Are the Triple Crown horses broken

[Mc990]

Originally Posted by Tom

20 years ago, Arrogate would have been a decent stakes horse.
No one would have thrown a party over his races.

In one of Quinn's books, the minimum standard for a Gr1 race was a Beyer of 118!

If today's Beyers are correct, the breed has regressed 100 years.
(Although with today's namby-pamby owners and trainers, that is a real possibility!)

Anyone think the widespread use of Lasix has anything to do with it?

I would think that "race spacing" would produce better overall performance/speed figures.... same thing with lasix

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by Mc990

I would think that "race spacing" would produce better overall performance/speed figures.... same thing with lasix

me too, i find it hard to believe chemicals and analytics are making horse worse in terms of peak performance.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Mc990

I would think that "race spacing" would produce better overall performance/speed figures.... same thing with lasix

If everyone is on Lasix, and mostly they are, it probably wouldn't have much effect on speed figures any more. Race spacing is tricky. Horses seem to run better races with shorter spacing in my opinion, they just aren't able to run as many of them without a break.

[dilanesp]

)My theory is that today's horses are no worse than prior generations, and that speed figures can't measure this.

A horse like American Pharoah would have been a top class racehorse in any era. There's no reason to think he was actually slower than, say, Alysheba. Beyers aren't meant to measure that.

The difference is Alysheba ran more and for a longer period of time. And that is where the game changed.

[papillon]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

)My theory is that today's horses are no worse than prior generations, and that speed figures can't measure this.

A horse like American Pharoah would have been a top class racehorse in any era. There's no reason to think he was actually slower than, say, Alysheba. Beyers aren't meant to measure that.

The difference is Alysheba ran more and for a longer period of time. And that is where the game changed.

Do you believe that American Pharoah or Justify could run 22 3/5, 44, 20 3/5, 1:07 3/5, 1:32 1/5 carrying 134lbs in a hand ride on the same track on same day so that no argument can be made about track speed?

Do you believe anyone of the horses running Saturday were the equal of Damascus, Buckpasser, or Hedevar?

Do you believe either could have beaten Spectacular Bid in the Strub?

Do you believe American Pharoah would have won the TC running against Secretariat, Seattle Slew, or Affirmed? Do believe Justify could have?

What fast horse from the past 50 years do you believe either would have beaten?

I'm not even willing to say that at Santa Anita they would have been able to beat Game On Dude in his prime running on the pace with him. Or running on the pace with Hard Spun in the Derby.

Do you think Promises Fullfilled is even a shadow of his sire? Or Effinex?

To me the question is very simple, if you believe these horses are as fast or faster, then the answers to these questions is yes. If you say no to them, then you don't believe they are.

In cycling the only true test of speed across the generations is the mile record, just as in track. Only one man has ever bested Eddy Merckx's 1972 record in cycling. Only 8 men have ever run a sub-3:50 mile and none since 1999, only two have run a sub-3:45.

Real times matter because across sports and across species records prove they do. No one cares about a runner who can't get a 4 minute mile. They don't care about track condition excuses. There was a time when no one in horse racing cared about even a 1:35 mile or track condition excuses or pace excuses. The fast horses of old, consistently ran sub-1:34s miles and sub-2 minute 10f. Secretariat even did it twice in one TC.

One reason I object to figures is because they insist they can say how fast or how slow a race really was better than the clock, and the actual times labeled fast have been getting slower and slower as belief in the infallibilty of figures increases. If a horse runs 10f in 1:59 several times in one year and many times in several years that horse runs 10f in 1:59. If a horse runs 10f in 2:02 several times in one year and many times in several years that horse runs 10f in 2:02. If a horse is consistently running a mile in 1:37 that horse runs a mile in 1:37. For human athletes to say otherwise is a non-starter...because they can get your face and say prove "I didn't."

The Derby was boring though slightly horrific in a rubber necking kind of way. Dirt racing outside of sprints has become boring. I switched over to TVG right after the Derby and caught the finish of some random turf race, which was thrilling even though I had no clue about who was running. And the final time was in race horse time, as is increasingly becoming the case with turf races. Even pacers and the Champions series at Los Al are becoming more exciting than the Derby. And you don't see either claiming that the clock doesn't matter, and Pacers run in blizzards.

[Tom]

My two cents - horses run better when they run fast and often.
Seeing horses run back in 2-3 weeks was commonplace.

The "Curse" a few years ago was that no one could win the Derby off 5 weeks rest. Now we see concerns about them coming back too fast in only 6 weeks.

I think the Beyers are shrinking, but I also do not think today's horses are anywhere near as good as they used to be.

[Mc990]

Originally Posted by papillon

Do you believe that American Pharoah or Justify could run 22 3/5, 44, 20 3/5, 1:07 3/5, 1:32 1/5 carrying 134lbs in a hand ride on the same track on same day so that no argument can be made about track speed?

Do you believe anyone of the horses running Saturday were the equal of Damascus, Buckpasser, or Hedevar?

Do you believe either could have beaten Spectacular Bid in the Strub?

Do you believe American Pharoah would have won the TC running against Secretariat, Seattle Slew, or Affirmed? Do believe Justify could have?

What fast horse from the past 50 years do you believe either would have beaten?

I'm not even willing to say that at Santa Anita they would have been able to beat Game On Dude in his prime running on the pace with him. Or running on the pace with Hard Spun in the Derby.

Do you think Promises Fullfilled is even a shadow of his sire? Or Effinex?

To me the question is very simple, if you believe these horses are as fast or faster, then the answers to these questions is yes. If you say no to them, then you don't believe they are.

In cycling the only true test of speed across the generations is the mile record, just as in track. Only one man has ever bested Eddy Merckx's 1972 record in cycling. Only 8 men have ever run a sub-3:50 mile and none since 1999, only two have run a sub-3:45.

Real times matter because across sports and across species records prove they do. No one cares about a runner who can't get a 4 minute mile. They don't care about track condition excuses. There was a time when no one in horse racing cared about even a 1:35 mile or track condition excuses or pace excuses. The fast horses of old, consistently ran sub-1:34s miles and sub-2 minute 10f. Secretariat even did it twice in one TC.

One reason I object to figures is because they insist they can say how fast or how slow a race really was better than the clock, and the actual times labeled fast have been getting slower and slower as belief in the infallibilty of figures increases. If a horse runs 10f in 1:59 several times in one year and many times in several years that horse runs 10f in 1:59. If a horse runs 10f in 2:02 several times in one year and many times in several years that horse runs 10f in 2:02. If a horse is consistently running a mile in 1:37 that horse runs a mile in 1:37. For human athletes to say otherwise is a non-starter...because they can get your face and say prove "I didn't."

The Derby was boring though slightly horrific in a rubber necking kind of way. Dirt racing outside of sprints has become boring. I switched over to TVG right after the Derby and caught the finish of some random turf race, which was thrilling even though I had no clue about who was running. And the final time was in race horse time, as is increasingly becoming the case with turf races. Even pacers and the Champions series at Los Al are becoming more exciting than the Derby. And you don't see either claiming that the clock doesn't matter, and Pacers run in blizzards.

TRACK COMPOSITION IS DIFFERENT THAN IT USED TO BE.

Wow.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by papillon

Do you believe that American Pharoah or Justify could run 22 3/5, 44, 20 3/5, 1:07 3/5, 1:32 1/5 carrying 134lbs in a hand ride on the same track on same day so that no argument can be made about track speed?

Probably not. But Dr. Fager was probably one of the absolute fastest horses in history.

To choose some different horses of the 1960's, though, do I think Pharoah was as good as Prove It, or Gun Bow, or Arts and Letters? Sure. And those were all top class horses.

Do you believe anyone of the horses running Saturday were the equal of Damascus, Buckpasser, or Hedevar?

Probably not as to Damascus or Buckpasser, although we need to wait and see with the three year olds.

I'm not sure Hedevar was that great anyway.

Do you believe either could have beaten Spectacular Bid in the Strub?

No. On the other hand, I am not sure Secretariat could have beaten Spectacular Bid in the Strub.

Do you believe American Pharoah would have won the TC running against Secretariat, Seattle Slew, or Affirmed? Do believe Justify could have?

I am making no claims at all about Justify. But Pharoah? No, he couldn't have won the TC against Secretariat or Affirmed. I don't know about Slew-- he had a somewhat easier class to beat.

On the other hand, Pharoah was probably better than Assault or Omaha or Sir Barton.

What fast horse from the past 50 years do you believe either would have beaten?

I think Pharoah could have been competitive with Alysheba. Perhaps Sunday Silence. Crystal Water. Riva Ridge. Gallant Man. I don't know.

I mean, we can't know because he had such a short career. But he didn't strike me as a slowpoke- he ran the second half of his Belmont in the same time as the first half of it. Find me another TC winner who did that.

And his BC Classic was a fast race.

I'm not even willing to say that at Santa Anita they would have been able to beat Game On Dude in his prime running on the pace with him. Or running on the pace with Hard Spun in the Derby.

Why do you assume Pharoah would have gone out with them? The horse could rate.

In cycling the only true test of speed across the generations is the mile record, just as in track. Only one man has ever bested Eddy Merckx's 1972 record in cycling. Only 8 men have ever run a sub-3:50 mile and none since 1999, only two have run a sub-3:45.

Those are sports, I should note, where there were extensive problems with doping. I don't know a lot about cycling, but I know a ton about track, and in track, there are proposals to erase the record books and start over because there are so many unreachable records.

[Burls]

Tell me if I'm wrong about this, I'd learn something if I were corrected here.

Isn't the numerical value of a BSF attributed to a particular horse's performance in a particular race a function of how that performance compares to the performances of other horses?

If so, then if horses are getting slower (or faster) in general, such a change wouldn't affect BSF assignments.

What the lowering of BSFs for Kentucky Derby winners shows is that the elite horses are becoming LESS SUPERIOR to average horses these days, even if the speed of horses in general is increasing (or decreasing).

Thus, the range of speed displayed by slow, medium, and fast horses overall is shrinking. Race performances in general are becoming more uniform. That's why the Kentucky Derby winners are getting BSFs that are less significantly above average.

Thoughts?

[Blenheim]

It is incredulous to think that if the current racing stock becomes drug free, has an ideal racing surface and are trained perfectly their performance figures will increase to the levels found decades ago.

Ultimately, it’s the breeding and all the others “issues” are incidental.

Speaking of decades ago take a look at the following picture. If I recall correctly, some years ago Calumet Farm and everything therein was up for sale – including all the trophies that farm earned over the decades. James Bassett organized and garnered the funding to keep all the trophies in one place - the Lexington Horse Farm, the James E. Bassett III Gallery. It’s one thing to see a Kentucky Derby Trophy but to see seven Kentucky Derby Trophies w/the Preakness Trophies and a Triple Crown Trophy was truly awe-inspiring. Them days and them horses are gone but the Trophies remain.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Burls

Tell me if I'm wrong about this, I'd learn something if I were corrected here.

Isn't the numerical value of a BSF attributed to a particular horse's performance in a particular race a function of how that performance compares to the performances of other horses?

If so, then if horses are getting slower (or faster) in general, such a change wouldn't affect BSF assignments.

What the lowering of BSFs for Kentucky Derby winners shows is that the elite horses are becoming LESS SUPERIOR to average horses these days, even if the speed of horses in general is increasing (or decreasing).

Thus, the range of speed displayed by slow, medium, and fast horses overall is shrinking. Race performances in general are becoming more uniform. That's why the Kentucky Derby winners are getting BSFs that are less significantly above average.

Thoughts?

Basically correct, with minor quibbles.

That is one of the reasons (not the only one) why Beyers are not designed to compare horses of different eras.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Basically correct, with minor quibbles.

That is one of the reasons (not the only one) why Beyers are not designed to compare horses of different eras.

Beyers have been around the longest, and are the most known, and the most accessible...but I dont think other figure services have nearly that dramatic of a drop off.

[Robert Fischer]

Horses have been improving along a model with some general similarities to 'Olympic sprinting'.

[Tom]

I did a chart a couple of years ago, plotting the winning Beyers for the Derby and the Classic for like 20 years.

Derby definitely going down, but the Classic was level.
I'll o a new on this weekend updated and see what it looks like.
I have a theory why, but let me see the updated data first.

[Robert Fischer]

I think some of the performance figures have had shrinking totals that do not reflect the improving performance on the track.

Some of these figures do a great job of what they were designed to do, and that the shrinking totals does not hurt quality of the figures unless you are doing inter-era groups for comparison.

Beyers for example, do a relatively good job at intra-era comparisons like "Justify's Kentucky Derby vs. his Santa Anita Derby???

but they do not do a credible job at comparing something inter-era or cross-era across historic crops such as Justify vs. Alysheba


The declining speed figures is a red herring.

I can see that race horse athletic performance has been improving in relatively similar patterns to how Pro Athletes have been improving.

unfortunately, explaining things that are evident but not generally known and accepted as fact by the public is often a difficult task.