Beyer Speed Figure question (Belmont)

[tector]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

You're looking at this wrong. Beyers are computed relative to the times of other races that day, not races from past years, so you can't compare times from 42 years apart and try to match up the time differential with Beyer points. It's apples to oranges.

But you can compare the figs and then convert that on the beaten lengths chart. See page 104 here: https://goo.gl/4Ks2Qt

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by tector

But you can compare the figs and then convert that on the beaten lengths chart. See page 104 here: https://goo.gl/4Ks2Qt

I understand that, but the races were 42 years apart.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

I understand that, but the races were 42 years apart.

It does seem kind of silly, doesn't it? The 42 year thing that is.

[tector]

Either you largely buy into the premise of the figs or you don't (including the retro calculation for 1973). If you do, then comparisons over decades are no more problematic than say comparisons in the same year. YMMV.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by tector

Either you largely buy into the premise of the figs or you don't (including the retro calculation for 1973). If you do, then comparisons over decades are no more problematic than say comparisons in the same year. YMMV.

That's more where I was at. Why have a figure if it does not simplify the comparison? Within some percentage, comparisons should make sense between the figures and the horses who attained them.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by tector

Either you largely buy into the premise of the figs or you don't (including the retro calculation for 1973). If you do, then comparisons over decades are no more problematic than say comparisons in the same year. YMMV.

I do buy into the BSF premise and it's an important ingredient in my capping. Still, it's not a perfect science by any means. Errors which may be small when comparing horses' races over the course of a few weeks can get magnified when looking at different years or different decades.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by tector

Either you largely buy into the premise of the figs or you don't (including the retro calculation for 1973). If you do, then comparisons over decades are no more problematic than say comparisons in the same year. YMMV.

The length of time in between isn't the main issue; I was just pointing out the 42 years for emphasis. The issue is that it's futile to look at the raw time and the Beyer differential between two races on two different racetracks -- they could be a day apart -- and ask if they 'match up.'

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

The length of time in between isn't the main issue; I was just pointing out the 42 years for emphasis. The issue is that it's futile to look at the raw time and the Beyer differential between two races on two different racetracks -- they could be a day apart -- and ask if they 'match up.'

and don't racetracks have different run ups? then there's the track itself and the composition, and the climate.
they call belmont big sandy for a reason, it's sandier than most tracks. easy goer loved it, sunday silence, not so much.

[tector]

Let me repeat--you either buy the general premise of figs or you don't. It is apparent from the besides-the-point blathering from some of you that you don't. That's fine, but just say so. A frigging run-up, for but one example, is already built into the system.

Jesus, sometimes this place has the density of a black hole.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by tector

Either you largely buy into the premise of the figs or you don't (including the retro calculation for 1973). If you do, then comparisons over decades are no more problematic than say comparisons in the same year. YMMV.

Excellent point.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by tector

But you can compare the figs and then convert that on the beaten lengths chart. See page 104 here: https://goo.gl/4Ks2Qt

but it's all still an exercise in trying to decode. and horses can't do math.