Quote:
Originally Posted by Port Conway Lane
Sorry but I'm not missing the point. Your first post stated you believe PF's were superior to BSF's in narrowing down the field in the derby.
My reply asked for the record of the top 5 BSF horses over the same time frame and you have not addressed that question. I completed my reply by pointing out, maybe not in the same way you just now acknowledged, that they are "simply a tool,one of many."
|
Ok, I understand you want a multi-year comparison, somewhere in my files I have several years of same which led me to use PF's instead of BSF's. I started using PF's exclusively in 2005 so I didn't compare the two thereafter. If I can locate same, I will post....in the meantime, Dr Roman did a one year study with results posted at his site. The two methods were compared in a variety of ways but in reference to top 5 vs top 5:
2001 Derby
BSF:
Millennium Wind...114 (finished 11th)
Balto Star...112 (finished 14th)
Keats...110 (finished 16th)
Point Given...110 (finished 5th)
Congaree...108 (finished 3rd)
PF's:
Congaree...-76 (finished 3rd)
Thunder Blitz...-76 (finished 4th)
Monarchos...-70 (winner)
Balto Star...-69 (finished 14th)
Millennium Wind (finished 11th)
Again, this was a one year study and Dr Roman summarized results thusly, "No general conclusions about the value of BSFs or PFs should be drawn from these singular results. BSFs have stood the test of time. They are certainly a profound improvement over raw time as a measure of performance. Nevertheless, the results do suggest that other approaches may be at least as accurate and equally useful."