Beyer:Change coming for turf Beyers.

[Kash$]

http://www.drf.com/news/beyer-change-coming-turf-beyer-figures

[rastajenk]

The comments are pretty harsh. I have a hard time conjuring up the motivation to say, "What difference does it make, you suck anyway." If Beyers aren't your thing, ignore them. I guess some people need to proclaim their own genius.

I'll always be suspicious of turf numbers because of the tactics, but I will appreciate their effort to tighten them up.

[no breathalyzer]

some real special comments in that drf article..

[thaskalos]

Just because it's "logical" to assume that the best turf horses should run comparable speed figures to those of the best dirt horses...this doesn't necessarily make this assumption TRUE. It could easily be that the dirt horses are still superior to the turf horses in this country.

[classhandicapper]

Just because it's "logical" to assume that the best turf horses should run comparable speed figures to those of the best dirt horses...this doesn't necessarily make this assumption TRUE. It could easily be that the dirt horses are still superior to the turf horses in this country.

I think he's more or less saying that the top turfers from Europe are on par with our top dirt horses and the gap between top US dirt and turf horses has narrowed as turf racing has become more popular.

That's been my assessment in non figure terms by observing the horses and results when horses cross over.

[Robert Goren]

I actually think that today's top turf horses are better than today's top dirt horses at least in route races. There are so few dirt horses that are bred to go route anymore. The law of extremes of a larger population of turf routers means more turf horses 2-21/2 standard deviations out from the average. Even if the average dirt horse is a couple lengths better than the average turf horse, the larger population of turf horses will more than make up the difference. Turf sprinters are different story however although that gap is narrowing rather quickly. With turf horses being less brittle than their dirt counterparts, we will see more and more turf races and turf horses even though most bettors still prefer dirt races.

[cj]

Just because it's "logical" to assume that the best turf horses should run comparable speed figures to those of the best dirt horses...this doesn't necessarily make this assumption TRUE. It could easily be that the dirt horses are still superior to the turf horses in this country.

True, but we get a pretty big crossover especially on Breeders' Cup Day. We saw the winner of the biggest turf race in the world race in the United States. I can only speak from my perspective because we have an affiliation with Timeform. One thing we try to do is make the best horses in the world on each surface comparable. I think we've done it, but it is an ongoing process that requires constant monitoring.

Edit: I see now Class basically said the same thing.

[cj]

I actually think that today's top turf horses are better than today's top dirt horses at least in route races. There are so few dirt horses that are bred to go route anymore. The law of extremes of a larger population of turf routers means more turf horses 2-21/2 standard deviations out from the average. Even if the average dirt horse is a couple lengths better than the average turf horse, the larger population of turf horses will more than make up the difference. Turf sprinters are different story however although that gap is narrowing rather quickly. With turf horses being less brittle than their dirt counterparts, we will see more and more turf races and turf horses even though most bettors still prefer dirt races.

Not sure I can buy this for turf sprints. There are hardly any graded stakes races of note for turf sprinters, and only one Grade 1. Nobody is rushing out to breed to turf sprinters. I think it is safe (as of now) to assume the best turf sprinters aren't truly top class horses.

[classhandicapper]

My technique for trying to assess the quality of some of these groups is to look at how easy it is to rise through the ranks of ALW races into the graded stakes races and how some of the more versatile runners do when they cross back and forth.

[castaway01]

True, but we get a pretty big crossover especially on Breeders' Cup Day. We saw the winner of the biggest turf race in the world race in the United States. I can only speak from my perspective because we have an affiliation with Timeform. One thing we try to do is make the best horses in the world on each surface comparable. I think we've done it, but it is an ongoing process that requires constant monitoring.

Edit: I see now Class basically said the same thing.

That's pretty much what Beyer himself says is the motivation for the change, as he writes, "As every racing fan knows, turf has become a much more important part of the U.S. sport in recent years. Races on grass regularly draw fields that are larger and more competitive than those on dirt. The higher-class events are filled with runners trained by top grass-oriented horsemen and bred by proven sires of grass runners.

Most classes of grass races now appear comparable in quality to their counterparts on dirt, and we believe our figures ought to reflect this fact."

While I'm sure he's going to take some heat from those who say, "Well why didn't you fix this earlier" or "I always knew those numbers weren't accurate", I think it takes guts to admit your mistake and make changes, especially to a well-established product.

[dilanesp]

The comments are pretty harsh. I have a hard time conjuring up the motivation to say, "What difference does it make, you suck anyway." If Beyers aren't your thing, ignore them. I guess some people need to proclaim their own genius.

I'll always be suspicious of turf numbers because of the tactics, but I will appreciate their effort to tighten them up.

Read the comments to one of his Washington Post stories. Beyer has a lot of haters. It's really weird. I'm not saying you have to worship the guy, but to actively hate a person who has written intelligently about racing and promoted the sport for 45 years is silly.

On the merits of this thing, I have never used Beyers in turf races (I calculate sustained pace numbers, which work better I have found) and still won't.

[dilanesp]

That's pretty much what Beyer himself says is the motivation for the change, as he writes, "As every racing fan knows, turf has become a much more important part of the U.S. sport in recent years. Races on grass regularly draw fields that are larger and more competitive than those on dirt. The higher-class events are filled with runners trained by top grass-oriented horsemen and bred by proven sires of grass runners.

Most classes of grass races now appear comparable in quality to their counterparts on dirt, and we believe our figures ought to reflect this fact."

While I'm sure he's going to take some heat from those who say, "Well why didn't you fix this earlier" or "I always knew those numbers weren't accurate", I think it takes guts to admit your mistake and make changes, especially to a well-established product.

One thing that may be going on is he has forgotten what his figures are for. They are a handicapping tool, not a way of determining who the best horse in the world, or the best horse of all time, is (those determinations are impossible to make using mathematics anyway). It really doesn't matter if his turf numbers correlate with his dirt numbers anyway, as long as his turf numbers are useful in handicapping grass races. He should focus on THAT.

[AndyC]

One thing that may be going on is he has forgotten what his figures are for. They are a handicapping tool, not a way of determining who the best horse in the world, or the best horse of all time, is (those determinations are impossible to make using mathematics anyway). It really doesn't matter if his turf numbers correlate with his dirt numbers anyway, as long as his turf numbers are useful in handicapping grass races. He should focus on THAT.

Totally concur. Unless a someone believes that dirt and turf numbers are completely interchangeable there is really no benefit to a handicapper. Also concur that using a sustained pace calculation is superior to any Beyer turf number.

[cj]

One thing that may be going on is he has forgotten what his figures are for. They are a handicapping tool, not a way of determining who the best horse in the world, or the best horse of all time, is (those determinations are impossible to make using mathematics anyway). It really doesn't matter if his turf numbers correlate with his dirt numbers anyway, as long as his turf numbers are useful in handicapping grass races. He should focus on THAT.

I personally don't think dirt figures are useless on turf and vise versa. I have a huge database that backs this up. I think getting them on the same scale ability wise is a good thing and this is a good move for Beyer.

[JimG]

I don't think this would be happening if the timeform figures were not very, very good. Many have migrated from Beyers to other vendors. Timeform is becoming more mainstream. Beyer should be applauded for his original work in this area though, not harshly criticized as some of the comments on the original article were in poor taste.

Jim

[Tom]

I think he read CJ's article a while back. ;)

More power to him if he is trying to improve.
Fortunately, I have his turf numbers in my db, but never use them, so it's not like when he destroyed my artificial surface db a few years ago.

[JohnGalt1]

When I handicap races for dirt, I cross out all turf races in the pp's and vice versa, because I believe the surfaces are almost completely different.

The only way one surface affects my handicapping on the other is conditioning, and if a dirt sprinter can handle a dirt route is if it had already run well in a turf route, for example.

I don't use variants on turf races, except for off courses, because so few are run in a given day, but I do on dirt.

Since Beyer, Bris, etc. incorporate variants in their turf numbers, I find them unreliable.

So I make my own figures for all surfaces.

[classhandicapper]

I "class" horses that are switching back and forth between dirt and turf (and synthetic). That's another way of equalizing them. So I agree that equalizing figures should make them more predictive when horses cross over from one surface to another. I don't know, but I'm sure he tested the new numbers.

That's still an area of weakness for me though.

Some of the best prices I see in my studies are horses that figured well "class" wise but are switching surfaces. The problem is that it's hard to value the extra risk and/or identify the ones that will make the switch. I just know the higher up the class ladder you go the harder it seems to be to make the switch no matter what the pedigree etc..

[Capper Al]

I personally don't think dirt figures are useless on turf and vise versa. I have a huge database that backs this up. I think getting them on the same scale ability wise is a good thing and this is a good move for Beyer.

Agree. My old system adjusted turf to fit in with dirt. My rewrite is moving in a new direction with EuroSpd numbers, a single system for both Euro and North American horses.

[Tom]

OK, after having this new turf Beyer settle in for a while now, it looks to me like he might want to make the same change to the dirt chart. Seems I see plenty of triple digit Beyers in turf races, many more than I do in dirt races.

[fiznow]

I just wanna add this. After comparing running times and records I found out that generally horses don't run faster on dirt. Actually the best times on dirt and turf are almost the same. Here is a list of all Northamerican records on dirt, turf and all weather.
http://www.equibase.com/about/northamericanrecords.cfm

[dilanesp]

I "class" horses that are switching back and forth between dirt and turf (and synthetic). That's another way of equalizing them. So I agree that equalizing figures should make them more predictive when horses cross over from one surface to another. I don't know, but I'm sure he tested the new numbers.

That's still an area of weakness for me though.

Some of the best prices I see in my studies are horses that figured well "class" wise but are switching surfaces. The problem is that it's hard to value the extra risk and/or identify the ones that will make the switch. I just know the higher up the class ladder you go the harder it seems to be to make the switch no matter what the pedigree etc..

One thing to look out for in turf racing is that the lowest class of turf racing can be quite a bit higher than the lowest dirt class. Here in Southern California, the lowest turf class is either $25,000 or $32,000. The lowest dirt class is $8,000.

As a result, some of those bottom of the barrel turf races are filled with horses who aren't actually worth anywhere near the claiming price. That matters when they switch to the dirt and "drop", and also matters when they step up-- it's sometimes a huge jump to the next level.

[dilanesp]

I just wanna add this. After comparing running times and records I found out that generally horses don't run faster on dirt. Actually the best times on dirt and turf are almost the same. Here is a list of all Northamerican records on dirt, turf and all weather.
http://www.equibase.com/about/northamericanrecords.cfm

At shorter distances, the time differences can exist but you may have a point. For instance, Zany Tactics ran 1:06 4/5 on dirt and 1:07 2/5 on turf.

At longer distances, though-- John Henry, who was almost as good on dirt as he was on turf, ran 1 1/2 miles in 2:24 and change on turf and 2:27 and change on turf. Horlicks ran 1 1/2 miles in 2:22 in the Japan Cup-- nobody thinks that made him approximately 10 lengths faster than Secretariat in the Belmont. There's definitely a divergence.

[cj]

Turf is a faster than dirt in general. Of course there are always exceptions.

[classhandicapper]

One thing to look out for in turf racing is that the lowest class of turf racing can be quite a bit higher than the lowest dirt class. Here in Southern California, the lowest turf class is either $25,000 or $32,000. The lowest dirt class is $8,000.

As a result, some of those bottom of the barrel turf races are filled with horses who aren't actually worth anywhere near the claiming price. That matters when they switch to the dirt and "drop", and also matters when they step up-- it's sometimes a huge jump to the next level.

Great insight.

I even see that sometimes at the very lowest maiden claiming and other lowest class levels on dirt. But your example is excellent.

[classhandicapper]

These turf and dirt comparisons make me feel like my head is going to explode. It's pretty tough to put together a coherent theory that explains all the differences in pace, final time, impact of pace on time, and winning running styles we see between dirt and turf. I haven't been able to find a way to incorporate speed figures, closing times, or relative close into my class figures in an automated way that actually improves the class ratings alone even though I know that in some cases closing times matter a lot. It's very easy for me to combine class and speed on dirt and improve the result over either as a stand alone.

[fiznow]

For me it's not a big problem. I use brisnet speed ratings but I don't think there is much differnce. In turf races I just compare and use turf speed ratings. I never bet first time turf runners. And I don't use speed as the main factor for my selections.

[Robert Goren]

the big difference is in a dirt race, the leader sets pace. Not true in Turf racing. the third or fourth horse from the lead may be real pace setter.

[VigorsTheGrey]

the big difference is in a dirt race, the leader sets pace. Not true in Turf racing. the third or fourth horse from the lead may be real pace setter.

The "rabbit" phenom is much more prevalent in Euro and Brit racing than here in the states...Robert, do you have any ideas on why the "rabbit" is less used here in north american racing?

[RXB]

Rabbits seem more common in English racing compared to the rest of Europe and I think it's at least partly because Coolmore and the sheikhs pretty much control the racing there and can afford to use a decent horse as nothing more than a rabbit.

[Thomas Roulston]

But how about DRF including each horse's lifetime record on less-than-firm turf, the way they do for horses' lifetime records on wet (dirt) tracks?

All the news that's fit to print ...

[bisket]

I think it depends on the type of grass and each individual track's turf course. I've always found that turf courses that the grass is cut short and tends to be a bit "harder" because of lack of rain plays like dirt. Monmouth and Santa Anita come to mind. Now you get a turf course like Arlington and that race isn't anything like a dirt race. I don't like when figure makers try to get every betting angle and variant into a number... The game is just too complicated. I just started to get back into the game... I might have just found my spot? :cool: