Justify Beyer 101

[Spalding No!]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I am saying you are comparing apples to oranges.

How so?

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

How so?

Secretariat's American record at 1 1/2 miles is over a second faster than the second best time on dirt at that distance. So missing thatbby 4 seconds isn't comparable to missing the other records you discuss.

[Spalding No!]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Secretariat's American record at 1 1/2 miles is over a second faster than the second best time on dirt at that distance. So missing thatbby 4 seconds isn't comparable to missing the other records you discuss.

Well, the mile record at Belmont is also quite famous, too, as Najran equaled the great Dr. Fager's much ballyhooed one-turn mile American record. And obviously they run a lot more 8 furlong races in the US than they do 12 furlong races, so you're not going to get such large spacing between the first and second fastest times as you do at 12 furlongs.

That aside, the point you are making was implied in the original post. It was with Secretariat's monstrous Belmont (and the long distance in general) in mind that I even entertained the notion that a horse who was 4 seconds off the track record at 12 furlongs should have a BSF anywhere remotely close to top class horses who shaded the respective track marks in their races by 1 second.

If Hoppertunity had put up a 2:26 I would be questioning the numbers like Classhandicapper and GMB rather than defending them...or more likely claiming the track was souped up...

[sour grapes]

only a couple of horse have run 2.26 in the belmont
point given ,easy goer and risen star.i wouldnt put hopportunity in that class but he is a damn nice runner with durability.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Um, Secretariat's 2:24 flat is a lot different than those other records.

Yes, and it earned what a 132 Before he adjusted scale?

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

You're changing the goalposts now. You claimed originally that he was a 104-105 BSF horse and I simply pointed out that he's averaged a 98 BSF for the past 16 months. So if he happens to reach 100, your original assessment will be correct?

I'm not trying to change the goal posts. I'm trying to move on from the conversation in a compromising way. You are obviously sharp and I respect your opinion. We just happen to disagree on this one.

Figure making is a subjective process. That's why all the leading figure makers disagree about Justify and loads of other horses every day. You can interpret or spin information in different ways to get different results but you will rarely be able to prove who was right or wrong after the fact anyway.

I think Hoppertunity and War Story are both solid Grade 3 or borderline Grade 2 horses now. I think both can handle 12F just fine and I think both fired a good race on Saturday. A figure of 98 suggests they are well below the PAR for Grade 2 horses and not even Grade 3. Personally I am not buying it.

I think Pharoah ran better in the Belmont than the figure he was given and I suspect Justify ran better than the figure he received.

The common denominator is 12F.

Many modern horses don't want to go 12F, but some can. So I think either Beyer's chart is off by a few points at 12F on these modern deeper racetracks or his own bias on the subject is leading him to conclusions that tend to underestimate the horses sometimes.

I could be wrong, but that's my view. We don't have to agree. All the figure makers disagree. lol

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by cj

There is conundrum here. Speed figures are supposed to, and this directly from Beyer's books, equate performances at different distances. IF top horses can't run twelve furlongs as well as they did 20 years ago, shouldn't the speed charts be adjusted to achieve the desired goal?

If the speed charts are "massaged" in order to smooth out these distance-related speed figure differences...then how will the horseplayer figure out the distance preferences and limitations of the horses in question? I thought Beyer's intention was to accurately COMPARE the races of different distances...not to artificially adjust his figures in order to create the illusion that the horses are equally capable across different distances.

[cj]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

If the speed charts are "massaged" in order to smooth out these distance-related speed figure differences...then how will the horseplayer figure out the distance preferences and limitations of the horses in question? I thought Beyer's intention was to accurately COMPARE the races of different distances...not to artificially adjust his figures in order to create the illusion that the horses are equally capable across different distances.

I think we are talking about two different things. How could anyone say American Pharoah or Justify had distance limitations at twelve furlongs? They won the biggest (only) big race in this country at the distance.

If the best horses at 8f and 10f run 110s or whatever the number is, shouldn't the best horses at 12f also run 110s? Horses that improve with added distance will finish closer and get better figures, and horses that can't handle the extra distance will finish worse and get lower figures.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by cj

I think we are talking about two different things. How could anyone say American Pharoah or Justify had distance limitations at twelve furlongs? They won the biggest (only) big race in this country at the distance.

If the best horses at 8f and 10f run 110s or whatever the number is, shouldn't the best horses at 12f also run 110s? Horses that improve with added distance will finish closer and get better figures, and horses that can't handle the extra distance will finish worse and get lower figures.

This is actually an unanswerable philosophical question.

Is the speed figure measuring the absolute quality of the performance at 12f, or how it would likely "convert" or predict a performance at a shorter distance? There is no answer other than the figure maker's choice.

Maybe the right answer is to not make 12f dirt figures at all, because the distance is a wildcard.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by cj

I think we are talking about two different things. How could anyone say American Pharoah or Justify had distance limitations at twelve furlongs? They won the biggest (only) big race in this country at the distance.

If the best horses at 8f and 10f run 110s or whatever the number is, shouldn't the best horses at 12f also run 110s? Horses that improve with added distance will finish closer and get better figures, and horses that can't handle the extra distance will finish worse and get lower figures.

The 12f distance is such an anomaly in this country that no definitive statement could be made about it...and the same could be said about the 10f distance, although to a slightly lesser extent. But it does seem that the route-race figures for the majority of the horses tend to get smaller as the distances get longer. How many horses run bigger speed figures at 10f than they do at 8.5f? So, to me at least, it makes sense that the 12f figures would get smaller still.

I guess what I am really saying is that the figures shouldn't be massaged after the fact...in order to bestow a degree of "order" to this game that really isn't there. If the initial speed charts made sense when the figure-makers created them, and the horses were running in accordance to them then...then leave them alone now, even if today's horses fail to meet the speed standards of the past. Why fidget with the speed charts now...in order to make today's 12f running times appear more impressive than they really are? What if the current horses are INDEED getting slower as the distances get longer...for breeding reasons, or whatever?

I feel the same about the upward readjustment of the stakes-race speed figures that seem slower than the stature of the race would indicate. A prestigious stakes race is run in abnormally slow time, and some figure-makers insist upon increasing the speed figure after the fact...because the recorded figure "doesn't make sense". Have we forgotten all the OTHER things in this game that "don't make sense"?

IMO...the speed figures should indicate what really HAPPENED in the race...not what was SUPPOSED to happen. And they are not supposed to be in perfect alignment across all distances and surfaces. Who's to say that the best routers should earn the same figures as the best sprinters...or that the best dirt horses should earn the same figures as the best turfers? Does "normal life" really abide by this high degree of predictability and "order"? Then...why should horse-racing life?

[cj]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Who's to say that the best routers should earn the same figures as the best sprinters...or that the best dirt horses should earn the same figures as the best turfers? Does "normal life" really abide to this high degree of predictability and "order"? Then...why should horse-racing life?

That was the original premise of Beyer, which was my point when I first posted. It has merit because we are betting these horses today. Comparing horses from 1980 to today is fun, but it also has no real value to bettors.

There is a lot more to this stuff than meets the eye. I'd be shocked if the best sprinters are really better horses than the best routers, for example. The purse structure in this country is geared towards routing on dirt. If six furlong dirt races were where the big money was, would Justify have ever seen a second turn?

Racetracks have changed a lot since the days Picking Winners came out. That alone is enough reason to re-visit the speed charts IMO.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by cj

That was the original premise of Beyer, which was my point when I first posted. It has merit because we are betting these horses today. Comparing horses from 1980 to today is fun, but it also has no real value to bettors.

There is a lot more to this stuff than meets the eye. I'd be shocked if the best sprinters are really better horses than the best routers, for example. The purse structure in this country is geared towards routing on dirt. If six furlong dirt races were where the big money was, would Justify have ever seen a second turn?

Racetracks have changed a lot since the days Picking Winners came out. That alone is enough reason to re-visit the speed charts IMO.

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?

[cj]

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?

Because comparing horses that run at different distances today does matter, there is value there IMO. Obviously not yours, and that is fine. By the way, there is a side effect too...it helps make better track variants.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by cj

Because comparing horses that run at different distances today does matter, there is value there IMO. Obviously not yours, and that is fine. By the way, there is a side effect too...it helps make better track variants.

In your assumption...today's routers should be running approximately the same figures at 12f as they do at 9f? I am not trying to be intentionally antagonistic here...I am really trying to understand you. Are you suggesting that today's racetracks have changed in a way which somehow inhibits horses more when they try to run longer distances...than they did in the past?

[cj]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

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

Again, that wasn't my premise, it was Beyer's. But yes, I agree that they should.

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I am not trying to be intentionally antagonistic here...I am really trying to understand you. Are you suggesting that today's racetracks have changed in a way which somehow inhibits horses more when they try to run longer distances...than they did in the past?

Dirt tracks are deeper today. I do feel it inhibits horses more the longer they run. If a track today, for example, is a half a second slower than it was at 6f than it was in 1980, it won't necessarily be 1 second slower at 12f. It is likely to be noticeably slower than that because endurance is a much bigger factor at that distance than it is at 6f.

I hope I'm saying this clearly, not trying to be difficult here.