Justify Beyer 101

[jay68802]

I believe Beyer has said that he wants his figures to not only be accurate for different distances, but also as a historic reference. The distance part he has achieved, but historically the accuracy can not be done. Look at Santa Anita, a speed chart for today and a speed chart from two years ago would be totally different. I did my own figures for Delta, FG, LAD, and EVD for about 7 years. Just the changing in those 4 tracks was difficult to keep up with. LAD was a track that could vary widely, were talking a full second or more from week to week. FG with all the varying distances, was just a headache. Delta and EVD varied, but were pretty consistant. To try to do this across all the tracks in the nation, and then go back in time and look at all the variations those tracks have gone through would be impossible. I would rather concentrate on this weekend, not 1973.

[cj]

Originally Posted by jay68802

I believe Beyer has said that he wants his figures to not only be accurate for different distances, but also as a historic reference. The distance part he has achieved, but historically the accuracy can not be done. Look at Santa Anita, a speed chart for today and a speed chart from two years ago would be totally different. I did my own figures for Delta, FG, LAD, and EVD for about 7 years. Just the changing in those 4 tracks was difficult to keep up with. LAD was a track that could vary widely, were talking a full second or more from week to week. FG with all the varying distances, was just a headache. Delta and EVD varied, but were pretty consistant. To try to do this across all the tracks in the nation, and then go back in time and look at all the variations those tracks have gone through would be impossible. I would rather concentrate on this weekend, not 1973.

I personally think the only way to measure horses across eras is by looking at how dominant a horse is against its own generation. This is sort of what Timeform does and it has worked well for a long time.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

If comparing today's horses with those in 1980 "has no real value to bettors"...then WHO CARES if today's racetracks have changed...and why should the speed charts be revisited? Should we really be obsessing about things of "no value"...when there are more important things to worry about in this game?

There are no speed charts that equalize performances for all horses across all distances across all surfaces (including different dirt surfaces with different compositions and depths) across all time.

The original charts were developed based on the averages for horses that ran at that time on those tracks.

The tracks, breeds, surfaces, training, medications etc.. have all changed.

The idea that figures earned in the 1970s are comparable to now might be a nice idealistic notion for those that want to compare horses historically, but the reality is that it's probably nonsense. You can see that by looking at how Beyer figures have been gently declining for years at the same time that Thorograph figures have been gently getting faster over the same period. Two of the best figure makers in our industry are on totally opposite sides.

I think figures should try to equalize performances at various distances and on various surfaces for horses running NOW and the historical comparisons should be done based on the accomplishments of the horses, the quality and accomplishments of the horses they beat, and visual observation of their performances.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by cj

I personally think the only way to measure horses across eras is by looking at how dominant a horse is against its own generation. This is sort of what Timeform does and it has worked well for a long time.

+1

I am a huge fan of Timeform methodology.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I think figures should try to equalize performances at various distances and on various surfaces for horses running NOW and the historical comparisons should be done based on the accomplishments of the horses, the quality and accomplishments of the horses they beat, and visual observation of their performances.

"Equilize" is the wrong word to use in this context...as far as I am concerned. I don't subscribe to the theory that the figures of the best dirt horses must be equivalent to those of the best turfers...nor that the best routers must necessarily run equal figures as the best sprinters. At any point in time...a group of grass horses might be better than their dirt-running counterparts...or vice versa. That's the true nature of things... IMO. I, for one, don't need "equilization". I want ACCURACY.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

"Equilize" is the wrong word to use in this context...as far as I am concerned. I don't subscribe to the theory that the figures of the best dirt horses must be equivalent to those of the best turfers...nor that the best routers must necessarily run equal figures as the best sprinters. At any point in time...a group of grass horses might be better than their dirt-running counterparts...or vice versa. That's the true nature of things... IMO. I, for one, don't need "equilization". I want ACCURACY.

How do you define "accuracy"?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

How do you define "accuracy"?

"Accuracy" to me means rating the performances of the horses according to pre-determined standards...without backfitting them to suit preconceived notions about what these performances should be. It also means that "equalization" should play no part in the equation. If the best sprinters of a given time period are better than the best routers, or the best dirt horses are better than the turfers.. then, so be it.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

"Accuracy" to me means rating the performances of the horses according to pre-determined standards...without backfitting them to suit preconceived notions about what these performances should be. It also means that "equalization" should play no part in the equation. If the best sprinters of a given time period are better than the best routers, or the best dirt horses are better than the turfers.. then, so be it.

That is circular. How can we determine if sprinters are better? One answer would be what happens when they change distances and race head to head, but you seem to have rejected that method.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

That is circular. How can we determine if sprinters are better? One answer would be what happens when they change distances and race head to head, but you seem to have rejected that method.

It isn't I who is concerned with whether the sprinters are "better" or not. To me...this is strictly a "philosophical" argument. All I care about is the accurate rating of the races in question...without the "equalization" between the different distances or surfaces. I am comfortable with the belief that horses have preferred distances and running surfaces...and I can easily account for that in my own handicapping. What I can't easily account for is the whimsical post-race readjusting of the figures as employeed by certain figure-makers. Unnecessarily...IMO.

[Tom]

At any point in time...a group of grass horses might be better than their dirt-running counterparts...or vice versa. That's the true nature of things... IMO. I, for one, don't need "equilization". I want ACCURACY.

Then they will run better figures. We see this every year on the TC trail.
Some years, most horses are running high 80s at best. Sometimes we get horses who are running mid 90s. Justify stamped himself as potentially top of the class with his maiden win fig which was better than most were running is stakes races. You want horse to be measure against what they should run....isn't that what a figure does? It give you a standard. That standard might Gr 1 is a 110, at a mile and at 12 furlongs, but the times are different. Deceleration is part of it. Having an update speed chart to define the standard is what I call accuracy.

Back in the 90s, at PHA, some high class horse set a very fast track record at 1 mile. Using the DRF SR, a $5K claimer would get a 77 at a mile but an 87 at 1m70 due to the out of wack 3yr best time. On a day they ran only 1 mile races or only 1m70 radde, the TV would be 10 lengths faster or slower than it should be, using that system only as an example.

Over time, the times the best horses can run a mile and a half has slowed down.
Should that standard be corrected to do what it is supposed to do - tell how fast a horse should run?

Dave Schwartz revises his pars every year, as did Brohamer, and Cynthia.
How else can you get to accuracy if your don't?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Tom

Then they will run better figures. We see this every year on the TC trail.
Some years, most horses are running high 80s at best. Sometimes we get horses who are running mid 90s. Justify stamped himself as potentially top of the class with his maiden win fig which was better than most were running is stakes races. You want horse to be measure against what they should run....isn't that what a figure does? It give you a standard. That standard might Gr 1 is a 110, at a mile and at 12 furlongs, but the times are different. Deceleration is part of it. Having an update speed chart to define the standard is what I call accuracy.

Back in the 90s, at PHA, some high class horse set a very fast track record at 1 mile. Using the DRF SR, a $5K claimer would get a 77 at a mile but an 87 at 1m70 due to the out of wack 3yr best time. On a day they ran only 1 mile races or only 1m70 radde, the TV would be 10 lengths faster or slower than it should be, using that system only as an example.

Over time, the times the best horses can run a mile and a half has slowed down.
Should that standard be corrected to do what it is supposed to do - tell how fast a horse should run?

Dave Schwartz revises his pars every year, as did Brohamer, and Cynthia.
How else can you get to accuracy if your don't?

Do you believe that the country's best sprinters should be running the same speed figures as the best routers...and that the best dirt horses should be running the same speed figures as the best turf horses? THAT'S the sort of equalization "inaccuracy" that I am talking about. Does this "smoothening out" serve a useful handicapping purpose?

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Do you believe that the country's best sprinters should be running the same speed figures as the best routers...and that the best dirt horses should be running the same speed figures as the best turf horses? THAT'S the sort of equalization "inaccuracy" that I am talking about. Does this "smoothening out" serve a useful handicapping purpose?

I think the figures should be on the same scale.

There should be slight variations year over year, meaning one year could have a stronger group, or a stronger horse than other years.

What shouldn't be happening is horses running 105 in grade 1 races in 2018 versus 115 in 1995 in the same races.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

I think the figures should be on the same scale.

There should be slight variations year over year, meaning one year could have a stronger group, or a stronger horse than other years.

What shouldn't be happening is horses running 105 in grade 1 races in 2018 versus 115 in 1995 in the same races.

But when you seek to equalize the figures across the different distances and surfaces...you aren't just adjusting the figures in order to compare them to races from 20+ years ago. You are also readjusting TODAY'S figures...in order to bring all the different horses to a common denominator. Why should the best grass horses of this country be expected to run the same figures as best dirt horses...when our country's strongsuit is obviously the DIRT?

[Tom]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Do you believe that the country's best sprinters should be running the same speed figures as the best routers...and that the best dirt horses should be running the same speed figures as the best turf horses? THAT'S the sort of equalization "inaccuracy" that I am talking about. Does this "smoothening out" serve a useful handicapping purpose?

Yes, because a speed figure is the standard for the class/distance.
The times are not the same. Nothing inaccurate about it. A 105 on dirt and turf are totally not the same times, which is what the horses run. The figure is what we use to describe the performance. I convert everything to Quirin pace/speed figs because I know what they mean and have been using them for 30 years.
I know a 113 is a Gr1 performance, no matter what distance of surface. I know that a pace fig of 100 at 6F is NOT the same as a 100 pace fig at 7F. But I do know that in the relative class structures, their performances are comparable.
But if they face each other at 6, and both are front runners, I know the 100 at 6 is the faster time. I know a horse who runs a 98 6 furlong pace at a flat mile is probably not fast enough to drop back and beat either one of them.

[Spalding No!]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

In your assumption...today's routers should be running approximately the same figures at 12f as they do at 9f?

This is a sort of forest-for-the-trees issue.

On an individual level, I wouldn't buy that a horse that excels at 9 furlongs should put up the same figure at 12 furlongs.

However at the group level, I would buy that the top class horses collectively would run figures similar to the top class horses at 12 furlongs.

The distinction that is made is that the top class horses at 9 furlongs are not the same group as the top class horses at 12 furlongs.

However, the reality is that today's North American racing population is not stratified enough to develop "specialists" at a variety of distances--there's just sprinters and middle distance types. This is because: (1) popular breeding trends are skewed towards speed and precocity over stamina and (2) there is a dearth of stakes at 10 furlongs and beyond (as you already pointed out).