Are the Triple Crown horses broken

[GMB@BP]

Dirt
1 1/16 Miles
Transparent
4
119
1:39.22
Sep 18, 2014

You sure of your facts, Belmont Park?

[Steve R]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

um, didnt Arrogate break a 120 year old record at 10F at Saratoga two years ago at Saratoga?

The Saratoga record, not the North American record. That still belongs to Spectacular Bid and is 1 3/5ths faster than the Travers time.

[jocko699]

Originally Posted by Steve R

Every major North American dirt record up to 6 1/2f except Chinook Pass' 5f record has been set since 2005. No major record at 7f or longer has been set since 1988. This means that Thoroughbreds are indeed getting faster but only at sprint distances and that Chinook Pass, for those who remember him, was special ("...the fastest horse I ever rode and the fastest horse I ever saw. I've always thought he might've been the fastest thoroughbred that ever lived." - Laffit Pincay Jr.)

Chinook Pass is a great memory for me and was such a fast horse.

[Blenheim]

Originally Posted by Steve R

Every major North American dirt record up to 6 1/2f except Chinook Pass' 5f record has been set since 2005. No major record at 7f or longer has been set since 1988. This means that Thoroughbreds are indeed getting faster but only at sprint distances and that Chinook Pass, for those who remember him, was special ("...the fastest horse I ever rode and the fastest horse I ever saw. I've always thought he might've been the fastest thoroughbred that ever lived." - Laffit Pincay Jr.)

Regarding the “frontier of speed” and the physiological limits of the thoroughbred. Is there a physiological “speed limit?” Is there a point at which the racehorse will not get any faster?

[cj]

Originally Posted by Steve R

Every major North American dirt record up to 6 1/2f except Chinook Pass' 5f record has been set since 2005. No major record at 7f or longer has been set since 1988. This means that Thoroughbreds are indeed getting faster but only at sprint distances and that Chinook Pass, for those who remember him, was special ("...the fastest horse I ever rode and the fastest horse I ever saw. I've always thought he might've been the fastest thoroughbred that ever lived." - Laffit Pincay Jr.)

If tracks are more tiring, and there is plenty of evidence that points in that direction, it makes sense that records would be harder to beat at longer distances.

Here is a hypothetical example. Mythical Downs in the 1970s was very fast and the top horses under ideal conditions would average 6f in 1:08. The very same type horses were capable of running 10f in 1:59.

Now the track has been slowed for supposed safety purposes. Those very same horses could only muster 6f in 1:09. What would be expected at 10f? It would be about 2:00.75.

Not only is the sheer amount of time harder to make up, stamina is much more of a factor at 10f than 6f obviously. Horses are going to tire quicker over slower race tracks. I agree it is possible that breeding could cause a loss of stamina, but I don't think it can be measured by track records unless we know for sure tracks have actually consistent over that span.

Here is some stuff from Jerry Brown on track speeds over the years:

https://www.thorograph.com/archive.php

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by Steve R

The Saratoga record, not the North American record. That still belongs to Spectacular Bid and is 1 3/5ths faster than the Travers time.

That doesnt even register with me, bring Arrogate to Turf Paradise and world records would have been set.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Mc990

Innumerate? Probably the wrong choice of words consider the subsequent point you attempted to make.

Yes innumerate.

The accuracy of Beyer figires in handicapping is entirely separate from whether they accurately compare other generations.

And how about you try to refute my post. I showed my work.

[MadVindication]

Originally Posted by cj

7

All evidence points to the opposite as far as racing 2yos goes as far as health.

Wait...if common reason for not racing horses at 2 because of health issues than there's a cause/effect issue. But what evidence do you mean?

[cj]

Originally Posted by MadVindication

Wait...if common reason for not racing horses at 2 because of health issues than there's a cause/effect issue. But what evidence do you mean?

Just that horses that race at two, and the more the better, have longer careers. I'm sure there is some cause and effect but I've also read that it helps develop the horses physically. I'll try to Google some of it when I have a few minutes.

[Mc990]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Yes innumerate.

The accuracy of Beyer figires in handicapping is entirely separate from whether they accurately compare other generations.

And how about you try to refute my post. I showed my work.

I understand your point. I understand your analogy. It all makes sense.

I stand by my statement though that if you are making accurate figures (or accurate on average), then they should hold up well historically.

The Beyers seem to be off so much that they're showing the opposite. My main issue is that if due to their methodology they're not showing horses getting faster over time... I don't trust their numbers. At all. If they can't get that right, why should I trust they got anything right?

Question for you- Do you believe horses are getting faster? As defined by a hypothetical race between the top 10 horses in this year's derby and the top 10 from let's say the 1988 derby?

[cj]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Yes innumerate.

The accuracy of Beyer figires in handicapping is entirely separate from whether they accurately compare other generations.

And how about you try to refute my post. I showed my work.

I don't think that is what innumerate means. I always thought that made being poor at math. Incongruent maybe?

Regardless, I think figures can be done to do both if that is a goal in the first place. IT would take constant work though in addition to doing figures short term. It wasn't for Beyer I would imagine, and that is why it bugs me when they tout Beyers as some historical reference on stallion ads or when people use them to compare horses across generations.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Mc990

I understand your point. I understand your analogy. It all makes sense.

I stand by my statement though that if you are making accurate figures (or accurate on average), then they should hold up well historically.

The Beyers seem to be off so much that they're showing the opposite. My main issue is that if due to their methodology they're not showing horses getting faster over time... I don't trust their numbers. At all. If they can't get that right, why should I trust they got anything right?

Question for you- Do you believe horses are getting faster? As defined by a hypothetical race between the top 10 horses in this year's derby and the top 10 from let's say the 1988 derby?

I have no idea if horses are getting faster or slower.

But i do know that the fact that Beyer pars may shift over time without an underlying change in horses' ability does not prove that Beyers are not useful as a handicapping tool. I would expect Beyers to be reasonably accurate for present day comparisons and not very accurate as a historical tool, for the reasons I stated above.

[GMB@BP]

I would expect Beyers to be reasonably accurate for present day comparisons and not very accurate as a historical tool, for the reasons I stated above.

but they are, and if they are they should have accuracy from a historical perspective.

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by MadVindication

Wait...if common reason for not racing horses at 2 because of health issues than there's a cause/effect issue. But what evidence do you mean?

Horses in the "old days" raced MORE at 2 than they do now, sometimes a lot more. Seabiscuit ran 35 times at age 2. If you did to a horse now they'd lock you up.

The issue is largely that stamina and/or soundness have been bred out of the modern thoroughbred in favor of cheap speed and precocity, not to mention issues caused by repeated inbreeding. How this translates into Beyer figures is tricky because of all the issues people are debating in the thread (track speed, ways figures are made, etc.), but I don't think anyone would argue that horses are more sound today than they were 50 years ago.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

but they are, and if they are they should have accuracy from a historical perspective.

Read my clock analogy. Your conclusion does not follow from your premise.