Article/Interview with Andy Beyer

[upthecreek]

First an audio clip At end he states races were timed better in the 70's ��
And then the article link

Twitter

https://www.thoroughbredracing.com/a...d-andy-abacus/

---

Last edited by PaceAdvantage; 12-28-2023 at 09:18 AM.

[Robert Fischer]

Nice!

Thanks for posting that.

Beyer has been a great ambassador for the game. His figures and his writing and stories and seminars...

Even today with more social media, and building on the past and the history, there aren't many who can even repeat his contributions. Beyer also managed to make a business of it without losing authenticity.




this -->

Twitter

probably fits in this thread as well. A piece from '84 that I saw for the first time recently, and a good chunk of it features Beyer.

__________________
Preparation. Discipline. Patience. Decisiveness.

---

Last edited by cj; 12-28-2023 at 03:55 PM.

[MJC922]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

Nice!

Thanks for posting that.

Beyer has been a great ambassador for the game. His figures and his writing and stories and seminars...

Even today with more social media, and building on the past and the history, there aren't many who can even repeat his contributions. Beyer also managed to make a business of it without losing authenticity.




this --> https://twitter.com/andyserling/stat...36899484864766

probably fits in this thread as well. A piece from '84 that I saw for the first time recently, and a good chunk of it features Beyer.

Wow. Been looking for that frontline forever. I kept thinking it was the other side of racing, but it's other side of the track. lol

Fun to watch the old days, that aired like a year or two before I left school to play full-time. Interesting the Hialeah race about 10 mins from the end with mac the sailor, the call sounded very familiar. I want to say that same race may have been used in Beyer's trip handicapping video? (VHS) I could be wrong about that. Maybe I just had this documentary recorded and watched it a bunch of times so it got seared into the memory banks.

[classhandicapper]

“A lot of people – owners, trainers, plenty of handicappers – just didn’t think the same way,” he explains. “They believed in that mysterious quality ‘class’, which doesn’t exist. They thought speed figures weren’t important.”

Andy is lovable and legendary on multiple levels, but imo he's wrong on this both practically and physiologically.

The old definition of class that some people used as some kind of herd pecking order (one horse looks another horse in the eye and just knows) was mostly nonsensical. I agree with him on that.

But "class" as something beyond speed figures does exist and is useful in handicapping.

Horses with similar figures often have different degrees of natural speed, stamina, determination, versatility, competitiveness, and reserve energy. They are also different physiologically in the way they burn off their energy when used hard.

Those differences are not necessarily exposed or needed in every race.

As you move up or down the class ladder, the horses tend to have more or less of those less tangible hard to measure qualities. So not only do the races tend to be faster/slower on average start to finish, they are often run in a way that demands more/less of those attributes to be successful. A horse's figures will vary by those changes in conditions.

The very best stakes horses have an abundance of those qualities. That allows them to overcome less than ideal paces, biases, tough trips etc.. and still run as fast or even a bit faster to get the win than they have under less demanding conditions.

[thaskalos]

If class doesn't exist, why do the horses run slower figures when they rise up in "class", and faster figures when they drop in "class"? Also, why aren't the horses from the Finger Lakes able to reproduce their lofty speed figures when they are shipped to Aqueduct and Belmont?

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

If class doesn't exist, why do the horses run slower figures when they rise up in "class", and faster figures when they drop in "class"? Also, why aren't the horses from the Finger Lakes able to reproduce their lofty speed figures when they are shipped to Aqueduct and Belmont?

The Finger Lakes thing isn't about class, especially given many are NY Breds running against similar at both places. What it is about is anyone's guess.

As for the first part...I'm not sure that's accurate in many cases. I know it is the opposite of the truth on the grass. Horses do, or don't, run back to their figs for a variety of reasons. Class might be one of them, but it's probably on the lower end of the spectrum.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

If class doesn't exist, why do the horses run slower figures when they rise up in "class", and faster figures when they drop in "class"?

1. That's the "general" pattern you see. IMO, it's primarily a function of the differences in average pace. When you move up in class you chase faster average paces (or at least faster moves) and that drains a horse's energy reserves faster and leads to a slower final time (and vice versa).

People operating with quality pace figures see that all the time.

When it's not apparent in the pace figures, it's typically a function of the shorter more intense moves for position between calls or the inability of the less classy horses to accelerate and finish as fast. The weaker horse can't match the better ones or get used up faster trying.

One exception is very lightly raced high quality horses. In that case, the horse that is rising in class off an impressive couple of races is sometimes actually the class of the field. When he moves up and chases a tougher group, it might reveal he had the reserves in the tank to handle the tougher conditions and run just as fast or even a little faster.

To me, that latter case is a very tough nut to crack. You can't always know what you are dealing with until the horse moves up and is asked for more. Then he'll either wilt or deliver more. You find out after the fact.

Most handicappers try to guess using pedigree, breeder, trainer, price paid etc... as an indirect route to the probabilities. But those things get bet heavily. So even if they are useful from a probability point of view, there's not much value.

2. When horses ship, imo there are sometimes things going on beyond just ability like the size of the track, bias of the track, different medication and treatment rules, whether the horse ships well etc.. But generally speaking, horses are going to run their best figures in softer spots. If they run against better horses at BEL, SAR etc.. they may not control the race like they did at FL. They don't have the reserve speed and energy to keep up and finish. So they aren't going to duplicate their figure. They are outclassed.

IMO, the confusion on this issue goes back to the original books that considered class as some kind of vague intangible quality or herd factor.

That was mostly nonsense.

It's mostly about hard to measure real differences in ability and the way races develop that impact how fast a horse will run.

[castaway01]

I agree with most of your post, classhandicapper, but I don't agree that any of that is "class". I mean, if "being faster" = class then I guess you're right, but wouldn't speed or pace figures measure that much better than just saying something vague like the horse is "classier"?

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by castaway01

I agree with most of your post, classhandicapper, but I don't agree that any of that is "class". I mean, if "being faster" = class then I guess you're right, but wouldn't speed or pace figures measure that much better than just saying something vague like the horse is "classier"?

This is the definitional issue I was talking about. We don't have to call it class. Maybe we shouldn't. We can call it "ability" as long we are saying that ability is more comprehensive than just the speed figure and those other things explain why movements in class can cause fluctuations in speed figures.

[MJC922]

I'm in the camp where the class component ties in with a more consistent level of effort. When the effort begins to traverse a wider variety of pace scenarios and is replicated, that to me is what I would bring to the table as evidence of class. So a one number horse then is not classy, it only has shown ability and I would say the pace/fractions of the effort would be something to assist us with making a more reliable call as to what might come afterward. However, even with a legit pace in the race where the ability is first demonstrated the consistent level of effort piece is more likely than not to cause some setback even if it's just short-term form related.

When you think about the theoretical scenario of two horses of equal class but say different running styles, one presser and one sustained. Let's say form cycle is a non issue, and we can get a laboratory equivalent level of effort out of both horses over a series of ten races at nine furlongs including full fields of 10-12 which will bring us a variety of early pace scenarios. I don't think it's a stretch to say the the final times of these two horses on a neutral surface would vary wildly from race to race. So now we bring a third horse into the mix with a last out number that's a bit better than the typical 'number' of the other two, can we trust that number to hold up and bet on the horse? Why would we? We can barely even trust the times of the consistent horses all that much. So we should definitely be skeptical of final times that are earned against weaker competition. Most of us have learned that lesson early on the hard way.

It's sometimes more about getting the better of the competition during various points in the running than it is about optimizing final time. When the competition gets tougher a horse gets used at various points in the race which are essentially mini skirmishes with other horses of similar styles or it gets used in flat out race-riding to put a dent in an opponent's reserves, i.e. the rider may be of the mindset that this other horse may be the faster horse but if kept bottled up long enough or hooked hard enough then it probably won't be able to run to its best time.

I'm old enough to remember when people made fun of speed handicappers. I think it may have now swung just a little too far in the other direction. You can sip that Kool-Aid but you might not want to guzzle it.

[steveb]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

If class doesn't exist, why do the horses run slower figures when they rise up in "class", and faster figures when they drop in "class"? Also, why aren't the horses from the Finger Lakes able to reproduce their lofty speed figures when they are shipped to Aqueduct and Belmont?

Final sentence could be that their 'lofty' speed figures were made by non-lofty people!

The first bit, you have said this before, and you are as wrong now, as you were then.
It happens, but as the class gets higher, so too do the times get faster generally, either race time, or parts thereof.
Maybe it's YOUR speed method that does not cut it?
Your own shortcomings perhaps?

As far as Beyer is concerned, he may not be the first, but it would be impossible to overestimate what his books have done as far as time goes.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by steveb

Final sentence could be that their 'lofty' speed figures were made by non-lofty people!

The first bit, you have said this before, and you are as wrong now, as you were then.
It happens, but as the class gets higher, so too do the times get faster generally, either race time, or parts thereof.
Maybe it's YOUR speed method that does not cut it?
Your own shortcomings perhaps?

As far as Beyer is concerned, he may not be the first, but it would be impossible to overestimate what his books have done as far as time goes.

It's quite possible that I am wrong...and that my "speed methods" are wanting. After all, I never claimed to be a handicapping "master"...I remain forever a student who always aims to improve. That's why I keep returning to this board...so I can keep learning from advanced handicappers like yourself.

[steveb]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

It's quite possible that I am wrong...and that my "speed methods" are wanting. After all, I never claimed to be a handicapping "master"...I remain forever a student who always aims to improve. That's why I keep returning to this board...so I can keep learning from advanced handicappers like yourself.

time is but one piece of the puzzle.
it's also like anything else....you only get out of it, what you put into it
but in every jurisdiction, i have worked on, it adds more to the sum of factors than anywhere i have done, with the exception of HV in Hong Kong(am yet to figure out why!).
it's also fascinating, because it can lead you down paths seemingly unrelated to time.

i can also sense the satire, but i am just somebody that once used to do something to do with time.

to get back to the topic......
if i never read beyer many many years ago, then i never would have had the foggiest where time is concerned, and no interest in it either.
nor the life i have had since beyer gave me the incentive to see what i could with time.

[classhandicapper]

I'm in the camp where the class component ties in with a more consistent level of effort. When the effort begins to traverse a wider variety of pace scenarios and is replicated, that to me is what I would bring to the table as evidence of class

I agree with this statement.

What I trying to add is that ability to handle a wider range of pace scenarios, intra race challenges, bias scenarios, rougher trips etc... against similar horses and still run back to their typical final time is an innate physiological attribute (they have more reserve energy and burn off what they do have slower even when used hard than other horses). It's a difference in biology. Of course that physical condition can change also. If people object to calling that class, that's fine, but it exists in humans also.

There are also differences in ability to run fast over 2-3 furlongs as compared to a full race, to accelerate, to be comfortable inside/between/outside horses, to be wiling to dig in and fight back etc.. All these things contribute to winning and as you go up the ladder, the horses have more of them. So the conditions of the races get tougher and the weaker horses fail the challenge.

[Poindexter]

Question for Stevie B. Take the following example.

Horse A and horse B race 30 minutes apart 6 furlongs dirt.

Both run fractions of 22.2 45.2 110.4

Horse A wins a 4000 claimer with a running line of

1st by 1 length, 1st by 2 lenghts, 1 by 3 lengths and finishes 1st by 4.5 lengths


Horse B wins a 25,000 claimer

3rd by 2, 3rd by 1, 1st nk, 1st by 1


3 weeks later they appear in a race against each other for a claiming tag of

32 k.


Do they have a near equal chance of winning or does horse b have a much better chance of winning. To me it is a no brainer. B has a much better chance of winning. What says you?

If time is time theoretically they would have a near equal chance of winning.
Right?