Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Thoroughbred Horse Racing Discussion > **TRIPLE CROWN TRAIL**


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 10-04-2020, 06:45 PM   #16
dilanesp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 8,798
I've always assumed that Secretariat probably ran 1:53 2/5, for what that's worth. That's what the Daily Racing Form's backup hand timer got him in, and hand times were a bit more accurate back then because they still had a flagman who dropped the flag when they crossed the pole. Thus, a good timer in the press box near the finish line should have been able to get a pretty accurate time.

Further, that's what CBS got him in. CBS played Secretariat's videotape alongside Canonero's, and we know Canonero ran an electronically timed 1:54 flat. Secretariat "won" by about 3 lengths, giving him about a 1:53 2/5. See this story:

https://webcache.googleusercontent.c...&ct=clnk&gl=us

I don't think CBS's method was THAT valid, but at least they presumably used the same type of videotape machine (possibly a Sony 3/4 inch machine?) on their replay recordings in 1970 and 1973. So it's at least plausible that their frame per second rates were fairly close. And as I said, it's also what the DRF hand timer got.

Secretariat was given 1:53 flat because he had a lobby. Bear in mind, if it was any other horse other than Secretariat, nobody would have ever gone back and gifted him a retroactive track record. If someone ran back the tapes of Tank's Prospect's Preakness and found he ran 1:52 4/5, nobody would do anything about this. It was only because Secretariat had a lot of fans who couldn't bear to think that their hero may have not actually run the fastest Preakness ever that we even are in this mess.

The bottom line is, that was an actual stakes record performance by the filly yesterday. Whether Pimlico and Secretariat's fanbase ever admit it or not. There's not nearly enough evidence to assume Secretariat ran faster, and plenty of evidence he actually ran slower.
dilanesp is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-04-2020, 06:51 PM   #17
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilanesp View Post
I've always assumed that Secretariat probably ran 1:53 2/5, for what that's worth.
Not much really because it is easy to test now. I did it again today from two different replays. 1:53 flat is pretty darn close.
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-04-2020, 07:19 PM   #18
Spalding No!
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilanesp View Post
It was only because Secretariat had a lot of fans who couldn't bear to think that their hero may have not actually run the fastest Preakness ever that we even are in this mess.
I think we are in this mess because the clocking system malfunctioned back in 1973 and COVID delayed the running of the Preakness until October in 2020.

Otherwise, Secretariat would have run the fastest Preakness ever and Swiss Skydiver would have been in England getting scratched in the post parade for the 1000 Guineas, not at Pimlico for the Preakness...

Last edited by Spalding No!; 10-04-2020 at 07:20 PM.
Spalding No! is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-04-2020, 08:46 PM   #19
Afleet
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Missouri
Posts: 2,190
of course I had her singled in the KY Oaks. Still can't believe she lost
Afleet is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-04-2020, 08:51 PM   #20
Afleet
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Missouri
Posts: 2,190
I didn't bet the Preakness this year (did play a contest that covered the whole card). The last time I didnt bet the Preakness was probably when I was in college-that was years ago.
Afleet is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-04-2020, 09:10 PM   #21
jay68802
Registered User
 
jay68802's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 15,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj View Post
I timed the Secretariat Preakness from video a while back, the 1:53 flat is accurate give or take a hundredths.
Both were performances that need to be respected.
jay68802 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-04-2020, 11:19 PM   #22
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay68802 View Post
Both were performances that need to be respected.
I'm just talking about timing the race in 1973. Comparing them doesn't mean anything to me.
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-05-2020, 12:29 AM   #23
dilanesp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 8,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj View Post
Not much really because it is easy to test now. I did it again today from two different replays. 1:53 flat is pretty darn close.
Again, cj, you are timing off a KINESCOPE. Have you ever looked at a Kinescope machine? Heck, do you ever watched old Kinescoped television shows? These machines ran fast or slow all the time. They weren't designed for timing and nobody in television really cared whether they ran fast or slow because viewers didn't care back then.

CBS' method wasn't great, but it's gonna be far more accurate than you with a Kinescope. Because at least CBS compared them on the same medium. And the racing form, which was there, got it in the same time CBS did.

Last edited by dilanesp; 10-05-2020 at 12:32 AM.
dilanesp is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-05-2020, 12:32 AM   #24
dilanesp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 8,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spalding No! View Post
I think we are in this mess because the clocking system malfunctioned back in 1973 and COVID delayed the running of the Preakness until October in 2020.

Otherwise, Secretariat would have run the fastest Preakness ever and Swiss Skydiver would have been in England getting scratched in the post parade for the 1000 Guineas, not at Pimlico for the Preakness...
Sure, but races are moved on the calendar all the time and we still count stakes records.
dilanesp is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-05-2020, 12:54 AM   #25
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilanesp View Post
Again, cj, you are timing off a KINESCOPE. Have you ever looked at a Kinescope machine? Heck, do you ever watched old Kinescoped television shows? These machines ran fast or slow all the time. They weren't designed for timing and nobody in television really cared whether they ran fast or slow because viewers didn't care back then.

CBS' method wasn't great, but it's gonna be far more accurate than you with a Kinescope. Because at least CBS compared them on the same medium. And the racing form, which was there, got it in the same time CBS did.
Hand times are impossible even with a flag guy.

I've timed plenty old races and they match very close to the official times when the timer wasn't in question. Give it a try some time.

No, I don't have a kinescope lol.
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-05-2020, 10:41 AM   #26
dilanesp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 8,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj View Post
Hand times are impossible even with a flag guy.

I've timed plenty old races and they match very close to the official times when the timer wasn't in question. Give it a try some time.

No, I don't have a kinescope lol.
How do you explain CBS running the two videotapes and the difference being Canonero and Secretariat being 3 lengths? We know Canonero ran 1:54. The timer worked fine that day.

If your time is correct, it must mean that the frames per second on CBS's videotape machines were inaccurate. But if the frames per second on their videotape machines are inaccurate, than we can't trust times off video recordings from that era, which gets us back to square 1.

For what it's worth, I timed the 1970 and 1973 Preaknesses on youtube. I got Canonero in 1:56.44 gate to finish, and Secretariat in 1:55.76. So Secretariat's was 0.72 seconds faster, which means... either 3/5 or 4/5 of a second, which would mean he either ran 1:53 2/5 like the Racing Form said, or 1:53 1/5. He did not run 1:53.

He was given that record because he was Secretariat and his fans browbeat the Maryland authorities. You saw the real stakes record on Saturday.
dilanesp is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-05-2020, 11:14 AM   #27
Spalding No!
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilanesp View Post
Sure, but races are moved on the calendar all the time and we still count stakes records.
The classics and major Grade 1s aren't moved on the calendar all the time.
Spalding No! is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-05-2020, 11:30 AM   #28
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilanesp View Post
For what it's worth, I timed the 1970 and 1973 Preaknesses on youtube. I got Canonero in 1:56.44 gate to finish, and Secretariat in 1:55.76. So Secretariat's was 0.72 seconds faster, which means... either 3/5 or 4/5 of a second, which would mean he either ran 1:53 2/5 like the Racing Form said, or 1:53 1/5. He did not run 1:53.

He was given that record because he was Secretariat and his fans browbeat the Maryland authorities. You saw the real stakes record on Saturday.
I'll try to find some more time this week, but keep in mind a 1:53.19 would be a 1:53 flat. That is certainly within the margin of error from video timing. Proclaiming the race Saturday as 100% faster is being silly.
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-05-2020, 06:32 PM   #29
classhandicapper
Registered User
 
classhandicapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 20,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Afleet View Post
of course I had her singled in the KY Oaks. Still can't believe she lost
I'm not sure the inside was best place to be that day. She spent some time inside. It might have made a difference, but it wasn't one of those days where I thought the rail was clearly bad.

It's always easier after the fact, but that's typically the kind of horse I use.

My problem with the race was that I liked Art Collector going into the Derby for a similar reason, but I didn't want him at that price in the Preakness coming off a foot issue, shoe issue, missed training, and Authentic proving he could run that far in the Derby. So I wound up watching her win at a nice price. I don't feel too badly about it though because I probably would have used her with Art Collector more.
__________________
"Unlearning is the highest form of learning"
classhandicapper is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-05-2020, 06:34 PM   #30
classhandicapper
Registered User
 
classhandicapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 20,523
I want to go on record saying I'm not sure who ran faster but I'm pretty sure Secretariat and Sham both would have beaten her.
__________________
"Unlearning is the highest form of learning"
classhandicapper is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Reply




Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

» Advertisement
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2023 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.