Historical Speed Figures Needed?

[CincyHorseplayer]

I think that this is a necessity.As years pass by horses morph into legend and the information is there to make speed figures for the horses that are hall of fame worthy.I remember casual references to lofty speed figures in Beyer's books.Beyer for one,coming into his own in the 70's should have a great amount of inspiration to produce figures publicly on horses he watched up front and personal.

With all the debate about horses like RA and Zen and the seeming suspect nature of the 3yo's last season and older male division this year,I think it's a total necessity to make speed figures to enhance the vision of what we're actually seeing here.There has to be a measurable standard set for performances both on class and speed.And the info is out there to make it happen.

Just wanted everybody's thoughts???

[classhandicapper]

I agree with you in theory. But I've changed my view in recent years.

Beyer was quoted as saying he tried to go back in time to recalculate some of the figures from the 70s given his current better insights now but had some difficulty doing it. Also, some figure makers disagree with others about how fast horses are running now compared to the past. Jerry Brown at Thorograph has horses getting much faster in recent years compared to the past. That is not consistent with Beyer or Ragozin. He gets into great detail for why that's the case and why he's right. According to his figures, many of today's second and third stringers are faster than the champions of the past. There are some historical figures on his web page and at the Ragozin page also.

In my own mind, I compare horses across generations based on quality.

I remember the quality of the horses and fields Affirmed, Alydar, Seattle Slew, Spectacular Bid, Forego etc... faced and watched their races so many times they are burned into me head. I know their trips, the biases, who they beat, how consistently, and still have a lot of the Racing Forms at home etc...

I think that kind of analysis removes any speed figure calculation biases, the influence of drugs, trainer methodology, nutrition etc... on final time measurements. Of course, perhaps it introduces my own biases, but that's OK because it's my opinion I'm interested in anyway. :D

[CincyHorseplayer]

I agree with you in theory. But I've changed my view in recent years.

Beyer was quoted as saying he tried to go back in time to recalculate some of the figures from the 70s given his current better insights now but had some difficulty doing it. Also, some figure makers disagree with others about how fast horses are running now compared to the past. Jerry Brown at Thorograph has horses getting much faster in recent years compared to the past. That is not consistent with Beyer or Ragozin. He gets into great detail for why that's the case and why he's right. According to his figures, many of today's second and third stringers are faster than the champions of the past. There are some historical figures on his web page and at the Ragozin page also.

In my own mind, I compare horses across generations based on quality.

I remember the quality of the horses and fields Affirmed, Alydar, Seattle Slew, Spectacular Bid, Forego etc... faced and watched their races so many times they are burned into me head. I know their trips, the biases, who they beat, how consistently, and still have a lot of the Racing Forms at home etc...

I think that kind of analysis removes any speed figure calculation biases, the influence of drugs, trainer methodology, nutrition etc... on final time measurements. Of course, perhaps it introduces my own biases, but that's OK because it's my opinion I'm interested in anyway. :D

Good post Class.My intent is to keep this an objective inquiry.Don't know how to put up a poll.

I do think it is very relevant.And faster could just be the product of evolution.The breeding industry should produce faster and better over time.And if that is the case IMO speed figures,which can be made because of the available data will enhance or dispel the claims of greatness,or not,which influence the way of thinking about the horses we are seeing today.Fast and class are very close in measure.We need to know who's who and what's what IMO.

I think Beyer had General Assembly at 134 for a certain race and Secretariat in the same neighborhood in his Belmont.To know for sure what they ran or Kelso or Ruffian or Seattle Slew actually ran would give us the historical perspective of a measuring stick as to what we call "Greatness" today.There has to be an objective measuring stick besides opinion.Speed figures are close to that besides just purely looking at black type.

[Imriledup]

Here's a little info on "beyer speed figure' from Wikipedia:




Beyer Speed Figure

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyer_Speed_Figure#column-one), search (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyer_Speed_Figure#searchInput)
The Beyer Speed Figure is a system for rating the performance of Thoroughbred (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoroughbred) racehorses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_racing) in North America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_America) designed in the early 1970s by Andrew Beyer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Beyer), the syndicated horse racing columnist for The Washington Post (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Post). First published in book form in 1975, by 1992 the Daily Racing Form (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Racing_Form) began incorporating Beyer Speed Figures in a horse's past performances and the system has evolved to where today each performance by every horse is given a Beyer number which reflects the time of the race and the inherent speed of the track over which it was run. On the Beyer scale, the top stakes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graded_stakes_race) horses in the United States and Canada earn numbers in the 100's, while extremely strong performances may rate as high as the 120's. In Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe), Timeform (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeform) has a different set up that yields a different rating number. The popular rule of thumb for a rough equivalent of the Timeform score is to deduct 12-14 points to achieve the Beyer figure.

In 2004, Ghostzapper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostzapper) earned the high Beyer Speed Figure at 128. In the July 5, 2005 Hollywood Gold Cup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_Gold_Cup), Lava Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lava_Man) turned in a speed figure of 120. Bordonaro earned a Beyer Speed Figure of 119 in winning the 2006 Ancient Title Handicap which was the highest number assigned to any North American horse in 2006. But it was Groovy (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Groovy_(horse)&action=edit&redlink=1), the 1987 American Champion Sprint Horse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Champion_Sprint_Horse) who won the highest figure of all, over 130, earning 133 & 132 in back-to-back 6-furlong races in 1987, a record that is still unbeaten.

In 2007 the highest Beyers Speed Figure was 124 assigned to Midnight Lute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_Lute) in the 7 furlong Forego Handicap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forego_Handicap) at Saratoga Race Course (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saratoga_Race_Course).

In the 2008 Whitney Handicap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitney_Handicap), Commentator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentator_(horse)) scored a 120 Beyer. Over his career he has earned Beyers of 119, 121, and 123. Andy Beyer said he can’t recall a 7-year-old getting that high a number.

Beyer calculated that had the Beyer Speed Figure calculation existed during the proper time frame, Secretariat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretariat_(horse)) would have earned a figure of 139 for his 1973 win at the Belmont Stakes

[Imriledup]

Sometimes horses can 'swell up' on the lead and run a spectacular time/Beyer Fig/Sheet number without being challenge yet weren't even close to being considered great or even very good. There was a Baffert horse who won a big race in Ky (minister something) and he won by like 15 lengths with some bizarre Beyer fig. That horse never did anything after that of note i believe, he had one freaky day running a sizzling time and went unchallenged. This horse folded up like a cheap suit when challenged. If things go right for a very fast and brilliant horse they can run a 'hall of fame' figure, but that doesn't mean all that much if that same horse folds up when looked in the eye.


Great horses win races and win races while being looked in the eye by their rivals.

I think at the very top levels of the game with the very best horses, there is not much seperating all of them. You can have your list of great older handicap horses like Cigar, Mineshaft, Ghostzapper, etc and if they all raced against each other at full power and each horse ran his A race, they would all be within a length or two of each other at the wire. Horses this good running their A race won't ever be embarrassed by anyone who's ever raced in the sport. I think these horses were running minus 5's and 6's on the Thorograph sheets on a consistent basis, there's not much seperating the very greats of the sport when you come right down to it.

[CincyHorseplayer]

I agree with that totally Riledup.But we need to know who ran what.

What brings this up for me is the comparison between Ruffian and Rachel Alexandra.Everybody is dismissing RA because of her competition.That concept gets lost in the haze of time which creates myths.Are the 70's horses really an immortal decade which can't be surpassed?It was great to be sure and before my time.But while were all throwing names around this year because we have 2 legitimately great female horses,there has to be a historical perspective IMO.

Rachel is great IMO to the point where her accomplishments have to be measured historically.The information of results is available to make that happen.

Just as Beyer scoffed at the Howard Cosell comment that "Time is only important when you're in jail".Well in measuring horse greatness we have to compare it to indeed that golden age of the 70's.And if it's available,even Citation's speed figures.

IMO,with the vehement arguments on here there has to be some clarification.Speed figures,along with black type is a nice place to start.

[Robert Goren]

When Beyers came up with his SRs in the 1970s, they were based on 10k claimers running about an 80. A 10k claimer was a decent horse in the 1970s. Today it is a lot closer to bottom. This is due inflation of not only of the price of horses but of about everything else. To compare SRs of horses from different eras, the base some how has to be equalized. I haven't a clue on how to do this.

[Imriledup]

I agree with that totally Riledup.But we need to know who ran what.

What brings this up for me is the comparison between Ruffian and Rachel Alexandra.Everybody is dismissing RA because of her competition.That concept gets lost in the haze of time which creates myths.Are the 70's horses really an immortal decade which can't be surpassed?It was great to be sure and before my time.But while were all throwing names around this year because we have 2 legitimately great female horses,there has to be a historical perspective IMO.

Rachel is great IMO to the point where her accomplishments have to be measured historically.The information of results is available to make that happen.

Just as Beyer scoffed at the Howard Cosell comment that "Time is only important when you're in jail".Well in measuring horse greatness we have to compare it to indeed that golden age of the 70's.And if it's available,even Citation's speed figures.

IMO,with the vehement arguments on here there has to be some clarification.Speed figures,along with black type is a nice place to start.


I think that the people who still place Ruffian over Rachel are people who dont think that a filly beating males is that big of a deal. If you think a filly beating males THREE times IS a big deal, than you will place Rachel over Ruffian. Its just a matter of how you view fillies beating males, obviously people who say Ruffian was better dont think Ruffian failure to ever defeat a male rival matters.

[kenwoodallpromos]

There has to be a measurable standard set for performances both on class and speed.And the info is out there to make it happen.

Just wanted everybody's thoughts???
This is my opinion:
Measurable speed figures is almost always subjective based on speed only, 1 race at a time. That is OK for discussion, but in my minority opinion the only way to get a measurable standard is to use the place horse's speed figure as the standard and compare it to the current pars, then adjust the horse in question's speed figure up or down accordingly. For instance, if the standard pars for 1 1/2 miles dirt at Belmont is 2:30, then 2:30 is the standard of speed figure pars (100?) If the place horse to Sec's Belmont stakes ran 2:30, then secretariat ran 6 seconds faster, so adjust the pars upward., say 131 at 1 point per length. If the same pars applied in 2009, and It's a Bird ran 2:30 (100), then his figure would be 100. But you still would have to consider current track speed.
Of course, if there was 1 correct standard, there would be no need for discussion or debate about who was best, and I would be in bed asleep right now!!LOL!!