Just For The Hell Of It

[Michael D.]

i would like to \"focus\" on your theory about today\'s horses running 10f and 12f dirt races ten to twenty lengths faster than they did just ten or fifteen years ago. the CD super says the surface has not gotten much slower, and now the maryland JC has responded to an inquiry of mine, and they say that their surfaces have not gotten that much slower, but that less horses have been pointing towards the long distance races, and therefore they are not running much faster than they were years ago. your customers must have a ton of faith in you, because there is not a single pro in the biz who thinks your theory about longer route races makes any snse. you will attack me personally of course, everyone who knows you knows that is coming, but before you do that, could you shed a bit of light on northern dancer\'s 2:00 and cvhange derby run about 40 years ago. based on your theory, you must think that today\'s allowance horses could beat that little guy by 20 or 30 lengths. hahaha. you kill me TGJB. focus??? hahah, now go ahead, attack me.

[HP]

Michael,

\"i would like to \"focus\" on your theory about today\'s horses running 10f and 12f dirt races ten to twenty lengths faster than they did just ten or fifteen years ago.\"

Not to nitpick, but it would probably be more accurate to say that on TG, the fastest horses have gotten about SIX lengths faster over the past ten-fifteen years.  With Ghostzapper being the best (-6), there were definitely horses running around zero circa 1989.  It\'s not 10-20 lengths.  

As \"evidence\", I vaguely remember someone on this board recently citing a star of yesteryear who ran a \"zero\" on Rags and it may have been more than 15 years ago.  Since Rags\' scale is slower than TG (by common acknoledgement) I think what is really being debated is more like five lengths (among the very fastest horses) over __ years (depending on who that Rag zero was) rather than 10-20 lengths over the past 10-15 years.  

Even among the past Derby winners over the past 15 years, I think the figure is more like six lengths.  

HP

I\'m not sure how many lengths it is, but I believe you can\'t compare the figures earned on the Rag scale (back in time) to the figures earned on TG scale because the relationship between the two has also been changing.

[miff]

I believe JB stated someplace that horse are 5-10 lengths (1-2 seconds) faster today than years past.I personally believe, from using TG figs for more than 15 years, that JB has added this unproven theory to his thinking  when making the figs(intentionally or unintentionally). I further believe that this accounts for the much lower figs being awarded to present day runners, some of whom are \'COMMON\" in comparision to some of the games great ones of past times.

I have posted before that I and other loyal long time TG users are having serious problems with the much faster figs being awarded.The RAW evidence on the tracks, every day do not support the theory that horses are 1-2 seconds faster. The FIGURES are definitely faster and faster.


TG may have reasonably hung it\'s hat on generational improvements of all beings as part of it\'s theory that horses are bigger, stronger and logically faster from a commom sense standpoint but not from a scientific study.

Here are some informal common sense points. There are very few horses of high calibre who were physically more imposing than Dr. Fager and Secretariat. I asked JB to specifically name the horses he felt were bigger, stronger and faster than just these two, as an example.I was rather summarily dismissed as unclear and unfocused and unable to comprehend what was being espoused. Incidendally, that\'s after 40 years in the game and having watched over 100k races.


The opinions(admittedly unscientific) of many prominent horsemen in NY that I posed this question to within the last month or so ranged from:

Horses are not as fast as years ago
Horses are just as fast as years ago
Horses MAY be faster today but not 5-10 lenghts

VERY Inconclusive even from an opinion point of view.

My problem is simple, I run a business and do not have many hours to spend on handicapping.I must have absolute faith in the integrity of the figs(I\"m betting serious money) and I have done very well in the past with TG. Right now, I am unsure that the methodology is as sound as it used to be.

I think this is very clear and deserves a clear unsarcastic reply.

Miff,

To put your mind at rest, even if there is a bias in the TG figs that is the making figures get faster faster than the horses are improving (assumimg they are improving at all and there is any bias), that bias is moving at such a slow rate it will have no effect on your handicapping at all. Fortunately, handicappers aren\'t required to compare horses that ran years ago with horses that ran a few days ago. In most cases all the relevant information comes from the last 12 months (usually less). That\'s not long enough for any small bias to have an impact. This is more an issue of intellectual curiosity about the abilities of horses now vs. past generations than it is about handicapping.



Post Edited (12-10-04 10:09)

[miff]

Class,

What you say is true, however I use TG in conjunction with other tools /products.Since I\'m giving heavy weight to the TG figs, I\'m concerned that any preconceived notion that horses are faster may be creeping into the figure makers head instead of viewing the race on its raw merit.If that were the case then the TG figs could be \'OUT OF LINE\'when comparing TG figs to other products.

Some of my pals use Rags, Equiform et al and we compare notes.In a fair percentage of the cases, the TG figs have been getting faster and the normal comparative scale seems to have drifted wider. (eg TG figs normally run 3-4 points faster than Rags) That is my concern.

Miff,

I don\'t know what all your methods are, but I also use various sets of figures (TG, Beyer, Logic Dictates, Pacefigures, and on rare occasions Rags).

It doesn\'t bother me that TG figures seem to be getting faster relative to the Beyers and others. What concerns me more is when they disagree about who is actually faster.

When that happens, 9 out of 10 times it\'s because of wide trips being incorporated into the TG figures and not into Beyers or other methodolgy issues. That\'s no big deal because I can account for it.

On the rare times I can\'t account for it, I go back to the race and day and try to make an educated guess as to who has it right. In my opinion a lot of those instances are races where the pace was very fast or slow and they dealt with it a different way or someone split the variant and someone else didn\'t.

TG is not my business, but I don\'t think quality should concern you at all. Jerry seems almost obsessive about quality (which is a good thing for us). As long as we understand what\'s going into the figures (which we do), I think we will be fine.

[miff]

Class,

With all due respect, I have been a TG user almost since it\'s inception, I thoroughly understand the methodology and it\'s comparitives to Beyer(sans weight and ground) et al.

As you may or may not know,if TG is consistently too fast and you ONLY use TG, it does not matter because you are comparing apples to apples all the time.On the other hand,if you are using TG as a comparative,I have noted a widening of the scale(ie TG is getting faster figs relative to other products using my normal comparative criterium.

There\'s no ego here, but after 15 plus years I could generally quess very closely to what fig TG would  award a runner and most of the time be close.That exercise has been much more difficult over the past 2-3 years with no changes to my thinking and I\'m 57 and not getting senile.I am not the only TG user who believes that there has been a change to the \"Gas Pedal\" Jerry is now using to make the figs.

Incidentally, this has nothing to do with my personal perceptions/opinions and I am not alone in my observations.

Miff,


I know you do. That\'s why I don\'t see the problem.

If Beyer has Grade I horses running 115 in 2000 and running 115 in 2005 what does it matter if TG has them running -2 in 2000 and -6 in 2005. (regardless of who is right)

The races from 2000 are irrelevant in 2005 99.9999% of the time.

As long as you know that \"A\" is faster than \"B\"  in 2005 the scale is totally meaningless.  If Beyer adjusts all his figures up 10 points tomorrow it will be a totally meangingless act. If Jerry lowers all of his it doesn\'t matter either.

I think you shouldn\'t try to convert the Beyers into TGs or vice versa by a steady formula. If you are doing that \"YOU ARE LOOKING FOR A PROBLEM\" because if anyone has a bias anywhere it will screw you up. (no matter who it is)

I think you should just look at who is faster than who on their respective scales,  note the differences, and try to understand why.



Post Edited (12-10-04 15:31)

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

Michael, you sound a little acerbic today. Its Friday, don\'t worry, be happy.

Michael Wrote:

>CtC,
the biggest waste of energy ever put into a BB post. why?

It was a form of \"socratic method\".

>if you were really interested in grey horses and crc racing, you would have posted a pre-race opinion on the big crc races last w/e.

Why did greys win there again?

>why would you waste so much time on a post that said so little?

I generally think fast and write faster, unless I\'m handicapping.

>refer to my pre-race crc posts from last week, you might learn something.

I\'m an old dog, but I\'m always ready to learn a new trick. Refer specifically to the post and if I missed it I\'ll read it.

>if you continue to make wiseass comments on circuits that you don\'t have the balls to make pre-race predictions on, you will surely lose any credibility you had on any BB.

I didn\'t say \"circuits\". I said \"Turf Races at Calder\". Theres a difference. I had an opinion on Leona\'s Knight and Better than Bonds. I don\'t always share them.  

>you are better than that, what made you drop so low??

Actually, the Calder story was an anecdote that I thought had application to the fact that one can win with rotten figures and lose with the very best numbers available. But results won\'t trend for good figures  vis a vie bad figures like that.

CtC



Post Edited (12-10-04 15:10)

[Michael D.]

HP,
what am i missing here? i see \"5\'s\" and \"6\'s\" back there for the derby. they run in negative territory now. am i reading it wrong?

I believe there has been an improvement in the Derby on the TG sheets from the 5-6 range in the early 80s to this year\'s peak.

I don\'t know the exact formula, but that\'s probably in the range of 10-12 lengths at 10 furlongs (Jerry can tell us exactly).

There was some discussion about pre 1982 horses like Seattle Slew, Bid etc... on another thread where faster figures were mentioned, but those were \"RAG\" figures.
There has been a slow change in the relationship between Rags and TG over time. So not only are those fast figures not on the same scale at TG, the scale itself has been changing. TG figures used to be slower than Rags. Now they are faster.  

I think it is best if we refrain from comparing figures from different figure makers (pre TG) when we discuss if horses are getting faster. Otherwise the conversation will deteriorate into a mush of misunderstanding.  :-)

[HP]

I could\'ve sworn someone ran a 3 in the Derby way back when but I could be wrong.  I know TGulch did it in \'95, and that\'s about ten years.  Spend A Buck?  Did he win the Derby?  It\'s been a long day...  

Even so, from the 5-6 you cite up to Smarty is about 8 lengths (and from TGulch in \'95 it\'s about 6).  I guess I\'m just reacting to you saying \"10-20 lengths.\"  It\'s more like 10, tops.  

I disagree with Class on the comparison between the Rag and TG scales.  The variant making technique has changed and evolved but I think some elements of this type of figure making formula (wind, ground, etc.) are pretty stable.  I would accept a Rag \"zero\" for argument\'s sake as a historical frame of reference.  I can accept it as \"in the ballpark\" without getting into a whole Rags v. TG debate.  

Can\'t we all just get along?  I\'m getting old reading this already.  How can I win some money tmw.?  Maybe Superman will show up and agree to spin the Earth backwards to Secretariat\'s Derby so we can start the TG scale there and really figure it out once and for all.  

HP

HP,

When TG started the very best horses were earning figures several points higher than the same horses on Rags. Now they are several points lower (negative).  Even though both figure makers are doing a lot of things the same, the entire scale has shifted. So obviously someone has a heavy bias in their figures. There is no escaping that. It\'s a matter of who you believe it is (maybe both to different degrees). IN any event, between the different scale and the fact that the scale itself is moving, it is possible to compare, but not without a discussion that I am 100% certain would put the message board into a tizzy of confusion. :-)



Post Edited (12-10-04 15:33)

[TGJB]

As I mentioned in my reponse to Mike, Friedman made it clear in a post on his board about 4 (?) years ago that they were using pars, and that was why you could compare horse of different eras. I had a discussion with him under an alias, and pointed out that was ass-backwards-- if the breed as a whole improved you wouldn\'t be able to tell. He said he saw my point. Whether that caused the change I can\'t tell you, but even though horses have continued to get faster on our figures they no longer have gotten FASTER relative to Ragozin, and Friedman said at the DRF Expo that they no longer use pars.