Male Sprinter Division

[classhandicapper]

Before everyone gets too excited about Jackie's Warrior, he was given a Beyer figure of 101 for that performance yesterday.

Granted he set a fast pace and won under wraps, but that track had become a sealed sloppy mess before the race. That's the type of track that sometimes carries very speedy front runners to big wins in fast time. Almost no one is faster that Jackie's Warrior early.

If you look at the 10th race, the favorite wired by 6 3/4 lengths and improved her figure 9 points after setting what looks like a pretty fast pace for M025 statebreds.

That track may have helped carry both Jackie's Warrior and Esotica.

To be clear, I'm not knocking Jackie's Warrior. He proved how good he is in the Woody Stephens given the trip he had. You could draw a line through this last race due to track conditions and still think he's very good. I'm just saying his race yesterday only got a 101 on a track that may have helped him. So as easy as he won and as fast as the pace was early he probably didn't set the world on fire compared to top sprinters of the past in "Beyer terms".

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

Which horses in either race were supposed to light the world on fire?

You could have stopped right there and made my point.

Where are all the fast sprinters that used to put up consistent figures in the 110-115 range or higher and occasionally break out into the 120s when we are supposedly breeding for speed?

[Spalding No!]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Where are all the fast sprinters that used to put up consistent figures in the 110-115 range or higher and occasionally break out into the 120s when we are supposedly breeding for speed?

We are not breeding for speed per se, we are breeding for precocity. At the same time, the classics (i.e., the Triple Crown) are still the target races. There hasn't been a shift towards making certain sprint races the pinnacle of the sport. However, you could say that there might be a gradual shift towards emphasizing certain 2yo races.

Doesn't there seem to be a stud deal in the works every year for the Champagne winner a couple of weeks after the race?

Nowadays horses that in prior years would have been considered at most pacesetters in the Kentucky Derby are now ending up being winter book or even raceday favorites (Life is Good the latest example). In that respect, as CJ suggested, a lot of would be top sprinters are fried chasing the Triple Crown trail (Vanderbilt also-ran Strike Power is a decent example).

Sprinters are inferior to route horses. That's why a second tier route horse like Whitmore can be reinvented into a top sprinter. Get 2 or 3 one dimensional speed horses together and you have a good setup for something with a modicum of stamina and a decent closing kick every time.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

We are not breeding for speed per se, we are breeding for precocity. At the same time, the classics (i.e., the Triple Crown) are still the target races. There hasn't been a shift towards making certain sprint races the pinnacle of the sport. However, you could say that there might be a gradual shift towards emphasizing certain 2yo races.

Doesn't there seem to be a stud deal in the works every year for the Champagne winner a couple of weeks after the race?

Nowadays horses that in prior years would have been considered at most pacesetters in the Kentucky Derby are now ending up being winter book or even raceday favorites (Life is Good the latest example). In that respect, as CJ suggested, a lot of would be top sprinters are fried chasing the Triple Crown trail (Vanderbilt also-ran Strike Power is a decent example).

Sprinters are inferior to route horses. That's why a second tier route horse like Whitmore can be reinvented into a top sprinter. Get 2 or 3 one dimensional speed horses together and you have a good setup for something with a modicum of stamina and a decent closing kick every time.

I addressed all this other than the breeding side.

I agree that some sprinters are foolishly pointed towards the Triple Crown chase, but that was always true. If anything, the new Derby points system has REDUCED that tendency by downgrading the 2yo graded sprints that previously used to help horses gain entry into the Derby. That's why we get fewer of those meltdown paces in the Derby now (fewer sprinters). Those horses are more likely to stick to sprint/mile. If anything, that should be helping the sprint division.

I unquestionably agree that top level sprinters tend to be qualitatively below the best routers. I have the data on that. That's because the purses and stud deals are much higher in the routes. So every top level horse that is versatile enough to do either, will tend to stretch out. But that has also been true since the 70s when I started following the sport.

I'm not a breeding expert, but people can't simultaneously suggest to me that our 10F and 12F races aren't as fast as they used to be because of breeding and then tell me our sprints aren't as fast as they used to be because of breeding without me at least saying "hmmmn".

Something else is going on. It's probably a little of several things working together to make it very noticeable (deeper surfaces, slower average paces, figure shrinkage, random ups and downs in quality, breeding, drug use etc..), but the quality seems much lower both on figures and without figures.

[Tom]

The Vanderbilt was a party no one showed up for.
Essential Quality was more desperate than distinguished.
Was it the track carrying speed excessively?

[taxicab]

I'm another who wasn't impressed with the three sprints over the weekend.
The Bing Crosby was tailor-made for a finisher.......but the closers didn't inspire at all.
The Vanderbilt looked common at the wire.
Jackie's Warrior had his way in the Amsterdam.......but I have a feeling older horses are going to give him trouble.
It sure feels like an under the radar type is going to emerge in the Fall to pop in the BC Sprint.........something will cycle up.

[Spalding No!]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I'm not a breeding expert, but people can't simultaneously suggest to me that our 10F and 12F races aren't as fast as they used to be because of breeding and then tell me our sprints aren't as fast as they used to be because of breeding without me at least saying "hmmmn".

Breeding for precocity leads to two problems: 1) more soundness issues and 2) more early retirements (because of the first problem and because owners are trying to get to the shed as early as possible where the returns are greater).

Since 1999, only 4 Derby winners, 5 Preakness winners, and 5 Belmont winners have had meaningful campaigns as older horses. Most were retired outright as 3yos either by design or due to injury.

The older horses left to populate the "top" ranks are in general second tier and with the dearth in horse numbers overall the individual top level races end up uncompetitive to the point that horses don't get pushed in the heat of battle to register top individual figures, don't progress/mature through racing to become capable of producing top figures, and were probably never good enough genetically to achieve top figures in the first place.

Had they raced in the recent era, would you ever see horses like Swaps, Damascus, Seattle Slew, Affirmed, Spectacular Bid, Alysheba, Sunday Silence, Easy Goer, and maybe even Silver Charm compete as older horses? Would they even make the same number of starts they did as 2yos and 3yos?

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

Breeding for precocity leads to two problems: 1) more soundness issues and 2) more early retirements (because of the first problem and because owners are trying to get to the shed as early as possible where the returns are greater).

Since 1999, only 4 Derby winners, 5 Preakness winners, and 5 Belmont winners have had meaningful campaigns as older horses. Most were retired outright as 3yos either by design or due to injury.

The older horses left to populate the "top" ranks are in general second tier and with the dearth in horse numbers overall the individual top level races end up uncompetitive to the point that horses don't get pushed in the heat of battle to register top individual figures, don't progress/mature through racing to become capable of producing top figures, and were probably never good enough genetically to achieve top figures in the first place.

Had they raced in the recent era, would you ever see horses like Swaps, Damascus, Seattle Slew, Affirmed, Spectacular Bid, Alysheba, Sunday Silence, Easy Goer, and maybe even Silver Charm compete as older horses? Would they even make the same number of starts they did as 2yos and 3yos?

I agree with all that.

[cj]

Originally Posted by taxicab

I'm another who wasn't impressed with the three sprints over the weekend.
The Bing Crosby was tailor-made for a finisher.......but the closers didn't inspire at all.
The Vanderbilt looked common at the wire.
Jackie's Warrior had his way in the Amsterdam.......but I have a feeling older horses are going to give him trouble.
It sure feels like an under the radar type is going to emerge in the Fall to pop in the BC Sprint.........something will cycle up.

I don't see any way any of the older horses give Jackie's Warrior any trouble. Maybe a horse like Nashville could run with him early but he is MIA.

[classhandicapper]

Life Is Good may show up for the H Allen Jerkens and a showdown with Jackie's Warrior.

[Spalding No!]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Life Is Good may show up for the H Allen Jerkens and a showdown with Jackie's Warrior.

Ideally, Following Sea would go back to sprinting. Not sure why they skipped the Dwyer over a one turn mile before progressing to two turns (and Grade 1 company) in the Haskell, but whatever plan they came up with it was horrendous.

He should be in the Allen Jerkens, too, but it's Pletcher and Spendthrift so he might get 2 months off, come back in the Perryville and/or the Malibu and then retire at the end of the year even if he lights the world on fire (see Into Mischief's silly racing career).

[Mick]

I have been away from the races for too many years and just getting back into the swing of things, so it is hard for me to answer about the last 30 years. Plus I have never followed Beyer numbers so there you go but I do know fractional numbers.

Back in the day, there were many speedy horses but not a lot of Graded sprint races. (Dr. Fager and Shecky Greene come to mind but few others). Typically, I would see the fastest race numbers coming out of California and I was told the track was graded for speed. Occasionally, I would read about an outbreak of horses breaking down in California and other tracks and many switched to synthetic tracks as a result.

Times can certainly be an indicator of track conditions and heavier dirt will slow the fastest of horses times.

[Mick]

Of course, I may well be biased about sprinters. When I was taught handicapping, my father said to skip races 6F and less. His theory was that in a short sprint, any trouble a horse encounters early likely would be too much for most to overcome. You might have the best horse but lose your bet.

7F - 8F on the dirt were the preferred distances at Arlington Park was the sweet spot for handicapping. A mile to a mile and a sixteenth on the lawn were the preferred grass races.

He also taught me to only bet Allowance and up races, his thinking being that many claimers were too inconsistent to predict reliably. These ideas led to more predictable races and consistent wins to keep the bankroll growing.

My father made his own numbers (before Andy) and taught me to make my own.

[taxicab]

Originally Posted by cj

I don't see any way any of the older horses give Jackie's Warrior any trouble. Maybe a horse like Nashville could run with him early but he is MIA.

This one comes down to me not thinking a whole lot of Jackie's Warrior.
He just doesn't do it for me.
Same with Nashville.........never thought much of him either.

[classhandicapper]

I've been doing some research on figures going back to 1993. I'm breaking them out by year and groups of years for all dirt races/dirt sprints/dirt routes. I'm seeing some interesting things about the declines in general that might take the speculation to a more concrete level. When I'm done I'll post some summary data.