Thorograph #'s- Past Derby Winners
 

I went back through the numbers for past Derby winners over the 25 years and I was surprised to see how high some of the numbers were. Has there been a change in the Thorograph formula/numbers over the last several years? For example, according to T/G Ferdinand got a 7, Sunday Silence got a 6.1 and Real Quiet got a 3.3. With that as a backdrop, Barbaro got a -2. I was as big a fan of Barbaro as anyone, but was he that much better than those 3 or is it an issue of a change in the formula?

i dont know but the sheet guys took it in the culo..with saint last year..voodoo pick

Horses are just getting faster, which is a topic that is covered in Thorograph's seminars that are also somewhere the archive.

If you want to learn about figs in general, alot of the archive material is a great listen

You answered your own question, Scav... as far as Thoro is concerned, horses are just getting faster. Not only will it probably take a negative # to win this year, it will most likely need to be done by a horse that has already run one (another study noted very few horses run tops to win the derby).

I didn't ask the question, Smuthg did.....

Sorry, I was doing my speed reading excercises, not paying close enough attention:o

As far as this years Derby, it will most definetely need a neg number, and there is really only three horses that can get there IMO. CQ, SS and Scat Daddy......I havent seen Curlin's sheet yet but I hear it is consistent, but I refuse to bet that horse, gonna let him beat me.....

Does anyone know which derby contenders this year have run negative numbers already?

I was just about to ask about Scat Daddy. Unless his last at Gulf was negative, he hasn't. I don't know about CQ either (he may have gone neg in Louisiana)... but I believe that leaves us with Street Sense. I would also assume Curlin got a negative # for his last at Oaklawn. For some unknown reason, I keep waiting for NoBiz to break thru with a huge effort, I don't know what his Wood # was yet. (Bottom line, obviously I haven't seen the final derby sheets yet, this discussion should be held again next week)

CQ went neg at LA, Scat Daddy can GO negative with his pattern.....

If my memory is correct Neg. #'s thus far are Circular Quey, Curlin and Street Sense.

To think that Barbaro was 10 sheet points faster than Ferdinand or Sunday Silence is really funny

Its more than funny, its riduculous. Horses might be getting faster, but to suggest that Barbaro was that much faster than those two..........

Not that I am needed to defend TG (or am in any way qualified), but the way I rationalize these seemingly laughable comparisons, is if you put Secretariat in the same conditions 20 years later (track speed, "training techniques", etc..) that Ghostzapper ran with, he would be running much faster numbers than he did in the 70's. I would only compare horses from different eras to their competition at the time. This is simply my opinion, I could be wrong.

LOL, Street Sense can't get there? Any Given Saturday has been close as well.

Joe, he's got Street Sense ("SS") in there..

You are correct sir, my bad Scav.

Does this mean that Sunday Silence and Easy Goer weren't fast enough to be in the Hall of Fame??

Sunday Silence was a rat. (I kid. :D )

East coast bias rears its ugly head.

Those races between Easy Goer and Sunday Silence were the most competitive races I remember seeing between two horse, for an entire year. I never knew for sure who was going to win, even if I was pulling for Sunday Silence. Yeah, West coast bias....

That is if you take the figures at face value. They contend that tracks are much slower overall nowdays which may be true however it seems hard to believe that they are that much slower. Of course turf horses are also much faster and I find it hard to believe that the turf is any faster or slower.

Funny thing is I remember a guy complaining me that those 2 horses were so lightly raced. They would be like iron horses now.

I was joking... obviously I liked Easy Goer better, but Sunday Silence was a hell of a nice colt.

I guess this is getting a little of the original topic, but...why is the assumption that horses are getting faster and/or CD is souped up on derby day? It seems one person posts an opinion and then people just glom onto it.

I dont see how horses are getting faster, you can find 30 yr old records at AQU and lots of other older records at other tracks. Some distances arent raced much anymore (2 1/4 mi.??) but there are other distance where the records are still older. Not to mention weight carried. E.g. Artax broke Dr Fagers 7f record at AQU I think by e.g. 1/5 sec. Only he carried approx. 20 lbs less wt. So what is that? Hardly makes Artax faster, or any evidence the breed is faster.

If you look at a sport like track/field or swimming those records keep tumbling nearly every year. Horse records are not doing that and if horses were getting faster I would expect it to look like that. At least in cases where the distance is a regularly run distance.

The other assumption that seems to be accepted is that CD is souped up on derby day. Take a look at the times run in the derby 1964, '67, '62 and '73. There are very few derbies run that fast other than Monarchos I guess. So what does that tell you? Whose running 1:59 derbies these days? :confused:

[quote=easy goer]I guess this is getting a little of the original topic, but...why is the assumption that horses are getting faster and/or CD is souped up on derby day? It seems one person posts an opinion and then people just glom onto it.QUOTE]

I guess I tend to agree with you that horses are not necessarily getting faster. I've never been a big believer in speed figures, and some of the earlier discussion on this post (figures today versus those of the stars of the 1980s) points to the absurd conclusions that some of the figure devotees reach.

On the other hand, I think most serious observers conclude that, on big race days, track management almost invariably has a "souped-up" racing surface. Take Aqueduct on Wood Memorial Day. You point to Artax as a example. He set the 7F track record in the 1999 Carter on the same day a very pedestrian horse like Adonis won the Wood in 1:47.3. Similarly, in 2005, Forest Danger won the Carter in 1:20.2, while Bellamy Road set a stakes record in the Wood in 1:47. The same thing has occurred on Belmont Stakes Day in recent times (especially in 2004). The old saying that "horses don't set track records, tracks set track records" seems to apply here, and I guess I find it more than coincidental that above par times often occur on big race days.

Believe it or not I dont think people were near as concerned about time or speed figures as we are now.

The premise behind the tracks speed is that the track cushion is considerably deeper now than it was in the 70's. Hence the deeper the track, the slower it is. I have no idea if this is true or not but it does seem possible. I'm not sure how they explain the turf though.

..............something changed, or t/g is a complete joke. sunday silence went 1.47 and 2 in the S.A. derby.

The deeper cushion (basically more sand) is what Jerry Brown says makes the tracks much slower today, compared to years ago. As Scav said last night, you can find the entire explanation for this on the Thorograph website. It was a year or so ago on the TG board, a long thread with specific "scientific" data to back up his assertions. I followed it back then, it seemed to make logical sense. I don't remember enough to quote it here. I can certainly understand why anyone who has not seen it would be skeptical about the "horses getting faster" premise.

Easy Goer ran a 116 Beyer as a 2-year-old in the Champagne.

Sunday Silence is tied with Ghostzapper (124 Beyer) for highest Beyer in BC Classic history.

Easy Goer ran a 0 on the Ragozin Sheets in his Belmont Stakes win--the exact same number Secretariat recieved on the sheets for his Belmont Stakes win 16 years earlier.....

Both horses were fast on everyone's figs.

You might be right about the NY tracks, I was referring to CD, where it seems that the best derby times were set in the "rocket strip" period 1962-73 and now we live in the pedestrian era. Or something like that.

I was there for the Bellamy Road Wood and I guess the track was playing to speed that day, as it appeared that front runners were winning and as the jocks realized this they started to gun for the lead with the predictable pace collapse. The Carter comes to mind but...?? Lost in the Fog won that day too. How close did he come to a record?

DrugS, I think you have hit on the point of my question/comment. To think that Easy Goer (while an incredible horse) received the same number as probably the single greatest performance in the history of the sport, makes me question the "soundness", for lack of a better word, of the speed figures over several generations of horses...

Some who saw Twice A Prince run (and I surely didn't!) might counter that by saying that beating Sunday Silence by 8 lengths, is probably a bigger achievement than beating Twice a Prince by 31 lengths, in a 12 furlong race.

I think someone once told me that Twice A Prince made all 23 of his lifetime starts during his 3yo season. He never won a stake, and made just 94K. Not to take anything away from Big Red's amazing Belmont Stakes performance.

I can see how Easy Goer's Belmont figure, could be incredibly fast on the sheets. He was wide on both turns, and ran the 2nd fastest time in history, beating a very solid horse by a lopsided margin.

To me, what's downright impossible to defend, is Easy Goer's Wood Memroial figure---which was also a 0...and the same number as both his and Big Red's Belmont. He only beat Rock Point by 3 or 4 lengths that day!

On the Beyer figures, horses are not progressively getting a lot faster. However, they are on the Ragozin Sheets, and most certainly are getting MUCH faster on the Thoro-graph sheets.

Spectacular Bid held the fastest Ragozin sheet figure ever recorded for over 20 years until Congaree broke it in his first NYRA Mile win. I think a few other horses have bested it since.

I guess it boils down to who's figures you trust most---because if you are comparing figures for horses over several generations---you'll notice horses are getting much faster on the sheet style figures....and that isn't the case on the Beyer Style figures.

As usual, great post. While, I think its somewhat crazy to think anyone could have kept up with Big Red on Belmont Day 1973, we must give Sham some due credit. Any year other than 1973 he's a clear Triple Crown candidate, and the Belmont and Twice A Prince finishing a "distant" second, in my mind is a mere fact of Sham getting his arse beat into the ground trying to keep up with a freak for two grueling races. That being said, I tend to put a lot more "faith" in the beyer figures when it comes to comparing horses over generations (I think he estimates big red's Belmont at a 139) because I think the focus on "speed" and raw talent tends to get clouded when human judgment attempts to add or subtract points for the horse's "trip"...

Come again :confused:

****

Speaking of the Belmont, I just watched Smarty JOne's Belmont again and one thing I got out of it was a bit more respect for Stuart Elliot. Rock Hard Ten basically challenged Smarty from the 1/2 mile pt. onto the 1 mile and it's hard to see how he could have pulled back on Smarty. Smarty turned back challenges from 3 contenders at that pt. before finally succumbing.

Plus, Elliot was real gracious in defeat doing two interviews with dignity.

THe other thing that got me, was the annoying comments from Randy Moss on the Wire to Wire show the following tuesday. First he says Smarty basically walked through the first 1/2 mile..True, the went 48+. Then he says Smarty just didnt have it in him, he wasnt good enough because Pt. Given's Belmont, he was ahead of Smarty at all points of call in the race; mentions a couple of others that were, and Go for Gin's Belmont, he was ahead of him at nearly all pts of call.

Yeah, they were ahead of him on time precisely because the first half was run so slow. What Moss doesnt mention is that after a 1/2 mile Smarty ran a 23 sec. quarter and then a 23 4/5 quarter. he runs the middle half mil in 46 4/5! That's why he lost, or one of the reasons he lost.

THe way Moss puts it, it's like pace has nothing to do with racing. Or that pressure has nothing to do with it, or that running an incrementally faster fraction means nothing. His analysis makes elapsed time the only factor.

This is clearly an incorrect analysis, pressure in the internal fractions, or just having to run slightly faster is crucial to these races. Moss totall overlooks all that.

Sometimes, Moss really annoys the hell out of me.

Still think there were some riders who cared more about beating Smarty than winning that race, he only had to put away 3 horses before losing to a horse with a perfect trip. I don't think I will ever forget 120,000 screaming people turning to a deafening silence in an instant. You could hear a pin drop right after that race finished.

I think Moss puts more significance on pace than anyone out there which is part of why I really like his analysis.

Really funny. Please tell these nice folks that horses can't read, sheets, totes, the DRF...
"Really funny" says it all.