Secretariat didn't really win Belmont by 31 lengths

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Magister Ludi

The "length" unit of measure probably originated when someone, probably a caller, noticed that the distance between the infield fence uprights approximates the length of a horse. It was a way of quickly estimating, on the fly, the distance between horses.

I think it pre-dates even that. There are discussions of "lengths" in the accounts of American Eclipse's races in the 19th Century (for instance, he lost a 4 mile heat to Henry by one length), and those races were on tracks that didn't always have safety railings in the modern sense.

It was just an easy way of estimating distance and winning margin given that horses are longer than they are tall.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by cj

As for his place in history, it is pretty irrelevant. What I'm pointing out is that the method we use is flawed. The 1973 Belmont was over 44 years ago, so hardly a big deal. I'd expect flawed methods. The Shuvee was less than 24 hours ago. I expect better. We haven't improved at all.

The old photo finish strips produced an image that had "tick marks" at the top of the strip.
It was my understanding that to calculate the lengths behind the winner, the chart caller would simply count the tick marks.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by cj

Eight is probably closer to reality if the horse is standing still. I used 9 because that is what the photo companies and Trakus use. They don't publish this anywhere, but it can be pretty easily extrapolated. However, what they do is use the average speed of the overall race to calculate beaten lengths, not how fast horses are traveling at the end of the race. That is where things get distorted.

As for measuring the distance, you really can't. The race doesn't end when the winner hits the wire. There are many times I wish it did for betting purposes, but we've all experienced that a few times I'm sure. "Beaten lengths" are nothing but an expression of time...the difference in time it took for the horse to cross the finish line after the winner. It is a poor expression of this but seems to have stuck around for some unknown reason. Harness racing and quarter horses give you the time of every finisher, and thoroughbred racing could easily do the same too. They just choose not to do so.

What I did here was show how many lengths back the runner up was when the winner hit the wire. That is really a pretty meaningless piece of data. What matters is the time of each horse at the wire. But we don't get that, we get a flawed representation of it.

In harness. the formula of one fifth of a second equals one length is used.
Been that way for as long as I have been betting this game.
Does not Trakus display a final time for each finisher?

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

2 callers-BOTH Anderson AND Johnson said 25.

But I don't care. 31 is official. I didn't like it when they gave him the Preakness record either. We should not be revising the results of races years later.

31 lengths is horse racing's version of 56 in a row or 100 points in a game.

Bingo...I say "leave it alone"..
Next

[098poi]

Originally Posted by cj

The photo companies calculate the time difference between the winner and each horse as they hit the wire and apply a flawed formula to convert it to lengths.

This is a great sentence.

[AltonKelsey]

Originally Posted by thespaah

Bingo...I say "leave it alone"..
Next

It was pretty much proved that he broke the record. Leave it alone?

When they find out years later that someone didn't commit a murder, I never heard anyone say , old news, leave it alone.

[cj]

Originally Posted by thespaah

In harness. the formula of one fifth of a second equals one length is used.
Been that way for as long as I have been betting this game.
Does not Trakus display a final time for each finisher?

Yes. Trakus also does a better job at converting it to lengths. But none of that makes it into official Equibase data or the PPs.

[cj]

Originally Posted by thespaah

Bingo...I say "leave it alone"..
Next

It isn't even a record, other than for the Belmont Stakes. The winning time is the real record, not some fictional number that isn't even correct.

But again, that isn't the point of my post. The game is still doing things wrong over 44 years later. That is the point.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by AltonKelsey

It was pretty much proved that he broke the record. Leave it alone?

When they find out years later that someone didn't commit a murder, I never heard anyone say , old news, leave it alone.

We're pretty sure that Secretariat ran faster than Canonero II in the Preakness (and thus should have been awarded the track record at the time). But we are not at all sure what time he ran. And I am close to positive that he did not run 1:53 flat, the time he is now credited with.

[reckless]

Secretariat tied a track record at Aqueduct when he won the Gotham Mile in 1:33 2-5 in April.

A month later, Secretariat set a track record at Churchill Downs, winning the Kentucky Derby on 1:59 2-5.

Two weeks later, Secretariat set a track record in winning the Preakness in 1:53 2-5.

On June 9th, Secretariat set a track record of 2:24 in winning the Belmont Stakes.

Three weeks later, Secretariat wins the Arlington Invitational, going 9 furlongs in 1:47, just a single tick off that track record.

On September 15, Secretariat set a track record at Belmont, running 9 furlongs in a sensational 1:45 2-5.

Three weeks later on foreign footing -- Belmont's turf course -- Secretariat set a track record in winning the 1 1-2 miles Man O' War Stakes in 2:24 4-5.

That's six track records over 5 different surfaces, plus the near miss in Arlington.

As a 2-year-old Secretariat won the Belmont Futurity, going just two ticks slower than the track record, and, at Laurel in October, he won the Laurel Futurity going 1 1-16 miles in 1:42 4-5, just a tick for that track's record.

That's two near-misses as a juvenile in addition to his near-miss in Arlington at 3.

Add 'em up: 6 track records plus 3 near-miss tack records!!

I find it hard to believe that anyone could even think for a moment that Secretariat's Preakness could not be a track record. That's unbelievable actually in light of his many record-setting accomplishments.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by reckless

Secretariat tied a track record at Aqueduct when he won the Gotham Mile in 1:33 2-5 in April.

A month later, Secretariat set a track record at Churchill Downs, winning the Kentucky Derby on 1:59 2-5.

Two weeks later, Secretariat set a track record in winning the Preakness in 1:53 2-5.

On June 9th, Secretariat set a track record of 2:24 in winning the Belmont Stakes.

Three weeks later, Secretariat wins the Arlington Invitational, going 9 furlongs in 1:47, just a single tick off that track record.

On September 15, Secretariat set a track record at Belmont, running 9 furlongs in a sensational 1:45 2-5.

Three weeks later on foreign footing -- Belmont's turf course -- Secretariat set a track record in winning the 1 1-2 miles Man O' War Stakes in 2:24 4-5.

That's six track records over 5 different surfaces, plus the near miss in Arlington.

As a 2-year-old Secretariat won the Belmont Futurity, going just two ticks slower than the track record, and, at Laurel in October, he won the Laurel Futurity going 1 1-16 miles in 1:42 4-5, just a tick for that track's record.

That's two near-misses as a juvenile in addition to his near-miss in Arlington at 3.

Add 'em up: 6 track records plus 3 near-miss tack records!!

I find it hard to believe that anyone could even think for a moment that Secretariat's Preakness could not be a track record. That's unbelievable actually in light of his many record-setting accomplishments.

I didn't say it wasn't faster than the track record at the time. He ran faster than Canonero.

The Maryland officials credited him with 1:53 flat 30 years later. He did not run that fast.

And really, it was not a big issue. The Maryland officials, I am sure, had more important things to worry about than adjusting the time of a decades old race.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by MutuelClerk

CJ I believe you've calculated like a tremendous machine.

Yes, but he will not do so good with the Whitney this weekend.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Tom

Yes, but he will not do so good with the Whitney this weekend.

Hmmm, just so happens I talked about the Whitney on this week's Out of the Gate webcast!

http://video.drf.com/detail/videos/d...autoStart=true

I'm particularly proud of my graphics work on the Pace Projector.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by AltonKelsey

It was pretty much proved that he broke the record. Leave it alone?

When they find out years later that someone didn't commit a murder, I never heard anyone say , old news, leave it alone.

oy vey....
Lengths won by a famous horse vs a murder investigation?....
Are you certain this is a valid comparison?
At the end of the day who really cares if Secretariat won by 31 or 21 lengths. He destroyed his rivals in a performance of a lifetime.
So yeah, let it be.....

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by cj

Yes. Trakus also does a better job at converting it to lengths. But none of that makes it into official Equibase data or the PPs.

Is it not possible to print out Trakus results and have them with you when handicapping?....
While I think of it. The beaten lengths thing is kind of unscientific.
here's why...When the winner trips the photo finish camera, that horse's race is over. The field is not "frozen".....The others must continue their race.
So how is it possible for the true measurement to be accurate?
In other words, at the moment the winner ends the contest for him, the other horse's distance behind the winner is not measured. It is measured only after each individual horse crosses the line. Or is it?
Im confused now....Why did I do this?