Did anyone notice...

[Steve R]

that amidst all the hoopla about which horse is great or not and which horse deserves the HotY award, Beyer's figure of 111 for the Classic was the second lowest in 20 years and better than four lengths slower than the race standard? In this case the mantra of BSFs not being accurate on plastic doesn't apply. So the question is: is greatness an absolute or is it simply relative to the quality of the competition?

[Greyfox]

that amidst all the hoopla about which horse is great or not and which horse deserves the HotY award, Beyer's figure of 111 for the Classic was the second lowest in 20 years and better than four lengths slower than the race standard? In this case the mantra of BSFs not being accurate on plastic doesn't apply. So the question is: is greatness an absolute or is it simply relative to the quality of the competition?

Today's crop is as good as ever. But the "age of steroids" is over. If this group was on "roids" the Beyers would be higher.

[tucker6]

Today's crop is as good as ever.
Not to be adversarial, but on what basis do you make that claim??

[Greyfox]

Not to be adversarial, but on what basis do you make that claim??

Uncommon sense.

[foregoforever]

Today's crop is as good as ever. But the "age of steroids" is over. If this group was on "roids" the Beyers would be higher.

What you say rings true with me, because it seems that BSF's have been down for most every race in the past 2-3 years. But has Beyer or anyone else actually crunched the numbers and published an analysis?

[cj]

What you say rings true with me, because it seems that BSF's have been down for most every race in the past 2-3 years. But has Beyer or anyone else actually crunched the numbers and published an analysis?

There is obviously something going on that the Beyers seem to be shrinking. I have some ideas, but I'm really going to look deep into this in the next few months. Could be the horses, could be the methodology, could be some changes in the game itself, especially the proliferation of slots.

[Steve R]

There is obviously something going on that the Beyers seem to be shrinking. I have some ideas, but I'm really going to look deep into this in the next few months. Could be the horses, could be the methodology, could be some changes in the game itself, especially the proliferation of slots.
My figures confirm the trend even though my methodology has not been altered and is unrelated to Beyer's. Since 1999 I have seen a decline of 4.4% in the figures for winners of North American graded stakes. If I limit it to just older horses the decline is 4.8%. In the first case this translates to about 1/2 to 3/4 of a length in a decade. In the latter, to 3/4 of a length.

[Indulto]

There is obviously something going on that the Beyers seem to be shrinking. I have some ideas, but I'm really going to look deep into this in the next few months. Could be the horses, could be the methodology, could be some changes in the game itself, especially the proliferation of slots.OK, I'll bite. How does anything related to slots either directly or indirectly affect physical thoroughbred performance as measured by artificial rankings based on absolute time (that may or may not be generated in consistent fashion) adjusted by estimates as to the relative level of competition of one subset of contestants compared to those of others in a changing environment under a variety of conditions that impacts each subset in different ways?

[cj]

OK, I'll bite. How does anything related to slots either directly or indirectly affect physical thoroughbred performance as measured by artificial rankings based on absolute time (that may or may not be generated in consistent fashion) adjusted by estimates as to the relative level of competition of one subset of contestants compared to those of others in a changing environment under a variety of conditions that impacts each subset in different ways?

I don't have all the answers, but I think it narrows the gap between stakes horses and lower class horses. Why? Because it is more lucrative to drop horses quicker these days. So, if you assume that horses of a certain class are static, or use it as a base, and those horses are getting better, it effects figure making.

For example, you base your figures on 20k claimers being an 80, and the stakes horses at the time turn out to be 110 on average. Now, with boosted purses in claimers at slots tracks, the horses actually improve, but the base (par) is still considered to be 80. Those horses are now only 20 points worse than stakes horses, but you are giving them an 80. Therefore, stakes horses now get 100, not 110. Make sense? Again, it is just a theory, and may not explain any or all of it. There are other factors too, like steroids.

[OTM Al]

I think you have part of it for sure. Just look at what was dropping for the inflated purses at Monmouth this summer. Projection adjustments knock out the tails of the distribution as well.

[keithw84]

Interesting theory about the effect of slots. CJ, when I read your earlier post, I had no idea what your point was, but now it makes a lot of sense.

[Indulto]

I don't have all the answers, but I think it narrows the gap between stakes horses and lower class horses. Why? Because it is more lucrative to drop horses quicker these days. So, if you assume that horses of a certain class are static, or use it as a base, and those horses are getting better, it effects figure making.

For example, you base your figures on 20k claimers being an 80, and the stakes horses at the time turn out to be 110 on average. Now, with boosted purses in claimers at slots tracks, the horses actually improve, but the base (par) is still considered to be 80. Those horses are now only 20 points worse than stakes horses, but you are giving them an 80. Therefore, stakes horses now get 100, not 110. Make sense? Again, it is just a theory, and may not explain any or all of it. There are other factors too, like steroids.Good answer.

It would seem that level of competition categories can no longer be based on claiming value or purses in the manner they were previously. As OA pointed out, any purse inflation is relevant. Perhaps, during the first few years of NYRA slots, it may be necessary to develop a heuristic for adjusting races with various conditions similar to adding 5 points to DRF ratings for 7 f races at AQU for several years after Dr. Fager set a new track record there.

[Robert Goren]

Bad horses get bad times. The fast horses these days are done before they get started. They are bred to be brittle. How colts on triple crown trail this year were retired before the derby and how many more since. We had one good three year old running in BC out of all of the hopefuls last winter and his running style is not going get really high Beyers. When you lose nine of your ten best colts, you aren't going to fast times. Maybe we will get a front running freak or two who is both sound and fast next year.

[cj]

Bad horses get bad times. The fast horses these days are done before they get started. They are bred to be brittle. How colts on triple crown trail this year were retired before the derby and how many more since. We had one good three year old running in BC out of all of the hopefuls last winter and his running style is not going get really high Beyers. When you lose nine of your ten best colts, you aren't going to fast times. Maybe we will get a front running freak or two who is both sound and fast next year.

What was wrong with the time in the Classic?

Previous Classics at CD:

Blame 202.28
Invasor 202.18
Tiznow 200.75
Awesome Again 202.16
Concern 202.41
Black Tie Affair 202.95
Alysheba 204.80

[owlet]

Fewer race day drugs due to policing, results of inbreeding, results of breeding for speed instead of stamina, too much racing, phoney "Grade 1" races, decline of breeding bubble that rewards syndication of young stallions instead of performance.

Lots of factors.

[RXB]

that amidst all the hoopla about which horse is great or not and which horse deserves the HotY award, Beyer's figure of 111 for the Classic was the second lowest in 20 years and better than four lengths slower than the race standard? In this case the mantra of BSFs not being accurate on plastic doesn't apply. So the question is: is greatness an absolute or is it simply relative to the quality of the competition?

Does your observation apply to the last three runnings of the Mile, too? (All below 111.)

[Indulto]

So speed figures are only as serviceable as the syndicated stallions selected to sacrifice stamina and soundness for speed on synthetic surfaces or sandy loam.;)

But even in bad times, Detective, bad horses bred to be brittle can become fast, front-running freaks because genes as well as bones determine distance limitations and durability. When Santa Anita returns to dirt, will individual horses compete there more frequently -- physically toughened by races as well as workouts -- or will the fragility flag continued to be flown to justify fewer starts?

If owlet is suggesting that the surplus in both graded stakes and racing dates are the greatest diluters of field size, field quality, and field performances, then he may be on to something.

[FenceBored]

Does anybody know, or know of somewhere I can find Beyers for any of the BC races between 1984 and 1989? The ARM lists all of them for 1990 on.

I found 122 for the '88 Classic.

[RXB]

http://farewelltokings.com/2009/11/historical-breeders-cup-beyers/

No grass numbers from '84 - '86 but otherwise complete.

[Cardus]

It's interesting that Beyer Speed Figures seem to be getting lower, while running negative figures on Ragozin and Thorograph seem more commonplace.

[FenceBored]

http://farewelltokings.com/2009/11/historical-breeders-cup-beyers/

No grass numbers from '84 - '86 but otherwise complete.

Thank you, just what I needed (though we could all wish for the turf numbers).

[Steve R]

Does your observation apply to the last three runnings of the Mile, too? (All below 111.)
The only observation I made was about the Classic, the point being that (if you believe Beyer's figures) this was an inferior edition of the Classic despite the exciting finish. What I find interesting is that neither of the top two has run up to historical HotY Beyer Figure standards.

[RXB]

I agree, and I said before the race and also after the race that it looked like a below average field in my view.

I made the comparison with Goldikova to prove a point, which was not to knock Goldikova but rather to show that when Zenyatta needed to improve her final time, she did, and that her results and figures compared just fine with another outstanding mare who has done well against open competition.

Frankly, all three of the really great females in the past couple of years-- Rachel Alexandra, Zenyatta and Goldikova-- didn't meet particularly strong male competition. That's a big part of why they fared so well.

[GMB@BP]

The only observation I made was about the Classic, the point being that (if you believe Beyer's figures) this was an inferior edition of the Classic despite the exciting finish. What I find interesting is that neither of the top two has run up to historical HotY Beyer Figure standards.

It appears its an issue with all stakes horses on dirt and especially synthetic (though thats almost a separate issue).

While I think the depth of talent has dropped off I still think year to year the very best horses are not 10 points slower than a decade ago.

[Tom]

I agree that the spread is changing. The $10k horse that once was similar across tracks in now gone. The slot-fed purses are part of it and the proliferation of restricted claimers is another. When a horse couldn't win for 10,000, they used to drop them into 8,000, or 6,500. Now they have nw in 6 months, nw3lt, nw on Sundays....a bunch of nonsense.
There seems to be only two classes left these days - those that run slow early and those that run slow late! :rolleyes:

[cj]

It appears its an issue with all stakes horses on dirt and especially synthetic (though thats almost a separate issue).

While I think the depth of talent has dropped off I still think year to year the very best horses are not 10 points slower than a decade ago.

It is just as true on turf, maybe even more so. I gave a theory on one of these threads a day or two ago, but who can keep track any more?

[wisconsin]

I agree that the spread is changing. The $10k horse that once was similar across tracks in now gone. The slot-fed purses are part of it and the proliferation of restricted claimers is another. When a horse couldn't win for 10,000, they used to drop them into 8,000, or 6,500. Now they have nw in 6 months, nw3lt, nw on Sundays....a bunch of nonsense.
There seems to be only two classes left these days - those that run slow early and those that run slow late! :rolleyes:

Spot on Tom! Sometimes you'll get the dreaded grass race for non-winners on the turf.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[FenceBored]

It is just as true on turf, maybe even more so. I gave a theory on one of these threads a day or two ago, but who can keep track any more?

Post #9 of this very thread:
"I don't have all the answers, but I think it narrows the gap between stakes horses and lower class horses. Why? Because it is more lucrative to drop horses quicker these days. So, if you assume that horses of a certain class are static, or use it as a base, and those horses are getting better, it effects figure making.

For example, you base your figures on 20k claimers being an 80, and the stakes horses at the time turn out to be 110 on average. Now, with boosted purses in claimers at slots tracks, the horses actually improve, but the base (par) is still considered to be 80. Those horses are now only 20 points worse than stakes horses, but you are giving them an 80. Therefore, stakes horses now get 100, not 110. Make sense? Again, it is just a theory, and may not explain any or all of it. There are other factors too, like steroids."
-- http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1000385&postcount=9

[FenceBored]

I don't have all the answers, but I think it narrows the gap between stakes horses and lower class horses. Why? Because it is more lucrative to drop horses quicker these days. So, if you assume that horses of a certain class are static, or use it as a base, and those horses are getting better, it effects figure making.

For example, you base your figures on 20k claimers being an 80, and the stakes horses at the time turn out to be 110 on average. Now, with boosted purses in claimers at slots tracks, the horses actually improve, but the base (par) is still considered to be 80. Those horses are now only 20 points worse than stakes horses, but you are giving them an 80. Therefore, stakes horses now get 100, not 110. Make sense? Again, it is just a theory, and may not explain any or all of it. There are other factors too, like steroids.

If you're right, does that point out a flaw with using a relative measure (how a certain class of horses is performing this year/last few years) to calibrate the figures? As you've said before, what with changing pars comparing Beyers from as little as 5 years apart is probably pointless. But, that's exactly how most of us want to use these measures of performance. Not just "oh, this horse routinely runs upper 90s so he should outperform this horse who's never run above an 85 in today's race," but "this guy's upper 90s show he'd have been competitive with the guy who ran 10 years ago and was a mid-to-upper 90s horse."

[bks]

Visually, the race looked moderately fast. The 1-2-3-4 pace horses, who all went within a tick or two over 47 backed way out of it and finished 8-10-11-12. There was significant separation between the two top finishers and the next flight. Further, there wasn't a single race that was run in a raw "fast" time all day. Big Drama, who ran huge, didn't break 1:09 despite a sub-22 first quarter. In the Dirt Mile, which produced hot splits, they still couldn't break 1:35. Even Uncle Mo's big 1 1/16 was only 1:42.2, which isn't as fast as the race "looked".

Therefore, I conclude the track was on the slow side. 2:02.1 was a good time on that day. A BSF based on the lone race at that distance (and a classic distance at that) is of limited utility, IMO. It's guesswork.

[RXB]

I agree with the "moderately fast" pace appraisal. Mind you, nothing short of a funeral march would've saved the frontrunners as they just weren't good enough. The best two horses ran 1-2.

I don't think the track was slow on Saturday. Basically normal, by my measurements.

[depalma113]

sub :22 first quarter at Churchill is nothing special. I think the run up for 6 furlongs at Churchill is the longest in North America and since the horses are already in full flight when they trip the wire, sub :22 is common.