Are the Triple Crown horses broken

[Denny]

I agree with one of the other posters that it's the Beyers, not the horses.

I've noticed track records being broken without getting a big Beyer.

I've also noticed them fudge figures to make them look right.

I think something's wrong with Beyer.

Maybe there's too much estimating and projecting going on.

They've lost their objectivity and have become more subjective and have somehow gotten lower.

Timeform is to me the much better rating.

I'd like to hear from 'sheets' users whether they've changed as much over the same period.

[SecretAgentMan]

Originally Posted by Denny

I agree with one of the other posters that it's the Beyers, not the horses.

I've noticed track records being broken without getting a big Beyer.

I've also noticed them fudge figures to make them look right.

I think something's wrong with Beyer.

Maybe there's too much estimating and projecting going on.

They've lost their objectivity and have become more subjective and have somehow gotten lower.

Timeform is to me the much better rating.

I'd like to hear from 'sheets' users whether they've changed as much over the same period.

Who did the "sheets" favor to win the KD?

[Mc990]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan

Who did the "sheets" favor to win the KD?

Who did they favor? I suppose Justify but that's not really relevant. They're not a tout service, they make speed figures.

As it relates to horses getting faster/slower, Ragozin numbers haven't changed much over the years but TG has horses getting faster at a noticeable rate.

So... the question becomes, do we believe horses are getting faster or not? If you believe they are, which makes a whole lot of sense to me, then the TG figures are the only ones that have a chance of being correct as a whole.

IMO, if a figure maker comes out and says, you can't compare our current figures to our historical figures, they are essentially admitting that at some point the figures were not accurate... whether it be now, 5, 10, 20 years ago, at some point they were guessing. Or maybe they've been guessing all along....

You can not say the figures are only meant to measure today's performance... No, if you are making good figures, everything else will fall into place and the numbers will hold up historically

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by Mc990

Who did they favor? I suppose Justify but that's not really relevant. They're not a tout service, they make speed figures.

As it relates to horses getting faster/slower, Ragozin numbers haven't changed much over the years but TG has horses getting faster at a noticeable rate.

So... the question becomes, do we believe horses are getting faster or not? If you believe they are, which makes a whole lot of sense to me, then the TG figures are the only ones that have a chance of being correct as a whole.

IMO, if a figure maker comes out and says, you can't compare our current figures to our historical figures, they are essentially admitting that at some point the figures were not accurate... whether it be now, 5, 10, 20 years ago, at some point they were guessing. Or maybe they've been guessing all along....

You can not say the figures are only meant to measure today's performance... No, if you are making good figures, everything else will fall into place and the numbers will hold up historically

If I had written this I could not have said it better.

I will give you an example.

I believe yesterday Blended Citizen got a 122 Timeform figure for the effort, he got a 90 Beyer. This a 32 point gap.

90 Beyer would be low for a maiden winner in the 1990's, let alone a major stakes race prepping for the Belmont.

I am pretty sure the disconnect has happened due to the 10k base horse which sets the tracks speed charts. While I think the Grade 1 horses are still Grade 1 horses I think the 10k claimer has changed dramatically from 20-30 years ago.

[MadVindication]

I theorize that if trying to breed/buy TC competitors means focusing on thoroughbreds that are precocious, expected to perform well at 3, could mean that they may not have the genetics to perform well at 4 and up (at the age that is actually their prime). Could be that most horses have one or the other.

And if horses are retired earlier and have smaller racing resumes then what the horse's actual peak ability is will not be known. I think that the breeding for three year-old performance is why we see TC horses just lose competitiveness after it. That potentially explain the lower speed figures for modern TC three year-olds, if that is true at all.

The horses that couldn't hold a candle to them as three year-olds are outperforming them at 5, 6, 7 years-old because they have the genetics.

Plus if breeders are looking for "winners", could pass over some horses that are good stock but just run inconsistent races as is only natural. The Desormeaux's got a horse to the TC that didn't cost half a million dollars and can handle distance. I like Justify's pedigree though. I think the Ghostzapper/Awesome Again pedigree could mean he won't be a 5 year-old burn out. IF they don't retire him prematurely.

[MadVindication]

I actually think it's a positive move to not race horses as two-year olds. They aren't mature at that age. Not that I've anything against it I just think it could possibly increase their long term health and therefore the longevity of their racing careers. Of course that doesn't matter if they are sent for early reirement. Which is a real waste. I want to see 3 year-old horses I like and can follow for years after. Adult horses are more exciting to watch anyway. The Charlestown Classic was more exciting for me than the derby (weather aside)

[cj]

7

Originally Posted by MadVindication

I actually think it's a positive move to not race horses as two-year olds. They aren't mature at that age. Not that I've anything against it I just think it could possibly increase their long term health and therefore the longevity of their racing careers. Of course that doesn't matter if they are sent for early reirement. Which is a real waste. I want to see 3 year-old horses I like and can follow for years after. Adult horses are more exciting to watch anyway. The Charlestown Classic was more exciting for me than the derby (weather aside)

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

[MadVindication]

Originally Posted by cj

7

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

Well, scratch that then

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan

Who did the "sheets" favor to win the KD?

Going by Sheets numbers, they had Justify as a very solid favorite.

Taking Sheets numbers and Derby entrants last 3 races heading into the race; the Top 10 went like this:

1. Justify
2. Bolt d'Oro
3. Audible
4. Good Magic
5. My Boy Jack
6. Magnum Moon
7. Noble Indy
8. Instilled Regard
9. Mendelssohn
10. Enticed

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Mc990

Who did they favor? I suppose Justify but that's not really relevant. They're not a tout service, they make speed figures.

As it relates to horses getting faster/slower, Ragozin numbers haven't changed much over the years but TG has horses getting faster at a noticeable rate.

So... the question becomes, do we believe horses are getting faster or not? If you believe they are, which makes a whole lot of sense to me, then the TG figures are the only ones that have a chance of being correct as a whole.

IMO, if a figure maker comes out and says, you can't compare our current figures to our historical figures, they are essentially admitting that at some point the figures were not accurate... whether it be now, 5, 10, 20 years ago, at some point they were guessing. Or maybe they've been guessing all along....

You can not say the figures are only meant to measure today's performance... No, if you are making good figures, everything else will fall into place and the numbers will hold up historically

Your last statement is dead wrong and innumerate.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Your last statement is dead wrong and innumerate.

To explain this, let's say you had an electric clock that gained 1 minute every 7 years.

You could use that clock your entire working life, no problem. And on a day to day basis, you would not even notice the inaccuracy. It would gain 1/40th of a second every day. Totally unimportant for the purpose of day to day information about the time.

But if you kept that clock plugged in for a couple of centuries it would be a half hour off.

Speed figures are accurate enough for current handicapping, and that tells us nothing about how accurate they will be over longer time periods.

[Mc990]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

To explain this, let's say you had an electric clock that gained 1 minute every 7 years.

You could use that clock your entire working life, no problem. And on a day to day basis, you would not even notice the inaccuracy. It would gain 1/40th of a second every day. Totally unimportant for the purpose of day to day information about the time.

But if you kept that clock plugged in for a couple of centuries it would be a half hour off.

Speed figures are accurate enough for current handicapping, and that tells us nothing about how accurate they will be over longer time periods.

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

[Robert Fischer]

i want a figure that does it's job for Today's races.

I'm not worried about trying to compare Babe Ruth to Alex Rodriguez.

[Steve R]

Originally Posted by Mc990

...So... the question becomes, do we believe horses are getting faster or not?...

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.)

[GMB@BP]

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.)

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