BSF 'Doldrums': Figure Dives

[The Bid]

If you are going to put that much weight into those figures you should learn how to make them yourself.

Its a joke that any trainer would use those numbers to dictate how they train, or where they point a horse. If these guys dont know what they have in the barn without a black and white number they dont need to be training.

[Hickory Hill Hoff]

Originally Posted by The Bid

If you are going to put that much weight into those figures you should learn how to make them yourself.

Its a joke that any trainer would use those numbers to dictate how they train, or where they point a horse. If these guys dont know what they have in the barn without a black and white number they dont need to be training.

Figures mean little...unless your talking about the "opposite" sex
But then again...with true love, looks shouldn't matter
With horses, they still have to run a winning race...no matter what their "figure" was last time.

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by The Bid

If you are going to put that much weight into those figures you should learn how to make them yourself.

Its a joke that any trainer would use those numbers to dictate how they train, or where they point a horse. If these guys dont know what they have in the barn without a black and white number they dont need to be training.

wasnt that air lord or something like that, like 90 to 72.

[Linny]

I don't disagree Cannon Shell. As a horseman you know more than most that it's a fine line between undertraining and overtraining. I think that far too many horses are considered Derby material and are ruined trying for an unreachable grail. I agree that the two race method isn't the best but look at how many of the top Derby colts are doing it this year. These are not "off the beaten path" colts and in the case of Ravel, not horses with much 2yo foundation either.
From time to time I see horses in "Derby preps" who really don't look like strong Derby horses. As a handicapper, I assume that a race like the Florida Derby or the Lane's End (or whatever) IS their Derby. It's the big money race they want with this horse. While others are pointing for Churchill, they are pointin got that one race.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Linny

From time to time I see horses in "Derby preps" who really don't look like strong Derby horses. As a handicapper, I assume that a race like the Florida Derby or the Lane's End (or whatever) IS their Derby. It's the big money race they want with this horse. While others are pointing for Churchill, they are pointin got that one race.

Very true

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The problem with the plan is that only one guy is going to win and most of the rest of the horses are going to turn out to be finished by the first Sunday in May. If they worried more about winning the races at hand instead of worrying about "peaking" on Derby day, they would be much better off. It is impossible to keep a horse from peaking unless you undertrain them, which leads to injuries which is why the attrition rate is so high among three year olds after the Derby. The trend toward fewer preps is a bad one.

Good to read that!

Originally Posted by Linny

I don't disagree Cannon Shell. As a horseman you know more than most that it's a fine line between undertraining and overtraining. I think that far too many horses are considered Derby material and are ruined trying for an unreachable grail. I agree that the two race method isn't the best but look at how many of the top Derby colts are doing it this year. These are not "off the beaten path" colts and in the case of Ravel, not horses with much 2yo foundation either.

Just because several top colts are being handled that way this year doesn't mean it's a successful route to the Derby. To some degree, Barbaro legitimized the 2-prep route, even though if I remember correctly, he had a technical "3rd prep" just after the New Year. It's suddenly fashionable to go lightly into the Derby. It remains to be seen whether other horses can duplicate Barbaro's Derby result with that kind of light 3-yr-old racing. IMO, it will take another vastly superior horse to win going that route.

--Dunbar

[King Glorious]

I remember when they gave Smarty Jones a Preakness number that a lot of people thought was too low. But it "fit" with his previous numbers. Perhaps his previous numbers had been too low and it through everything out of wack. If u start wrong, u are going to end wrong. Right?

This whole revision based on next outs is extremely ridiculous. I've always been told that it's impossible to compare races from different days and run on different tracks and under different conditions and that's where speed figures come into play. But then when they look at a totally different race with tons of different variables involved to tell me how fast a PREVIOUS race was, that's too much for me. A system should be able to be used by anyone if they know the system and they should all be able to come up with the same number. I mean, all of us, if we add 2+2, should come up with 4. Now that's a system. This other stuff is not a system. I don't know what it is. The thing I've always tried to do is not look for a horse with high numbers because I don't know how they come about the numbers. What I look for is a consistency in the numbers, with the hope that whatever quacky way they come up with them, that they are consistent in their approach.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I remember when they gave Smarty Jones a Preakness number that a lot of people thought was too low. But it "fit" with his previous numbers. Perhaps his previous numbers had been too low and it through everything out of wack. If u start wrong, u are going to end wrong. Right?

This whole revision based on next outs is extremely ridiculous. I've always been told that it's impossible to compare races from different days and run on different tracks and under different conditions and that's where speed figures come into play. But then when they look at a totally different race with tons of different variables involved to tell me how fast a PREVIOUS race was, that's too much for me. A system should be able to be used by anyone if they know the system and they should all be able to come up with the same number. I mean, all of us, if we add 2+2, should come up with 4. Now that's a system. This other stuff is not a system. I don't know what it is. The thing I've always tried to do is not look for a horse with high numbers because I don't know how they come about the numbers. What I look for is a consistency in the numbers, with the hope that whatever quacky way they come up with them, that they are consistent in their approach.

I'm just curious as to how that makes any sense...

If you're questioning how they came up with the figures, how can you be concerned with the former but trust that they're consistent?

There are going to be errors and I'd rather they correct their errors then let them stay incorrect. Maybe that's just me...

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

I'm just curious as to how that makes any sense...

If you're questioning how they came up with the figures, how can you be concerned with the former but trust that they're consistent?

There are going to be errors and I'd rather they correct their errors then let them stay incorrect. Maybe that's just me...

I thought it was perfectly clear.

He wants his numbers to be consistently quacky.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

I'm just curious as to how that makes any sense...

If you're questioning how they came up with the figures, how can you be concerned with the former but trust that they're consistent?

There are going to be errors and I'd rather they correct their errors then let them stay incorrect. Maybe that's just me...

Simple. Let's say for example that a system says that when a horse runs "x" time, he gets a figure of 100. If he runs "y" time, it's a figure of 105. If he runs "z" time, it's a figure of 110. In that example, I don't need to know what the time is that's needed to get each figure. All I need to know is that the figure maker is consistent. On second thought, maybe it doesn't make that much sense. I think that seeing consistent numbers is a sign that the horse is running the same kind of race everytime, not wildly different ones that leave too much in the hands of the figuremakers. I think it's clear that when things are left in the hands of the figuremakers, too much subjective thoughts and opinions come into play.

I think that overall, the system itself is a good one. I just wish that what they would do is leave the raw numbers alone and give us those and leave it to the individual to decide how it should be adjusted. Horses are imperfect animals and the same horse will not run the same in two different races even if the conditions are exact. Too many variables come into play in each race. So I think they should let each race stand on it's on and no past or future races should be a factor in determining that day's race. It is what it is and no other race should be able to make it faster or slower. I once scored 52 points in a basketball game in high school. In no other game did I ever go over 40. Does that mean that the 52 that I scored wasn't legit? Of course not. It may have been a fluke performance, one that I won't ever equal again...but it doesn't take away from the fact that I scored them that day. Same with the horses.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I remember when they gave Smarty Jones a Preakness number that a lot of people thought was too low. But it "fit" with his previous numbers. Perhaps his previous numbers had been too low and it through everything out of wack. If u start wrong, u are going to end wrong. Right?

This whole revision based on next outs is extremely ridiculous. I've always been told that it's impossible to compare races from different days and run on different tracks and under different conditions and that's where speed figures come into play. But then when they look at a totally different race with tons of different variables involved to tell me how fast a PREVIOUS race was, that's too much for me. A system should be able to be used by anyone if they know the system and they should all be able to come up with the same number. I mean, all of us, if we add 2+2, should come up with 4. Now that's a system. This other stuff is not a system. I don't know what it is. The thing I've always tried to do is not look for a horse with high numbers because I don't know how they come about the numbers. What I look for is a consistency in the numbers, with the hope that whatever quacky way they come up with them, that they are consistent in their approach.

First of all, the Smarty Jones Preakness number was a 118. Even delusional Smarty Jones fans didn't think that was too low ( not that most of them can read ).

But, more importantly, MAKE YOUR OWN FIGURES. Until you do so, and get at least some real life perspective on the difficulties involved in that, your continued bashing of Beyer figures carries absolutely zero weight. You only do yourself a disservice by criticizing ANYTHING from such an enormous position of weakness.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

First of all, the Smarty Jones Preakness number was a 118. Even delusional Smarty Jones fans didn't think that was too low ( not that most of them can read ).

But, more importantly, MAKE YOUR OWN FIGURES. Until you do so, and get at least some real life perspective on the difficulties involved in that, your continued bashing of Beyer figures carries absolutely zero weight. You only do yourself a disservice by criticizing ANYTHING from such an enormous position of weakness.

It's funny that you mention those two things in the same post, because I was trying to learn to make my own figures around that time that should have coincided roughly with the Beyer scale, and I gave up after assigning Smarty Jones a 152 in the Preakness.

[Shifty Shiek]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

First of all, the Smarty Jones Preakness number was a 118. Even delusional Smarty Jones fans didn't think that was too low ( not that most of them can read ).

But, more importantly, MAKE YOUR OWN FIGURES. Until you do so, and get at least some real life perspective on the difficulties involved in that, your continued bashing of Beyer figures carries absolutely zero weight. You only do yourself a disservice by criticizing ANYTHING from such an enormous position of weakness.

Reminds me of the guy that was banned from here. Is it him?

[ArlJim78]

First thought;

Originally Posted by King Glorious

A system should be able to be used by anyone if they know the system and they should all be able to come up with the same number. I mean, all of us, if we add 2+2, should come up with 4. Now that's a system. This other stuff is not a system. I don't know what it is.

Very next post;

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I think that overall, the system itself is a good one.

Just a suggestion, maybe you might want to be consistent in your own thoughts, and figure out what you're trying to say before posting.
Someone suggested trying to make your own figures. That would be a great idea because you would soon find out what the issues are that create these problems. Another suggestion I have is since you seem to like raw times so much, and since they are universally available, just use the raw times and let everyone else work with these quacky figure systems.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

First thought;


Very next post;


Just a suggestion, maybe you might want to be consistent in your own thoughts, and figure out what you're trying to say before posting.
Someone suggested trying to make your own figures. That would be a great idea because you would soon find out what the issues are that create these problems. Another suggestion I have is since you seem to like raw times so much, and since they are universally available, just use the raw times and let everyone else work with these quacky figure systems.

How about this sir. This Beyer stuff is not a system. The theory in general is a good one. Is that a little better? Also, I didn't say use raw times. I said the raw numbers that the Beyer's come up with. There is a difference. The formula that they use takes into account several factors, among them race results from that day, par times over a given period for classes and distances. I would like if they used the formula and come up with a raw number and leave it at that without adjusting based on previous performances and especially subsequent performances. I don't know how one can possibly use past and subsequent performances to judge 2yo's and 3yo's. They are changing so much from race to race. Most of them are not set to run at their peak but are building up to their peak with each race. Many of them are trying new distances and tracks for the first time. How in the world can anyone know how fast they are likely to run or what they should be running during this period? If u want to use past and subsequent performances on an established horse, say a Lava Man, that would at least make more sense. But not on developing horses.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

This whole revision based on next outs is extremely ridiculous. I've always been told that it's impossible to compare races from different days and run on different tracks and under different conditions and that's where speed figures come into play. But then when they look at a totally different race with tons of different variables involved to tell me how fast a PREVIOUS race was, that's too much for me.

I agree that revising based on next outs is ridiculous, but perhaps for a different reason than you. Beyer figs have always used past races to get some kind of baseline for the expected performance in the next race. That's okay, IMO, because it is not based on a single horse's performance, but rather every horse in the race. What I don't like about the Summer Doldrum's revision is (1) it appears to be primarily due to the poor showing by a single horse in its next out, and (2) it smacks of backfitting, which makes all the figs more suspect.

In essense, revising that figure from a month ago downward based on how the horse ran this weekend is admitting that Beyer had no clue what kind of figure the horse ran 3 weeks ago. It would be far better to just admit that, instead of assigning it a number based on how it ran 4 (?) weeks later.

--Dunbar

[cmorioles]

I can't help but bring this old thread back up. Now that Sports Town just romped, should the Whirlaway be re-reevaluated?