only other horse who Bob Baffert trained to win the Belmont was Point Given in 2001. I have knocked Bob and AP for various reasons but I take it all back due in part because of the winning time. Had AP won the race in 2:30 and change I would look at him in a different light. Welcome to the club of Triple Crown winners, American Pharoah.
I went against AP twice and loss. I didn't bet against him because I thought he was a "fake"; I was gambling that he had distance limitations and I was dead wrong.

I believe that AP has demonstrated that he has the tenacity of Affirmed with the high cruising speed of Seattle Slew and that is a very rare combination.

Will he lose? Yes he will, but I think it will be a "form cycle" downturn not a talent loss.

There are 4 major 1-1/4m races left in this year: The Travers (3yos), The JCGC (3yo&U), The Pacific Classic (3yo&U), and the Breeders' Cup Classic (3yo&U).

I believe after Baffert refreshes AP he will probably run him in a "tightener" as a prep for one of the aforementioned stakes.

If he completes and win any of the 4 races we will be talking about him as we speak of Dr. Fager, Secretariat, and Man O' War and he will deserve such recognition.

[BlueChip@DRF]

DAMNIT CAROLYN! Well American Pharoah shut Mr. Coburn up who said it would never happen in his life time.

Did he die?

[powerrun]

He runs one of the fastest final times in Belmont Stakes history, actually gets FASTER as the race goes longer, and still there are people who are claiming this horse is "dressed up."

Friggin' hilarious...

Well stated indeed!

[clocker7]

So hardened bettors only look at raw times now?

[PICSIX]

Here's a few thoughts...for those who wanted Materiality to run with AP early, going by the chart, Materiality was only a 1/2 length behind AP after 4 furlongs...

And look at those internal fractions...pretty damn amazing:

24.06
24.77
24.58
24.58
24.34
24.32

Digest that for a moment...then get back to me about how this horse is a fake.

That doesn't happen racing on dirt. Ultra impressive :ThmbUp:

[zico20]

I went against AP twice and loss. I didn't bet against him because I thought he was a "fake"; I was gambling that he had distance limitations and I was dead wrong.

I believe that AP has demonstrated that he has the tenacity of Affirmed with the high cruising speed of Seattle Slew and that is a very rare combination.

Will he lose? Yes he will, but I think it will be a "form cycle" downturn not a talent loss.

There are 4 major 1-1/4m races left in this year: The Travers (3yos), The JCGC (3yo&U), The Pacific Classic (3yo&U), and the Breeders' Cup Classic (3yo&U).

I believe after Baffert refreshes AP he will probably run him in a "tightener" as a prep for one of the aforementioned stakes.

If he completes and win any of the 4 races we will be talking about him as we speak of Dr. Fager, Secretariat, and Man O' War and he will deserve such recognition.

Lets not put him in this elite group just yet if he wins another race. Those three you mentioned all raced between 20 and 22 times. Plus they ran some unbelievable times. AP needs to win his last three races and do it impressively then we can talk about him being in the top 25 of all time.

[RacingFan1992]

So hardened bettors only look at raw times now?

Why not? They bitch and gripe about every other factor that people use to measure greatness. At least with time we can say who went faster than one another. Btw American Pharoah didn't do anything special, he just beat a weak crop. ;)

[clocker7]

Like the Metropolitan clocking was dogmeat?

[DeltaLover]

Lets not put him in this elite group just yet if he wins another race. Those three you mentioned all raced between 20 and 22 times. Plus they ran some unbelievable times. AP needs to win his last three races and do it impressively then we can talk about him being in the top 25 of all time.

The game has changed a bit since Mar o War years! Today the sport is way more sophisticated and demanding and top level horses run way less races than they used to. Also, I do not think that "unbelievable times" consist the top factor to classify a horse as belonging to the crème of the crème..

If AP goes on to win BC classic, he will certainly be in the same league as Secretariat or Settle Slew, becoming the Mar o' War of the 21st century..

[Steve R]

I think people need to slow down a bit. The race was certainly visually impressive but it should be put in some context.

Although the Belmont time was the quickest since 2001 on a fast track, Honor Code ran the 6th fastest Met Mile in 120 years, Wedding Toast set the stakes record in the Phipps, March ran the 5th fastest Woody Stephens in its 30-year history and Coach Inge, whose prior top win was in an optional claimer, ran the 6th fastest Brooklyn ever at 12f and got the last quarter mile in :23.96 compared to American Pharoah's :24.32. In addition the three route stakes beyond a mile were all won by horses on the lead at the first call indicating a bias for the longer races.

Finally, by my PFs these three combined classics have the 3rd poorest average figure since at least 1997 where American Pharoah's Derby ranks 13th, his Preakness 17th and his Belmont 10th. Frankly, I was hoping the next TC winner would be better than that. We'll only know how good he might be when and if he tackles older horses and hopefully those of championship quality.

BTW, Beyer had his combined average TC race figures as the 8th lowest since 1991 with American's Pharoah's Derby as the 18th best, his Preakness as the 21st best and his Belmont the 13th best since then.

[zico20]

The game has changed a bit since Mar o War years! Today the sport is way more sophisticated and demanding and top level horses run way less races than they used to. Also, I do not think that "unbelievable times" consist the top factor to classify a horse as belonging to the crème of the crème..

If AP goes on to win BC classic, he will certainly be in the same league as Secretariat or Settle Slew, becoming the Mar o' War of the 21st century..

I will agree with you that the game has changed. The quality has gotten much worse since the 1970s. That is why they run much less than they used to. What would you use instead of fast times to determine greatness. Durability? Versatility?

I am very happy I got to see a TC winner. AP deserved to win the TC, no doubt. Some in the past I have rooted against because I didn't want their names along side the ones of the 70s. I was rooting for AP to win this one. He deserves special recognition since it has been 37 years since it has been done. A lot of very good to borderline great horses have failed to win the TC since Affirmed, excluding Spectacular Bid who was truly great. But he was in that 70s group.

With that said, AP has a ways to go to be mentioned with the truly greats. The field in the Belmont was just as bad as the year Big Brown ran. Frosted has a chance to be a decent horse, but the rest are all allowance type horses. I was happy to see the final time was strong. AP had things all his own way in the Belmont. Although I strongly believe he would have won anyway if he had to fight for the lead or come from behind. He was just that much superior to the rest in there.

AP needs to show he belongs with the great ones and he can only do that by sweeping the rest of the year, which I presume to be three more races. But what if he loses to say CC in the BC classic. Since Chrome has been crucified on here by some, would AP be just another horse who caught a weak crop? Lets hope we don't have to find out and AP wins the rest of his races.

Right now AP is a very damned good horse who can show the world he is a great horse by not losing again all year since he can't show it next year, unfortunately.

[Steve R]

Here's a few thoughts...for those who wanted Materiality to run with AP early, going by the chart, Materiality was only a 1/2 length behind AP after 4 furlongs...

And look at those internal fractions...pretty damn amazing:

24.06
24.77
24.58
24.58
24.34
24.32

Digest that for a moment...then get back to me about how this horse is a fake.

Coach Inge, whose prior best was winning an optional claimer:

23.62
25.58
24.60
25.00
24.41
23.96

Both the first and the last quarters under 24 in a mile and a half dirt race. Who does that?

American Pharoah got a BSF 105 to Coach Inge's 102. Wedding Toast, who set the stakes record in the Phipps got a 102. March, who ran the 5th fastest Woody Stephens in its 30-year history got a 95. Honor Code, who ran the 6th fastest Met Mile in 120 years got a 112. Performances need to be evaluated in perspective.

I don't recall anyone calling American Pharoah a fake. But I personally was hoping the next TC winner would be better.

[EMD4ME]

Coach Inge, whose prior best was winning an optional claimer:

23.62
25.58
24.60
25.00
24.41
23.96

Both the first and the last quarters under 24 in a mile and a half dirt race. Who does that?

American Pharoah got a BSF 105 to Coach Inge's 102. Wedding Toast, who set the stakes record in the Phipps got a 102. March, who ran the 5th fastest Woody Stephens in its 30-year history got a 95. Honor Code, who ran the 6th fastest Met Mile in 120 years got a 112. Performances need to be evaluated in perspective.

I don't recall anyone calling American Pharoah a fake. But I personally was hoping the next TC winner would be better.


PLEASE STOP BEING LOGICAL, THEY WILL BLAST YOU ON HERE.......

The only acceptable posts on here are : AP is GOD, the best horse ever. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[PaceAdvantage]

Coach Inge, whose prior best was winning an optional claimer:

23.62
25.58
24.60
25.00
24.41
23.96

Both the first and the last quarters under 24 in a mile and a half dirt race. Who does that?

American Pharoah got a BSF 105 to Coach Inge's 102. Wedding Toast, who set the stakes record in the Phipps got a 102. March, who ran the 5th fastest Woody Stephens in its 30-year history got a 95. Honor Code, who ran the 6th fastest Met Mile in 120 years got a 112. Performances need to be evaluated in perspective.

I don't recall anyone calling American Pharoah a fake. But I personally was hoping the next TC winner would be better.He sure got a breather during fractions 2-4...wouldn't you say?

[EMD4ME]

He sure got a breather during fractions 2-4...wouldn't you say?

I would rate Coach Inge's race more impressive. Why?

Because it's harder to run your A race going 1 1/2 miles when you spend more energy in the first quarter. Horses are not cars. You can't start them and stop them and start them again. Maximum performance over 12 F is garnered through even splits, which AP had. Coach Inge ran a faster Q1 and a faster Q6 which is way more impressive vs. AP.

[EMD4ME]

Also....

Coach Inge was hounded at various points of the race. AP was not.

Who spends less gas, someone traveling 50 MPH the whole way, steadily, or the driver who accelerates, stops, accelerates, stops, accelerates etc.

Coach Inge, the optional claimer ran way better than AP. No seasoned expert horseplayer would dispute that. Regardless of him finishing 2/5 slower overall than AP.

Hence, and sorry again, why I am not impressed by AP. Nice horse, not awesome.

[PaceAdvantage]

Coach Inge, whose prior best was winning an optional claimer:

23.62
25.58
24.60
25.00
24.41
23.96

Both the first and the last quarters under 24 in a mile and a half dirt race. Who does that?

American Pharoah got a BSF 105 to Coach Inge's 102. Wedding Toast, who set the stakes record in the Phipps got a 102. March, who ran the 5th fastest Woody Stephens in its 30-year history got a 95. Honor Code, who ran the 6th fastest Met Mile in 120 years got a 112. Performances need to be evaluated in perspective.

I don't recall anyone calling American Pharoah a fake. But I personally was hoping the next TC winner would be better.AP only got a 105 Beyer for the Belmont Stakes? Man, that's surprising...my off-the-cuff gorilla math estimated about 10 points higher than that...

[lamboguy]

Also....

Coach Inge was hounded at various points of the race. AP was not.

Who spends less gas, someone traveling 50 MPH the whole way, steadily, or the driver who accelerates, stops, accelerates, stops, accelerates etc.

Coach Inge, the optional claimer ran way better than AP. No seasoned expert horseplayer would dispute that. Regardless of him finishing 2/5 slower overall than AP.

Hence, and sorry again, why I am not impressed by AP. Nice horse, not awesome.
i have been watching these things for a long time, to me this horses performance during the triple crown campaign has been awesome.

as a fan i am enjoying this accomplishment today and i am very sad that you are continuously downgrading what this horse has done.

the only one you are fooling is yourself on this one.

[headhawg]

I don't recall anyone calling American Pharoah a fake. But I personally was hoping the next TC winner would be better.This. :ThmbUp:

[Steve R]

i have been watching these things for a long time, to me this horses performance during the triple crown campaign has been awesome.

as a fan i am enjoying this accomplishment today and i am very sad that you are continuously downgrading what this horse has done.

the only one you are fooling is yourself on this one.
Perhaps you should try to separate the cultural component of racing from the physiological. I don't know if your main interest is as a horseplayer or not, but I can see where horseplayers might care less about physiology than about winning and losing. I think it was pretty much the same with Zenyatta who many think is the greatest mare of all-time. She's not in my top 20. OTOH, there are plenty who downgrade Ghostzapper for reasons totally unrelated to his athletic abilities. I think he was the best since Spectacular Bid. The reaction to American Pharoah pretty much depends on whether the event itself supersedes the technical details of it.

[PaceAdvantage]

You mean to tell me all these slower winning Belmont times since Point Given were run over deep, tiring tracks, and AP was the first to get the paved highway?

Tonalist 2:28.52
Palace Malice 2:30.70
Union Rags 2:30.42
Ruler on Ice 2:30.88
Drosselmeyer 2:31.57
Summer Bird 2:27.54
Da'Tara 2:29.6
Rags to Riches 2:28.74
Jazil 2:27.86
Afleet Alex 2:28.75
Birdstone 2:27.50
Empire Maker 2:28.26
Sarava 2:29.71

All of them were all track-hindered? :lol:

[highnote]

AP's Belmont performance was a classic example of "lone speed in a paceless field".

[headhawg]

Doubtful that all of them were track-hindered. However, none of those horses have ever been mentioned along with the likes of Affirmed, Spectacular Bid, and Secretariat. I liken some of the talk regarding AP to a Triple A player who has a fantastic September on a call-up against mediocre teams and people are ready to call him a HoFer.

[PaceAdvantage]

However, none of those horses have ever been mentioned along with the likes of Affirmed, Spectacular Bid, and Secretariat.And rightly so.

At least with AP, we have something to hang our hats on...

Remember, Seattle Slew was being similarly dissed by some after his Triple Crown campaign...

[Cratos]

Lets not put him in this elite group just yet if he wins another race. Those three you mentioned all raced between 20 and 22 times. Plus they ran some unbelievable times. AP needs to win his last three races and do it impressively then we can talk about him being in the top 25 of all time.
I didn't put him in the "elite group" as you described it; AP put himself at the doorsteps of this group by winning the 12th Triple Crown.

Let's say for argument sake, he wins the following two historic races , the Travers and the JCGC, something no other TC winner have ever done; would you at least then consider him a charter member in the pantheon of former great racehorses?

[elhelmete]

Remember, Seattle Slew was being similarly dissed by some after his Triple Crown campaign...

Yup, but that was pre-internet so it doesn't technically matter. :lol:

[zico20]

Perhaps you should try to separate the cultural component of racing from the physiological. I don't know if your main interest is as a horseplayer or not, but I can see where horseplayers might care less about physiology than about winning and losing. I think it was pretty much the same with Zenyatta who many think is the greatest mare of all-time. She's not in my top 20. OTOH, there are plenty who downgrade Ghostzapper for reasons totally unrelated to his athletic abilities. I think he was the best since Spectacular Bid. The reaction to American Pharoah pretty much depends on whether the event itself supersedes the technical details of it.

Excellent post. I think Zenyatta is way overrated myself. As far as Ghostzapper goes, AP has a long way to go to be in his class. Ghostzapper was a special horse that was very fast from 7F to a mile and a quarter. Not many can say that.

[Tom]

AP's Belmont performance was a classic example of "lone speed in a paceless field".

What was Secretariat's?

[RXB]

And rightly so.

At least with AP, we have something to hang our hats on...

Remember, Seattle Slew was being similarly dissed by some after his Triple Crown campaign...

A very good comparison.

Regarding the Beyer figures, a quote from the man himself a few years ago:

"Years later, when my speed-figure methods had matured, I revisited the data from the day of the 1973 Belmont and tried to produce a figure that would relate to my present-day numbers. I calculated that Secretariat had earned a 139, a figure that no horse after him has ever approached."

So he's rating AP 34 points below Secretariat. The track records at Belmont fell like flies in an insecticide factory in 1973 and the surface was quick on Belmont Stakes day. Yet the difference in raw times for AP and Secretariat on Beyer's own charts are worth about half of that 34-point differential. No way the track was two seconds faster yesterday. I doubt that it was faster at all.

Secretariat did not run a true 139 that day; probably more like 129. (Still phenomenal, especially with the strong pace.) AP in my opinion deserves closer to 111 or 112.

[zico20]

I didn't put him the "elite group" as you described it; AP put himself at the doorsteps of this group by winning the 12th Triple Crown.

Let's say for argument sake, he wins the following two historic races , the Travers and the JCGC, something no other TC winner have ever done; would you at least then consider him a charter member of the pantheon of former great racehorses?

If he wins his last three races I will CONSIDER him a charter member of former great horses. He will make the list for sure if he wins all three AND has one SPECIAL moment, like a sub 2 minute mile and a quarter. To me a great race horse has either a great record with limited starts that includes a special moment OR has a great record over many years and/or different surfaces. A horse needs one or the other in my book. Beating Frosted doesn't make him a great horse by any means. I am not saying he won't become a great horse, I really hope he does, but he has to show me something special in the latter half of the year.

Let me ask you this. Do you think AP has the talent and durability to run win 4 grade 1s BEFORE the BC? Easy Goer did it before losing to a damned good horse in Sunday Silence. What Easy Goer did in that span of a couple months is something special. That would be something I would consider special.

[JustRalph]

I think people need to slow down a bit. The race was certainly visually impressive but it should be put in some context.

Although the Belmont time was the quickest since 2001 on a fast track, Honor Code ran the 6th fastest Met Mile in 120 years, Wedding Toast set the stakes record in the Phipps, March ran the 5th fastest Woody Stephens in its 30-year history and Coach Inge, whose prior top win was in an optional claimer, ran the 6th fastest Brooklyn ever at 12f and got the last quarter mile in :23.96 compared to American Pharoah's :24.32. In addition the three route stakes beyond a mile were all won by horses on the lead at the first call indicating a bias for the longer races.

Finally, by my PFs these three combined classics have the 3rd poorest average figure since at least 1997 where American Pharoah's Derby ranks 13th, his Preakness 17th and his Belmont 10th. Frankly, I was hoping the next TC winner would be better than that. We'll only know how good he might be when and if he tackles older horses and hopefully those of championship quality.

BTW, Beyer had his combined average TC race figures as the 8th lowest since 1991 with American's Pharoah's Derby as the 18th best, his Preakness as the 21st best and his Belmont the 13th best since then.

I might agree if Honor Code had been on the lead the entire race. It makes a difference. Somebody else cut out nice early fractions. I agree that they all leave the gate together, and Honor Code had to get rolling to keep a good time but I think it's easier for a good time in the fashion that Honor Code did it. AP was on the lead, dictated the time and ran a very very good time in the end. I think it makes it a little different.

[Steve R]

You mean to tell me all these slower winning Belmont times since Point Given were run over deep, tiring tracks, and AP was the first to get the paved highway?

Tonalist 2:28.52
Palace Malice 2:30.70
Union Rags 2:30.42
Ruler on Ice 2:30.88
Drosselmeyer 2:31.57
Summer Bird 2:27.54
Da'Tara 2:29.6
Rags to Riches 2:28.74
Jazil 2:27.86
Afleet Alex 2:28.75
Birdstone 2:27.50
Empire Maker 2:28.26
Sarava 2:29.71

All of them were all track-hindered? :lol:
All you have to do is look at the times of the other dirt races on Saturday to know the track was blazing fast. BTW, Coach Inge ran faster than any of those on your list. Which ones was he better than?

[Steve R]

What was Secretariat's?
Certainly not paceless and he was in a speed duel through 6f with Sham, a better horse than American Pharoah has ever faced. Fractions of :23.3, :46.1, 1:09.4, 1:34.1, 1:59.0, 2:24.0 are hardly paceless.

[Steve R]

I might agree if Honor Code had been on the lead the entire race. It makes a difference. Somebody else cut out nice early fractions. I agree that they all leave the gate together, and Honor Code had to get rolling to keep a good time but I think it's easier for a good time in the fashion that Honor Code did it. AP was on the lead, dictated the time and ran a very very good time in the end. I think it makes it a little different.
Maybe so, but Coach Inge, a previous optional claimer, ran almost as good a race also on the pace and with unheard of first and last quarters under 24 seconds but I don't hear anyone suggesting he is anything special.

[RXB]

Maybe so, but Coach Inge, a previous optional claimer, ran almost as good a race also on the pace and with unheard of first and last quarters under 24 seconds but I don't hear anyone suggesting he is anything special.

Coach Inge is a mature horse and he worked a lot harder to run half-second slower than the June 3YO, plus Coach Inge's fractions were a little slower.

Charismatic was an ex-claimer. Lava Man was an ex-claimer. John Henry was an ex-claimer. I could go on. It's what they are now, not what they were that matters.

[Steve R]

...So he's rating AP 34 points below Secretariat. The track records at Belmont fell like flies in an insecticide factory in 1973 and the surface was quick on Belmont Stakes day. Yet the difference in raw times for AP and Secretariat on Beyer's own charts are worth about half of that 34-point differential. No way the track was two seconds faster yesterday. I doubt that it was faster at all...
Yes, it was pretty close to that. 2nd fastest Phipps, 6th fastest Met Mile in 120 years, 5th fastest Woody Stephens in it's 30-year history, 6th fastest Brooklyn at 12f. The three routes on the list were all between 1.4 and 2.2 seconds faster than their recent historical averages.

[alf1380]

In this thread I learned:

- That somebody doesn't have Zenyatta in his personal Top 20 Mares list.
- That Coach Inge's performance was more "impressive" than AP's.
- That AP is nowhere near Ghostzapper's level...why? Well, because a poster felt like bringing up Ghostzapper.

Horse Players are a funny bunch.

These are Facts:

-There are now 12 TC winners.
-AP is one of them.
-He ran a game K. Derby, Smoked the Preakness Field, and put up a time (In the Belmont S.) comparable to the very best 3yo's to ever run in the race.
-He won in wire to wire fashion with a much better time than Citation. A Better time than Point Given, and a better time than Affirmed. 6th best in the history of the Belmont stakes.

Now, if you guys don't mind, I am driving down to Hialeah to go spit and curse at the Citation statue.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Coach Inge is a mature horse and he worked a lot harder to run half-second slower than the June 3YO, plus Coach Inge's fractions were a little slower.

Charismatic was an ex-claimer. Lava Man was an ex-claimer. John Henry was an ex-claimer. I could go on. It's what they are now, not what they were that matters.

It is an exercise in futility RXB.

For some, the past will always be greater than the current or the future. And for some, they just can't enjoy the present for whatever reason and feel the need to be critical of greatness to somehow prove their knowledge and superiority over others, or that they have higher standards than everybody else. It is quite an interesting conundrum.

[Secondbest]

It is an exercise in futility RXB.

For some, the past will always be greater than the current or the future. And for some, they just can't enjoy the present for whatever reason and feel the need to be critical of greatness to somehow prove their knowledge and superiority over others, or that they have higher standards than everybody else. It is quite an interesting conundrum.
Well said

[cj]

He runs one of the fastest final times in Belmont Stakes history, actually gets FASTER as the race goes longer, and still there are people who are claiming this horse is "dressed up."

Friggin' hilarious...

You just can't please some horseplayers. All his TC races were outstanding in my opinion. He won the Derby despite a wide trip around both turns. In the Preakness he took the lead in fast fractions, fractured the competition, and won with ridiculous ease. The key to me was he did so much damage to the other horses that Tale of Verve (VH1 Documentary horse) clunked up for 2nd.

And the Belmont, what can you say? Frosted moved to a length from him in the stretch, and he simply found another gear and pulled away.

Myself, I'm just going to appreciate his greatness. Maybe he'll win the BC Classic and create a horse racing Grand Slam.

[cj]

Maybe so, but Coach Inge, a previous optional claimer, ran almost as good a race also on the pace and with unheard of first and last quarters under 24 seconds but I don't hear anyone suggesting he is anything special.

He is a very good horse right now. He made a big jump on my numbers in his last race while winning by 12, and backed it up yesterday when stepped up in class and fighting off a Travers winner.

[cj]

Triple Crown races top 3 TimeformUS Speed Figures, dating back to the 2004 season:

Kentucky Derby

American Pharoah 127
Barbaro 125
Animal Kingdom 124

Preakness

I'll Have Another 130
Rachel Alexandra 128
Bernardini 127

Belmont

American Pharoah 128
Birdstone 123
Union Rags 121

[ArlJim78]

did I see a post or tweet cj that Frosted's Belmont figure was better than the last six winners of that race?

I think Frosted is getting a little overlooked. He's a really nice horse that came along on the wrong year.

[cj]

did I see a post or tweet cj that Frosted's Belmont figure was better than the last six winners of that race?

I think Frosted is getting a little overlooked. He's a really nice horse that came along on the wrong year.

That sounds right to me.

[ArlJim78]

Think about that, Frosted ran a race that in theory at least could have won the last six Belmonts, yet when he went into all out pursuit of AP he was repelled with disdainful ease.

[tophatmert]

AP carried 9 lbs. more than Coach Inge didn't he?

[RXB]

It is an exercise in futility RXB.

For some, the past will always be greater than the current or the future. And for some, they just can't enjoy the present for whatever reason and feel the need to be critical of greatness to somehow prove their knowledge and superiority over others, or that they have higher standards than everybody else. It is quite an interesting conundrum.

Steve's entitled to his opinion. My opinion is that he's probably somewhat underrating American Pharoah but that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm right and he's wrong, even though of course I like to think that the data supports my view. It's still only my opinion and there'd be plenty of digits in whatever numeral accurately expresses the number of incorrect opinions that I've had in my life.

[ArlJim78]

AP carried 9 lbs. more than Coach Inge didn't he?
correct.

[Steve R]

He is a very good horse right now. He made a big jump on my numbers in his last race while winning by 12, and backed it up yesterday when stepped up in class and fighting off a Travers winner.
By my figures he ran a BSF equivalent of 98 in that optional claimer. I know he's not on the Beyer leader board at DRF which bottoms out at 105. The Travers winner was 5th, 11th and 6th in his last three starts prior to yesterday when he was 4th choice. OK, I'll agree. American Pharoah is slightly better than Coach Inge.

[dilanesp]

In this thread I learned:

- That somebody doesn't have Zenyatta in his personal Top 20 Mares list.
- That Coach Inge's performance was more "impressive" than AP's.
- That AP is nowhere near Ghostzapper's level...why? Well, because a poster felt like bringing up Ghostzapper.

Horse Players are a funny bunch.

These are Facts:

-There are now 12 TC winners.
-AP is one of them.
-He ran a game K. Derby, Smoked the Preakness Field, and put up a time (In the Belmont S.) comparable to the very best 3yo's to ever run in the race.
-He won in wire to wire fashion with a much better time than Citation. A Better time than Point Given, and a better time than Affirmed. 6th best in the history of the Belmont stakes.

Now, if you guys don't mind, I am driving down to Hialeah to go spit and curse at the Citation statue.

Well you are right about Zenyatta.

But don't compare AP to Citation. Seriously. The Belmont track was probably 5 seconds slower at 12 furlongs back then, and check out Citation 's races in the first half of 1950 if you have any curiosity about how fast he could run

[highnote]

Triple Crown races top 3 TimeformUS Speed Figures, dating back to the 2004 season:

Belmont
American Pharoah 128
The Wikipedia page for Timeform says the popular rule of thumb is to add 12-14 points to Beyer to get the TF rating.

That would give AP a TF rating of 119 at most.

Further, the site says that a TF number of 115–124 would equal an Average Group 2 winner.

One critique I have heard from racing pundits is that TF awards a number to fit their beliefs, not necessarily the facts.

SteveR wrote: "Perhaps you should try to separate the cultural component of racing from the physiological."

TF might be trying to satisfy the cultural component rather than the physiological.

For me, as a very amateur scientist, I am interested in the truth.

The truth is the AP did everything that was asked of him and is the 12th TC winner.

The rest of the truth I'd like to know and understand is how good was his performance from an historical perspective and will he be a good sire of classic runners? If he is a good sire of classic runners is it because he is able to produce runners who run classics as fast or faster than his predecessors or because the breed is getting slower over time at the classic distances?

So I think some of the controversy here is because there are two different ways of looking at AP and they are not necessarily compatible.

1.) How well did he do against his contemporaries and 2.) how does he compare to his predecessors?

[Show Me the Wire]

Think about that, Frosted ran a race that in theory at least could have won the last six Belmonts, yet when he went into all out pursuit of AP he was repelled with disdainful ease.


Agree. Frosted had a perfect trip and was not good enough. Frosted out broke AP and Materiality and secured a comfortable tracking position without expending unnecessary energy. Frosted had everything his way, as a perfect trip goes, with the exception of a little traffic, which caused Frosted to slightly alter his path and the presence of AP in the race. Frosted, even with a pretty easy perfect trip was no match for the winner.

[highnote]

Think about that, Frosted ran a race that in theory at least could have won the last six Belmonts....

...if the track was the same over all those runnings and the final times of all those races didn't change, but it wasn't and they didn't ... hence, the need for track variants.

Given the figures, it's doubtful Frosted would have beaten Tonalist, Palace Malace, Drosselmeyer or Summer Bird. Maybe he would have beaten Union Rags or Ruler On Ice?

[cj]

By my figures he ran a BSF equivalent of 98 in that optional claimer. I know he's not on the Beyer leader board at DRF which bottoms out at 105. The Travers winner was 5th, 11th and 6th in his last three starts prior to yesterday when he was 4th choice. OK, I'll agree. American Pharoah is slightly better than Coach Inge.

Ok, thanks. I'll go revise all my figures despite the fact they were highly predictive all day yesterday and throughout the Triple Crown. Who needs that?

[cj]

...if the track was the same over all those runnings and the final times of all those races didn't change, but it wasn't and they didn't ... hence, the need for track variants.

Given the figures, it's doubtful Frosted would have beaten Tonalist, Palace Malace, Drosselmeyer or Summer Bird. Maybe he would have beaten Union Rags or Ruler On Ice?


The figures he is citing account for track speed of course.

[cj]

The Wikipedia page for Timeform says the popular rule of thumb is to add 12-14 points to Beyer to get the TF rating.

That would give AP a TF rating of 119 at most.

Further, the site says that a TF number of 115–124 would equal an Average Group 2 winner.

One critique I have heard from racing pundits is that TF awards a number to fit their beliefs, not necessarily the facts.

SteveR wrote: "Perhaps you should try to separate the cultural component of racing from the physiological."

TF might be trying to satisfy the cultural component rather than the physiological.

For me, as a very amateur scientist, I am interested in the truth.

The truth is the AP did everything that was asked of him and is the 12th TC winner.

The rest of the truth I'd like to know and understand is how good was his performance from an historical perspective and will he be a good sire of classic runners? If he is a good sire of classic runners is it because he is able to produce runners who run classics as fast or faster than his predecessors or because the breed is getting slower over time at the classic distances?

So I think some of the controversy here is because there are two different ways of looking at AP and they are not necessarily compatible.

1.) How well did he do against his contemporaries and 2.) how does he compare to his predecessors?

Timeform and TimeformUS are partners, but we don't rate horses the same way.

The adjustment probably worked ok with Beyer years ago, but Beyer figs have been shrinking for a while now. His method has problems IMO. That adjustment also doesn't account for the weight fir age aspect of Timeform figures which matters a lot with 2/3 year olds.

[alf1380]

Well you are right about Zenyatta.

But don't compare AP to Citation. Seriously. The Belmont track was probably 5 seconds slower at 12 furlongs back then, and check out Citation 's races in the first half of 1950 if you have any curiosity about how fast he could run

I was being sarcastic. But main point remains. History recognizes AP's Belmont S. as a fast one.

[Steve R]

It is an exercise in futility RXB.

For some, the past will always be greater than the current or the future. And for some, they just can't enjoy the present for whatever reason and feel the need to be critical of greatness to somehow prove their knowledge and superiority over others, or that they have higher standards than everybody else. It is quite an interesting conundrum.
Actually it's not a conundrum at all. There's a physical basis to believing the best of the past are better than the best of today. First of all, tracks are getting faster and that's a fact. Below are the dirt records at the TC tracks at 6f and 8 1/2f, the most common distances, in 1985 and 2015. The pattern is similar for virtually all venues.

CD:
6f, 1985 - 1:09.0, 2015 - 1:07.2
8 1/2f, 1985 - 1:41.3, 2015 - 141.0

PIM:
6f, 1985 - 1:09.1, 2015 - 1:009.0
8 1/2f, 1985 - 1:40.4, 2015 - 140.4 (actually set in 1984 by Deputed Testamony)

BEL:
6f, 1985 - 1:08.2, 2015 - 1:07.3
8 1/2f, 1985 - 1:40.2, 2015 - 139.1

Despite the tracks today being faster, there has been no major North American dirt record beyond sprint distances (i.e., 8f, 8 1/2, 9f, 10f and 12f) broken since 1988. In fact, the current records were set, respectively, in 1968, 1983, 1988, 1980 and 1973. At the same time, the records at 5 1/2, 6 and 6 1/2f have all been set since 2009.

The point is that tracks are getting faster and horses are still breaking records at sprint distances but not at middle and classic distances. Why would horses be breaking sprint distance records but not be breaking records at longer distances on faster surfaces? Maybe because the middle distance and classic horses of the past really were better. And still, many people just don't grasp the idea that 2:26.56 in 2001 can generate a BSF of 114 while 2:26.65 in 2015 earns a BSF of 105.

[cj]

Jerry Brown would strongly disagree with the notion that tracks are getting faster, as would I.

[highnote]

The figures he is citing account for track speed of course.


I thought he was talking about raw time.

It probably depends on whose figures you're using.

SteveR said he gave AP a -58, I believe. I'd assume that Frosted's PF is at least a few points lower -- but I could be wrong. I'm assuming a -54 or so.

The figures at chef-de-race.com show that Tonalist got a -61, Palace -57, Drosselmeyer -55 and Summer Bird -65.

So it doesn't look like Frosted would have beaten them.

Union Rags got a -52 and Ruler On Ice got a -41. So maybe Frosted could have beaten them.

It's hypothetical, of course, but it puts AP a few notches below Tonalist and Summer Bird.

Tonalist ran second to Honor Code yesterday. HC earned a -72 PF. So Tonalist must have been in the -70 range.

Tonalist was faster last year in the Belmont than AP was this year and ran a great race yesterday.

Not sure what that means exactly, but it is an interesting comparison.

Of course, AP won the TC. Tonalist didn't.

[cj]

I thought he was talking about raw time.

It probably depends on whose figures you're using.

SteveR said he gave AP a -58, I believe. I'd assume that Frosted's PF is at least a few points lower -- but I could be wrong. I'm assuming a -54 or so.

The figures at chef-de-race.com show that Tonalist got a -61, Palace -57, Drosselmeyer -55 and Summer Bird -65.

So it doesn't look like Frosted would have beaten them.

Union Rags got a -52 and Ruler On Ice got a -41. So maybe Frosted could have beaten them.

It's hypothetical, of course, but it puts AP a few notches below Tonalist and Summer Bird.

Tonalist ran second to Honor Code yesterday. HC earned a -72 PF. So Tonalist must have been in the -70 range.

Tonalist was faster last year in the Belmont than AP was this year and ran a great race yesterday.

Not sure what that means exactly, but it is an interesting comparison.

Of course, AP won the TC. Tonalist didn't.

How predictive have those been before the race?

[Inner Dirt]

So hardened bettors only look at raw times now?

They do when it fits their side of the argument. What I find laughable is the AP camp here dismissed the slow Preakness because of track condition, then turn around and fail to mention the track being blazing fast on Belmont day.
These debates are becoming as biased as political ones, and the few that haven't proclaimed AP the next Secretariat get attacked personally.

You can't fault AP so far he has destroyed everything put in front of him. Most horses don't run faster when pressed, I hope they race AP against older and
then we will see what we really have.

[RXB]

The point is that tracks are getting faster and horses are still breaking records at sprint distances but not at middle and classic distances. Why would horses be breaking sprint distance records but not be breaking records at longer distances on faster surfaces? Maybe because the middle distance and classic horses of the past really were better.

Or maybe also because the sprinters are faster now, which would make sense given the breeding. I'm not convinced that the surfaces are faster now than they were a few decades ago.

[highnote]

... Beyer figs have been shrinking for a while now.

Perhaps they are shrinking because horses at longer distances are simply running slower times?

I've discussed the breed becoming more speed biased at length with Nick Mordin. His experience shows that the British, Australians and the U.S. are tending more toward speed and sprinters. While the French and Germans are still producing routers -- especially the Germans.

This was 5 to 10 years ago that we looked at Germany. So things may have changed there.

[highnote]

How predictive have those been before the race?


He has a pretty good explanation about the predictiveness of his figures on his website. However, the comparison is with Beyer -- which you think are flawed to begin with -- so it might not be of much interest to you.

[highnote]

Jerry Brown would strongly disagree with the notion that tracks are getting faster, as would I.

Why do you disagree? I don't have an opinion or knowledge of this. To be honest, it never even occurred to me that this could be happening.

I'd like to know how you know this.

Nick Mordin complained that his figures kept shrinking. He thought it was a methodology problem. Maybe the methodology was sound? He knew the breed was changing. Maybe it was changing more than he knew?

[Steve R]

Jerry Brown would strongly disagree with the notion that tracks are getting faster, as would I.
How could he disagree? Individual track best speeds are a matter of record. Maybe the improved times are due to better maintenance. But the reason is irrelevant. I wonder how he would address the fact that North American sprint records are continually being broken while the route records are not. It actually wouldn't matter if the tracks were faster. It is still undeniable that sprinters today are running faster than they used to but classic horses aren't.

[Steve R]

Why do you disagree? I don't have an opinion or knowledge of this. To be honest, it never even occurred to me that this could be happening.

I'd like to know how you know this.

Nick Mordin complained that his figures kept shrinking. He thought it was a methodology problem. Maybe the methodology was sound? He knew the breed was changing. Maybe it was changing more than he knew?
Apart from The Sheets (which I believe has a multitude of problems relating to lost ground, wind and weight), almost every speed figure maker I am aware of (including myself) show the same pattern among classic horses of a trend toward declining numbers. For example, see here: Speed Figures Trends in American Classic Races (http://www.chef-de-race.com/pfs/speed_figures_american_classics.htm). I'd say Mordin's observations are correct.

The trend line decline for classic speed figures is almost the mirror image of the trend line increase in speed in American pedigrees.

[clocker7]

I don't understand the problem of recognizing AP's wonderful achievement and superiority over his crop while acknowledging that the track was palying fast yesterday. They are not mutually exclusive for intelligent handicappers.

[Steve R]

I don't understand the problem of recognizing AP's wonderful achievement and superiority over his crop while acknowledging that the track was palying fast yesterday. They are not mutually exclusive for intelligent handicappers.
I don't believe that's the issue. Of course he has dominated this crop. Where he stands historically is the focus. We can enjoy the wins without a problem. I got excited every time Peppers Pride won a race, but we know it was a modest achievement to retire undefeated compared to the similar achievements of Frankel or Black Caviar. American Pharoah is not Peppers Pride and he's not Frankel. Where is he in between? Others may not care and just bask in the accomplishment. That's not enough for me.

[clocker7]

Steve, my comment was not aimed at you. Trying to make sense of raw times analytically is Handicapping 101, something that I've been doing since the early '70s too. Who would abandon it just to have a feelgood moment?

[RXB]

And still, many people just don't grasp the idea that 2:26.56 in 2001 can generate a BSF of 114 while 2:26.65 in 2015 earns a BSF of 105.


I found some races at the same distances on both days:

7f:
2001 - N1X Alw, 1:21.74
2001 - G2 3YO, 1:21.76
----------------------------
2015 - G2 3YO, 1:21.37

1m:
2001: N2X Alw, 1:34.64
2001: Ungraded F&M stakes, 1:35.12
---------------------------------
2015: G1 older, 1:33.18
2015: G1 3YOF, 1:35.13


Don't see how the track is that much faster, yet American Pharoah gets 105 compared to 114 for Point Given even though the difference in raw time is less than a tenth of a second. I stand by what I said before that 111 or 112 is about right for AP.

[castaway01]

I don't believe that's the issue. Of course he has dominated this crop. Where he stands historically is the focus. We can enjoy the wins without a problem. I got excited every time Peppers Pride won a race, but we know it was a modest achievement to retire undefeated compared to the similar achievements of Frankel or Black Caviar. American Pharoah is not Peppers Pride and he's not Frankel. Where is he in between? Others may not care and just bask in the accomplishment. That's not enough for me.

It's funny how this was a very good crop of horses until Pharoah won three straight; now some say he didn't beat anything. He won in a fast time, he won by 5 1/2 lengths, he beat fresh horses, he did everything he needed to do in style. How good the crop is, only time will tell. I'd say Pharoah looks pretty darn solid right now though.

[ILovetheInner]

I think some believe this was a very good crop of 3yos up to a certain distance. I concur.....if AP stepped on a nail and retired tomorrow, who merits chance in this crop to win the BCC? That seems rather unlikely to me. AP could certainly come in and give his elders a run for the money, but it is hard to have a lot of love for much else.

People seem passionate on both sides of the fence.. I am in the middle, now that I have had time to accept this distinctive honor gets awarded to Baffert and, ew, Zayat. The horse certainly delivered in the Belmont. It's good. But I don't feel particularly compelled any longer by the horses he was beating. TOV ran 2nd and Keen Ice 3rd, and they are still eligible to meet in a 1OT tomorrow. AP can't help that, nor can he help beating them.

[Kash$]

I think some believe this was a very good crop of 3yos up to a certain distance. I concur.....if AP stepped on a nail and retired tomorrow, who merits chance in this crop to win the BCC? That seems rather unlikely to me. AP could certainly come in and give his elders a run for the money, but it is hard to have a lot of love for much else.

People seem passionate on both sides of the fence.. I am in the middle, now that I have had time to accept this distinctive honor gets awarded to Baffert and, ew, Zayat. The horse certainly delivered in the Belmont. It's good. But I don't feel particularly compelled any longer by the horses he was beating. TOV ran 2nd and Keen Ice 3rd, and they are still eligible to meet in a 1OT tomorrow. AP can't help that, nor can he help beating them.

We aslo know very little before Big Red who the other triple crown winners beat.Was Seatlle Slew's crop strong?

[clocker7]

I think some believe this was a very good crop of 3yos up to a certain distance. I concur.....if AP stepped on a nail and retired tomorrow, who merits chance in this crop to win the BCC? That seems rather unlikely to me. AP could certainly come in and give his elders a run for the money, but it is hard to have a lot of love for much else.

People seem passionate on both sides of the fence.. I am in the middle, now that I have had time to accept this distinctive honor gets awarded to Baffert and, ew, Zayat. The horse certainly delivered in the Belmont. It's good. But I don't feel particularly compelled any longer by the horses he was beating. TOV ran 2nd and Keen Ice 3rd, and they are still eligible to meet in a 1OT tomorrow. AP can't help that, nor can he help beating them.

Good post.

An honest review of this site would reveal a gradual decline in respect for the also-rans as the TC season progressed and the distances stretched out.

[Steve R]

It's funny how this was a very good crop of horses until Pharoah won three straight; now some say he didn't beat anything. He won in a fast time, he won by 5 1/2 lengths, he beat fresh horses, he did everything he needed to do in style. How good the crop is, only time will tell. I'd say Pharoah looks pretty darn solid right now though.
As I have stated before here and on other forums, I believe this is the fastest group of 3yos since Barbaro, Lawyer Ron, Brother Derek, et al in 2005 up to 9f and the slowest group of 3yos at classic distances in at least 20 years. No inconsistency there. That's the direction breeding has taken.

[clocker7]

We aslo know very little before Big Red who the other triple crown winners beat.Was Seatlle Slew's crop strong?
Seattle Slew didn't have a great crop, but it had some decent ones. JO Tobin wasn't a slouch.

Imo, SS's Triple Crown is sorta deceptive. Intentionally not trained by Turner to peak at the KD, SS nearly flopped at CD, and had a race much tougher than most TC winners. Survive and advance, though.

Then on to Pimlico, where he was caught in a brutal speed duel, and posted a very fine time on an honest track. Possibly the best outing in his career after his 2 yo season, given what happened only 2 weeks prior.

Then deep mud at the Belmont. It was a perfect opportunity for a lesser horse to fail, given the nature of his two previous outings. The rest is history.

[dilanesp]

We aslo know very little before Big Red who the other triple crown winners beat.Was Seatlle Slew's crop strong?

First of all, Man O' War was Big Red. I hate that Secretariat fans stole that nickname because they wanted him to be in Man O' War's class. (Secretariat was always "Red", not "Big Red", to the people around him.)

But on the merits, yeah, Seattle Slew's crop didn't look that strong (although JO Tobin proved that on his best day, he was a damn good horse, and Slew beat him in the Preakness).

Affirmed had Alydar. Rest of the crop was pretty weak.

Secretariat's crop looks a little stronger in retrospect than it was at the time. Forego really wasn't that good at the time of the TC, and Sham is probably tremendously overrated.

I suspect TC's tend to correlate with a weak crop. I think it would have been close to impossible to win a TC in 1957, for instance. And I'm amazed to this day that Silver Charm came as close as he did in 1997.

But it's still a tremendous accomplishment. Most years even a weak crop doesn't result in a TC winner, after all.

[nijinski]

I don't believe that's the issue. Of course he has dominated this crop. Where he stands historically is the focus. We can enjoy the wins without a problem. I got excited every time Peppers Pride won a race, but we know it was a modest achievement to retire undefeated compared to the similar achievements of Frankel or Black Caviar. American Pharoah is not Peppers Pride and he's not Frankel. Where is he in between? Others may not care and just bask in the accomplishment. That's not enough for me.

Sorry it's not enough for you when a stakes winning 3 yo travels to 3
different tracks and run 3 different classic distances , all between the first
week in May to the first week in June . That's why it's so hard to do and
we finally got a horse to do it .

Seriously compare him to Peppers Pride as a 3 yo at Zia Park ?? :rolleyes:

[Steve R]

We aslo know very little before Big Red who the other triple crown winners beat.Was Seatlle Slew's crop strong?
Hard to say. J. O. Tobin, the first to defeat Seattle Slew, was the champion 2yo in England and went on to be American sprint champion yet still won a G1 at 10f in 1:58.3. Run Dusty Run won 10 of 24 and placed in 21 overall including all three TC races. Without Seattle Slew he had a good shot at winning one or more of the classics. Regardless, Seattle Slew had already broken Hialeah's 7f track record before the Derby and ran within 2 ticks of the Preakness record. My speed figure for his Derby was PF -76 which is almost 7 1/2 lengths faster than American Pharoah's.

[clocker7]

Slew demolished all doubts as a 4yo, when he probably never was 100% due to illnesses and a stop/start comeback. Toying with Affirmed twice, and nearly coming back at 12f on a sloppy track in the JCGC pretty much stamped his greatness.

And as mentioned, his Preakness on an honest track was one for the ages. Go look at it.

[ultracapper]

How could he disagree? Individual track best speeds are a matter of record. Maybe the improved times are due to better maintenance. But the reason is irrelevant. I wonder how he would address the fact that North American sprint records are continually being broken while the route records are not. It actually wouldn't matter if the tracks were faster. It is still undeniable that sprinters today are running faster than they used to but classic horses aren't.

There's no doubt that they can soup up tracks. Cheap horses in Washington have been running some of the fastest sprint times in North America since the days of Longacres. I think the world record for 5 1/2 furlongs right now is held by a 7500 claimer at Emerald Downs last season. Sprint records have been going through the Pacific Northwest for decades. And they all haven't been Chinook Pass type horses either. Sometimes I think the timers up here are screwed up, the times these cheap Washington breds run. Crazy fast. They'll run a handful of 1:07 and change, and literally a couple dozen 1:14 and change. Never mind the occasional 1:01 and change 5 1/2f.

I really don't think that's the case east of the Mississippi though. It doesn't seem that way anyhow. Every now and then there seems to be an oddball day, but I feel like the NYRA and Florida times are much more reliable than the California times, from a talent-indicative standpoint anyhow.

[dilanesp]

There's absolutely no way to even make a historical comparison until we see some more races.

Bear in mind that winning a TC, while a tremendous accomplishment, in no way makes a horse an all time great. Neither Omaha nor Sir Barton was an all time great, and I don't think Count Fleet accomplished all that much either (though the manner of his Belmont win suggests he was a beast).

Horses like Seattle Slew and Secretariat and (especially) Citation and Affirmed established how great they were by what they did and who they beat after winning the TC. It's HIGHLY unlikely that AP will even be allowed to do anything similar, but you would need that frame of reference to compare.

Affirmed is a really nice example. Yes, Affirmed won the TC and had his amazing 2 year old year. But then Affirmed went on and did a lot more. He set the stakes record in the Santa Anita Handicap under 128 pounds, which still stands 36 years later. He won the Hollywood Gold Cup and the Strub. And then he went back to New York and closed out his career by handing Spectacular Bid his last loss in the Jockey Club Gold Cup. You just aren't going to be able to make a historical comparison to that from 3 races in the spring of 2015.

[Steve R]

Sorry it's not enough for you when a stakes winning 3 yo travels to 3
different tracks and run 3 different classic distances , all between the first
week in May to the first week in June . That's why it's so hard to do and
we finally got a horse to do it .

Seriously compare him to Peppers Pride as a 3 yo at Zia Park ?? :rolleyes:
It seems to me your reading comprehension skills are quite limited. The only direct comparison made to Peppers Pride and American Pharoah is in your head. However, there was a comparison made between the undefeated careers of Peppers Pride, Frankel and Black Caviar which is a perfectly valid comparison if you are trying to put those accomplishments in historical perspective.

Interestingly the TC wasn't always so hard to do. It was done 8 times in the first 30 years of its existence and 11 times in the first 60. It's only recently that the TC has been so elusive. And you think it's difficult to do in 5 weeks at 3 tracks and 3 distances? It is by contemporary standards. But how about this for Whirlaway's TC campaign of 1941, only 74 years ago:

Feb 08: Hialeah, 6f, Alw
Feb 18: Hialeah, 7f, Alw
Mar 22: Tropical Park, 6f, Alw
Mar 28: Tropical Park, 5 1/2f, Alw
Apr 11: Keeneland, 9f, Handicap
Apr 24: Keeneland, 9f, Blue Grass Stakes
Apr 29: Churchill Downs, 8f, Derby Trial
May 03: Churchill Downs, 10f, Kentucky Derby (breaking the track record in 2:01.2)
May 10: Pimlico, 9 1/2f, Preakness Stakes (note only 1 week later)
May 20: Belmont, 8 1/2f, Alw
Jun 07: Belmont, 12f, Belmont Stakes

Two weeks later on Jun 21 he won the Dwyer Stakes at 10f in 2/5ths off the Aqueduct track record. Then he took a 3 1/2-week vacation until mid-July and ran 8 more times until his last race of the year on September 27 when he lost the JCGC to champion Market Wise by a nose in American record time breaking Belmont's 2-mile track record by a full second.

Please don't try to convince me how tough the TC campaign was for American Pharoah.

[cj]

Perhaps they are shrinking because horses at longer distances are simply running slower times?

I've discussed the breed becoming more speed biased at length with Nick Mordin. His experience shows that the British, Australians and the U.S. are tending more toward speed and sprinters. While the French and Germans are still producing routers -- especially the Germans.

This was 5 to 10 years ago that we looked at Germany. So things may have changed there.

But that isn't what speed figures are supposed to do, per Beyer himself. He hasn't adjusted.

IF what you say is true, and say in 1990 a 1:10 at 6f was equal to a 2:02 at 10f, maybe by now that 1:10 should equal a 2:03. His stuff has stagnated. I saw a returning champion, Lady Eli, win a race and get an 87. I find that laughable.

[cj]

Why do you disagree? I don't have an opinion or knowledge of this. To be honest, it never even occurred to me that this could be happening.

I'd like to know how you know this.

Nick Mordin complained that his figures kept shrinking. He thought it was a methodology problem. Maybe the methodology was sound? He knew the breed was changing. Maybe it was changing more than he knew?

They are slower for safety purposes. Tracks have been made deeper and deeper for the horses. There is plenty of info on the Thorograph site.

[clocker7]

I really don't think that's the case east of the Mississippi though. It doesn't seem that way anyhow. Every now and then there seems to be an oddball day, but I feel like the NYRA and Florida times are much more reliable than the California times, from a talent-indicative standpoint anyhow.

(I excised a great portion of your post which accurately states that the history of west coast clockings is a deceptive one. Going back over a hundred years, even.)

But, cmon. Any track can be fast abnormally fast under certain conditions for a program. The two indicators: (a) when many fast times are recorded; (b) when cheaper horse perform unusually or out-of-body, too.

That was yesterday at Belmont Park. People should concede the laughably obvious.

[cj]

How could he disagree? Individual track best speeds are a matter of record. Maybe the improved times are due to better maintenance. But the reason is irrelevant. I wonder how he would address the fact that North American sprint records are continually being broken while the route records are not. It actually wouldn't matter if the tracks were faster. It is still undeniable that sprinters today are running faster than they used to but classic horses aren't.

What sprint records are being broken? Have I missed this rash of track records? I've seen plenty of route track records broken on turf, where the surface is much tougher to manipulate.

[cj]

I don't understand the problem of recognizing AP's wonderful achievement and superiority over his crop while acknowledging that the track was palying fast yesterday. They are not mutually exclusive for intelligent handicappers.

Who isn't acknowledging the track was fast?

[clocker7]

They are slower for safety purposes. Tracks have been made deeper and deeper for the horses. There is plenty of info on the Thorograph site.

I agree that tracks are being groomed for deeper surfaces, compared to decades past, for the most part. However, they periodically are maintained differently when expectations of rains are at hand, too.

I disagree somewhat with Steve R. I believe that tracks are slower on the average, but that horses have been bred to go faster in sprints. At the expense of "bottom."

[cj]

It's funny how this was a very good crop of horses until Pharoah won three straight; now some say he didn't beat anything. He won in a fast time, he won by 5 1/2 lengths, he beat fresh horses, he did everything he needed to do in style. How good the crop is, only time will tell. I'd say Pharoah looks pretty darn solid right now though.

Great post. He destroyed all comers. Sure, the Derby was fairly close, but he won it while racing wide the entire way around both turns. The also rans from his earlier races have done very well. Everything points to him being a great horse, other than people wanting to knit pick and cling to the old days.

[clocker7]

Who isn't acknowledging the track was fast?

There seems to be a cadre of posters denigrating speed adjustors for pointing it out.

[cj]

As I have stated before here and on other forums, I believe this is the fastest group of 3yos since Barbaro, Lawyer Ron, Brother Derek, et al in 2005 up to 9f and the slowest group of 3yos at classic distances in at least 20 years. No inconsistency there. That's the direction breeding has taken.

That makes little sense to me. Horses just fall apart the last furlong? Visually it doesn't appear true, and it doesn't on the clock either.

I also think that a big reason routes are slower is that jockeys ride much more conservatively than they ever did in the past. I see it every single day on the big circuits, especially NYRA. Conservative riding doesn't lead to fast times.

That doesn't happen, for the most part, in sprints.

[clocker7]

Great post. He destroyed all comers. Sure, the Derby was fairly close, but he won it while racing wide the entire way around both turns. The also rans from his earlier races have done very well. Everything points to him being a great horse, other than people wanting to knit pick and cling to the old days.
I don't cling to the old days. Horses have improved up with selective breeding. Yet, it hasn't been a straight line. There has been a backtracking at classic distances over the past few decades.

A false intrepretation on your part.

[cj]

I think some believe this was a very good crop of 3yos up to a certain distance. I concur.....if AP stepped on a nail and retired tomorrow, who merits chance in this crop to win the BCC? That seems rather unlikely to me. AP could certainly come in and give his elders a run for the money, but it is hard to have a lot of love for much else.

People seem passionate on both sides of the fence.. I am in the middle, now that I have had time to accept this distinctive honor gets awarded to Baffert and, ew, Zayat. The horse certainly delivered in the Belmont. It's good. But I don't feel particularly compelled any longer by the horses he was beating. TOV ran 2nd and Keen Ice 3rd, and they are still eligible to meet in a 1OT tomorrow. AP can't help that, nor can he help beating them.

I'd take Frosted, or even Dortmund if he can rebound, which I think he will. Which horses in the older crop are so great this year?

[highnote]

They are slower for safety purposes. Tracks have been made deeper and deeper for the horses. There is plenty of info on the Thorograph site.
that sounds reasonable, but slower tracks dont explain why sprint records are being broken and routes are not.

[Steve R]

But that isn't what speed figures are supposed to do, per Beyer himself. He hasn't adjusted.

IF what you say is true, and say in 1990 a 1:10 at 6f was equal to a 2:02 at 10f, maybe by now that 1:10 should equal a 2:03. His stuff has stagnated. I saw a returning champion, Lady Eli, win a race and get an 87. I find that laughable.
I don't follow. If you use class pars that shouldn't be an issue. In 1990 1:10 and 2:02 may have been equal to 100 on some scale. But things change and maybe today that 1:10 is still equal to 100 but now 2:03 is equal to 100 and 2:02 is perhaps 110. Are you saying Beyer hasn't made any adjustments of that type? If not, it would be a huge mistake easily avoided by using class pars.

[cj]

I don't follow. If you use class pars that shouldn't be an issue. In 1990 1:10 and 2:02 may have been equal to 100 on some scale. But things change and maybe today that 1:10 is still equal to 100 but now 2:03 is equal to 100 and 2:02 is perhaps 110. Are you saying Beyer hasn't made any adjustments of that type? If not, it would be a huge mistake easily avoided by using class pars.

He may have tried lately, but those speed charts didn't change for a long time. If he has changed them, he hasn't changed them enough.

[cj]

There seems to be a cadre of posters denigrating speed adjustors for pointing it out.

I guess I didn't see anyone see the track wasn't fast. I'm saying on that track, it was still an outstanding time for the Belmont.

[cj]

that sounds reasonable, but slower tracks dont explain why sprint records are being broken and routes are not.

Where? What sprint records?

It actually would follow. The deeper the track, the slower times will be per furlong. Therefore it will of course be easier to break track records at 6f than at 9f or 10f.

[clocker7]

I guess I didn't see anyone see the track wasn't fast. I'm saying on that track, it was still an outstanding time for the Belmont.
Few would say it outright, because it is so obvious. But the attack is: why are you doing so?

I'm tickled that you are conceding it ... a large step for mankind. :)

[Steve R]

They are slower for safety purposes. Tracks have been made deeper and deeper for the horses. There is plenty of info on the Thorograph site.
How can they be slower if individual track records are continually being broken? If they are suggesting that tracks are slower but despite that the horses are running even faster (i.e., are better than they were) I think they're out of their minds. I'm biased because I believe Ragozin-type adjustments for lost ground, wind and weight are pretty much wrong because of limitations imposed by physics and that these adjustments introduce way too much noise into the variant calculation. In a sense they propose doing calculations to three significant figures using measurements of one significant figure.

[cj]

How can they be slower if individual track records are continually being broken? If they are suggesting that tracks are slower but despite that the horses are running even faster (i.e., are better than they were) I think they're out of their minds. I'm biased because I believe Ragozin-type adjustments for lost ground, wind and weight are pretty much wrong because of limitations imposed by physics and that these adjustments introduce way too much noise into the variant calculation. In a sense they propose doing calculations to three significant figures using measurements of one significant figure.

Aren't we breeding for faster horses? Don't humans get faster too for a variety of reasons?

If they suddenly slowed the track for humans by 5 percent, eventually there would be somebody that would break the current world record for 100m. It would be much harder to do that in the 400m, and impossible in the 1500m.

I see no reason to think the same wouldn't apply to horses.

[cj]

Few would say it outright, because it is so obvious. But the attack is: why are you doing so?

I'm tickled that you are conceding it ... a large step for mankind. :)

Of course it was fast, not even a debate in my mind. The track is almost always fast for every big race day at any track in the country. Gulfstream on Florida Derby day this year was a huge exception.

[Steve R]

That makes little sense to me. Horses just fall apart the last furlong? Visually it doesn't appear true, and it doesn't on the clock either.

I also think that a big reason routes are slower is that jockeys ride much more conservatively than they ever did in the past. I see it every single day on the big circuits, especially NYRA. Conservative riding doesn't lead to fast times.

That doesn't happen, for the most part, in sprints.
That makes even less sense. If conservative riding leads to slower times why wouldn't jockeys be more aggressive so they could run faster times? It seems to me if you get around the track in a faster time than the other horses, you win.

[Tom]

Tell that to the grabbers. Seems a lot of rider think going fast is a sin the way they refuse to let the horse run.

Maybe just a lot bad jocks riding today. Or coward owners.

[cj]

That makes even less sense. If conservative riding leads to slower times why wouldn't jockeys be more aggressive so they could run faster times? It seems to me if you get around the track in a faster time than the other horses, you win.

I think the advent of synthetic tracks, and the increase in turf racing, has had a lot to do with it. Are you saying slow paces lead to faster times? I know that isn't true. There is an optimal pace point for the fastest possible time, and going slower than it will lead to slower overall times. If you don't get that, I'm not sure what else I can say. Go run 400m, then go walk 100m and run the last 300m and see how close you can get.

Jockeys aren't racing the clock. They are racing each other. There is also the part that many are now riding to be in the money, not necessarily to win. I see it every day. Sure, they want to win, but they don't take chances like in the old days. You see very few front end battles any longer. Guys seem afraid to come in last and have to explain what happened.

[highnote]

Aren't we breeding for faster horses? Don't humans get faster too for a variety of reasons?

If they suddenly slowed the track for humans by 5 percent, eventually there would be somebody that would break the current world record for 100m. It would be much harder to do that in the 400m, and impossible in the 1500m.

I see no reason to think the same wouldn't apply to horses.
horses are getting faster at shorter distances, but not at longer. Originally, the goal was to run faster at classic distances... Hence the importance of the KY derby and Belmont. Owners want a quicker roi ... Horses that win earlier in their careers... That means shorter distances. At least that is my understanding of the situation.

[clocker7]

Of course it was fast, not even a debate in my mind. The track is almost always fast for every big race day at any track in the country. Gulfstream on Florida Derby day this year was a huge exception.
CJ, I want to make it clear that I respect your opinion very much. Your willingness to look into the entrails of the 2014 KD said it all, imo.

However, speed adjustors will never be unanimous, nuff said. I have my set of strong beliefs, based upon my own calculations and study of racing history back to the 1830s. Here are my own opinions:

1. Selective breeding works.
2. Selective breeding in America historically has had numerous serious impacts within only a few decades, changing the breed radically.
3. American horses have gotten faster over time, due to importation and selective breeding.
4. The recent American history of breeding has seen the elevation of speed over endurance and durability.
5. There was a near-perfect balance of speed and bottom peaking somewhere in the 1970s.
6. Since then, the dominant usage of glorified milers as stallions has altered the breed negatively re: distance ability.
7. Breed alteration is not a new phenomenon. The transition from heat racing to dash racing after the Civil War had a more radical impact. By the middle of the 1880s, heat racing had disappeared, four milers were a rarity, and nearly everything was geared toward competition at less than cup distances. Attempts to stage long races were mostly futile, and eventually abandoned altogether due to the lack of able animals and willing participants.
8. Racetracks have embraced the criticism about dangerously firm tracks, and have accomodated the culture. However, in anticipation of rainy intervals, track maintenance occasionally will result in overly-speedy surfaces, either after rapid drying or the absence of an actual downpour.
9. Yesterday, Belmont was not an honest strip, and I don't feel inhibited about pointing it out. Denigration aimed at those who do is pathetic, almost newbie-ish.

[nijinski]

It seems to me your reading comprehension skills are quite limited. The only direct comparison made to Peppers Pride and American Pharoah is in your head. However, there was a comparison made between the undefeated careers of Peppers Pride, Frankel and Black Caviar which is a perfectly valid comparison if you are trying to put those accomplishments in historical perspective.

Interestingly the TC wasn't always so hard to do. It was done 8 times in the first 30 years of its existence and 11 times in the first 60. It's only recently that the TC has been so elusive. And you think it's difficult to do in 5 weeks at 3 tracks and 3 distances? It is by contemporary standards. But how about this for Whirlaway's TC campaign of 1941, only 74 years ago:

Feb 08: Hialeah, 6f, Alw
Feb 18: Hialeah, 7f, Alw
Mar 22: Tropical Park, 6f, Alw
Mar 28: Tropical Park, 5 1/2f, Alw
Apr 11: Keeneland, 9f, Handicap
Apr 24: Keeneland, 9f, Blue Grass Stakes
Apr 29: Churchill Downs, 8f, Derby Trial
May 03: Churchill Downs, 10f, Kentucky Derby (breaking the track record in 2:01.2)
May 10: Pimlico, 9 1/2f, Preakness Stakes (note only 1 week later)
May 20: Belmont, 8 1/2f, Alw
Jun 07: Belmont, 12f, Belmont Stakes

Two weeks later on Jun 21 he won the Dwyer Stakes at 10f in 2/5ths off the Aqueduct track record. Then he took a 3 1/2-week vacation until mid-July and ran 8 more times until his last race of the year on September 27 when he lost the JCGC to champion Market Wise by a nose in American record time breaking Belmont's 2-mile track record by a full second.

Please don't try to convince me how tough the TC campaign was for American Pharoah.

Well just keep getting excited about Peppers Pride and dismiss American.
I clearly understand you . You want him to break historic records .

You certainly do understand the changes in breeding as I agree on that .
For that alone I'm in awe of AP he was the least likely pedigree wise
to win at the classic distances . At least give him that much .

We definitely disagree on the triple crown campaign . It's a tough one
for a 3yo and that's why they all stand out . It's just not easy to ship
these 3 year olds in this short span of time and expect to see a win .
Many fans have never experienced this . I think most trainers would
agree how difficult is to accomplish . You need that special horse .
There's just no convincing you .

[Blenheim]

With respect to time, pace, track records and all and everything to do with time - is the run up factored in? In all your numbers, do you guys factor in the run up? If not, why not? What does "time" really mean if the run up is not factored in? What does this tell us about your numbers if your numbers do not factor in the run up?

~

It was good to see a Triple Crown Winner, I though what he did was impressive. :ThmbUp:

[cj]

horses are getting faster at shorter distances, but not at longer. Originally, the goal was to run faster at classic distances... Hence the importance of the KY derby and Belmont. Owners want a quicker roi ... Horses that win earlier in their careers... That means shorter distances. At least that is my understanding of the situation.

That is the current theory of many.

But I'm saying with deeper tracks, the effects will be noticed more and more as distances get longer, at least on raw time. If you properly adjust for track speed though, it can be accounted for in my opinion.

Example, let's say a track was now slowed mechanically by 2%. Horses that could run 6f in 1:10 would now run in 1:11.40.

But what happens to the same track where the best horse could run 10f in 2:02? He is now only capable of running the distance in 2:04.44. Instead of a 1.40 second difference, the routers now how a 2.44 second difference over a distance where stamina is obviously more important. So, to my mind, of course it is harder for horses to break track records in routes as more cushion has been added.

As I noted, I've seen plenty of route records broken turf in recent years where the surface is more consistent and can't be easily manipulated, at least like dirt can be.

Does that make sense?

[cj]

With respect to time, pace, track records and all and everything to do with time - is the run up factored in? In all your numbers, do you guys factor in the run up? If not, why not? What does "time" really mean if the run up is not factored in? What does this tell us about your numbers if your numbers do not factor in the run up?

~

It was good to see a Triple Crown Winner, I though what he did was impressive. :ThmbUp:

I factor it in. I know the recorded time for 6f, for example, is for the last 6f or the race and the run up can have an effect. I document the run up on every worksheet I print, and it can often explain times that don't make a lot of sense.

[cj]

CJ, I want to make it clear that I respect your opinion very much. Your willingness to look into the entrails of the 2014 KD said it all, imo.

However, speed adjustors will never be unanimous, nuff said. I have my set of strong beliefs, based upon my own calculations and study of racing history back to the 1830s. Here are my own opinions:

1. Selective breeding works.
2. Selective breeding in America historically has had numerous serious impacts within only a few decades, changing the breed radically.
3. American horses have gotten faster over time, due to importation and selective breeding.
4. The recent American history of breeding has seen the elevation of speed over endurance and durability.
5. There was a near-perfect balance of speed and bottom peaking somewhere in the 1970s.
6. Since then, the dominant usage of glorified milers as stallions has altered the breed negatively re: distance ability.
7. Breed alteration is not a new phenomenon. The transition from heat racing to dash racing after the Civil War had a more radical impact. By the middle of the 1880s, heat racing had disappeared, four milers were a rarity, and nearly everything was geared toward competition at less than cup distances. Attempts to stage long races were mostly futile, and eventually abandoned altogether due to the lack of able animals and willing participants.
8. Racetracks have embraced the criticism about dangerously firm tracks, and have accomodated the culture. However, in anticipation of rainy intervals, track maintenance occasionally will result in overly-speedy surfaces, either after rapid drying or the absence of an actual downpour.
9. Yesterday, Belmont was not an honest strip, and I don't feel inhibited about pointing it out. Denigration aimed at those who do is pathetic, almost newbie-ish.

I really wasn't debating anything you said. At TimeformUS, we'll actually have the day shaded in pink for dirt races as more beneficial to speed than your typical US track.

I do think the breeding thing is exaggerated as I've point out in other posts. Deeper tracks effect times on longer distances much more than shorter distances. Is some of it breeding? Probably. But I think the tracks are more responsible. I don't believe breeding trends could turn the characteristics of a breed around that fast. It just doesn't seem possible, and I was really good in biology class :)

[Steve R]

Well just keep getting excited about Peppers Pride and dismiss American.
I clearly understand you . You want him to break historic records .

You certainly do understand the changes in breeding as I agree on that .
For that alone I'm in awe of AP he was the least likely pedigree wise
to win at the classic distances . At least give him that much .

We definitely disagree on the triple crown campaign . It's a tough one
for a 3yo and that's why they all stand out . It's just not easy to ship
these 3 year olds in this short span of time and expect to see a win .
Many fans have never experienced this . I think most trainers would
agree how difficult is to accomplish . You need that special horse .
There's just no convincing you .
Two things. First, if Whirlaway's example of a TC campaign doesn't convince you that today's Thoroughbreds are wimps by comparison then nothing will. Second, American Pharoah's pedigree actually fits the classic model very well based on the 75-year trendline available at the following web pages. Scroll to the bottom of each page, observe the pedigree trends and focus on 2015. You will find he is quite close to the predicted values.
Derby (http://www.chef-de-race.com/dosage/classics/derby_dosage.htm)
Preakness (http://www.chef-de-race.com/dosage/classics/preakness_dosage.htm)
Belmont (http://www.chef-de-race.com/dosage/classics/belmont_dosage.htm)

[clocker7]

I don't believe breeding trends could turn the characteristics of a breed around that fast. It just doesn't seem possible, and I was really good in biology class :)

All I can say is read more history, especially in the later 1800s. The value of Lexington and his like was quickly discarded in favor of British imports that changed the breed.

One day, the Brits marveled over Parole and how he could quickly turn around to run effectively again against their best. A few decades later, his qualities were long gone.

Edited:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parole_%28horse%29



While there, the Duke of Magenta became ill with influenza, allowing Parole an opportunity to prove his worth. Within one week in April, Parole won the Newmarket Stakes (on Apr. 16th, defeating Isonomy) and the City and Suburban Handicap (on Apr. 22nd, defeating 17 horses, including Ridotto). The following day he won the Great Metropolitan which was set at two and a half miles. Only one horse opposed him, Castlereagh, because no other owner wanted to continue competing against Parole. Parole carried 124 pounds against Castlereagh's 110. The English were amazed at this performance but American horses were used to running in grueling heats."

[ultracapper]

(I excised a great portion of your post which accurately states that the history of west coast clockings is a deceptive one. Going back over a hundred years, even.)

But, cmon. Any track can be fast abnormally fast under certain conditions for a program. The two indicators: (a) when many fast times are recorded; (b) when cheaper horse perform unusually or out-of-body, too.

That was yesterday at Belmont Park. People should concede the laughably obvious.

I conceded that every now and then there is an odd ball day

[ultracapper]

There's absolutely no way to even make a historical comparison until we see some more races.

Bear in mind that winning a TC, while a tremendous accomplishment, in no way makes a horse an all time great. Neither Omaha nor Sir Barton was an all time great, and I don't think Count Fleet accomplished all that much either (though the manner of his Belmont win suggests he was a beast).

Horses like Seattle Slew and Secretariat and (especially) Citation and Affirmed established how great they were by what they did and who they beat after winning the TC. It's HIGHLY unlikely that AP will even be allowed to do anything similar, but you would need that frame of reference to compare.

Affirmed is a really nice example. Yes, Affirmed won the TC and had his amazing 2 year old year. But then Affirmed went on and did a lot more. He set the stakes record in the Santa Anita Handicap under 128 pounds, which still stands 36 years later. He won the Hollywood Gold Cup and the Strub. And then he went back to New York and closed out his career by handing Spectacular Bid his last loss in the Jockey Club Gold Cup. You just aren't going to be able to make a historical comparison to that from 3 races in the spring of 2015.

I hope you're not suggesting that the standard of greatness in TB racing is Affirmed. If so, there have been only about 6 great TB in history. The horse was super special.

[clocker7]

Give AP more time. Although his adjusted times are not mind-boggling, he still is on the upswing.

That is, unless Baffert has ruined him. :lol: :lol:

[highnote]

I don't believe breeding trends could turn the characteristics of a breed around that fast. It just doesn't seem possible, and I was really good in biology class

You might be interested in reading Tesio -- perhaps the greatest racehorse breeder of all time. He believed that a particular attribute could be eliminated in about 50 years. I think he used the example of horses who have grey coats -- not that horses with grey coats are undesirable. He just said it was possible to eliminate thoroughbreds with grey coats in 50 years.

[maddog42]

You mean to tell me all these slower winning Belmont times since Point Given were run over deep, tiring tracks, and AP was the first to get the paved highway?

Tonalist 2:28.52
Palace Malice 2:30.70
Union Rags 2:30.42
Ruler on Ice 2:30.88
Drosselmeyer 2:31.57
Summer Bird 2:27.54
Da'Tara 2:29.6
Rags to Riches 2:28.74
Jazil 2:27.86
Afleet Alex 2:28.75
Birdstone 2:27.50
Empire Maker 2:28.26
Sarava 2:29.71

All of them were all track-hindered? :lol:

I agree.I don't trust that 105 BSF. Seems off by at least 6 or 7 points. I am not some crazy AP worshipper and I was slow to come around to his side. This is a very, very good horse and would crush most of the horses on the above list.

[cj]

You might be interested in reading Tesio -- perhaps the greatest racehorse breeder of all time. He believed that a particular attribute could be eliminated in about 50 years. I think he used the example of horses who have grey coats -- not that horses with grey coats are undesirable. He just said it was possible to eliminate thoroughbreds with grey coats in 50 years.

I said breeding is a part of it possibly, but you guys are ignoring what I posted about deeper tracks and the effect on time.

[Pick6]

...
I suspect TC's tend to correlate with a weak crop. I think it would have been close to impossible to win a TC in 1957, for instance. And I'm amazed to this day that Silver Charm came as close as he did in 1997.

But it's still a tremendous accomplishment. Most years even a weak crop doesn't result in a TC winner, after all.
Dissing Gallant Man, whose best distance of the 3 TC races was probably 1 3/16.

[Pick6]

I said breeding is a part of it possibly, but you guys are ignoring what I posted about deeper tracks and the effect on time.
What is trend for course record times on turf? Much more difficult to manipulate turf courses.

[dilanesp]

Dissing Gallant Man, whose best distance of the 3 TC races was probably 1 3/16.

Not dissing him. Just saying it was very hard to win all 3 races against that crop.

[highnote]

That is the current theory of many.

But I'm saying with deeper tracks, the effects will be noticed more and more as distances get longer, at least on raw time. If you properly adjust for track speed though, it can be accounted for in my opinion.

Example, let's say a track was now slowed mechanically by 2%. Horses that could run 6f in 1:10 would now run in 1:11.40.

But what happens to the same track where the best horse could run 10f in 2:02? He is now only capable of running the distance in 2:04.44. Instead of a 1.40 second difference, the routers now how a 2.44 second difference over a distance where stamina is obviously more important. So, to my mind, of course it is harder for horses to break track records in routes as more cushion has been added.

As I noted, I've seen plenty of route records broken turf in recent years where the surface is more consistent and can't be easily manipulated, at least like dirt can be.

Does that make sense?

Yes and no. It's complicated. The track depth should not have any bearing on the relationship between sprint records being broken and route records being broken if the breed is improving at all distances.

There is a near perfect linear relationship between distances and final time world records. I would expect that relationship to be constant across all distances as time passes by and the slope of the regression line should remain constant. After 20 years, for example, the slope should be the same or relatively close to where it was earlier even though new world records have been set.

If track speed is being slowed down on purpose and only sprint records are being broken then the slope of the line for world records would change. A changing slope does not seem consistent with your theory that it's easier to break sprint records than route records and the well-established fact that record times are linear because there should also be world record times set at longer distances.

But a changing slope due to new records being set at shorter distances and not longer seems to be more consistent with the idea that the breed is trending toward getting faster at shorter distances.

Thorograph uses Standardbred horses to show how the breed has improved. I have some thoughts about that. 1.) Only mile races are used. 2.) Standardbreds are a newer breed and it would be expected that the breed would improve more than Thoroughbreds in the same time period because breeders have been improving Thoroughbreds for a few hundred years. 3.) He comes to the conclusion that the 6 furlong times have gotten faster. That is consistent with what SteveR has shown. Thorograph doesn't talk specifically about the classic distances having improved. 4.) Quarterhorses are also a younger breed than Thoroughbreds. Phone Trick, Favorite Trick's sire, was also a QH stallion. Given the newness of the QH breed it stands to reason that shorter distances would improve more than the classic distances. And given that owners want a quick return on investment it makes sense that breeders would breed more for speed at the expense of classically bred horses.

Lastly, is it known for certain that all tracks are being made slower and that they are slower than many years ago? Thorograph's site says the cushion during Secretariat's run at Belmont was around an inch thinner. Does this mean Secretariat's time was achieved over a souped-up track compared to today's tracks? Does that mean we should downgrade Secretariat's final time? Does that mean AP might have run 2:24 over a track that was identical to 1973? (If the breed is improving across all distances, I suppose that is possible.) Speed figures would help clarify this. Beyer said Secretariat's speed figure was 139 (or 130) -- not sure what he actually said. He only gave AP a 105. Was your figure for AP anywhere near 130? Have you ever made a figure for Secretariat's Belmont?

[highnote]

I said breeding is a part of it possibly, but you guys are ignoring what I posted about deeper tracks and the effect on time.

See my previous post -- #138. I address deeper tracks specifically.

[rastajenk]

I don't know where this rash of new track records is occurring, but if it does exist, it may be at slots-aided tracks where bigger money is changing the caliber of the horse populations stabled there; and have nothing to do with "the breed" or "track maintenance."

[cj]

I don't know where this rash of new track records is occurring, but if it does exist, it may be at slots-aided tracks where bigger money is changing the caliber of the horse populations stabled there; and have nothing to do with "the breed" or "track maintenance."


This is what I asked, where are all these track records?

[highnote]

This is what I asked, where are all these track records?


see post #69

[nijinski]

Two things. First, if Whirlaway's example of a TC campaign doesn't convince you that today's Thoroughbreds are wimps by comparison then nothing will. Second, American Pharoah's pedigree actually fits the classic model very well based on the 75-year trendline available at the following web pages. Scroll to the bottom of each page, observe the pedigree trends and focus on 2015. You will find he is quite close to the predicted values.
Derby (http://www.chef-de-race.com/dosage/classics/derby_dosage.htm)
Preakness (http://www.chef-de-race.com/dosage/classics/preakness_dosage.htm)
Belmont (http://www.chef-de-race.com/dosage/classics/belmont_dosage.htm)

I will say the graphs and the trends are interesting .

[RXB]

If the horses' ratio of speed vs. stamina isn't changing, why does the average race distance keep shortening?

[highnote]

If the horses' ratio of speed vs. stamina isn't changing, why does the average race distance keep shortening?

The main reason that I can think of is that owners want a faster return on their investment. So the quicker they can get their horses onto the track the faster they can earn back their money. Two year olds are more likely to race in sprint races than in routes.

Couple this with the fact that maiden races at slot tracks can have relatively large purses there is a big incentive to win these two year old maiden sprints. Therefore, breeders will to try to supply horses that meet the demand from owners.

How many American owners say they want a horse that can run 12 furlongs in their three year old season?

[highnote]

I don't know where this rash of new track records is occurring, but if it does exist, it may be at slots-aided tracks where bigger money is changing the caliber of the horse populations stabled there; and have nothing to do with "the breed" or "track maintenance."

This is probably a contributing factor. However, the route distances should also be seeing new record times at the same pace as sprint races. It doesn't appear to be happening, though.

[RXB]

The main reason that I can think of is that owners want a faster return on their investment. So the quicker they can get their horses onto the track the faster they can earn back their money. Two year olds are more likely to race in sprint races than in routes.

Couple this with the fact that maiden races at slot tracks can have relatively large purses there is a big incentive to win these two year old maiden sprints. Therefore, breeders will to try to supply horses that meet the demand from owners.

How many American owners say they want a horse that can run 12 furlongs in their three year old season?

It's shortened for all age groups.

My question was a rhetorical one. For sure there has been a significant shift toward speed and away from stamina. That's why they run shorter distances now.

[highnote]

It's shortened for all age groups.

My question was a rhetorical one. For sure there has been a significant shift toward speed and away from stamina. That's why they run shorter distances now.


I guess I don't know why there is disagreement on this. It seems obvious to me.

[PaceAdvantage]

These debates are becoming as biased as political ones, and the few that haven't proclaimed AP the next Secretariat get attacked personally.Name one person who has proclaimed him the next Secretariat? Your argument just blew a tire.

But consider yourself personally attacked... :lol:

[nijinski]

If the horses' ratio of speed vs. stamina isn't changing, why does the average race distance keep shortening?

I've mentioned this before regarding the JCGC when Whittingham
said Easy Goer after winning at a mile and a half , would not be as
sharp against Sunday Silence in the BCC . He boasted that race is
going to dull him .

I guess it's a coincidence that the distance was scaled back the next
year :lol: . But somehow it makes sense to have done this with the
BCC so close .

I'm sure that there are more reasons such as what will fill the card
and horsemen's preferences and perhaps betting patterns taken into
account .

Going back to Whittingham's theory, some 3 yo horses did go on to
to win their next race after the Belmont , Affirmed is one and I believe
Secretariat but he was off two months . Seattle Slew was not so lucky
in the Swaps .

Maybe trainer on board here could chime in .

[rastajenk]

Here is a link (http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/american-pharoahs-a-superhorse-but-hes-no-secretariat/) to piece on Nate Silver's 538 blog titled, "American Pharoah is a Superhorse, but He's No Secretariat." :D

It purports to put it all in perspective; might be an interesting read for casual non-fans, but we get more sophisticated stuff every day here on this forum.

But it has a straw-mannish feel about it: take a claim that no one is really making, and take it down a notch or two.

[dilanesp]

I've mentioned this before regarding the JCGC when Whittingham
said Easy Goer after winning at a mile and a half , would not be as
sharp against Sunday Silence in the BCC . He boasted that race is
going to dull him .

I guess it's a coincidence that the distance was scaled back the next
year :lol: . But somehow it makes sense to have done this with the
BCC so close .

I'm sure that there are more reasons such as what will fill the card
and horsemen's preferences and perhaps betting patterns taken into
account .

Going back to Whittingham's theory, some 3 yo horses did go on to
to win their next race after the Belmont , Affirmed is one and I believe
Secretariat but he was off two months . Seattle Slew was not so lucky
in the Swaps .

Maybe trainer on board here could chime in .

Well, look beyond TC winners. Riva Ridge, for instance, shipped out to California after the Belmont and ran a race that is still remembered by the older fans out here, beating Quack in the Hollywood Derby at 10 furlongs.

Point Given had no problem in the Haskell after the Belmont. Same with Bet Twice.

Easy Goer kept winning after the Belmont until he ran into the superior Sunday Silence again.

Birdstone did fine as well.

The Belmont isn't THAT taxing.

[Steve R]

...Speed figures would help clarify this. Beyer said Secretariat's speed figure was 139 (or 130) -- not sure what he actually said. He only gave AP a 105. Was your figure for AP anywhere near 130? Have you ever made a figure for Secretariat's Belmont?
I don't mean to impose on your dialog but many years ago I did figures on several acknowledged greats in some of the TC races.

Secretariat, Derby, PF -97
Secretariat, Preakness, PF -85
Secretariat, Belmont, PF -122
Seattle Slew, Derby, PF -76
Affirmed, Derby, PF -65
Spectacular Bid, Derby, PF -80

A couple of the best since those days are:

Point Given, Belmont, PF -83
Silver Charm, Preakness, PF -80
Smarty Jones, Preakness, PF -77
Monarchos, Derby, PF -75
Funny Cide, Preakness, PF -75

[Steve R]

I agree.I don't trust that 105 BSF. Seems off by at least 6 or 7 points. I am not some crazy AP worshipper and I was slow to come around to his side. This is a very, very good horse and would crush most of the horses on the above list.
Beyer gave him a 105, same as the Derby. I gave him a PF-58, about 2 1/2 lengths better than the Derby. The Racing Post gave him 126, 2 pounds better than the Derby but 1 pound below the Preakness. For a comparison, below are the Racing Post ratings vs BSFs for several recent Belmont winners. There seems to be reasonable correlation among these. I haven't seen the BRIS rating but I expect it will be consistent with the others. I think many people are underestimating Saturday's variants.

American Pharoah, BSF 105, RPR 126
Tonalist, BSF 100, RPR 121
Afleet Alex, BSF 106, RPR 126
Empire Maker, BSF 110, RPR 129
Point Given, BSF, 114, RPR 131

[Seabiscuit@AR]

Unfortunately for the figure makers you cannot use times to accurately compare horses from different decades. The world changes too much every few years

The world records for women's athletics for the 100m, 200m , 400m and 800m were all set between 1983 and 1988. Was the 1980s a golden period for women's athletics or was some other factor at play? I think it was some other factor and it is not hard to guess what that factor might be

I cannot see horse racing being different from human athletics and there being golden decades where the horses can run some amazing times that later horses cannot get anywhere near

American Pharoah deserved his Triple Crown win. He has won over a wide range of distances and won on the west coast and the east coast and places in between. Some people (including myself) thought he would struggle with the final furlong of a 12 furlong race. Instead he won running away and was in a totally different class to his rivals. When you doubt a horse can do something (in this case run a strong 12 furlongs in G1 company) and he instead thumps his opponents that is the sign of a true champion in my books

[Cratos]

Unfortunately for the figure makers you cannot use times to accurately compare horses from different decades. The world changes too much every few years

The world records for women's athletics for the 100m, 200m , 400m and 800m were all set between 1983 and 1988. Was the 1980s a golden period for women's athletics or was some other factor at play? I think it was some other factor and it is not hard to guess what that factor might be

I cannot see horse racing being different from human athletics and there being golden decades where the horses can run some amazing times that later horses cannot get anywhere near

American Pharoah deserved his Triple Crown win. He has won over a wide range of distances and won on the west coast and the east coast and places in between. Some people (including myself) thought he would struggle with the final furlong of a 12 furlong race. Instead he won running away and was in a totally different class to his rivals. When you doubt a horse can do something (in this case run a strong 12 furlongs in G1 company) and he instead thumps his opponents that is the sign of a true champion in my books
The best summation by far of any of the comments which I have read about AP 's Triple Crown achievement.

I also did not think AP could get a winning 1-1/2 miles, but he did and it is now time to move on.

AP in my opinion is not just a good horse; he is a great horse and his placement among the best will be determined by how he close out his career.

[PaceAdvantage]

AP's detractors are now using the argument that "well, he's no Secretariat," when in fact, nobody is really claiming that he is...that's how far they've had to move the goalposts.

The simple fact remains...BEFORE the Belmont, if I had told anyone on this board who was even a mild AP detractor, that he would win the Belmont Stakes drawing away by over 5 lengths, run a faster final quarter than Secretariat, and run a final time that was second best of all Triple Crown winners, and seventh best EVER...they would have no problem with labeling this horse great...or even a superhorse...

Now that reality has happened, for some reason, they can't bring themselves to admit this...we were witness to a performance that was ASTRONOMICALLY GREATER THAN ANYONE ON THIS BOARD, OR ANYWHERE ELSE, expected...

Human nature is odd in that way.

[RXB]

Beyer gave him a 105, same as the Derby. I gave him a PF-58, about 2 1/2 lengths better than the Derby. The Racing Post gave him 126, 2 pounds better than the Derby but 1 pound below the Preakness. For a comparison, below are the Racing Post ratings vs BSFs for several recent Belmont winners. There seems to be reasonable correlation among these. I haven't seen the BRIS rating but I expect it will be consistent with the others. I think many people are underestimating Saturday's variants.

American Pharoah, BSF 105, RPR 126
Tonalist, BSF 100, RPR 121
Afleet Alex, BSF 106, RPR 126
Empire Maker, BSF 110, RPR 129
Point Given, BSF, 114, RPR 131

RPR isn't really a speed rating. It's an opinion of the performance based partly on the final time.

As far as the Beyer goes, the beauty of comparing this year with last year is that all of the dirt races were the same as last year on both class and distance. As long as the surface isn't fluctuating wildly, it should be like going back to kindergarten for a figuremaker. I'll list this year's times first, then last year's:

Belmont 2:26.65, 2:28.52
Brooklyn 2:27.17, 2:27.13
Phipps 1:40.21, 1:40.55
Met Mile 1:33.18, 1:33.56
Acorn 1:35.13, 1:34.98
Stephens 1:21.37, 1:20.75
N2X Alw 1:22.12, 1:22.47
3YO Stk 1:42.21, 1:41.12
N1X Alw 1:40.86, 1:42.31

If you sum those up but exclude the Belmont, the mean differential for the other races is .08 faster for this year. In other words, virtually the same. The times are strikingly close on the whole. The only races other than the Belmont where the differential exceeds .62 are the last two that I've listed, and that's because the slow race in each case was the opener on the card and for whatever reason it played slow both times. Comparing them in sequence, Race 1 both years was within .10 and Race 2 within .26.

I think the data is quite clear that there wasn't much difference in track speed. I stand solidly by what I said before: 111 or 112, not 105. And if that isn't enough, I'm sure that the TFUS figuremaker agrees with me and on the whole I trust his opinions more than the Beyer or RPR guys.

[ubercapper]

AP only got a 105 Beyer for the Belmont Stakes? Man, that's surprising...my off-the-cuff gorilla math estimated about 10 points higher than that...

Equibase gave AP a 112 for the Belmont. That's the fastest in years, since 2006 to be precise (Jazil got a 114) and tied with Afleet Alex's 112 in 2005.

His last 4 figures were 107-111-111 and 112.

Certainly no indication of a regression of any kind all spring long.

[highnote]

Thanks! I tried finding your PF for Secretariat's Belmont on your website but couldn't locate it. It's useful to be able to put AP's performance into historical perspective.

I don't mean to impose on your dialog but many years ago I did figures on several acknowledged greats in some of the TC races.

Secretariat, Derby, PF -97
Secretariat, Preakness, PF -85
Secretariat, Belmont, PF -122
Seattle Slew, Derby, PF -76
Affirmed, Derby, PF -65
Spectacular Bid, Derby, PF -80

A couple of the best since those days are:

Point Given, Belmont, PF -83
Silver Charm, Preakness, PF -80
Smarty Jones, Preakness, PF -77
Monarchos, Derby, PF -75
Funny Cide, Preakness, PF -75

[highnote]

The world records for women's athletics for the 100m, 200m , 400m and 800m were all set between 1983 and 1988. Was the 1980s a golden period for women's athletics or was some other factor at play? I think it was some other factor and it is not hard to guess what that factor might be

Steroids? Racehorses probably have been given steroids for the past 30 years. Maybe they are partly responsible for sprint records being broken more often than routes?


American Pharoah deserved his Triple Crown win.

Not many people would dispute that. He won it fair and square. In my mind, that's not the important question. The question is how does he stack up historically and what will his fair value be at stud.


He has won over a wide range of distances and won on the west coast and the east coast and places in between. Some people (including myself) thought he would struggle with the final furlong of a 12 furlong race.

Had he not been the "Lone E" he might have struggled in the final stages. But he got the lead, set a nice easy pace and had plenty left in the tank. It was a workmanlike effort. No disgrace. Well done.


Instead he won running away and was in a totally different class to his rivals. When you doubt a horse can do something (in this case run a strong 12 furlongs in G1 company) and he instead thumps his opponents that is the sign of a true champion in my books

Agree. The field was relatively weak compared to AP. He is the champion of his generation.

I wish Carpe Diem would have been healthy enough to run. Maybe we'll get to see them match up in the Travers.

[cj]

Equibase gave AP a 112 for the Belmont. That's the fastest in years, since 2006 to be precise (Jazil got a 114) and tied with Afleet Alex's 112 in 2005.

His last 4 figures were 107-111-111 and 112.

Certainly no indication of a regression of any kind all spring long.

Jazil, really? Oy vey.

[highnote]

Here is a link (http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/american-pharoahs-a-superhorse-but-hes-no-secretariat/) to piece on Nate Silver's 538 blog titled, "American Pharoah is a Superhorse, but He's No Secretariat."

It's only natural to compare a TC winner to Secretariat. Secretariat is the gold standard.

I liked Silver's article. He brought up an interesting fact about how Belmont Stakes times have been on the increase and that the five years from 2009 to 2014 are the 5 slowest times since the 1930s. Which seems to point to the fact that the breed is trending toward speedier, shorter distance specialists. I agree with Silver that AP didn't exactly beat a bunch of great horses. He beat a couple good horses, but there was no Sham or Alydar in this year's Belmont Stakes.

When Carpe Diem scratched, I was disappointed because I knew that AP would probably win with relative ease. I wasn't disappointed that we'd have a TC winner, but that we would have to wait until later to find out how good he really is. (I was also disappointed that I couldn't bet Carpe Diem. :D )

We know AP is the best of his generation, but it's hard to know where he rates historically. If he keeps running I am hopeful that we can find out.

[cj]

Unfortunately for the figure makers you cannot use times to accurately compare horses from different decades. The world changes too much every few years



I've been saying this for a while, far better to compare level of dominance under current conditions in my opinion.

[cj]

RPR isn't really a speed rating. It's an opinion of the performance based partly on the final time.

As far as the Beyer goes, the beauty of comparing this year with last year is that all of the dirt races were the same as last year on both class and distance. As long as the surface isn't fluctuating wildly, it should be like going back to kindergarten for a figuremaker. I'll list this year's times first, then last year's:

Belmont 2:26.65, 2:28.52
Brooklyn 2:27.17, 2:27.13
Phipps 1:40.21, 1:40.55
Met Mile 1:33.18, 1:33.56
Acorn 1:35.13, 1:34.98
Stephens 1:21.37, 1:20.75
N2X Alw 1:22.12, 1:22.47
3YO Stk 1:42.21, 1:41.12
N1X Alw 1:40.86, 1:42.31

If you sum those up but exclude the Belmont, the mean differential for the other races is .08 faster for this year. In other words, virtually the same. The times are strikingly close on the whole. The only races other than the Belmont where the differential exceeds .62 are the last two that I've listed, and that's because the slow race in each case was the opener on the card and for whatever reason it played slow both times. Comparing them in sequence, Race 1 both years was within .10 and Race 2 within .26.

I think the data is quite clear that there wasn't much difference in track speed. I stand solidly by what I said before: 111 or 112, not 105. And if that isn't enough, I'm sure that the TFUS figuremaker agrees with me and on the whole I trust his opinions more than the Beyer or RPR guys.

I absolutely agree. Tracks are almost always fast on big days. This year wasn't much different than others.

[cj]

Steroids? Racehorses probably have been given steroids for the past 30 years. Maybe they are partly responsible for sprint records being broken more often than routes?




Not many people would dispute that. He won it fair and square. In my mind, that's not the important question. The question is how does he stack up historically and what will his fair value be at stud.




Had he not been the "Lone E" he might have struggled in the final stages. But he got the lead, set a nice easy pace and had plenty left in the tank. It was a workmanlike effort. No disgrace. Well done.




Agree. The field was relatively weak compared to AP. He is the champion of his generation.

I wish Carpe Diem would have been healthy enough to run. Maybe we'll get to see them match up in the Travers.

Carpe Diem? Was he not healthy for the Derby? I had him running virtually the same number that day as he did in his prior two, a little faster even, and it resulted in a big loss. What was he going to do in the Belmont?

[cj]

It's only natural to compare a TC winner to Secretariat. Secretariat is the gold standard.

I liked Silver's article. He brought up an interesting fact about how Belmont Stakes times have been on the increase and that the five years from 2009 to 2014 are the 5 slowest times since the 1930s. Which seems to point to the fact that the breed is trending toward speedier, shorter distance specialists. I agree with Silver that AP didn't exactly beat a bunch of great horses. He beat a couple good horses, but there was no Sham or Alydar in this year's Belmont Stakes.

When Carpe Diem scratched, I was disappointed because I knew that AP would probably win with relative ease. I wasn't disappointed that we'd have a TC winner, but that we would have to wait until later to find out how good he really is. (I was also disappointed that I couldn't bet Carpe Diem. :D )

We know AP is the best of his generation, but it's hard to know where he rates historically. If he keeps running I am hopeful that we can find out.

Or, it could just be pointing out that tracks are slower. Things are never that simple. I'm sure it is a combination of factors, not just breeding, and not just track speed. Training methods are surely part of it as well. How would a trainer today really know how to train a horse for a 1 1/2 mile dirt race?

[Steve R]

RPR isn't really a speed rating. It's an opinion of the performance based partly on the final time.

As far as the Beyer goes, the beauty of comparing this year with last year is that all of the dirt races were the same as last year on both class and distance. As long as the surface isn't fluctuating wildly, it should be like going back to kindergarten for a figuremaker. I'll list this year's times first, then last year's:

Belmont 2:26.65, 2:28.52
Brooklyn 2:27.17, 2:27.13
Phipps 1:40.21, 1:40.55
Met Mile 1:33.18, 1:33.56
Acorn 1:35.13, 1:34.98
Stephens 1:21.37, 1:20.75
N2X Alw 1:22.12, 1:22.47
3YO Stk 1:42.21, 1:41.12
N1X Alw 1:40.86, 1:42.31

If you sum those up but exclude the Belmont, the mean differential for the other races is .08 faster for this year. In other words, virtually the same. The times are strikingly close on the whole. The only races other than the Belmont where the differential exceeds .62 are the last two that I've listed, and that's because the slow race in each case was the opener on the card and for whatever reason it played slow both times. Comparing them in sequence, Race 1 both years was within .10 and Race 2 within .26.

I think the data is quite clear that there wasn't much difference in track speed. I stand solidly by what I said before: 111 or 112, not 105. And if that isn't enough, I'm sure that the TFUS figuremaker agrees with me and on the whole I trust his opinions more than the Beyer or RPR guys.
You seem to be ignoring the year-to-year par time differences. My figures use the entire pace line rather than just final time. The difference in my variants for both years are 26 PF units fast in 2015 and 17 PF units fast in 2014. So my conclusion about track speed on the day is quite different from yours where you are comparing raw times rather than adjusted times.

First, there is no justification for not including the Belmont in your analysis. Second, my class par pace lines are updated annually. Third, excluding pace from a performance calculation is questionable at best since internal fractions are at least as much a measure of track speed as is final time. So I'm guessing you think the class pars are the same for 2014 and 2015, which they aren't, and you don't consider any pace factor into your variant calculation, which excludes a major component of track speed. Beyond that, your proposed BSF means that the top three all improved by 6 to 8 Beyer points from the Derby to the Belmont. I'm guessing that's probably never happened in the entire history of the race, at least since stamina has been deteriorating in pedigrees, where several horses make that kind of advance when going from 10f to 12f.

[highnote]

Carpe Diem? Was he not healthy for the Derby? I had him running virtually the same number that day as he did in his prior two, a little faster even, and it resulted in a big loss. What was he going to do in the Belmont?

We can only speculate. That's why the race is run.

[highnote]

How would a trainer today really know how to train a horse for a 1 1/2 mile dirt race?

Really?

[cj]

Really?

Of course really. There are very few of them.

[Steve R]

AP's detractors are now using the argument that "well, he's no Secretariat," when in fact, nobody is really claiming that he is...that's how far they've had to move the goalposts.

The simple fact remains...BEFORE the Belmont, if I had told anyone on this board who was even a mild AP detractor, that he would win the Belmont Stakes drawing away by over 5 lengths, run a faster final quarter than Secretariat, and run a final time that was second best of all Triple Crown winners, and seventh best EVER...they would have no problem with labeling this horse great...or even a superhorse...

Now that reality has happened, for some reason, they can't bring themselves to admit this...we were witness to a performance that was ASTRONOMICALLY GREATER THAN ANYONE ON THIS BOARD, OR ANYWHERE ELSE, expected...

Human nature is odd in that way.
I don't understand your take on this. He beat three horses in the Belmont (Frosted, Keen Ice and Mubtaahij) by margins of 5 1/2, 7 1/2 and 7 3/4 lengths that he defeated in the Derby by margins of 3 1/4, 8 3/4 and 9 1/2 lengths. The form looks virtually identical to me and he went off at 3-5. How is that, by any stretch of the imagination, "a performance that was ASTRONOMICALLY GREATER THAN ANYONE ON THIS BOARD, OR ANYWHERE ELSE?" The top four all finished in a time faster than both the last 10-year average and the last 30-year average on a fast track. So the form stays about the same between the Derby and the Belmont and the top four finishers in the Belmont still were faster than the average Belmont winner since 1985 and nobody thinks that's odd? I guess this must be one of the greatest stamina-blessed crops in the history of Thoroughbred racing.

[PaceAdvantage]

I don't understand your take on this. He beat three horses in the Belmont (Frosted, Keen Ice and Mubtaahij) by margins of 5 1/2, 7 1/2 and 7 3/4 lengths that he defeated in the Derby by margins of 3 1/4, 8 3/4 and 9 1/2 lengths. The form looks virtually identical to me and he went off at 3-5. How is that, by any stretch of the imagination, "a performance that was ASTRONOMICALLY GREATER THAN ANYONE ON THIS BOARD, OR ANYWHERE ELSE?" The top four all finished in a time faster than both the last 10-year average and the last 30-year average on a fast track. So the form stays about the same between the Derby and the Belmont and the top four finishers in the Belmont still were faster than the average Belmont winner since 1985 and nobody thinks that's odd? I guess this must be one of the greatest stamina-blessed crops in the history of Thoroughbred racing.You're right. Nobody was surprised by the ease of victory or the final time...we all expected him to draw off and win by open lengths and run one of the fastest raw final times ever.

How silly of me to forget all of you were posting this and expecting this kind of performance pre-race.

Instead, I remember lots of people thinking IF he won (and that was a BIG IF for some of you on here), he'd be lucky to crack 2:30...

[highnote]

Of course really. There are very few of them.


Well, that might be true, but that's not what you asked. I was responding to your question -- "how would a trainer".

[DeltaLover]

I am astonished by the stubbornness of some of those who consider themselves as expert handicappers and horse racing scholars! The game is decided on the track and greatness is not a function of some artificial figures, timing, pace etc..

Great horses are those who find their way to a win under any circumstances, track conditions, distances, pace ratings and they can do it in any race track facing the best rivals among their contemporaries...

[highnote]

I don't understand your take on this. He beat three horses in the Belmont (Frosted, Keen Ice and Mubtaahij) by margins of 5 1/2, 7 1/2 and 7 3/4 lengths that he defeated in the Derby by margins of 3 1/4, 8 3/4 and 9 1/2 lengths. The form looks virtually identical to me and he went off at 3-5. How is that, by any stretch of the imagination, "a performance that was ASTRONOMICALLY GREATER THAN ANYONE ON THIS BOARD, OR ANYWHERE ELSE?" The top four all finished in a time faster than both the last 10-year average and the last 30-year average on a fast track. So the form stays about the same between the Derby and the Belmont and the top four finishers in the Belmont still were faster than the average Belmont winner since 1985 and nobody thinks that's odd? I guess this must be one of the greatest stamina-blessed crops in the history of Thoroughbred racing.

What is the normal improvement from the Derby to the Belmont?

If we accept that all the figure makers are relatively correct for the Derby and then accept that all four horses improved about the same as normal from the Derby to Belmont. It should be possible to look at Belmont figures and determine if they are too low, too high or just about right.

Then once we're satisified that the Belmont figures are correct we should feel more comfortable about making a judgment about AP's historical rank.

[Steve R]

You're right. Nobody was surprised by the ease of victory or the final time...we all expected him to draw off and win by open lengths and run one of the fastest raw final times ever.

How silly of me to forget all of you were posting this and expecting this kind of performance pre-race.

Instead, I remember lots of people thinking IF he won (and that was a BIG IF for some of you on here), he'd be lucky to crack 2:30...
You still haven't explained how this performance was unexpected based on previous form, unless you're simply awed by the raw time. At 3-5 a lot of people expected it. 3-5 means exactly expecting a facile win. I didn't because I expected more from the others. As for the raw time. Get over it. The three behind him are not faster than half the Belmont winners of the last 30 years. Or do you really believe that a horse beaten almost 8 lengths in the Belmont actually is faster than the average historical Belmont winner?

[tucker6]

You still haven't explained how this performance was unexpected based on previous form, unless you're simply awed by the raw time. At 3-5 a lot of people expected it. 3-5 means exactly expecting a facile win. I didn't because I expected more from the others. As for the raw time. Get over it. The three behind him are not faster than half the Belmont winners of the last 30 years. Or do you really believe that a horse beaten almost 8 lengths in the Belmont actually is faster than the average historical Belmont winner?
In your opinion, was Sham faster (better) than the average historical Belmont winner even though he finished last in his Belmont by some 50-60 lengths?

[PaceAdvantage]

You still haven't explained how this performance was unexpected based on previous form, unless you're simply awed by the raw time. At 3-5 a lot of people expected it. 3-5 means exactly expecting a facile win. I didn't because I expected more from the others. As for the raw time. Get over it. The three behind him are not faster than half the Belmont winners of the last 30 years. Or do you really believe that a horse beaten almost 8 lengths in the Belmont actually is faster than the average historical Belmont winner?You've been posting here a long time. I'm pretty surprised you're talking to me like I'm some noob who is in awe of raw final times. Really...you're better than to try and pull that condescending stuff on me...

Discussion of raw times is not banned, and is not as completely useless, especially when taken in a broad context of history.

What you're saying is, the the track was souped up big time...that's what you're telling me. I find it hard to believe the track was that souped up compared to the last 10-15 years. I've been to every Belmont Stakes since 1988. I've been handicapping since 1987...writing and selling computer handicapping software...running this website for the past 15+ years.

I'd be more apt to side with you if some other professional figure makers, like cj, agreed with your assessment. But he does not, from what I can tell. The track was moderately fast, according to cj...but nothing way out of the ordinary...

[PaceAdvantage]

You still haven't explained how this performance was unexpected based on previous form, unless you're simply awed by the raw time. At 3-5 a lot of people expected it. 3-5 means exactly expecting a facile win. I didn't because I expected more from the others. As for the raw time. Get over it. The three behind him are not faster than half the Belmont winners of the last 30 years. Or do you really believe that a horse beaten almost 8 lengths in the Belmont actually is faster than the average historical Belmont winner?He was 3-5 to win. He wasn't 3-5 to win by open lengths, drawing away and running in 2:26 and change.

I guarantee you the odds on that happening would have been WAY higher.

[highnote]

I am astonished by the stubbornness of some of those who consider themselves as expert handicappers and horse racing scholars! The game is decided on the track and greatness is not a function of some artificial figures, timing, pace etc..

Great horses are those who find their way to a win under any circumstances, track conditions, distances, pace ratings and they can do it in any race track facing the best rivals among their contemporaries...

I tend to agree. Peppers Pride was undefeated and won all 19 of her races, 12 of them stakes and all of them in New Mexico.

Zenyatta won 19 consecutive races out of her 20 race career.

Ruffian was on the lead at every point of call in every race she ran and won her first 10 races before breaking down in her 11th.

Secretariat was obviously a great racehorse.

Favorite Trick was a great racehorse and became the winter book favorite for the KY Derby after an undefeated two year old season and was voted horse of the year as a two year old -- the first two year old to be voted horse of the year since Secretariat.

Was Peppers Pride as great as Ruffian or Zenyatta?

Was Favorite Trick as great as Secretariat?

I suppose the answers to those questions are yes and no because it depends on how you measure greatness.

Are there more ways to measure greatness than just one? Yes, in my opinion.

What is the purpose of measuring greatness? I would argue that it is important to know how good a horse is from a historical perspective because of it's importance to understanding the evolution of the breed.

One way of measuring greatness is by the win/loss record. Another way is by speed/pace figures.

If I am an owner and I want to buy or breed a KY Derby winner then I am probably not going to breed to Favorite Trick.

An interesting question to me is should an owner who wants to win a KY Derby now breed to American Pharoah or are there better choices? This could be the $100,000 question.

That's a lot bigger gamble than a $2 bet on a "Lone E" 3/5 shot! :)

[Steve R]

What is the normal improvement from the Derby to the Belmont?

If we accept that all the figure makers are relatively correct for the Derby and then accept that all four horses improved about the same as normal from the Derby to Belmont. It should be possible to look at Belmont figures and determine if they are too low, too high or just about right.

Then once we're satisified that the Belmont figures are correct we should feel more comfortable about making a judgment about AP's historical rank.
The average Derby BSF since 1991 is 107.4. The average Belmont BSF since 1991 is 104.2. The average Derby RPR since 1999 is 124.8. The average Belmont RPR since 1999 is 123.5. I actually have about a one-and-a-half length improvement with an average Derby PF since 1998 of -56.1 and an average Belmont PF since 1998 of -60.4. My figures already include a pace factor so that might explain the difference. I had American Pharoah improving from PF -50 in the Derby to PF -58 in the Belmont, almost a three length improvement.

[DeltaLover]

I tend to agree. Peppers Pride was undefeated and won all 19 of her races, 12 of them stakes and all of them in New Mexico.

Zenyatta won 19 consecutive races out of her 20 race career.

Ruffian was on the lead at every point of call in every race she ran and won her first 10 races before breaking down in her 11th.

Secretariat was obviously a great racehorse.

Favorite Trick was a great racehorse and became the winter book favorite for the KY Derby after an undefeated two year old season and was voted horse of the year as a two year old -- the first two year old to be voted horse of the year since Secretariat.

Was Peppers Pride as great as Ruffian or Zenyatta?

Was Favorite Trick as great as Secretariat?

I suppose the answers to those questions are yes and no because it depends on how you measure greatness.

Are there more ways to measure greatness than just one? Yes, in my opinion.

What is the purpose of measuring greatness? I would argue that it is important to know how good a horse is from a historical perspective because of it's importance to understanding the evolution of the breed.

One way of measuring greatness is by the win/loss record. Another way is by speed/pace figures.

If I am an owner and I want to buy or breed a KY Derby winner then I am probably not going to breed to Favorite Trick.

An interesting question to me is should an owner who wants to win a KY Derby now breed to American Pharoah or are there better choices? This could be the $100,000 question.

That's a lot bigger gamble than a $2 bet on a "Lone E" 3/5 shot! :)


I think that as far as Pepper's Pride and Favourite Trick are going, the answer is very easy. Neither of the two can be qualified as a "great" horse. PP was a local champ that was never given the chance to prove her abilities running against better competition, while the unlucky FT (who was one of my favourite horses of the 90s) was simply a very precautions sprinter type of a horse, who was simply not on the top of his crop..

Quality Road was a performance freak, having the edge in speed figures over all of his contemporaries, but still he was not a great horse, same applies to several others (like Commentator or Fabulous Strike or Midnight Lute for example)..

On the other hand, Zenyatta, did not really produced top speed figures but she was a great horse without a doubt...

As far as breeding to Favorite Trick, unfortunately this is not an option, since the unlucky sire died in a fire in his barn, back in 2006!

Breeding to AP, can very well be the way to go for a breeder who tries to produce the next KD winner, but this is not a sure thing by any means... There are many other equally great choices and breeding a great horse is way more complicated than just picking a top runner as a sire..

[Pick6]

First, there is no justification for not including the Belmont in your analysis.
So if AP ran 2:25 3/5 you would say the track played even faster?

Statistics failure.

[Steve R]

In your opinion, was Sham faster (better) than the average historical Belmont winner even though he finished last in his Belmont by some 50-60 lengths?
I don't really understand the question. Since he was actually beaten about 45 lengths his time would have been somewhere around 2:33, although he essentially stopped after Secretariat put him away. The average Belmont time on a fast surface since 1985 is 2:28.3. That said, I have Sham's Derby figure when beaten 2 1/2 lengths by Secretariat as superior to that of any Derby winner since at least 1997 so in the absence of Secretariat and the suicidal pace in the Belmont that he couldn't sustain, I think he was fully capable of bettering the average Belmont time. I remember him quite well and I thought he was an exceptional race horse.

[highnote]

It's a fact that Peppers Pride was undefeated. It's an opinion that she is or isn't great.

There are a lot of facts surrounding AP's TC races. It's an opinion that he is or isn't great.

Secretariat would be great whether he won the TC or not. He could have skipped a leg of the TC and proved himself in other races.

The TC is a media creation. The spacing between races has changed over the years.

Someone was bound to win it. Look how many came close -- Real Quiet and Charismatic and others.

AP finally broke the drought and that is a terrific accomplishment, but it's an opinion whether or not he is a great horse.

My opinion is that he is great for his generation and great compared to other generations because he did what others could not do.

However, my opinion or someone else's opinion of his greatness is not what matters. What matters more, in my opinion, is how he ranks historically and how he helps us understand what is happening to the breed.




I think that as far as Pepper's Pride and Favourite Trick are going, the answer is very easy. Neither of the two can be qualified as a "great" horse. PP was a local champ that was never given the chance to prove her abilities running against better competition, while the unlucky FT (who was one of my favourite horses of the 90s) was simply a very precautions sprinter type of a horse, who was simply not on the top of his crop..

Quality Road was a performance freak, having the edge in speed figures over all of his contemporaries, but still he was not a great horse, same applies to several others (like Commentator or Fabulous Strike or Midnight Lute for example)..

On the other hand, Zenyatta, did not really produced top speed figures but she was a great horse without a doubt...

As far as breeding to Favorite Trick, unfortunately this is not an option, since the unlucky sire died in a fire in his barn, back in 2006!

Breeding to AP, can very well be the way to go for a breeder who tries to produce the next KD winner, but this is not a sure thing by any means... There are many other equally great choices and breeding a great horse is way more complicated than just picking a top runner as a sire..

[highnote]

(some info here from Wikipedia)

It's interesting that by the end of the 18th century the British Classics had been established with distances of 1 mile to 1.75 miles. This was a move away from the 3 and 4 mile heat races.

As a result owners preferred younger horses with more speed. Older horses tended to do better in the longer heat races.

So as early as the end of the 1700s the breed was moving toward shorter distances, more speed and younger horses.

It makes sense that this trend is still happening.

In some ways it seems shortsighted because a horse that races in the longer heats from the age of 4 until 10 or 12 will give an owner a lot more chances to earn than a horse that races from age 2 to 5.

Occasionally, we see older horses running in sprints, but for the most part in my experience, its younger horses. I have read in several places that American race horses tend to peak around age 5. This makes sense given that American races are getting shorter.

It's also interesting that a lot of hunter/jumpers racing the longer distances are older horses. So that hasn't changed.

If the U.S. racing industry would put money up for some longer races this could push the breed in a different direction. That would be an interesting development, but I don't know if it is realistic.

[nijinski]

Well, look beyond TC winners. Riva Ridge, for instance, shipped out to California after the Belmont and ran a race that is still remembered by the older fans out here, beating Quack in the Hollywood Derby at 10 furlongs.

Point Given had no problem in the Haskell after the Belmont. Same with Bet Twice.

Easy Goer kept winning after the Belmont until he ran into the superior Sunday Silence again.

Birdstone did fine as well.

The Belmont isn't THAT taxing.


Well I don't advocate scaling back the Belmont but in the Fall I can
understand shortening the JCGC .

I also notice Riva Ridge had one the very next month but the others
raced 2 months later . Pretty spectacular for RR .

The BCC was a month after the JCGC and perhaps trainers would opt for
a race shorter in distance as a prep if aiming for the BCC .

But honestly only an official in NY can tell us why that particular race
was shortened for the second time .

[Steve R]

So if AP ran 2:25 3/5 you would say the track played even faster?

Statistics failure.
Not a well-though out question IMO. The daily variant would have been marginally faster because the difference would be spread over 7 races. However, the unadjusted speed figure for the Belmont would have been much, much better. I did the PF calculation based on your proposed time but using the same internal fractions as on Saturday and the variant goes from 23 PF units fast to 25 fast. However, the raw PF is 12 points faster so his final PF would have been 10 points better. In truth, had the race been run in your proposed time the internal fractions most likely would have been a bit faster as well so the final PF would be even better. 2:25.3 on that surface would have put him much closer to Point Given as the fastest Belmont winner since at least 1997.

[Steve R]

I think that as far as Pepper's Pride and Favourite Trick are going, the answer is very easy. Neither of the two can be qualified as a "great" horse...
Actually, Favorite Trick has been acknowledged as one of the greatest two-year-olds in American racing history. Secretariat and Arazi are the only American-raced juveniles rated higher in the last 50 years. His BC Juvenile time remains the second fastest ever after 30 years. He was undefeated in 8 races, 7 of them stakes races (5 graded), from 4 1/2 to 8 1/2 furlongs with an average margin of victory of 3 1/2 lengths. He raced at 5 different tracks from New York to Kentucky to California from early April until November. I don't know how you define great, but if you're going to qualify it because he couldn't reproduce that form outside the juvenile colt division then you could do something similar for many horses. Zenyatta almost never stepped outside of her division or her home venue or her preferred surface. The only time she did all three she lost by a head while getting three pounds from the winner at 10f which historically means that Blame was 3 lengths better. I guess "great" is nothing more than what we think it is.

[DeltaLover]

Actually, Favorite Trick has been acknowledged as one of the greatest two-year-olds in American racing history. Secretariat and Arazi are the only American-raced juveniles rated higher in the last 50 years. His BC Juvenile time remains the second fastest ever after 30 years. He was undefeated in 8 races, 7 of them stakes races (5 graded), from 4 1/2 to 8 1/2 furlongs with an average margin of victory of 3 1/2 lengths. He raced at 5 different tracks from New York to Kentucky to California from early April until November. I don't know how you define great, but if you're going to qualify it because he couldn't reproduce that form outside the juvenile colt division then you could do something similar for many horses. Zenyatta almost never stepped outside of her division or her home venue or her preferred surface. The only time she did all three she lost by a head while getting three pounds from the winner at 10f which historically means that Blame was 3 lengths better. I guess "great" is nothing more than what we think it is.


Again, the greatness of a thoroughbred is defined by his dominance over his contemporaries, something that is only proven by winning the most prestigious races, like the TC and the BC.. Favorite Trick, was a much promising two year old that failed to continue his evolution to a become a great horse.

As I have said before, although Zenyatta probably had the quality to accomplish even more, she still managed to win the BCC becoming one of the great females of the history.

[DeltaLover]

It's a fact that Peppers Pride was undefeated. It's an opinion that she is or isn't great.

I disagree.. She remained undefeated, just because she happened to be the dominant horse of a minor thoroughbred population taking advantage of her state of breed. If she was able to beat Zenyatta, Goldikova, Rachel or Black Caviar she would had bee a great horse candidate, based on the available information, she was only a local hero and nothing else.

[highnote]

I disagree.. She remained undefeated, just because she happened to be the dominant horse of a minor thoroughbred population taking advantage of her state of breed. If she was able to beat Zenyatta, Goldikova, Rachel or Black Caviar she would had bee a great horse candidate, based on the available information, she was only a local hero and nothing else.

you disagree that it is an opinion whether she is great or not? I can understand disagreeing that she is not as great as Zaenyatta, but that is not what I posited. There are different degrees of greatness.

Favorite Trick was great because he did great things. I am sure his owner and breeder think he is great. He did everything and more that you could want a two year old to do. That he didn't keep progressing or win at classic distances is not his fault. He was the son of Phone Trick. I don't think anyone expected him to win at 10 furlongs.

had to laugh.... Someone at work just asked me how I was doing. I said "great". :)

[clocker7]

You've been posting here a long time. I'm pretty surprised you're talking to me like I'm some noob who is in awe of raw final times. Really...you're better than to try and pull that condescending stuff on me...

Discussion of raw times is not banned, and is not as completely useless, especially when taken in a broad context of history.

What you're saying is, the the track was souped up big time...that's what you're telling me. I find it hard to believe the track was that souped up compared to the last 10-15 years. I've been to every Belmont Stakes since 1988. I've been handicapping since 1987...writing and selling computer handicapping software...running this website for the past 15+ years.

I'd be more apt to side with you if some other professional figure makers, like cj, agreed with your assessment. But he does not, from what I can tell. The track was moderately fast, according to cj...but nothing way out of the ordinary...

Seems that some professional and amateur figures makers disagree with your assessment, large deal, not the first time in the history of horse racing.

My advice: don't denigrate someone who seems to be very able and conscientious. Steve is one of your better and interesting posters.

It was a faster than normal strip. History will record it as such.

[DeltaLover]

you disagree that it is an opinion whether she is great or not? I can understand disagreeing that she is not as great as Zaenyatta, but that is not what I posited. There are different degrees of greatness.

Favorite Trick was great because he did great things. I am sure his owner and breeder think he is great. He did everything and more that you could want a two year old to do. That he didn't keep progressing or win at classic distances is not his fault. He was the son of Phone Trick. I don't think anyone expected him to win at 10 furlongs.

had to laugh.... Someone at work just asked me how I was doing. I said "great". :)

So, it is a matter of definition then..

[tucker6]

I don't really understand the question. Since he was actually beaten about 45 lengths his time would have been somewhere around 2:33, although he essentially stopped after Secretariat put him away. The average Belmont time on a fast surface since 1985 is 2:28.3. That said, I have Sham's Derby figure when beaten 2 1/2 lengths by Secretariat as superior to that of any Derby winner since at least 1997 so in the absence of Secretariat and the suicidal pace in the Belmont that he couldn't sustain, I think he was fully capable of bettering the average Belmont time. I remember him quite well and I thought he was an exceptional race horse.
You made the following quote:

"The three behind him are not faster than half the Belmont winners of the last 30 years. Or do you really believe that a horse beaten almost 8 lengths in the Belmont actually is faster than the average historical Belmont winner?"

So I asked you if Sham, who finished 45 lengths behind in your very words, was better than the average Belmont winner. If the answer is YES for Sham, then a horse losing by 8 lengths may very well be better than half of all Belmont winners. Or is your statement a subjective claim?

[clocker7]

The impact of conditions that are significantly faster-than-par has fascinated me since the Secretariat Belmont. Fig-makers struggle with variants/adjustments for long races that makes sense under those circumstances.

It's been my longstanding conclusion that figs generally understate the benefit to certain animals of running classic distances on days like that. And that there is no linear mathematical calculation which can model or explain the help to an "average" horse, let alone a specific one with other factors that might affect its performance.

I'll admit upfront: it seems to be a problem without a satisfactory answer. I've tried my best. Comments?

[PaceAdvantage]

Seems that some professional and amateur figures makers disagree with your assessment, large deal, not the first time in the history of horse racing.

My advice: don't denigrate someone who seems to be very able and conscientious. Steve is one of your better and interesting posters.

It was a faster than normal strip. History will record it as such.Oh, so you too think I'm some wide-eyed neophyte who doesn't know the difference between raw times and adjusted times... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Whatever man...I made my quite valid point to Steve, who was being as condescending as it comes...ridiculously so.

And I never argued that it WASN'T faster than normal...

[clocker7]

Oh, so you too think I'm some wide-eyed neophyte who doesn't know the difference between raw times and adjusted times... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Whatever man...I made my quite valid point to Steve, who was being as condescending as it comes...ridiculously so.

And I never argued that it WASN'T faster than normal...

Suggestion: use more emoticons for camouflage.

[PaceAdvantage]

Suggestion: use more emoticons for camouflage.Great retort...really went to the heart of the matter. I know I'm slayed.

[Steve R]

You've been posting here a long time. I'm pretty surprised you're talking to me like I'm some noob who is in awe of raw final times. Really...you're better than to try and pull that condescending stuff on me...

Discussion of raw times is not banned, and is not as completely useless, especially when taken in a broad context of history.

What you're saying is, the the track was souped up big time...that's what you're telling me. I find it hard to believe the track was that souped up compared to the last 10-15 years. I've been to every Belmont Stakes since 1988. I've been handicapping since 1987...writing and selling computer handicapping software...running this website for the past 15+ years.

I'd be more apt to side with you if some other professional figure makers, like cj, agreed with your assessment. But he does not, from what I can tell. The track was moderately fast, according to cj...but nothing way out of the ordinary...
I have earlier presented my variants for the day which were significantly faster than in 2014. You can accept them or dismiss them as you like. As for other professional figure makers agreeing or disagreeing I think it's fair to speculate that Beyer does considering his 105 in the Derby was for 10f in 2:03 while his 105 in the Belmont was for 12f in 2:26.3. I would also speculate that the Racing Post folks also agree considering their 127 in the Preakness was for 9 1/2f in 1:58.2 compared to the Belmont 126.

You might make a more convincing argument about track speed on the day if you can tell me the last time the top four finishers in the Belmont, even those finishing almost 8 lengths back, all ran faster than the previous 30-year average for a Belmont winner. Off the top of my head, and I'll admit I could be wrong, I'll say never. If I'm right about that then there is no question the surface was unusually fast.

Here's one more item to throw into the mix. I have strong evidence the track was even faster late in the day. The race by race PF route variants were as follows.

1-15 fast
2-27 fast
5-13 fast
6-26 fast
7-14 fast
9-43 fast
11-45 fast

I routinely use regression analysis to determine variants unless the correlation coefficients are poor, in which case I will revert to an average. The first five are reasonably clustered. In this case I chose to overlook the last two because they were both dominating open length wins, so I stuck with the average instead of the regression which actually generated an outstanding correlation coefficient of 0.82. If you do apply the variant derived from regression then the Belmont PF -58 I assigned the winner comes out several points poorer. But I gave him the benefit of the doubt because I couldn't be absolutely sure. I'm quite sensitive to variants (as I have written about at Variants: The Achilles' Heel of Speed Figures (http://www.chef-de-race.com/pfs/variants.htm)) and I've spent years trying to better understand them. Most figure makers I know don't pay nearly the attention to them they deserve. I find this surprising because badly-constructed variants essentially make adjusted figures useless at worst or questionable at best.

[nijinski]

The impact of conditions that are significantly faster-than-par has fascinated me since the Secretariat Belmont. Fig-makers struggle with variants/adjustments for long races that makes sense under those circumstances.

It's been my longstanding conclusion that figs generally understate the benefit to certain animals of running classic distances on days like that. And that there is no linear mathematical calculation which can model or explain the help to an "average" horse, let alone a specific one with other factors that might affect its performance.

I'll admit upfront: it seems to be a problem without a satisfactory answer. I've tried my best. Comments?

Kozak who's been in charge of maintaining the Belmont track has said
while you try to be fair to all the horses needs , the introduction of
safety task forces , keeping horses safe from injury is a huge focus .
Not a direct quote but I've read articles and interviews of him.

More cushion and less hard clay has been added . so it's been reported
we may not see Secretariats record broken . The surface has changed
since the seventies according to those who work the track .

I don't have the answer but I also don't think the very vocal Baffert
would want AP to run on a very hard souped up surface.

Was it running faster than the week before ? Very possibly and maybe
likely . Souped up ? Doubt it , it's too risky to chance these days with
what they know and how much is scrutinized to protect against major
injury .

[clocker7]

In all seriousness, PACE I thank you for your forum. I like to dig you now and then, but as you say, running a place like this is not the work of a neophyte.

[Steve R]

You made the following quote:

"The three behind him are not faster than half the Belmont winners of the last 30 years. Or do you really believe that a horse beaten almost 8 lengths in the Belmont actually is faster than the average historical Belmont winner?"

So I asked you if Sham, who finished 45 lengths behind in your very words, was better than the average Belmont winner. If the answer is YES for Sham, then a horse losing by 8 lengths may very well be better than half of all Belmont winners. Or is your statement a subjective claim?
What are you talking about? I didn't say he was faster in the Belmont than the average. 2:33 is not anything like 2:28 n/c. I said he was good enough based on his previously demonstrated ability, where he was better than most Derby winners in history, to think he would be better than an average Belmont winner in the absence of Secretariat and a killing pace.

[clocker7]

Kozak who's been in charge of maintaining the Belmont track has said
while you try to be fair to all the horses needs , the introduction of
safety task forces , keeping horses safe from injury is a huge focus .
Not a direct quote but I've read articles and interviews of him.

More cushion and less hard clay has been added . so it's been reported
we may not see Secretariats record broken . The surface has changed
since the seventies according to those who work the track .

I don't have the answer but I also don't think the very vocal Baffert
would want AP to run on a very hard souped up surface.

Was it running faster than the week before ? Very possibly and maybe
likely . Souped up ? Doubt it , it's to risky to chance these days with
what they know and how much is scrutinized to protect against major
injury .
As I have stated before, modern track managers are not in the business of souping up their tracks for specious reasons. However, in anticipation of storms, they often will groom their surfaces to handle it, whether rains come or not.

Regardless: Belmont on 6/6/2015 will go down in history for being considerably faster than par. Not a complaint, not a dig at the horses who ran, just an acknowledgement of reality.

[PaceAdvantage]

Steve R,

Educate me how your track variant calculations are not based on quite shaky ground, with such a small sample size to contend with (June 6, 2015).

Convince me every figure maker who relies on variants isn't simply making a highly educated guess based on small samples prone to extreme error.

I'm not a figure maker...never claimed to be one...but tell me how you can hang so much confidence in your number on that day. Beyer too...and all the rest.

I've always had this nagging thought in the back of my head that variants are the biggest "prone-to-error" number in racing. I know cj is going to jump in on this too and take me to school. That's ok.

[tucker6]

What are you talking about? I didn't say he was faster in the Belmont than the average. 2:33 is not anything like 2:28 n/c. I said he was good enough based on his previously demonstrated ability, where he was better than most Derby winners in history, to think he would be better than an average Belmont winner in the absence of Secretariat and a killing pace.
You strongly inferred through a throwaway statement that horses that finish 8 lengths back cannot be considered better than half the Belmont winners. Did you not?? I pointed out that Sham, who probably was better/faster than half the Belmont winners despite finishing 45 lengths back, was such a horse. How a horse finishes a particular race has no bearing on whether or not they were better/faster than the average Belmont winner.

[Steve R]

...Was it running faster than the week before ? Very possibly and maybe likely . Souped up ? Doubt it , it's too risky to chance these days with what they know and how much is scrutinized to protect against major
injury .
I don't know about the week before, but on Friday there was a single dirt race beyond sprint distances and the race variant was 14 PF units slow compared to the average 23 PF units fast on Saturday where no individual race had a variant slower than 13 PF units fast. The race was an allowance and the winner, a well-bred Bernardini filly out of Serena's Cat, attended the pace, took the lead before 6f and won comfortably. She is two for three in 2015. Not proof of a juiced surface on Saturday but interesting in contrast to the Saturday surface.

[Steve R]

Steve R,

Educate me how your track variant calculations are not based on quite shaky ground, with such a small sample size to contend with (June 6, 2015).

Convince me every figure maker who relies on variants isn't simply making a highly educated guess based on small samples prone to extreme error.

I'm not a figure maker...never claimed to be one...but tell me how you can hang so much confidence in your number on that day. Beyer too...and all the rest.

I've always had this nagging thought in the back of my head that variants are the biggest "prone-to-error" number in racing. I know cj is going to jump in on this too and take me to school. That's ok.
Simple. Read the article I have linked in another post and tell me then whether you think the results are based on a more realistic understanding of the concept.

[Steve R]

You strongly inferred through a throwaway statement that horses that finish 8 lengths back cannot be considered better than half the Belmont winners. Did you not?? I pointed out that Sham, who probably was better/faster than half the Belmont winners despite finishing 45 lengths back, was such a horse. How a horse finishes a particular race has no bearing on whether or not they were better/faster than the average Belmont winner.
I still haven't a clue what you're talking about. I'm talking about the actual real times of Belmont winners, not some hypothetical speculation about which horse is "better." Of course he wasn't faster than the average Belmont winner when he completed the Belmont in about 2:33. Once again, I did say, because of how I perceived his talent, that I believed he was good enough to be a faster than average Belmont winner in the absence of Secretariat and a murderous pace. In any case, I'll ask you, too, to find another example where the top four finishers in the Belmont ran the race faster than the average time for all Belmont winners over the previous 30 years.

[nijinski]

I don't know about the week before, but on Friday there was a single dirt race beyond sprint distances and the race variant was 14 PF units slow compared to the average 23 PF units fast on Saturday where no individual race had a variant slower than 13 PF units fast. The race was an allowance and the winner, a well-bred Bernardini filly out of Serena's Cat, attended the pace, took the lead before 6f and won comfortably. She is two for three in 2015. Not proof of a juiced surface on Saturday but interesting in contrast to the Saturday surface.


I don't have an explanation for those numbers from Friday to Saturday
only perhaps a more dried track Saturday .

Had the track been slightly slower Saturday , I doubt he would have
had a much different outcome . Doubt he'd have run 2:30 as some
ad predicted , not pointing at you .
He won the Delmar on AW , won on every track he shipped to including
a slopfest .
I won't argue with those who believe the track was souped I just don't
see it and would rather not diminish what he accomplished .

[Steve R]

I don't have an explanation for those numbers from Friday to Saturday
only perhaps a more dried track Saturday .

Had the track been slightly slower Saturday , I doubt he would have
had a much different outcome . Doubt he'd have run 2:30 as some
ad predicted , not pointing at you .
He won the Delmar on AW , won on every track he shipped to including
a slopfest .
I won't argue with those who believe the track was souped I just don't
see it and would rather not diminish what he accomplished .
I think he wins regardless of how fast the track was playing so the accomplishment is certainly admirable. He is one of only 12 TC winners. It's just the premature "all-time great" claim made by some that I find troublesome. I suppose in a cultural sense he is great because he did what so many tried to do but so few actually were able to. I don't care about that. My interest in evaluating him is purely physiological so I need to know how he did it, not just that he did do it. But you're communicating with someone who believes horses like Zenyatta and Curlin are vastly overrated and that Ghostzapper remains the best since Spectacular Bid. To each his own.

[cj]

I've always had this nagging thought in the back of my head that variants are the biggest "prone-to-error" number in racing. I know cj is going to jump in on this too and take me to school. That's ok.

In my case I'm a lot more confident than I was even a few years ago. I've developed a system over the years and kept refining it. Now, I use the top 4 horses and any other that finish reasonably close and compare to how they ran on a given day to as many as four past races.

I weed out races that aren't relevant (software does, not by hand) like races on different surfaces, races from too long ago, races at vastly different distances, races with a different trainer, etc. I rate each race anywhere 0 to 1.00 when comparing to today's conditions, and only use races that get at least a rating of 0.75 to make variants.

So, for me, I can as many as 20 data points for each race. It is generally closer to 10 after I weed out the weird races, but it does happen.

I'm pretty amazed how consistent most races turn out. For the Belmont Stakes, I had 8 races that qualified as relevant. The projected variants for those races were as follows:

18, 17, 20, 17, 22, 21, 31, 21

The 31 actually came from a Keen Ice race where he tried to close into a slow pace, so I had no problem eliminating that one as an outlier. The rest are very tight and I have a lot of confidence in the Belmont number. And that is without counting the Brooklyn, which lined up perfectly with the Belmont.

The good news is that when a figure is tough to make, we at TimeformUS actually mark it with a ? so customers know it was tough.

[highnote]

So, it is a matter of definition then..


My opinion is that the definition of greatness is a matter of opinion.

Greatness is too broadly used.

I like to see things quantified in some way.

2:26 in the Belmont Stakes was a fast time. Was it a great time? That depends on what you're trying to quantify.

If you're a track maintenance person, maybe 2:26 is a horrible time because it means the track was dangerously fast?

Maybe 2:26 means AP ran a great race?

Maybe it means the track variants were fast and the adjusted time is average?

The goal is to find the truth.

[highnote]

Do you have a way of estimating the analogous Beyer, Timeform or other speed figures to your figures?

Usually, the leading figures are in agreement. It would be interesting to compare the various figures for the TC races.

By the way... your method sounds a little like the projected daily variant method Nick Mordin uses.


In my case I'm a lot more confident than I was even a few years ago. I've developed a system over the years and kept refining it. Now, I use the top 4 horses and any other that finish reasonably close and compare to how they ran on a given day to as many as four past races.

I weed out races that aren't relevant (software does, not by hand) like races on different surfaces, races from too long ago, races at vastly different distances, races with a different trainer, etc. I rate each race anywhere 0 to 1.00 when comparing to today's conditions, and only use races that get at least a rating of 0.75 to make variants.

So, for me, I can as many as 20 data points for each race. It is generally closer to 10 after I weed out the weird races, but it does happen.

I'm pretty amazed how consistent most races turn out. For the Belmont Stakes, I had 8 races that qualified as relevant. The projected variants for those races were as follows:

18, 17, 20, 17, 22, 21, 31, 21

The 31 actually came from a Keen Ice race where he tried to close into a slow pace, so I had no problem eliminating that one as an outlier. The rest are very tight and I have a lot of confidence in the Belmont number. And that is without counting the Brooklyn, which lined up perfectly with the Belmont.

The good news is that when a figure is tough to make, we at TimeformUS actually mark it with a ? so customers know it was tough.

[PhantomOnTour]

In my case I'm a lot more confident than I was even a few years ago. I've developed a system over the years and kept refining it. Now, I use the top 4 horses and any other that finish reasonably close and compare to how they ran on a given day to as many as four past races.

I weed out races that aren't relevant (software does, not by hand) like races on different surfaces, races from too long ago, races at vastly different distances, races with a different trainer, etc. I rate each race anywhere 0 to 1.00 when comparing to today's conditions, and only use races that get at least a rating of 0.75 to make variants.

So, for me, I can as many as 20 data points for each race. It is generally closer to 10 after I weed out the weird races, but it does happen.

I'm pretty amazed how consistent most races turn out. For the Belmont Stakes, I had 8 races that qualified as relevant. The projected variants for those races were as follows:

18, 17, 20, 17, 22, 21, 31, 21

The 31 actually came from a Keen Ice race where he tried to close into a slow pace, so I had no problem eliminating that one as an outlier. The rest are very tight and I have a lot of confidence in the Belmont number. And that is without counting the Brooklyn, which lined up perfectly with the Belmont.

The good news is that when a figure is tough to make, we at TimeformUS actually mark it with a ? so customers know it was tough.
It sure did, and for the first time in years I am confident of my own homemade Belmont figure.
Thx to NYRA for running two races at 12f on the same card and making this number a bit easier to come by

[highnote]

Beyer wrote a mostly positive piece about AP's victory. He noted how difficult it is today compared to the early years due to several factors that early runners didn't have to deal with.

However, he did have this critique which I agree with:

"It is difficult for many handicappers (myself included) to heap lavish praise on horses who win with perfect trips like this one. After a horse captures a race with an unchallenged early lead, we’re looking to bet against him the next time he runs, not anoint him a superhorse."

Beyer also writes that "Affirmed and Seattle Slew did not fully certify their greatness until their post-Triple Crown phase of their careers."

He noted that a middling group ran the same distance 0.48 seconds slower earlier in the card.

There might be another way of looking at AP's final time and the pace that produced it. We know that in turf racing horse's often run slow early fractions and then sprint to the wire. In some ways, AP ran the Belmont like a turf race. His final split was faster than his second split. However, this could also have been due to the fact that the second split was run around a turn and the final split was on the straightaway.

[DeltaLover]

In my case I'm a lot more confident than I was even a few years ago. I've developed a system over the years and kept refining it. Now, I use the top 4 horses and any other that finish reasonably close and compare to how they ran on a given day to as many as four past races.

I weed out races that aren't relevant (software does, not by hand) like races on different surfaces, races from too long ago, races at vastly different distances, races with a different trainer, etc. I rate each race anywhere 0 to 1.00 when comparing to today's conditions, and only use races that get at least a rating of 0.75 to make variants.

So, for me, I can as many as 20 data points for each race. It is generally closer to 10 after I weed out the weird races, but it does happen.

I'm pretty amazed how consistent most races turn out. For the Belmont Stakes, I had 8 races that qualified as relevant. The projected variants for those races were as follows:

18, 17, 20, 17, 22, 21, 31, 21

The 31 actually came from a Keen Ice race where he tried to close into a slow pace, so I had no problem eliminating that one as an outlier. The rest are very tight and I have a lot of confidence in the Belmont number. And that is without counting the Brooklyn, which lined up perfectly with the Belmont.

The good news is that when a figure is tough to make, we at TimeformUS actually mark it with a ? so customers know it was tough.

http://i62.tinypic.com/bds9as.jpg

This is the best way I have found to create figures as well!!!

A few months ago, I had described this method in high terms and said that I going to follow up with a detailed explanation, something that I did not do..

What you are describing here is graph, having as nodes the racing dates and edges the deltas that derive from the matching horses.. What I had found more challenging was to assign the corresponding track variances in a per day basis in such a way to minimize the discrepancies... In this posting, I will get into the details about how this can be done, I will only say that it a problem that can be solved by applying dynamic programming.. An example of this concept can be found in the notorious knapsack problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knapsack_problem)

[PhantomOnTour]

http://i62.tinypic.com/bds9as.jpg

This is the best way I have found to create figures as well!!!

A few months ago, I had described this method in high terms and said that I going to follow up with a detailed explanation, something that I did not do..

What you are describing here is graph, having as nodes the racing dates and edges the deltas that derive from the matching horses.. What I had found more challenging was to assign the corresponding track variances in a per day basis in such a way to minimize the discrepancies... In this posting, I will get into the details about how this can be done, I will only say that it a problem that can be solved by applying dynamic programming.. An example of this concept can be found in the notorious knapsack problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knapsack_problem)
Projected figures - yes - many of us have been doing our numbers this way for some time now.

[DeltaLover]

Projected figures - yes - many of us have been doing our numbers this way for some time now.

It is not only the projection of the figures that I am mentioning here though.. It is the optimization of the curve that makes it challenging..

[highnote]

Sounds like this would be useful in the daily fantasy sports game where you have to buy players to fill a roster, but can only pay so much in total to fill your roster. Then you have to have a roster with enough good players that can score the most fantasy points. I believe this is called constrained optimization.

It's pretty easy to do in Excel using the Solver add-in. Well, easy to do once you know how. :D



http://i62.tinypic.com/bds9as.jpg

This is the best way I have found to create figures as well!!!

A few months ago, I had described this method in high terms and said that I going to follow up with a detailed explanation, something that I did not do..

What you are describing here is graph, having as nodes the racing dates and edges the deltas that derive from the matching horses.. What I had found more challenging was to assign the corresponding track variances in a per day basis in such a way to minimize the discrepancies... In this posting, I will get into the details about how this can be done, I will only say that it a problem that can be solved by applying dynamic programming.. An example of this concept can be found in the notorious knapsack problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knapsack_problem)

[nijinski]

In 67 years only 2 other horses won the Delmar Futurity as
a maiden . He really is impressive here too .https://youtu.be/EeSXlUkoTFQ

[DeltaLover]

Sounds like this would be useful in the daily fantasy sports game where you have to buy players to fill a roster, but can only pay so much in total to fill your roster. Then you have to have a roster with enough good players that can score the most fantasy points. I believe this is called constrained optimization.

It's pretty easy to do in Excel using the Solver add-in. Well, easy to do once you know how. :D

The track variant problem is a bit more complicated though!

[cj]

Do you have a way of estimating the analogous Beyer, Timeform or other speed figures to your figures?

Usually, the leading figures are in agreement. It would be interesting to compare the various figures for the TC races.

By the way... your method sounds a little like the projected daily variant method Nick Mordin uses.

Our ratings should be similar to Timeform.

As for Beyer, I wouldn't use an algebra textbook to do calculus homework. :)

Seriously though, it used to be around 12-14 point higher than Beyer, but I doubt that works any longer. Beyer figures have shrunk a lot since that was the common wisdom. It also doesn't take weight for age into account. Adding 14 to a 2yo figure didn't work back then, and probably doesn't work now.

[classhandicapper]

Here's what I can add.

The track was drying out throughout the day. There was some wind early that shifted direction midday. At one point it was swirling enough so that the two primary flags were blowing in the opposite direction.

I'm not sure how you adjust for stuff like that, potential changes in 3yo form, and any potential errors in prior figures, down to a couple of fifths. I'd be willing to bet there will be at least 2-3 different views on the figure among the major figure makers.

My feeling is that we know that Frosted is a legitimate Grade 1 winner. He beat a moderate Grade 1 Wood Memorial field and then ran a good 4th in what was widely viewed as a strong Kentucky Derby. Materiality is a Grade 1 winner that beat a solid horse in Florida and had a excuse in KY. Mubtaahij was dominant in a Grade 2 race in Dubai and I had good reason to expect him to run better in NY than KY. They all had reasonable trips. Each of them took a pot shot at American Pharoah and he repulsed them like they were gnats without Espinoza even asking for his best.

[cj]

They all had reasonable trips. Each of them took a pot shot at American Pharoah and he repulsed them like they were gnats without Espinoza even asking for his best.

I agree totally with this. People are saying he had an easy trip and wasn't challenged. I don't think those people paid much attention to be honest. He was challenged. They weren't sustained challenges though, because the other horses just weren't good enough.

[dilanesp]

I agree totally with this. People are saying he had an easy trip and wasn't challenged. I don't think those people paid much attention to be honest. He was challenged. They weren't sustained challenges though, because the other horses just weren't good enough.

Yeah, and it's actually not easy to go wire to wire at 1 1/2 miles. The only one to do it in the Belmont in the past 25 years or so was Da Tara (and he lucked out in that his main challenger was eased on the far turn).

It's especially hard to go wire to wire and never slow down. AP went 1:13 the first half of the race and 1:13 the second half.

[dilanesp]

Greatness is too broadly used.

Absolutely correct.

We can, and do, have debates about who is authentically great, but it should always be a very short list. (Like for instance, if I were making a list of great presidents, it might have Washington, Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt. Your list might differ, but the point is, if your list has a different 3 or 4 presidents, you are being reasonable; if your list has 10 presidents on it, you are defining greatness too broadly.)

I love AP's Belmont, and the TC is a wonderful accomplishment, but nothing he has done has qualified him as an all-time "great" horse yet. The horses on that list tend to be horses who had long careers, set track record times, carried weight, beat older horses, dominated the handicap division, and faced adversity.

[dilanesp]

Actually, Favorite Trick has been acknowledged as one of the greatest two-year-olds in American racing history. Secretariat and Arazi are the only American-raced juveniles rated higher in the last 50 years. His BC Juvenile time remains the second fastest ever after 30 years. He was undefeated in 8 races, 7 of them stakes races (5 graded), from 4 1/2 to 8 1/2 furlongs with an average margin of victory of 3 1/2 lengths. He raced at 5 different tracks from New York to Kentucky to California from early April until November. I don't know how you define great, but if you're going to qualify it because he couldn't reproduce that form outside the juvenile colt division then you could do something similar for many horses. Zenyatta almost never stepped outside of her division or her home venue or her preferred surface. The only time she did all three she lost by a head while getting three pounds from the winner at 10f which historically means that Blame was 3 lengths better. I guess "great" is nothing more than what we think it is.

Any system of rating 2 year olds that rates Favorite Trick over Spectacular Bid and Affirmed is seriously flawed. And that opinion has nothing to do with what they went on and did-- I am talking just about their 2 year old seasons.

[Steve R]

Any system of rating 2 year olds that rates Favorite Trick over Spectacular Bid and Affirmed is seriously flawed. And that opinion has nothing to do with what they went on and did-- I am talking just about their 2 year old seasons.
The EFH is not a system. It is the assessment of experienced racing secretaries. You can disagree with their conclusions but the process is hardly flawed unless you can demonstrate that others more qualified are being overlooked or excluded.

[Steve R]

I agree totally with this. People are saying he had an easy trip and wasn't challenged. I don't think those people paid much attention to be honest. He was challenged. They weren't sustained challenges though, because the other horses just weren't good enough.
I look at the chart and I see leads of 1, 1/2, 1 1/2, 2, 2 1/2 and 5 1/2 off of slow fractions on a very fast surface. If this weren't the Belmont and no Triple Crown was involved would you not, as a handicapper, describe it as a classic example of lone speed on the front end? There is always the chance a front runner won't stay the trip but it's a fundamental handicapping concept that horses considered the only early speed in the field have a distinct advantage. In fact, if I had conjured up a chart without the race name or the real names of the horses but kept the running lines, I don't believe there is one handicapper in ten who wouldn't conclude it was a perfect example of lone speed controlling the pace on the lead. But I know, this is different.

[dilanesp]

The EFH is not a system. It is the assessment of experienced racing secretaries. You can disagree with their conclusions but the process is hardly flawed unless you can demonstrate that others more qualified are being overlooked or excluded.

I don't see what would make racing secretaries experts on 2 year old form. And anyone who thinks favorite trick had a better two year old season than affirmed is crazy.

[DeltaLover]

If this weren't the Belmont and no Triple Crown was involved would you not, as a handicapper, describe it as a classic example of lone speed on the front end?

The problem with your statement is that this was the Belmont Stakes and it was a Triple Crown winner who crossed the line... IFs have nothing to do with facts in the same way that WOULDA COULDA SHOULDA are simply excuses and nothing else..

[cj]

I look at the chart and I see leads of 1, 1/2, 1 1/2, 2, 2 1/2 and 5 1/2 off of slow fractions on a very fast surface. If this weren't the Belmont and no Triple Crown was involved would you not, as a handicapper, describe it as a classic example of lone speed on the front end? There is always the chance a front runner won't stay the trip but it's a fundamental handicapping concept that horses considered the only early speed in the field have a distinct advantage. In fact, if I had conjured up a chart without the race name or the real names of the horses but kept the running lines, I don't believe there is one handicapper in ten who wouldn't conclude it was a perfect example of lone speed controlling the pace on the lead. But I know, this is different.

I'd say watch the race again, a lot can happen between the calls. Materiality took a shot at him between 6f and 8f, Mubtaahij took a shot on the turn. Both were repulsed with disdain like ease.

[superfecta]

Speaking of watching the race again, I looked at the time of taping of the replay.

From two different sources of the race,the time was 2:29.50 and 2:29.65

That mystified me,but it would explain Coach Inge's final furlong quickness at the same distance.

A timer malfunction?

[cj]

Speaking of watching the race again, I looked at the time of taping of the replay.

From two different sources of the race,the time was 2:29.50 and 2:29.65

That mystified me,but it would explain Coach Inge's final furlong quickness at the same distance.

A timer malfunction?

Probably didn't account for run up.

[EMD4ME]

Probably didn't account for run up.

Agreed. Just watched it myself. The 226 and change is correct. You're counting the run up as well.

[pandy]

I'd say watch the race again, a lot can happen between the calls. Materiality took a shot at him between 6f and 8f, Mubtaahij took a shot on the turn. Both were repulsed with disdain like ease.

I agree. They both made runs at him and he shook them off. This was not a loose-on-the-lead win. If you remember the Kentucky Derby win for War Emblem, no one challenged him. I believe Winning Colors Derby win, same thing, no one got close. That was lone speed loose on the lead.

American Pharoah shook off two challengers and then pulled away from Frosted's late charge.

Since he won the Preakness and Belmont easily, but only beat Firing Line by a length while all out in the Derby, the folks who own Firing Line must feel pretty good about their horse. I hope he comes back sharp, the more competition the better.

[EMD4ME]

I agree. They both made runs at him and he shook them off. This was not a loose-on-the-lead win.

I saw the same thing and won't take away from it too much (him shaking off foes easily). But that usually is the case when lone speed cantors along for 6F. Happens at 6F, 7F, 1M, 10F and 12F. The loose leader has to also be the best horse in the race or somewhat close to the best horse in the race to keep spurting away.

However, imho, that wasn't jaw dropping or spectacular. Spectacular would've been him being in the opposite role and overcoming the leader's soft pace headstart with aplomb. Spectacular would've been him being burned to toast by his next talented counterpart, like Secretariat was in the first half mile of his Belmont AND then running on BETTER than how AP came home in the Belmont.

24.32 was not a fast come fellas. Coach Inge and Wicked Strong (more than likely a not the same Wicked Strong) came home in 23.96 and Coach Inge had way more stress in a much more solid first quarter.

[superfecta]

Agreed. Just watched it myself. The 226 and change is correct. You're counting the run up as well.

Run up was 68 feet,roughly 7 lengths, so it took three seconds?

Interesting.

[EMD4ME]

Run up was 68 feet,roughly 7 lengths, so it took three seconds?

Interesting.

I've been accused of hating on AP so believe you me, I'd LOVE to say it was 229 but it wasn't. Yes, I have the run up at 68 FT too and when I simply watched the replay, it took 3 seconds from the crack of the gate till they crossed the wire the first time.

[EMD4ME]

GUESS WHAT FELLAS....I know NONE OF YOU WILL BELIEVE ME but.....

The time of the BELMONT IS A FARCE. Do you know why? Watch the replay. The run up for the Belmont is a complete lie. DRF has it as a 68 FT run up. They also have Coach Inge's race as a 66 FT run up. If you watch the two races, the BELMONT HAS at least 2 1/2 extra lengths of run up. You can tell by focusing on the Green Belmont Print behind the rail. The Belmont field broke way behind where Race 6 broke!!!

I scream conspiracy :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

In all seriousness, it does make AP's time more like 227....

So, Coach Inge did in fact run much more even AP's final time :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[cj]

GUESS WHAT FELLAS....I know NONE OF YOU WILL BELIEVE ME but.....

The time of the BELMONT IS A FARCE. Do you know why? Watch the replay. The run up for the Belmont is a complete lie. DRF has it as a 68 FT run up. They also have Coach Inge's race as a 66 FT run up. If you watch the two races, the BELMONT HAS at least 2 1/2 extra lengths of run up. You can tell by focusing on the Green Belmont Print behind the rail. The Belmont field broke way behind where Race 6 broke!!!

I scream conspiracy :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

In all seriousness, it does make AP's time more like 227....

So, Coach Inge did in fact run much more even AP's final time :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


That difference in run up at that distance is unlikely to have any effect at all on the final time. Both races were probably up to speed by the time the finish line was reached.

[DeltaLover]

That difference in run up at that distance is unlikely to have any effect at all on the final time. Both races were probably up to speed by the time the finish line was reached.

Obviously!

[EMD4ME]

The Belmont field had an extra 20 feet or so to work with. AP or whoever hit the initial beam first must have been traveling much faster vs. Coach Inge and his 3 pace partners early. How does that not effect final time?

[EMD4ME]

If you start the clock as I (a make believe race horse) am going 22 MPH (and accelerating up to 30 MPH) and if you start the clock as you (another make believe race horse) are already closer to cruising speed (28 MPH getting to 30 mph) how can you say both times were an accurate measure of the difference in horses?

Are you saying both horses hit their cruising speed within the supposed 68 feet?

[EMD4ME]

Just re watched the replay, there is NO way the Coach Inge field was up to speed as they hit the initial beam. They were still catching their legs.

The Belmont field was much more into their strides as they hit the beam.

Hard to quantify to this simpleton but it sure looks like both Race 6 and Race 11 look closer to the same time now to me.

A conspiracy to lower AP's final time????

I only bring this up as so many people are clamoring for how impressive his 226 and change was..... and ignoring how there was another race run that day at 12F and there were multiple other abnormally fast efforts that day....

[EMD4ME]

Obviously!

Obviously? Did you watch the replay of race 6 and the Belmont? Do they look like they are up to full speed as they cross the initial beam to you? Do both those fields look they were at similar speeds as they hit the beam? Do they look like they both started in the same spot?

And one can't say the Belmont field was faster and that's why they hit cruising speed faster. The coach inge pace was faster to the first quarter. Yes it's possible they had a slow first 1/8 and sped up in the 2nd 1/8 and yadda yadda but that is not the case.

[DeltaLover]

Obviously? Did you watch the replay of race 6 and the Belmont? Do they look like they are up to full speed as they cross the initial beam to you? Do both those fields look they were at similar speeds as they hit the beam? Do they look like they both started in the same spot?

And one can't say the Belmont field was faster and that's why they hit cruising speed faster. The coach inge pace was faster to the first quarter. Yes it's possible they had a slow first 1/8 and sped up in the 2nd 1/8 and yadda yadda but that is not the case.

i will deal with your points tomorrow and let u know about my opinions..

[EMD4ME]

i will deal with your points tomorrow and let u know about my opinions..


I'm sure # 1 and #12 will be AP is the best and I deserve that :D :D :D

But seriously, I want to hear points #2 thru #11. Am I missing something?