Sis City.... TG v Sheets

I think it\'s almost impossible to prove whether horses are getting faster or not using speed figures. I know most people here wouldn\'t agree with that, but IMHO all figure makers have biases built into their interpretations of the results whether they think so or not. Not all those biases are the same either. Even though some figure  makers try to correct for those biases, the methods are not perfect.

IMHO it\'s very obvious that a person\'s view on which factors impact final time and which don\'t can lead to a self-fulfilling movement (or lack of movement) in the figures over time because of how they interpret results.

I think the cushion depth idea would have a lot of merit if we had data from a lot of tracks over a long period of time.

I also think a study of turf racing would have some merit even though the races develop differently and that could impact the results to some degree.

In the end, I don\'t think it matters much because if they are getting faster, they aren\'t improving fast enough to impact our wagering.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

miff,

Fager would have run a 1:45:2 Wood Day.

Secretariat would have chased him.

Bellamania in that same race finishes in 1:49 beaten 18 lengths.

[TGJB]

Bob-- if you want we can take a brief look at this in a couple of weeks when Derby stuff dies down. But in fact someone once did a study, and I\'m pretty sure it was of the Epsom Derby, showing that the average time had improved in every decade. Might have been in the Scientific American article I quoted.

As for grass races in general-- paces are much slower, especially in Europe, and can affect final time-- that\'s why we have \"S Pace\" notations. Nevertheless, there were some unbelievably fast grass times last year-- I did a post in response to Frank raising the same issue right around the last BC. If you do a search you can probably find it.

I\'m pretty sure Watchmaker does read this site, given some of what he has written. And he was at the Expo, where I talked about it.

[bloodline bob]

JB - ok sounds good. I\'m a breeder (and handicapper) in kentucky and i think its important to try to understand what\'s going on. I don\'t think the tactics in grass racing has changed over the years and therefore the course records and average times should be valid.

I\'ll look for that post.

[beyerguy]

When you guys compare Pro Prado to Secretariat, think about it like this.  How many 100m sprinters today would absolutely demolish Jesse Ownes?  Or better yet, Carl Lewis?  It doesn\'t detract from their greatness one iota.

[bloodline bob]

The point is well taken except that in the Pro Prado case it would be like comparing me to Carl Lewis, not the top sprinters of the day.

Clearly there is something wrong with the Pro Prado figs.

[davidrex]

     Alan/Jerry,

If you were to red board certain postings that our brethern could be directed to....many of these pertinate but repetitive questions could be addressed.

It is beyond me why someone w/your great depth of knowledge has to repeat this stuff.

     Alan are you married? If not we should talk about my lovely daughters...Jerry stay the hell away from my babies!

[TGJB]

Miff\'s ground loss issues aside, ponder this-- if Pro Prado\'s Oaklawn figures are wrong, so are Smarty Jones\'.

[bloodline bob]

JB - Good point. So be it.

[P.Eckhart]

Bloodline Bob, I posted a graph of Epsom Derby times here a while back.

http://www.thorograph.com/hold/63.pdf

[beyerguy]

BB,

Compare today\'s human sprinters to those of the mid 70s.  It isn\'t even close, college kids today routinely beat the best times of 30 years ago.

Why should horse racing be any different?  Horses are bred for this, not so for people, at least that we know about.

[bloodline bob]

BG - thanks for the graph.

I see huge improvement from 1840-1920 and minimal since then.  Is that what you see?

I found a site which has the Yellow Ribbon winners 1977-2000. Stakes record is Queen to Conquer in 1:58 3/5 in 1981.

is there a good site that you know of to find this kind of thing?

[miff]

Beyerguy,

On humans and other species you are correct, on horses you are wrong. Horse are NOT bigger or heavier/stronger today.With the exception of BR this year, horses like Fager and Sec make most of todays runners look like ponies, size wise.

The big ones used to be 17 hands and 1200 pounds back then and thats what they are now. I believe JB got caught up in the \"improved species\" theory without doing the research,I did. They are not bigger, stronger and imo not faster, sandy tracks et al.

[bloodline bob]

miff-

agreed.  another fly in the faster track ointment is that many tracks have switched to a limestone base which Jerry mentions in his treatise. that makes the tracks harder and arguably faster, offsetting the cushion effect.

maybe thats why they\'re all breaking down too.

beyer,

I tend to think the horses of today are a lot faster than those of 50+ years ago.

I am less certain they are getting faster at the same rate now as when there was more room for improvement or at the rate suggested by the speed figures.

One thing I will point out is that the population of human beings has exploded in recent decades and so have the financial rewards for elite athletes. Those are two huge reasons to think human athletes are a lot better.

On the flip side, the horse racing industry has to some extent seen shrinking or flat crop sizes in recent years and many of the best horses have been exported to other parts of the world for racing and breeding purposes. So the US pool is probably thinner in size and quality. Plus, since most owners lose money, it\'s not like there\'s a huge new financial incentive involved. Those are all headwinds against the idea that horses are improving in leaps and bounds currently.

I don\'t know the answer, but I wouldn\'t be shocked if someone proved they are getting faster, but at a rate a lot slower than the figures suggest.