The Derby Beyer is....

[highnote]

Originally Posted by cj

Had the Derby been 9.5f, the time still would have been slow.

There are many factors in racing. Distance is obviously one of them, and I"m sure the half furlong played a role. I just think it was a very minor one.

Given that route variants were increasing throughout the day you are probably right. Had the Derby been run earlier in the day then who knows?

Hard to know if a half furlong is minor or not. "Minor" might be the difference between winning and losing.

[tucker6]

Originally Posted by highnote

However, as horses are being bred more for speed than stamina the final times of Classic races should increase.

Yet in post #242 of this thread, it has been shown that the winning times of the Belmont by decade since 1960 has NOT increased whatsoever. While I agree that more horses are being bred for speed, those that have staying genes are still able to be trained to run the Belmont in the same times as their forefathers and occasional mother.

[tucker6]

Originally Posted by highnote

Given that route variants were increasing throughout the day you are probably right. Had the Derby been run earlier in the day then who knows?

Hard to know if a half furlong is minor or not. "Minor" might be the difference between winning and losing.

I guess the point is that CC improved over two seconds from the Derby. He didn't gain all that advantage by running 110 yards less. It's one of the things, but not nearly the whole story.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by tucker6

I guess the point is that CC improved over two seconds from the Derby. He didn't gain all that advantage by running 110 yards less. It's one of the things, but not nearly the whole story.

He surely got fitter by running a hard Derby race. Nothing gets a horse fit like a competitive race. A shorter distance should have been to his benefit given his front running style.

The track variant for routes appears to have been increasing throughout the Derby card.

The handicapper can try to assign values to those factors and others. The better a handicapper can do that the more successful s/he should be at the windows.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by tucker6

Yet in post #242 of this thread, it has been shown that the winning times of the Belmont by decade since 1960 has NOT increased whatsoever. While I agree that more horses are being bred for speed, those that have staying genes are still able to be trained to run the Belmont in the same times as their forefathers and occasional mother.

It might be the case that the Belmont is run more evenly paced than the Derby thereby allowing horses to stay 12 furlongs easier than the 10 furlong Derby?

The Dosage of the Belmont looks to have steadily increased from 1940 to 2000. The past 13 years it looks like it is decreasing.

http://chef-de-race.com/dosage/class...ont_dosage.htm

[tucker6]

Originally Posted by tucker6

Yet in post #242 of this thread, it has been shown that the winning times of the Belmont by decade since 1960 has NOT increased whatsoever. While I agree that more horses are being bred for speed, those that have staying genes are still able to be trained to run the Belmont in the same times as their forefathers and occasional mother.

Here is the average winning times in the Kentucky Derby by decade since the 60's:

1960's: 2:01.64
1970's: 2:02.12
1980's: 2:02.46
1990's: 2:02.40
2000's: 2:01.81
2010's: 2:02.97 (5 years - two in the slop)

There has been absolutely no trend in both the Kentucky Derby and the Belmont in horses being able to win at classic distances in similar times to yesteryear. This whole notion that the breed can no longer run well at 10F and 12F is false.

[cj]

Originally Posted by highnote

He surely got fitter by running a hard Derby race. Nothing gets a horse fit like a competitive race. A shorter distance should have been to his benefit given his front running style.

The track variant for routes appears to have been increasing throughout the Derby card.

The handicapper can try to assign values to those factors and others. The better a handicapper can do that the more successful s/he should be at the windows.

Two seconds fitter? Come on, that is the problem people are having with this extra 110 yard argument. That is like a dozen lengths or more.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by cj

Two seconds fitter? Come on, that is the problem people are having with this extra 110 yard argument. That is like a dozen lengths or more.

I guess you missed my sentence where I wrote that it appears the track variant of routes appears to have been increasing throughout the day?

[highnote]

Originally Posted by tucker6

Here is the average winning times in the Kentucky Derby by decade since the 60's:

1960's: 2:01.64
1970's: 2:02.12
1980's: 2:02.46
1990's: 2:02.40
2000's: 2:01.81
2010's: 2:02.97 (5 years)

There has been absolutely no trend in both the Kentucky Derby and the Belmont in horses being able to win at classic distances in similar times to yesteryear. This whole notion that the breed can no longer run well at 10F and 12F is false.

The past 5 years are more than a second slower than the 1960s. The 2000s were slower than the 60s.

I can't imagine that the evolution of breed would change overnight or even in 20 years.

I think it was Tesio who wrote that he could probably breed a trait, like grey coats, out of the breed in 50 years.

[cj]

Originally Posted by highnote

The past 5 years are more than a second slower than the 1960s. The 2000s were slower than the 60s.

I can't imagine that the evolution of breed would change overnight or even in 20 years.

I think it was Tesio who wrote that he could probably breed a trait, like grey coats, out of the breed in 50 years.

Track maintenance has changed a lot since the 60s. There is much more cushion now than there was back then.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I have no proof and I don't need it.

I have multiple reports from reliable sources that there was a wind against them in the stretch and it was also gusty (including my own brief observation of flags).

I have multiple reports that the track wasn't watered as much prior to the Derby and the visual appearance that track surface had changed.

I have a final time that does not make sense relative to the ability of those horses going into the race and the rest of the running times on that day.

So I concluded that the complexities of creating a speed figure in the normal way were too large to be trustworthy. So IMHO, the right way to do it was to break the race out and make a figure based on the horses' prior form. Figure makers do it all the time without reports like this. They assume the track changed speeds when they see something that does not make sense. To me, this was a no brainer because we have clear cut reasons to think the race should be broken out. So you break it out and you make a note to yourself that you did so. Then you review it further as more evidence comes in when the horses run back.

My estimate off that single race make not be right, but I'd rather be approximately right than almost certainly wrong.

I hope you don’t take this as an affront nor a personal attack, but what irritates me about the wind discussion about the Ky Derby is that there appears to be a consensus that Andy Beyer speed figure is too low because he didn’t include the wind component and if that is your conclusion and you want to be right, then you should not be relying on your “reliable sources” because you like me have the same opportunity to go to the Internet and look up the historical weather data for May 3, 2014 at Churchill Downs between 6p-7p.

Additionally, we can could go to NOAA or some other site and get the geographical orientation of the Churchill Downs racetrack.

One thing I learned long ago is that you cannot draw a true conclusion from a false premise and that is what appears to be going on with the 2014 Ky Derby final time.

Every person is entitled to their opinion, but when the facts are there; opinions are subordinated to zero.

I think you are embedded in the preposterous “wind theory” put forth by others, but what I would do if I were you, I would calculate for myself the wind impact and if the calculations were beyond my reach I would move on and not rely on “reliable sources” who have yet to present anything.

[Tom]

then you should not be relying on your “reliable sources” because you like me have the same opportunity to go to the Internet and look up the historical weather data for May 3, 2014 at Churchill Downs between 6p-7p.

Won't you find a single data point?
Was the wind measured right at the track?

Aside from wind, we are also saying the track was not watered for a long period of time before the race.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Cratos

I hope you don’t take this as an affront nor a personal attack, but what irritates me about the wind discussion about the Ky Derby is that there appears to be a consensus that Andy Beyer speed figure is too low because he didn’t include the wind component and if that is your conclusion and you want to be right, then you should not be relying on your “reliable sources” because you like me have the same opportunity to go to the Internet and look up the historical weather data for May 3, 2014 at Churchill Downs between 6p-7p.

Please, by all means, link us to the weather data at CHURCHILL DOWNS from May 3, 2014. I'd also like the data at off time, a minute later, and two minutes later.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by cj

Track maintenance has changed a lot since the 60s. There is much more cushion now than there was back then.

That could be a factor. I have not heard or read much about the changes in track maintenance across the history of racing.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Cratos

I hope you don’t take this as an affront nor a personal attack, but what irritates me about the wind discussion about the Ky Derby is that there appears to be a consensus that Andy Beyer speed figure is too low because he didn’t include the wind component and if that is your conclusion and you want to be right, then you should not be relying on your “reliable sources” because you like me have the same opportunity to go to the Internet and look up the historical weather data for May 3, 2014 at Churchill Downs between 6p-7p.

Additionally, we can could go to NOAA or some other site and get the geographical orientation of the Churchill Downs racetrack.

One thing I learned long ago is that you cannot draw a true conclusion from a false premise and that is what appears to be going on with the 2014 Ky Derby final time.

Every person is entitled to their opinion, but when the facts are there; opinions are subordinated to zero.

I think you are embedded in the preposterous “wind theory” put forth by others, but what I would do if I were you, I would calculate for myself the wind impact and if the calculations were beyond my reach I would move on and not rely on “reliable sources” who have yet to present anything.

I think you are misunderstanding my view a bit.

First, I think Andy is a great figure maker. Almost everyone that tinkers with figures now has him to thank for teaching them the fundamentals. I'm not sure where he came up with his adjustment for wind and have no idea if it was too much or too little.

As I stated, I think there were several potential complications to making that figure. Wind was only one. It's my view that when you know there are several complications and the figure doesn't seem to make sense, you probably shouldn't even bother trying to adjust for each one separately because several very small errors can sometimes compound into one large one.

IMO, the better approach is to project the figure based on past performances and break it out. When I did that for the Derby, I came to a different conclusion than a 97.

My entire contribution has essentially been to point out that there were multiple complications to that race. That's why it was really tough to come up with an accurate figure. That's also why there are divergent opinions about how fast the race really was even now.