Just how much faster are horses now?

[The Indomitable DrugS]

It's amazing when you look at the Thoro-Graph sheets and you hear Jerry Brown make his claims about how wildly faster racehorses are now than they were just 10 years ago.

John's Burger - recently won a pair of $5,000 starter alw races going six furlongs at Mountaineer. He earned a negative 2.5 and negative 2 on TG for those two wins.

By comparsion - when Artax won the '99 Breeders Cup Sprint in sensational fashion - he got a TG figure of 0.50. The great Kona Gold was second with a 1.00 - the mighty Big Jag was 3rd with a 0.50 (five wide trip) Forestry was 4th with a 1.25 and Successful Appeal was 5th with a 2.50

But yeah, John's Burger's two workmanlike six furlong 5K starter alw wins at MTR would have crushed that star studded group of sprinters on TG.

Ferdinand won the Derby with a 7 on TG. Alysheba won the Derby with a 6 on TG. Winning Colors won the Derby with a 6.50 on TG. Sunday Silence won the Derby with a 6.25 on TG. Four great horses right there.

On Aug 7th at Monmouth, Sir Tyler T finished 4th beaten 4.50 lengths in a 5K claiming route on the dirt - his TG number was a 6.25 On July 17th, Sir Tyler T was 4th beaten 6.5 lengths at Monmouth in a 5k claiming route. His TG number was 6.25

Basically - Ferdinand, Alysheba, Winning Colors, and Sunday Silence - in their Derby victories - all ran good enough to translate to a soundly beaten 4th place finish in a 5K claiming route at Monmouth Park today.


Jerry Brown has all of his fancy convincing power point presentations on why this is so. He says this is not reflected on the Beyer figures - because Beyers are weighted down by pars. On Ragozin, horses are faster than before - but not quite to as extreme a level as on TG.

The most interesting thing to me is that how the gap between being a stakes horse and a claiming horse seemed to be much wider on everyones numbers 10 years ago. I think it really speaks to how "good" claiming trainers have become over the last ten years.

[RockHardTen1985]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

It's amazing when you look at the Thoro-Graph sheets and you hear Jerry Brown make his claims about how wildly faster racehorses are now than they were just 10 years ago.

John's Burger - recently won a pair of $5,000 starter alw races going six furlongs at Mountaineer. He earned a negative 2.5 and negative 2 on TG for those two wins.

By comparsion - when Artax won the '99 Breeders Cup Sprint in sensational fashion - he got a TG figure of 0.50. The great Kona Gold was second with a 1.00 - the mighty Big Jag was 3rd with a 0.50 (five wide trip) Forestry was 4th with a 1.25 and Successful Appeal was 5th with a 2.50

But yeah, John's Burger's two workmanlike six furlong 5K starter alw wins at MTR would have crushed that star studded group of sprinters on TG.

Ferdinand won the Derby with a 7 on TG. Alysheba won the Derby with a 6 on TG. Winning Colors won the Derby with a 6.50 on TG. Sunday Silence won the Derby with a 6.25 on TG. Four great horses right there.

On Aug 7th at Monmouth, Sir Tyler T finished 4th beaten 4.50 lengths in a 5K claiming route on the dirt - his TG number was a 6.25 On July 17th, Sir Tyler T was 4th beaten 6.5 lengths at Monmouth in a 5k claiming route. His TG number was 6.25

Basically - Ferdinand, Alysheba, Winning Colors, and Sunday Silence - in their Derby victories - all ran good enough to translate to a soundly beaten 4th place finish in a 5K claiming route at Monmouth Park today.


Jerry Brown has all of his fancy convincing power point presentations on why this is so. He says this is not reflected on the Beyer figures - because Beyers are weighted down by pars. On Ragozin, horses are faster than before - but not quite to as extreme a level as on TG.

The most interesting thing to me is that how the gap between being a stakes horse and a claiming horse seemed to be much wider on everyones numbers 10 years ago. I think it really speaks to how "good" claiming trainers have become over the last ten years.

Great work Doug, like always....

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Do not mock Santana.

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

The most interesting thing to me is that how the gap between being a stakes horse and a claiming horse seemed to be much wider on everyones numbers 10 years ago. I think it really speaks to how "good" claiming trainers have become over the last ten years.

And this is clearly indicated by how many claiming horses are stepping up and beating stake horses. Or, it just might be the case that the methods utilized in deriving these figures might need some tweaking. (I would venture a wild guess that it'd a lot easier to, predictively, time time-trials as opposed to pelotons.) But why would these guys want to do that, when their systems are clearly IRREFRAGABLE?

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

And this is clearly indicated by how many claiming horses are stepping up and beating stake horses.

You don't understand.

Horses like Skip Away, Formal Gold, and Gentlemen would have beaten solid mid level claimers at that time by two football fields. It would have been an utter bloodbath on everyones figures.

Today, those mid-level claimers would be a LOT more competitive with our top stakes horses.

You've seen a lot of cases of laughably outclassed horses stepping up and running 2nd in weak Grade 1 races on both coasts this year.

[the_fat_man]

[quote=The Indomitable DrugS;692857]You don't understand.

Horses like Skip Away, Formal Gold, and Gentlemen would have beaten solid mid level claimers at that time by two football fields. It would have been an utter bloodbath on everyones figures.

Today, those mid-level claimers would be a LOT more competitive.

You've seen a lot of cases of laughably outclassed horses stepping up and running 2nd in weak Grade 1 races on both coasts this year.[/QUOTE]

This is because the fields are so weak; and there are very few, very good horses. Why wouldn't a plug run 2nd when it's better than the other plugs in the race?

You know what stands out to me as a real difference in the way horses are running today, as opposed to how they ran in the, say, '70's/'80's? The fact that horses today seem to be able to handle a mixing of distances. Seems like just about every Southern Cal horse is prolific at both sprint and route distances. Especially those in the barn of Sadler, Baffert, Mitchell, O'neil, etc.
Once upon a time, horses were either routers or sprinters and they were trained that way. Off a layoff, they'd sprint routers to get them fit. Now, these trainers are so 'gifted' they can run these horses different distances (not to mention, surfaces) -- even alternate them with no visible affect in performance.

Just in the way of an example, check out just about ANY horse running up @ WO. More specifically, check out horses that run 7F. It seems that they, almost always, alternate between 7F and 2 turns. Back and forth. With a bunch of 6F (and even 5F) races thrown in, just for fun. The 7F/2turn thing is real big down at TAM, as well.

In what other sport and athletes going different distances?

[quote=the_fat_man;692863]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

You don't understand.

Horses like Skip Away, Formal Gold, and Gentlemen would have beaten solid mid level claimers at that time by two football fields. It would have been an utter bloodbath on everyones figures.

Today, those mid-level claimers would be a LOT more competitive.

You've seen a lot of cases of laughably outclassed horses stepping up and running 2nd in weak Grade 1 races on both coasts this year.[/QUOTE]

This is because the fields are so weak; and there are very few, very good horses. Why wouldn't a plug run 2nd when it's better than the other plugs in the race?

You know what stands out to me as a real difference in the way horses are running today, as opposed to how they ran in the, say, '70's/'80's? The fact that horses today seem to be able to handle a mixing of distances. Seems like just about every Southern Cal horse is prolific at both sprint and route distances. Especially those in the barn of Sadler, Baffert, Mitchell, O'neil, etc.
Once upon a time, horses were either routers or sprinters and they were trained that way. Off a layoff, they'd sprint routers to get them fit. Now, these trainers are so 'gifted' they can run these horses different distances (not to mention, surfaces) -- even alternate them with no visible affect in performance.

Just in the way of an example, check out just about ANY horse running up @ WO. More specifically, check out horses that run 7F. It seems that they, almost always, alternate between 7F and 2 turns. Back and forth. With a bunch of 6F (and even 5F) races thrown in, just for fun. The 7F/2turn thing is real big down at TAM, as well.

In what other sport and athletes going different distances?

Swimming

[philcski]

[quote=Coach Pants;692866]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

Swimming

Auto racing

[philcski]

I think the 7f-2 turn that, after years of handicappers recognizing how effective the turnback is at that trip, have finally caught on. Especially at a place like Woodbine, which requires some stamina to go 7f.

[Pedigree Ann]

Major rant here:
What has happened since the olden days, when trainers raced horses instead of training them, each meet had a series of races, usually two weeks apart, of increasing distances leading up to the centerpiece race of the meet for the division, which was the big money race - the Widener for the older horses, the Flamingo for the 3yos, the Turf Cup for turf horses, etc. A horse like Ack Ack or Forego or Precisionist would run in such a series to get them fit and just as often win them, despite carrying highweight. These horses were as adept at running 7f as they were at 10f. And sometimes the supposed sprinters surprised their connections - few people thought the speedy Native Diver would stay 10f, yet when he went for the big money in the Hollywood Gold Cup he proved them wrong.

The all-round horse was the ideal before the Breeders' Cup came along to give sprinters and milers a big payday without having to prove themselves at longer distances. Nowadays, some horses have never been given a chance to show they can stay because they are so good at sprinting or miling (which includes 9f); maybe they try it once and fail because circumstances are less than ideal (off track, Derby-field trouble, etc.) and are never given another chance. And many Eastern tracks have helped horses avoid running long by playing up 9f races (which used to be preps) and downgrading or omitting the classic-distance races (looking at you, GP and NYRA and MD and CD ). Let's face it - if Precisionist or Ack Ack were running today, would your trainer try to condition him to run long? Or would they be happy that he can win G1s at 6f or 8f or 9f on natural talent and clean up in weak G1s before they go to stud? Maybe you run him in the BC Classic and he actually wins or places because of his innate talent, then you're golden. But if he fails, you can still stand him for lots of cash because everybody knows that milers make the best stallions (for 6f-9f races, that is).

As to speed figures and sheets numbers, based as they are on times of races, I find them a near waste of my brain cells. If you think that a $5K claimer that runs a big number can win you a graded stakes race, go claim it and prove it. The reason so many graded stakes are weak is that there are TOO MANY graded stakes for the way horses are campaigned these days. 6 to 8 weeks between races as opposed to 2 to 3 weeks means that the good horses are not available for all the races in the interval. Yet the racetracks keep adding more 'stakes races' (glorified overnights) and the grading committee abets their irresponsibility.

[MISTERGEE]

Originally Posted by Pedigree Ann

Major rant here:
What has happened since the olden days, when trainers raced horses instead of training them, each meet had a series of races, usually two weeks apart, of increasing distances leading up to the centerpiece race of the meet for the division, which was the big money race - the Widener for the older horses, the Flamingo for the 3yos, the Turf Cup for turf horses, etc. A horse like Ack Ack or Forego or Precisionist would run in such a series to get them fit and just as often win them, despite carrying highweight. These horses were as adept at running 7f as they were at 10f. And sometimes the supposed sprinters surprised their connections - few people thought the speedy Native Diver would stay 10f, yet when he went for the big money in the Hollywood Gold Cup he proved them wrong.

The all-round horse was the ideal before the Breeders' Cup came along to give sprinters and milers a big payday without having to prove themselves at longer distances. Nowadays, some horses have never been given a chance to show they can stay because they are so good at sprinting or miling (which includes 9f); maybe they try it once and fail because circumstances are less than ideal (off track, Derby-field trouble, etc.) and are never given another chance. And many Eastern tracks have helped horses avoid running long by playing up 9f races (which used to be preps) and downgrading or omitting the classic-distance races (looking at you, GP and NYRA and MD and CD ). Let's face it - if Precisionist or Ack Ack were running today, would your trainer try to condition him to run long? Or would they be happy that he can win G1s at 6f or 8f or 9f on natural talent and clean up in weak G1s before they go to stud? Maybe you run him in the BC Classic and he actually wins or places because of his innate talent, then you're golden. But if he fails, you can still stand him for lots of cash because everybody knows that milers make the best stallions (for 6f-9f races, that is).

As to speed figures and sheets numbers, based as they are on times of races, I find them a near waste of my brain cells. If you think that a $5K claimer that runs a big number can win you a graded stakes race, go claim it and prove it. The reason so many graded stakes are weak is that there are TOO MANY graded stakes for the way horses are campaigned these days. 6 to 8 weeks between races as opposed to 2 to 3 weeks means that the good horses are not available for all the races in the interval. Yet the racetracks keep adding more 'stakes races' (glorified overnights) and the grading committee abets their irresponsibility.

Temecula Creek

[Smooth Operator]

John's Burger, eh


Speaking of Jerry B, btw … noticed that he started a "Rachel" thread over there a day or so after RA got exposed at the classic American distance.

Claimed she bounced off the two previous "big efforts" … and that the race didn't prove that she couldn't get the distance.


Say what??????????????

[johnny pinwheel]

Originally Posted by Pedigree Ann

Major rant here:
What has happened since the olden days, when trainers raced horses instead of training them, each meet had a series of races, usually two weeks apart, of increasing distances leading up to the centerpiece race of the meet for the division, which was the big money race - the Widener for the older horses, the Flamingo for the 3yos, the Turf Cup for turf horses, etc. A horse like Ack Ack or Forego or Precisionist would run in such a series to get them fit and just as often win them, despite carrying highweight. These horses were as adept at running 7f as they were at 10f. And sometimes the supposed sprinters surprised their connections - few people thought the speedy Native Diver would stay 10f, yet when he went for the big money in the Hollywood Gold Cup he proved them wrong.

The all-round horse was the ideal before the Breeders' Cup came along to give sprinters and milers a big payday without having to prove themselves at longer distances. Nowadays, some horses have never been given a chance to show they can stay because they are so good at sprinting or miling (which includes 9f); maybe they try it once and fail because circumstances are less than ideal (off track, Derby-field trouble, etc.) and are never given another chance. And many Eastern tracks have helped horses avoid running long by playing up 9f races (which used to be preps) and downgrading or omitting the classic-distance races (looking at you, GP and NYRA and MD and CD ). Let's face it - if Precisionist or Ack Ack were running today, would your trainer try to condition him to run long? Or would they be happy that he can win G1s at 6f or 8f or 9f on natural talent and clean up in weak G1s before they go to stud? Maybe you run him in the BC Classic and he actually wins or places because of his innate talent, then you're golden. But if he fails, you can still stand him for lots of cash because everybody knows that milers make the best stallions (for 6f-9f races, that is).

As to speed figures and sheets numbers, based as they are on times of races, I find them a near waste of my brain cells. If you think that a $5K claimer that runs a big number can win you a graded stakes race, go claim it and prove it. The reason so many graded stakes are weak is that there are TOO MANY graded stakes for the way horses are campaigned these days. 6 to 8 weeks between races as opposed to 2 to 3 weeks means that the good horses are not available for all the races in the interval. Yet the racetracks keep adding more 'stakes races' (glorified overnights) and the grading committee abets their irresponsibility.

its a sensible rant and makes perfect sense....i agree with you and homer. in fact i've written simular things on here. the horses are superior...what, all 4 or 5 of them split up between 40 races or more.....lol. that run about 4 or 5 times a year...yeah, i'm buying that. they are faster even yet but only if the field is four other slugs that have hardly a chance because the "MAIN" competition is running somewhere else that weekend. "no they are faster because my computed time sheet says so.....oh yeah, and i sell this product...it will give you all kinds of winners."...lol. a horse that gets good can always move up. thats been happening for as long as i can remember. when 5k claimers can beat grade one horses because his numbers say so, cows will be flying. if you buy his product ...throw your money on the floor and walk away.......lol

[Thunder Gulch]

I have a lot of respect for Brown and how he has improved on Rags ideas and created a useful product. It is extremely difficult to believe in his argument about how much faster the horses are today even after you follow his well prepared argument. At the end of the day, however, it really doesn't matter for day to day handicapping with Thorograph. The numbers he creates today are for today's races, and whether or not the animals are faster than ones 30 years ago is a moot point.

[cmorioles]

It is not a moot point if the theory is wrong and it is a part of how he makes figures.

[clyde]

As the speed of light slows ( and it is on that irrevocable road)...horseys will appear faster.



But not in Australia.

They don't know about light down there.

[Thunder Gulch]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

It is not a moot point if the theory is wrong and it is a part of how he makes figures.

The theory has to do with the composition of the surfaces, and doesn't affect comparisons between current runners.