The Belmont Winning Time

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by alf1380

In this thread I learned:

- That somebody doesn't have Zenyatta in his personal Top 20 Mares list.
- That Coach Inge's performance was more "impressive" than AP's.
- That AP is nowhere near Ghostzapper's level...why? Well, because a poster felt like bringing up Ghostzapper.

Horse Players are a funny bunch.

These are Facts:

-There are now 12 TC winners.
-AP is one of them.
-He ran a game K. Derby, Smoked the Preakness Field, and put up a time (In the Belmont S.) comparable to the very best 3yo's to ever run in the race.
-He won in wire to wire fashion with a much better time than Citation. A Better time than Point Given, and a better time than Affirmed. 6th best in the history of the Belmont stakes.

Now, if you guys don't mind, I am driving down to Hialeah to go spit and curse at the Citation statue.

Well you are right about Zenyatta.

But don't compare AP to Citation. Seriously. The Belmont track was probably 5 seconds slower at 12 furlongs back then, and check out Citation 's races in the first half of 1950 if you have any curiosity about how fast he could run

[highnote]

Originally Posted by cj

Triple Crown races top 3 TimeformUS Speed Figures, dating back to the 2004 season:

Belmont
American Pharoah 128

The Wikipedia page for Timeform says the popular rule of thumb is to add 12-14 points to Beyer to get the TF rating.

That would give AP a TF rating of 119 at most.

Further, the site says that a TF number of 115–124 would equal an Average Group 2 winner.

One critique I have heard from racing pundits is that TF awards a number to fit their beliefs, not necessarily the facts.

SteveR wrote: "Perhaps you should try to separate the cultural component of racing from the physiological."

TF might be trying to satisfy the cultural component rather than the physiological.

For me, as a very amateur scientist, I am interested in the truth.

The truth is the AP did everything that was asked of him and is the 12th TC winner.

The rest of the truth I'd like to know and understand is how good was his performance from an historical perspective and will he be a good sire of classic runners? If he is a good sire of classic runners is it because he is able to produce runners who run classics as fast or faster than his predecessors or because the breed is getting slower over time at the classic distances?

So I think some of the controversy here is because there are two different ways of looking at AP and they are not necessarily compatible.

1.) How well did he do against his contemporaries and 2.) how does he compare to his predecessors?

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

Think about that, Frosted ran a race that in theory at least could have won the last six Belmonts, yet when he went into all out pursuit of AP he was repelled with disdainful ease.

Agree. Frosted had a perfect trip and was not good enough. Frosted out broke AP and Materiality and secured a comfortable tracking position without expending unnecessary energy. Frosted had everything his way, as a perfect trip goes, with the exception of a little traffic, which caused Frosted to slightly alter his path and the presence of AP in the race. Frosted, even with a pretty easy perfect trip was no match for the winner.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

Think about that, Frosted ran a race that in theory at least could have won the last six Belmonts....

...if the track was the same over all those runnings and the final times of all those races didn't change, but it wasn't and they didn't ... hence, the need for track variants.

Given the figures, it's doubtful Frosted would have beaten Tonalist, Palace Malace, Drosselmeyer or Summer Bird. Maybe he would have beaten Union Rags or Ruler On Ice?

[cj]

Originally Posted by Steve R

By my figures he ran a BSF equivalent of 98 in that optional claimer. I know he's not on the Beyer leader board at DRF which bottoms out at 105. The Travers winner was 5th, 11th and 6th in his last three starts prior to yesterday when he was 4th choice. OK, I'll agree. American Pharoah is slightly better than Coach Inge.

Ok, thanks. I'll go revise all my figures despite the fact they were highly predictive all day yesterday and throughout the Triple Crown. Who needs that?

[cj]

Originally Posted by highnote

...if the track was the same over all those runnings and the final times of all those races didn't change, but it wasn't and they didn't ... hence, the need for track variants.

Given the figures, it's doubtful Frosted would have beaten Tonalist, Palace Malace, Drosselmeyer or Summer Bird. Maybe he would have beaten Union Rags or Ruler On Ice?

The figures he is citing account for track speed of course.

[cj]

Originally Posted by highnote

The Wikipedia page for Timeform says the popular rule of thumb is to add 12-14 points to Beyer to get the TF rating.

That would give AP a TF rating of 119 at most.

Further, the site says that a TF number of 115–124 would equal an Average Group 2 winner.

One critique I have heard from racing pundits is that TF awards a number to fit their beliefs, not necessarily the facts.

SteveR wrote: "Perhaps you should try to separate the cultural component of racing from the physiological."

TF might be trying to satisfy the cultural component rather than the physiological.

For me, as a very amateur scientist, I am interested in the truth.

The truth is the AP did everything that was asked of him and is the 12th TC winner.

The rest of the truth I'd like to know and understand is how good was his performance from an historical perspective and will he be a good sire of classic runners? If he is a good sire of classic runners is it because he is able to produce runners who run classics as fast or faster than his predecessors or because the breed is getting slower over time at the classic distances?

So I think some of the controversy here is because there are two different ways of looking at AP and they are not necessarily compatible.

1.) How well did he do against his contemporaries and 2.) how does he compare to his predecessors?

Timeform and TimeformUS are partners, but we don't rate horses the same way.

The adjustment probably worked ok with Beyer years ago, but Beyer figs have been shrinking for a while now. His method has problems IMO. That adjustment also doesn't account for the weight fir age aspect of Timeform figures which matters a lot with 2/3 year olds.

[alf1380]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Well you are right about Zenyatta.

But don't compare AP to Citation. Seriously. The Belmont track was probably 5 seconds slower at 12 furlongs back then, and check out Citation 's races in the first half of 1950 if you have any curiosity about how fast he could run

I was being sarcastic. But main point remains. History recognizes AP's Belmont S. as a fast one.

[Steve R]

Originally Posted by Lemon Drop Husker

It is an exercise in futility RXB.

For some, the past will always be greater than the current or the future. And for some, they just can't enjoy the present for whatever reason and feel the need to be critical of greatness to somehow prove their knowledge and superiority over others, or that they have higher standards than everybody else. It is quite an interesting conundrum.

Actually it's not a conundrum at all. There's a physical basis to believing the best of the past are better than the best of today. First of all, tracks are getting faster and that's a fact. Below are the dirt records at the TC tracks at 6f and 8 1/2f, the most common distances, in 1985 and 2015. The pattern is similar for virtually all venues.

CD:
6f, 1985 - 1:09.0, 2015 - 1:07.2
8 1/2f, 1985 - 1:41.3, 2015 - 141.0

PIM:
6f, 1985 - 1:09.1, 2015 - 1:009.0
8 1/2f, 1985 - 1:40.4, 2015 - 140.4 (actually set in 1984 by Deputed Testamony)

BEL:
6f, 1985 - 1:08.2, 2015 - 1:07.3
8 1/2f, 1985 - 1:40.2, 2015 - 139.1

Despite the tracks today being faster, there has been no major North American dirt record beyond sprint distances (i.e., 8f, 8 1/2, 9f, 10f and 12f) broken since 1988. In fact, the current records were set, respectively, in 1968, 1983, 1988, 1980 and 1973. At the same time, the records at 5 1/2, 6 and 6 1/2f have all been set since 2009.

The point is that tracks are getting faster and horses are still breaking records at sprint distances but not at middle and classic distances. Why would horses be breaking sprint distance records but not be breaking records at longer distances on faster surfaces? Maybe because the middle distance and classic horses of the past really were better. And still, many people just don't grasp the idea that 2:26.56 in 2001 can generate a BSF of 114 while 2:26.65 in 2015 earns a BSF of 105.

[cj]

Jerry Brown would strongly disagree with the notion that tracks are getting faster, as would I.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by cj

The figures he is citing account for track speed of course.

I thought he was talking about raw time.

It probably depends on whose figures you're using.

SteveR said he gave AP a -58, I believe. I'd assume that Frosted's PF is at least a few points lower -- but I could be wrong. I'm assuming a -54 or so.

The figures at chef-de-race.com show that Tonalist got a -61, Palace -57, Drosselmeyer -55 and Summer Bird -65.

So it doesn't look like Frosted would have beaten them.

Union Rags got a -52 and Ruler On Ice got a -41. So maybe Frosted could have beaten them.

It's hypothetical, of course, but it puts AP a few notches below Tonalist and Summer Bird.

Tonalist ran second to Honor Code yesterday. HC earned a -72 PF. So Tonalist must have been in the -70 range.

Tonalist was faster last year in the Belmont than AP was this year and ran a great race yesterday.

Not sure what that means exactly, but it is an interesting comparison.

Of course, AP won the TC. Tonalist didn't.

[cj]

Originally Posted by highnote

I thought he was talking about raw time.

It probably depends on whose figures you're using.

SteveR said he gave AP a -58, I believe. I'd assume that Frosted's PF is at least a few points lower -- but I could be wrong. I'm assuming a -54 or so.

The figures at chef-de-race.com show that Tonalist got a -61, Palace -57, Drosselmeyer -55 and Summer Bird -65.

So it doesn't look like Frosted would have beaten them.

Union Rags got a -52 and Ruler On Ice got a -41. So maybe Frosted could have beaten them.

It's hypothetical, of course, but it puts AP a few notches below Tonalist and Summer Bird.

Tonalist ran second to Honor Code yesterday. HC earned a -72 PF. So Tonalist must have been in the -70 range.

Tonalist was faster last year in the Belmont than AP was this year and ran a great race yesterday.

Not sure what that means exactly, but it is an interesting comparison.

Of course, AP won the TC. Tonalist didn't.

How predictive have those been before the race?

[Inner Dirt]

Originally Posted by clocker7

So hardened bettors only look at raw times now?

They do when it fits their side of the argument. What I find laughable is the AP camp here dismissed the slow Preakness because of track condition, then turn around and fail to mention the track being blazing fast on Belmont day.
These debates are becoming as biased as political ones, and the few that haven't proclaimed AP the next Secretariat get attacked personally.

You can't fault AP so far he has destroyed everything put in front of him. Most horses don't run faster when pressed, I hope they race AP against older and
then we will see what we really have.

[RXB]

Originally Posted by Steve R

The point is that tracks are getting faster and horses are still breaking records at sprint distances but not at middle and classic distances. Why would horses be breaking sprint distance records but not be breaking records at longer distances on faster surfaces? Maybe because the middle distance and classic horses of the past really were better.

Or maybe also because the sprinters are faster now, which would make sense given the breeding. I'm not convinced that the surfaces are faster now than they were a few decades ago.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by cj

... Beyer figs have been shrinking for a while now.

Perhaps they are shrinking because horses at longer distances are simply running slower times?

I've discussed the breed becoming more speed biased at length with Nick Mordin. His experience shows that the British, Australians and the U.S. are tending more toward speed and sprinters. While the French and Germans are still producing routers -- especially the Germans.

This was 5 to 10 years ago that we looked at Germany. So things may have changed there.