"Spaced" Races And "Fresh" Horses Are Killing The Sport

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

By the way, I think that trainers are smart to run their top horses sparingly. It's really hard to keep horses sound and the top trainers know this. If you have a really good horse that looks like he has a good chance to win the Breeder's Cup and that race is your main goal, you would not plan the race to be your horse's 10th start of the year. You would want your horse to be at or near his peak on BC day. Therefore, you would not want the BC to be the horse's 10th race of a long, hard campaign. You would obviously want your horse to come into the race relatively fresh.

For all of you geniuses who think that horses can run 15 times a year, you should go and buy some horses and try it.

And the geniuses who think they can't ... should learn a lot more about thoroughbred racing history.

You've bought into the "fresh horse" theory ... and I completely disagree with it. Nothing will definitively resolve the difference .. but ...

... I do know that thirty years and more ago ... I watched all the best horses in every division race 12 or 15 or more times every year ... top horses facing each other five, six or more times within the campaign ... and today ... fans only get to see their favorites a handful of times at best.

Regardless of which training method works better ... the old way at least made the sport a lot more interesting.

[Pointg5]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

And the geniuses who think they can't ... should learn a lot more about thoroughbred racing history.

You've bought into the "fresh horse" theory ... and I completely disagree with it. Nothing will definitively resolve the difference .. but ...

... I do know that thirty years and more ago ... I watched all the best horses in every division race 12 or 15 or more times every year ... top horses facing each other five, six or more times within the campaign ... and today ... fans only get to see their favorites a handful of times at best.

Regardless of which training method works better ... the old way at least made the sport a lot more interesting.

Horses are also faster today, whether it be from better training methods, nutritional advancements, or "move up" factors, they are faster and the stress from racing is much greater, they need to have their races spaced, so they can properly recover and be at peak.

Originally Posted by Pointg5

Horses are also faster today.

They absolutely, positively are not. Not for the last sixty years or so.

There's not a shred of evidence to back that up.

[Pointg5]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

They absolutely, positively are not. Not for the last sixty years or so.

There's not a shred of evidence to back that up.

I point you to the Thorograph Website, there's as article by the name of "Are races horses getting faster", they present some good arguements, take a look, I am not saying you have to believe, just take a look...

Originally Posted by Pointg5

I point you to the Thorograph Website, there's as article by the name of "Are races horses getting faster", they present some good arguements, take a look, I am not saying you have to believe, just take a look...

Race times are ever-so-marginally faster ... and nowhere near any statistical significance ... than they were sixty years ago ...

... and that's mostly due to track maintenance and timing methods ... than to the ability of the horses themselves.

Don't disparage Phalaris ... there's an awful lot you can learn from her ... she's one of the leading authorities in the business.

[Pointg5]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Race times are ever-so-marginally faster ... and nowhere near any statistical significance ... than they were sixty years ago ...

... and that's mostly due to track maintenance and timing methods ... than to the ability of the horses themselves.

Don't disparage Phalaris ... there's an awful lot you can learn from her ... she's one of the leading authorities in the business.

I didn't disparage Phalaris, never mentioned his/her name...

All that I asked was for you to read that article...

Originally Posted by Pointg5

I didn't disparage Phalaris, never mentioned his/her name...

All that I asked was for you to read that article...

Sorry ... it was Rupe who did it ...

... but you better not either !!!

Please provide a link to the article you mentioned.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

And the geniuses who think they can't ... should learn a lot more about thoroughbred racing history.

You've bought into the "fresh horse" theory ... and I completely disagree with it. Nothing will definitively resolve the difference .. but ...

... I do know that thirty years and more ago ... I watched all the best horses in every division race 12 or 15 or more times every year ... top horses facing each other five, six or more times within the campaign ... and today ... fans only get to see their favorites a handful of times at best.

Regardless of which training method works better ... the old way at least made the sport a lot more interesting.

Something has obviously changed over the last 40 years. I've been really into racing for about 25 years. One of the first things I learned as a handicapper was not to bet horses that were overraced and/or coming back too quickly. It took me a couple of years to figure that out. I would see a really good horse break their maiden first-time out and then they'd come back around 15 days later in an allowance race that they should win easily. I would see these horses get beat time and time again. It didn't take me long to figure out that these horses needed more time to recover. I noticed that if a horse was given 26 days or more after breaking their maiden first-time out, they would have a good chance to win that first-level allowance race.

When I started buying horses, I would see the same thing. I would see that it takes them time to recover from races. Only in rare situations would I ever run a horse on only three weeks rest. Through my experience I have found that by only running horses every 4 weeks or so, not only do they stay sounder but they will stay in form for a much longer period of time.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Something has obviously changed over the last 40 years. I've been really into racing for about 25 years. One of the first things I learned as a handicapper was not to bet horses that were overraced and/or coming back too quickly. It took me a couple of years to figure that out. I would see a really good horse break their maiden first-time out and then they'd come back around 15 days later in an allowance race that they should win easily. I would see these horses get beat time and time again.

That's a real "DUH!" example.

Why should a maiden winner be favored in his first race against horses who previously won at the same level ... and have had more experience since then?

It's very difficult for all but the most talented horses to move up to the next level and win right away. Do you think those horses would have had any better chance in the new, higher condition if they had waited another couple of weeks to try it?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

That's a real "DUH!" example.

Why should a maiden winner be favored in his first race against horses who previously won at the same level ... and have had more experience since then?

It's very difficult for all but the most talented horses to move up to the next level and win right away. Do you think those horses would have had any better chance in the new, higher condition if they had waited another couple of weeks to try it?

Yes, absolutely. The extra time makes all the difference in the world. By the way, I'm not talking about your average first-time out maiden winner. I'm talking about when you see an obvious stakes horse that wins first-time out. You need to be able to recognize the difference. You have to have a good enough eye to tell a Discreet Cat apart from a Dr. Pleasure. When you see a great horse that wins first-time out, he's generally not going to have any problem winning that first-level allowance race as long as he's given enough time to recuperate. A lot of these horses are not worth betting even if they are given enough time because they often go off at 3-5.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

When I started buying horses, I would see the same thing. I would see that it takes them time to recover from races. Only in rare situations would I ever run a horse on only three weeks rest. Through my experience I have found that by only running horses every 4 weeks or so, not only do they stay sounder but they will stay in form for a much longer period of time.

It's fine to have that theory, but there's no evidence to validate it.

Many great horses of the past raced 40, 50, 60 times in their careers without any significant loss of form.

[Assttodixie]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

It's fine to have that theory, but there's no evidence to validate it.

Many great horses of the past raced 40, 50, 60 times in their careers without any significant loss of form.

I asked the BOSS about this and he agrees with you once again Mr. Brooklynite.

The boss thinks the notion that horses perform better with Spaced races is pure HOGWASH. It is akin to other widely held wives tale beliefs like Earth being flat. There is nothing to prove this other than what some trainers of today claim.

I would love to see one of these bluebloods take a Lawyer Ron type of campaign. It would be quite interesting.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Assttodixie

I asked the BOSS about this and he agrees with you once again Mr. Brooklynite.

The boss thinks the notion that horses perform better with Spaced races is pure HOGWASH. It is akin to other widely held wives tale beliefs like Earth being flat. There is nothing to prove this other than what some trainers of today claim.

I would love to see one of these bluebloods take a Lawyer Ron type of campaign. It would be quite interesting.

Lawyer Ron's 2 year old campaing was not what it seems. It took him 6 races to break his maiden. When you're dropping back and making a little late run to come in 3rd in a maiden race, that's not going to take that much out of a horse.

I think that First Samurai's 2 year old campaign was just as demading as LR even though FS only ran 5 times total. FS was competing at the highest level and winning every race. He won his first 4 races in a row and then ran 3rd in the BC Juvenille. That was a tough campaign. Two different times he came back on only 3 weeks rest after really hard races. When a horse is running really hard and winning at the highest level, that's going to probably take a lot more out of a horse than running 5th in a maiden race.

[Assttodixie]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Lawyer Ron's 2 year old campaing was not what it seems. It took him 6 races to break his maiden. When you're dropping back and making a little late run to come in 3rd in a maiden race, that's not going to take that much out of a horse.

I think that First Samurai's 2 year old campaign was just as demading as LR even though FS only ran 5 times total. FS was competing at the highest level and winning every race. He won his first 4 races in a row and then ran 3rd in the BC Juvenille. That was a tough campaign. Two different times he came back on only 3 weeks rest after really hard races. When a horse is running really hard and winning at the highest level, that's going to probably take a lot more out of a horse than running 5th in a maiden race.

Dixie says history is littered with horses that ran much more than four times in a row as two year olds and stuck around for seasons 3,4,5 and beyond. You keep saying that things have changed. But what has changed? Is there any emprical data out there can prove this change?

Originally Posted by Assttodixie

Dixie says history is littered with horses that ran much more than four times in a row as two year olds and stuck around for seasons 3,4,5 and beyond. You keep saying that things have changed. But what has changed? Is there any emprical data out there can prove this change?

There's one piece of data that can't be refuted ...

... not a single 2YO champion has repeated as 3YO champion in the past 27 years ... that's how great today's trainers and training methods are.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Assttodixie

Dixie says history is littered with horses that ran much more than four times in a row as two year olds and stuck around for seasons 3,4,5 and beyond. You keep saying that things have changed. But what has changed? Is there any emprical data out there can prove this change?

Yes, there's plenty of empirical evidence that things have changed. We don't have any great horses any more that run 15 races a year. You can't say that it's for a lack of trying. You can claim it's for a lack of trying with a horse like Bernardini. That would be wrong. If they tried to run Bernardini 15 times a year, they would ruin him. But at least you can say that his connection do not try to run him 15 times a year. That is true, his connection do not try to run him often. But there are plenty of good horses out there that are valuable like Bernardini and their trainers do try to run them often. These horses rarely do well. These horses rarely even make into big races. I doubt you will see any horses in the BC races that have run 13 times this year.

If I was handicapping a race tomorrow and I saw a horse that had already run 12 times this year, this would be the first horse I would throw out unless the race was totally empty of talent. If that was the case, then I wouldn't bet the race. There is almost no way that I would bet a horse that has alreay run 12 times this year.