Horse statistics over the years.

[tzipi]

Was having a bit of fun going back and forth today with another poster about Secretariat,Fager,Man O War,winning races or against eachother. I always like Secretariat on that one day alone in which I think no one ever beats him, but love Man,Ruffian,Fager in history too. But I was looking for the horse numbers through the years to get the actual numbers. Here they are:

Year- Horses Racing- Days Of Racing
1919- 3,500- 686
1950 - 22,000- 3,200
1973 - 55,000 - 6,900
Today you can guess even way more.

But just looking you'd think maybe Secretariat,Bid,Slew, amongst other greats would probably have gone undefeated back then against few opponents out there all over the country and also you could rest more with fewer days of racing.
Man O War faced about avg of 2 horses a race his last 10 races. Any of the greats would've faced the same based on ability and no one wanting to face them and short batches of horses to run against too. Plus when horses beat records back then it was by alot unlie today. I just think with small groups of races horses,one is bound to come along and be a freak and destroy records.
No one today is going to knock 5-6+ seconds off a record. Back then you could. THIS IS NOT a knock against anyone. Talent is talent and anyone of the greats over history has earned his respect and race history.

Just wondering what everyone thinks about the horse stats over the years and how it affected racing back then to Secretariats time to today?

[nearco]

Total number of horses having run in 2008 = 66,501

[Robert Goren]

Originally Posted by nearco

Total number of horses having run in 2008 = 66,501

And we still get 5 horse fields. Amazing.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

686 horses sound pretty low to me. Even if horses ran twice as much as they do today, you would barely get 4 or 5 8 race cards a race with 8 horses a race with that type of population.

Were tracks closed because of the war?

[tzipi]

Originally Posted by Horseplayersbet.com

686 horses sound pretty low to me. Even if horses ran twice as much as they do today, you would barely get 4 or 5 8 race cards a race with 8 horses a race with that type of population.

Were tracks closed because of the war?

No, 686 was the number of days of racing back then. 3,500 horses were running in the country at the time.

Stats from the Jockey Clubs History of Racing.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Originally Posted by tzipi

No, 686 was the number of days of racing back then. 3,500 horses were running in the country at the time.

Stats from the Jockey Clubs History of Racing.

Reading comprehension rears its ugly head.

[nearco]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

And we still get 5 horse fields. Amazing.

Total no. of starts - 409,272
Total number of races - 49,951
Avg field size - 8.2 horses per race

So for every 5 horse field there has to be an 11 horse field somewhere else.

For the sake of comparison, avg field sizes..

Japan - 10.5
Aus - 10.1
G.B. - 10.3
France - 11.1
Ireland - 14.1

[tzipi]

Originally Posted by Horseplayersbet.com

Reading comprehension rears its ugly head.

Well I tried to set it up as a chart,but it came out slanted a bit. Can't blame ya for mixing up the numbers

[Norm]

Originally Posted by tzipi

Just wondering what everyone thinks about the horse stats over the years and how it affected racing back then to Secretariats time to today?

One consideration would be the difference in the size of purses and the "winner take all" condition of some old Stakes races. Today, more horses would run in a race with Man O War because they could get $200K for finishing second. In the old days, with short racing seasons and small purses, you wouldn't waste your horse chasing after a purse you couldn't win.

[Robert Goren]

Originally Posted by nearco

Total no. of starts - 409,272
Total number of races - 49,951
Avg field size - 8.2 horses per race

So for every 5 horse field there has to be an 11 horse field somewhere else.

For the sake of comparison, avg field sizes..

Japan - 10.5
Aus - 10.1
G.B. - 10.3
France - 11.1
Ireland - 14.1

For every 11 horse field there should be 5 horse field nowhere. It is easy to see why US racing is in trouble while it is booming in places like Japan. At Aqu on sunday after taking 2 days off they still had a 4 horse field. Who do they are? Santa Anita?

[tzipi]

Originally Posted by Norm

One consideration would be the difference in the size of purses and the "winner take all" condition of some old Stakes races. Today, more horses would run in a race with Man O War because they could get $200K for finishing second. In the old days, with short racing seasons and small purses, you wouldn't waste your horse chasing after a purse you couldn't win.

Yeah very true. Today Man O War would never get away with running against just 2 horses every race. So many horses are entered for the high purse money and that creates competition and different pace changes from race to race.

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

For every 11 horse field there should be 5 horse field nowhere. It is easy to see why US racing is in trouble while it is booming in places like Japan. At Aqu on sunday after taking 2 days off they still had a 4 horse field. Who do they are? Santa Anita?

While handle in Japan is much higher than it is here, it's actually been dropping for the past decade. They're blaming in on competition from other forms of gambling (imagine that). Their takeout also averages 25%, much higher than ours, so perhaps that's not the ideal model either.

[joanied]

tzipi....I just have one thing to add...about this sentence in your original post:

"No one today is going to knock 5-6+ seconds off a record. Back then you could. THIS IS NOT a knock against anyone. Talent is talent and anyone of the greats over history has earned his respect and race history"

(Barring a Secretariat or Man O War )...the main reason horses today won't, can't, knock seconds off of established time records is because try as we might, horses can run only so fast...I beleive Dr. Fager was clocked at 48mph...I seriously doubt we will ever breed a horse that can go much faster than that...
it's just simple genetics, IMO...and, IMO, with maybe a future exception or two, the TB of today has been bred to go as fast as possible...today when a horse breaks a record, it's generally by 10ths of a second, rather than 2 or 3 seconds....
those days are gone with the wind

[tzipi]

Originally Posted by joanied

tzipi....I just have one thing to add...about this sentence in your original post:

"No one today is going to knock 5-6+ seconds off a record. Back then you could. THIS IS NOT a knock against anyone. Talent is talent and anyone of the greats over history has earned his respect and race history"

(Barring a Secretariat or Man O War )...the main reason horses today won't, can't, knock seconds off of established time records is because try as we might, horses can run only so fast...I beleive Dr. Fager was clocked at 48mph...I seriously doubt we will ever breed a horse that can go much faster than that...
it's just simple genetics, IMO...and, IMO, with maybe a future exception or two, the TB of today has been bred to go as fast as possible...today when a horse breaks a record, it's generally by 10ths of a second, rather than 2 or 3 seconds....
those days are gone with the wind

Yeah I see your point joanied. Time has marched on and things have changed and breeding has reached a peak I guess in a way.
I know Fager was fast. Does The Doctor still hold the record for his mile?

[joanied]

Originally Posted by tzipi

Yeah I see your point joanied. Time has marched on and things have changed and breeding has reached a peak I guess in a way.
I know Fager was fast. Does The Doctor still hold the record for his mile?

Tzipi...use this link and read the entire article...it'll blow you away and answer your question...I can almost feel the wind from his passing by the stands...whooooosh

http://www.eclipsepress.com/mediaroom/pdf/Top100_ex.pdf