Thorograph #'s- Past Derby Winners

[golfer]

Originally Posted by Cardus

The same phenomenon has occured with Ragozin Sheets as well. If you look at the Ragozin home page and click on "Past Derby Winners," you'll see a similar trend.

The horses are running faster, they need more time between races... and so on.

For instance, the notion that Ghostzapper was faster than Secretariat is on the surface laughable.

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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by golfer

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.

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.

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?

[parsixfarms]

[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.

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

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. ...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....

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?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Cardus

Did people in the 70s and 80s complain about souped-up tracks on "big" racing days like we complain (rightfully) now? I wouldn't know about the 70s and probably didn't follow the sport on an analytical level in the 80s, but my guess is that the answer is, "No."

Today, hype is more important than substance (unfortunately), and track managements seem to have paved their racecourses intermittently on "big" race days to produce eye-catching race times, as if that will draw more people to the races.

If that statement is true, than how is it that tracks are slower today?

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.

[golfer]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

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.

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.