Derby Beyer

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Steve R

How long is an era? Certainly you can compare today's figures with those of the last decade or so and even by that restriction American Pharoah's Derby and Preakness were BSFs were on the low side. Going back to just 2000 his Derby was the co-4th slowest (105 vs 106.2 average), his Preakness was the co-2nd slowest (102 vs 108.3) and his Belmont was the 5th co-fastest (105 vs 102.4). Where are you drawing the line? One year, five years, ten years?.

As far as figure drift goes, yes, almost all the figure makers show a downward trend in American classic races over the last 20 or 25 years. However, I don't think it's a coincidence that no major North American record on dirt beyond a sprint distance has been broken in almost 30 years while the records at 5 1/2, 6 and 6 1/2f have all be set since 2009. Horses do seem to be getting slower at route distances and faster in sprints. That's the direction breeding has taken and that's the result.

Game on Dude ran a 1:58 flat a couple of years ago, second fastest in history, which suggests our top horses can still be very fast.

[cj]

Originally Posted by ronsmac

I'm pretty sure Beyer said his numbers were intended for historical comparisons. I think that was 20 or more years ago.

Yes, Beyer himself still uses them all the time for historical comparisons.

[Steve R]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Game on Dude ran a 1:58 flat a couple of years ago, second fastest in history, which suggests our top horses can still be very fast.

There are plenty of very fast horses today. That still doesn't explain the exceptionally long time since an American dirt route record has been set while sprint records have continually been set to this day. The obvious, perhaps wrong explanation is that dirt routers today are (as a group) slower than their counterparts of three and four decades ago while today's sprinters are faster. This is exactly what you would expect as speed in pedigrees continues to expand.

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by Steve R

There are plenty of very fast horses today. That still doesn't explain the exceptionally long time since an American dirt route record has been set while sprint records have continually been set to this day. The obvious, perhaps wrong explanation is that dirt routers today are (as a group) slower than their counterparts of three and four decades ago while today's sprinters are faster. This is exactly what you would expect as speed in pedigrees continues to expand.

This is exactly the reason, I believe. And these horses aren't holding up, either, so off to retirement they go, and the cycle continues.

I remember in the mid-90s, the knock on Cigar was that he wasn't running that fast. That's laughable compared to today's horses, and should be alarming to anyone who cares about the sport, seeing how quickly the breed is failing.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Steve R

There are plenty of very fast horses today. That still doesn't explain the exceptionally long time since an American dirt route record has been set while sprint records have continually been set to this day. The obvious, perhaps wrong explanation is that dirt routers today are (as a group) slower than their counterparts of three and four decades ago while today's sprinters are faster. This is exactly what you would expect as speed in pedigrees continues to expand.

Which record should they be breaking, in your opinion?

[cj]

Originally Posted by Steve R

There are plenty of very fast horses today. That still doesn't explain the exceptionally long time since an American dirt route record has been set while sprint records have continually been set to this day. The obvious, perhaps wrong explanation is that dirt routers today are (as a group) slower than their counterparts of three and four decades ago while today's sprinters are faster. This is exactly what you would expect as speed in pedigrees continues to expand.

It could also be that tracks are deeper and slower today than in years past. It would make it much tougher to break track records at a route distance than a sprint distance.

[tucker6]

Originally Posted by Steve R

There are plenty of very fast horses today. That still doesn't explain the exceptionally long time since an American dirt route record has been set while sprint records have continually been set to this day. The obvious, perhaps wrong explanation is that dirt routers today are (as a group) slower than their counterparts of three and four decades ago while today's sprinters are faster. This is exactly what you would expect as speed in pedigrees continues to expand.

I am continually shocked (and I mean that sincerely) by how much your confirmation bias on this issue dismisses any other possible explanations.

Possible changes that may explain your phenomenon:

1. Genetics
2. Track conditions
3. Changes to training methodologies
4. More horses being pushed toward sprint races
5. Drugs (lasix, etc)

I have read passages from vets and a geneticist that say you cannot attain drastic changes to horses in 40 years as the breeding cycle is too long. American Pharaoh is only four generations removed from horses born in the 60's and 70's. Sprinters Runhappy and Private Zone have the same look to their pedigree. Hardly enough time to see the changes you propose.

Your anecdotal evidence is just that, anecdotal. The truth is likely a varying mixture of the five explanations I list above, with genetics likely the least influential reason.

[rastajenk]

Originally Posted by cj

It could also be that tracks are deeper and slower today than in years past. It would make it much tougher to break track records at a route distance than a sprint distance.

And then there's the era of poly/tapeta/rubber tracks, which reduced the number of opportunities to set dirt track records by, what, maybe hundreds at the top end of the scale, thousands if taken as a whole.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Steve R

How long is an era? Certainly you can compare today's figures with those of the last decade or so and even by that restriction American Pharoah's Derby and Preakness were BSFs were on the low side. Going back to just 2000 his Derby was the co-4th slowest (105 vs 106.2 average), his Preakness was the co-2nd slowest (102 vs 108.3) and his Belmont was the 5th co-fastest (105 vs 102.4). Where are you drawing the line? One year, five years, ten years?.

If training on steroids was helping horses run faster, then the first year the steroid rules were changed it was a factor in the figures (same with better testing for illegal drugs).

Something like figure drift would be more of a factor over years 5-10 years depending on how fast they were drifting faster/slower.

The sprint/route issue could easily be breeding but it could also be the composition of the racing surfaces and how deep they are now (could be both).

Figure issues are endless. On one set horses are getting slower, on another they are getting faster, and on another they are about the same.

It's clear figures are valuable for picking winners, but on another level IMO some handicappers tend to be too literal about them. Sometimes you are better off just looking at the accomplishments of the horse, the accomplishments of his competition, and most important, what you are seeing on the track with your own eyes. Sometimes you can see when a horse is special and can do things, win in ways, and with reserves that most others cannot.

[ronsmac]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

This is exactly the reason, I believe. And these horses aren't holding up, either, so off to retirement they go, and the cycle continues.

I remember in the mid-90s, the knock on Cigar was that he wasn't running that fast. That's laughable compared to today's horses, and should be alarming to anyone who cares about the sport, seeing how quickly the breed is failing.

Even top fillies were getting 110s and 115s consistenly in the 90s. If Beholder won the Pacific Classic in the 90s in the manner she won last year. That would have probably received a beyer in the low 120s.

[Steve R]

Originally Posted by tucker6

I am continually shocked (and I mean that sincerely) by how much your confirmation bias on this issue dismisses any other possible explanations.

Possible changes that may explain your phenomenon:

1. Genetics
2. Track conditions
3. Changes to training methodologies
4. More horses being pushed toward sprint races
5. Drugs (lasix, etc)

I have read passages from vets and a geneticist that say you cannot attain drastic changes to horses in 40 years as the breeding cycle is too long. American Pharaoh is only four generations removed from horses born in the 60's and 70's. Sprinters Runhappy and Private Zone have the same look to their pedigree. Hardly enough time to see the changes you propose.

Your anecdotal evidence is just that, anecdotal. The truth is likely a varying mixture of the five explanations I list above, with genetics likely the least influential reason.

There is nothing anecdotal about data derived from tens of thousands of races each year.

1. Genetics - sprinters and routers are part of the same gene pool so if sprinters are now faster it is because the gene pool has shifted toward speed.
2. Track conditions - maybe, but what is the physical explanation sprinters and routers behave differently on the same surface?
3. Changes to training methodologies - this should apply equally to both sprinters and routers.
4. More horses being pushed toward sprint races - because they are less competitive at route distances?
5. Drugs (lasix, etc) - this should also apply equally to sprinters and routers.

As for the rate of change, stallions today routinely sire four or five times as many foals as they did 40 years. Breeding practices have changed dramatically. Accordingly fewer stallions are in demand and their impact has been amplified.

A couple of examples of how quickly aptitudinal type can change are Kingmambo and Slewpy. Kingmambo was a miler by a sprinter out of a miler. As an international sire he became one of the world's great sources of stamina. One generation. Slewpy was a classic distance winner by a TC winner and out of a producer of multiple winning routers. He became one of America's premier sprint sires. One generation again.

Here are some examples of major sires comparing the AWD in furlongs of their foals in major races (1st number) with their own AWD as runners in major races (2nd number). There are plenty more that show similar patterns. The point is that you can see dramatic changes in one generation and if sires that express such patterns become prominent the breed can move in one direction or another in far less than many decades.

Slewpy, 7.07, 9.50
Marquetry, 6.65, 9.07
Indian Charlie, 7.05, 9.00
Touch Gold, 7.88, 9.83
Lost Code, 7.06, 8.91
Mt. Livermore, 7.86, 6.25
Chief's Crown, 9.60, 8.20
City Zip, 7.41, 6.13
Henny Hughes, 7.81, 6.10

It's true. Horses won't develop a third eye or five legs in a few generations. But in terms of heritability (i.e., what is obtained from what is selected for), Jones and Bogart many years ago noted that speed is among the most heritable of all performance traits in the Thoroughbred.

[classhandicapper]

2. Track conditions - maybe, but what is the physical explanation sprinters and routers behave differently on the same surface?

If tracks are more or less tiring, the relationships between distances could easily change even when the horses have not.

Imagine a very biased speed favoring track.

Even cheap speed can sometimes carry that speed further than usual. Put them on a tiring track, they can't even get their normal distance let alone stretch out.

[Tom]

As CJ pointed out, if the tracks are deeper and more tiring, it will be harder for routers to approach the top than sprinters.

Also, horse race much less often today, so they are not as fit and wound up as they are when they run more frequently, so it will harder to get to full fitness.

And if yo do not adjust your speed charts to show a difference in the relationships between sprints and routes your numbers will be off.

93 used to be a $35K claimer.

If you could plot all the Beyers for 2015, broken down by dirt, sprint and route, I bet you would see a trunkated distribution where it used to be normal 10-15 years ago.

[Speed Figure]

Originally Posted by ronsmac

Even top fillies were getting 110s and 115s consistenly in the 90s. If Beholder won the Pacific Classic in the 90s in the manner she won last year. That would have probably received a beyer in the low 120s.

I remember when Candy Ride won the PC in 2003 he got a 123 Beyer. Seems like after that the numbers started getting smaller.

[Steve R]

Originally Posted by Speed Figure

I remember when Candy Ride won the PC in 2003 he got a 123 Beyer. Seems like after that the numbers started getting smaller.

It's not just Beyer. Equibase, Ragozin and even the Racing Post (where time is a minor component of their ratings) have all shown a general decline in performance over the last couple of decades, at least for the American classics.