Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper
Personally, I think that may argue even more in favor of the current figures not being reflective of the ability of the horses. You are saying even when one of them does pop a good figure it was more of a fluke. That means all these horses are either not very good or their figures lower than their ability.
When I look at the PPs of some of the run of the mill Grade 1 winners from the 90s, their figures would make them total monsters today. When I look at some Grade 1 winners now, I remember Classified ALW races where those Grade 1 winners would be overmatched.
I just can't buy it, especially when Thorograph was saying horses were getting much faster and Ragozon has the horses more level during the same period. Something is amiss.
|
There may just be too many variables at work for speed figures to work at all for comparisons across generations.
Here's an example- it has always been the case that turf racing is more "scrunched up" than dirt racing. Margins of victory are lower, more blanket finishes. As a result a beaten lengths chart for dirt races doesn't work on grass, and a horse that might get beat 25 lengths on dirt may only be beaten 6 lengths on grass.
But what does that tell you? It tells you that a racing surface can reduce or increase the margin between horses of different ability. And there have been enormous changes in the composition of racing surfaces over time. That might also explain the California point that people are making- there are different surfaces in different parts of the country as well.
We all have to keep in mind that a speed figure was never meant for comparisons across generations. We can't do these comparisons well in other sports either. You can't compare Cy Young's statistics pitching far more innings and far more often, to Clayton Kershaw's, or Sammy Baugh's passing in an era of run oriented offenses to Tom Brady's. There's almost certainly no definitive answer as to whether horses are faster or slower now.
