Excellent article on declining Beyer's of 3yo's

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

I will take that answer as an "I don't know and neither do you" ... which is fine...and not untrue.

I'm telling you though ... if you have consistent weather conditions, accurate clockings, a race track that isn't being fooled around with a lot throughout the day, and a reasonable sampling of both sprint and route races to work with ... you will have a figure that is very, very exact. IMO, always within a length or less of reality.

So you are telling me that a beyer figure is generally exact within a length despite having no regard for pace, trip, in most cases weather changes like wind, harrowing of the track, etc? My question is how do you know if the figure is correct? Based on what evidence? It is all just an educated guessing game and when the numbers are 108 versus 105 I'm pretty sure that they fall within an acceptable margin of error.

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

So you are telling me that a beyer figure is generally exact within a length despite having no regard for pace, trip, in most cases weather changes like wind, harrowing of the track, etc? My question is how do you know if the figure is correct? Based on what evidence? It is all just an educated guessing game and when the numbers are 108 versus 105 I'm pretty sure that they fall within an acceptable margin of error.

No. You're bringing wind, pace, and trip into this and those are things that you know they don't account for.

If you took 5 competent figure makers -- and had them make a Beyer on a typical day when you have consistent weather conditions, accurate clockings, a race track that isn't being fooled around with a lot throughout the day, and a reasonable sampling of both sprint and route races to work with.

I would bet that virtually every single time -- all 5 figure makers would have every single horse to run that day on the card -- within no more than 2-to-3 points of each other.

[cmorioles]

Speed figures, or any performance figure that might measure all the variables CS mentions, will never be exact. However, they will beat any other performance related factor when it comes to picking winners. They have for years, and they will continue to do so for years to come.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

No. You're bringing wind, pace, and trip into this and those are things that you know they don't account for.

If you took 5 competent figure makers -- and had them make a Beyer on a typical day when you have consistent weather conditions, accurate clockings, a race track that isn't being fooled around with a lot throughout the day, and a reasonable sampling of both sprint and route races to work with.

I would bet that virtually every single time -- all 5 figure makers would have every single horse to run that day on the card -- within no more than 2-to-3 points of each other.

True but you are making an awful lot of assumptions here. If everybody is using flawed info then of course they will all come up with a similar flawed number. I guess what I am saying is not that different figure makers will be 30 points off but that there is certainly a margin of error that is associated with every number assigned because things are occuring in a vaccum. So when you start comparing numbers of a single race a year apart I think that a few points could fall within the range of error. Especially in the case of the Derby which is such an outlier race. If horses were running 95 beyers as opposed to 109 I could accept the premise that they make. But 104 versus 106 versus 101 versus 108 all seems to hardly be conclusive

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

True but you are making an awful lot of assumptions here. If everybody is using flawed info then of course they will all come up with a similar flawed number. I guess what I am saying is not that different figure makers will be 30 points off but that there is certainly a margin of error that is associated with every number assigned because things are occuring in a vaccum. So when you start comparing numbers of a single race a year apart I think that a few points could fall within the range of error. Especially in the case of the Derby which is such an outlier race. If horses were running 95 beyers as opposed to 109 I could accept the premise that they make. But 104 versus 106 versus 101 versus 108 all seems to hardly be conclusive

It can be argued that Beyer has "boosted" the figures of several Derby winners over the last several years. If anything, they should probably be lower than they are.

I will say I think it has more to do with the methodology than the horses. In any case, trying to use figures as a historical measure is always going to have problems.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

It can be argued that Beyer has "boosted" the figures of several Derby winners over the last several years. If anything, they should probably be lower than they are.

I will say I think it has more to do with the methodology than the horses. In any case, trying to use figures as a historical measure is always going to have problems.

IMO which is semi-educated though not nearly as proficent with numbers as guys like you and Doug, horses in general arent as good/fast as they were just 12 years ago when started training. Of course I have no actual data to back this up so I'm pretty much like the rest of the industry...lol

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

IMO which is semi-educated though not nearly as proficent with numbers as guys like you and Doug, horses in general arent as good/fast as they were just 12 years ago when started training. Of course I have no actual data to back this up so I'm pretty much like the rest of the industry...lol

I'm not arguing one way or the other, just saying we don't really know. Any decline in figures is just as likely to be the result of figure making methodology as it is the horses, and the same goes for any increase in the figures.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I'm not arguing one way or the other, just saying we don't really know. Any decline in figures is just as likely to be the result of figure making methodology as it is the horses, and the same goes for any increase in the figures.

You are probably right which makes the case I was making in my original post even more valid. That far too often opinions are used as facts and in the rare incidences when facts are used they are often misinterpreted.