Week/Weekend Stakes Beyers: Swiss Skydiver 105

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I have a question. Overall, I agree with you that having an understanding of how figures are made is necessary. But isn't it clear that the scale of today isn't the same as the scale of yesterday? I remember seeing top horses routinely going 115+ and it wasn't unusual to see 120. I look at the Beyer leaderboard for each year and I see some interesting things.

From 1993-2005:
26 different horses reach 120 in dirt races over a mile.
34 performances that were 120+
In 1997 alone, there were 12 performances that got a 121 figure or higher.

From 2006-2018:
5 different horses reached 120 in dirt races over a mile.
6 performances that were 120+

I broke it down a little more. The list shows the leaderboards from 1993-2018 so 26 years. I broke them down to 1993-2005 and 2006-2018 so two 13 years segments. Here's what I found:

It lists the top 27 2yo performances at any distance
1993-2005 has 19
2006-2018 has 8
2010 til now has 4

It lists the top 24 3yo performances at any distance
1993-2005 has 19
2006-2018 has 5
2010 til now has 3

It lists the top 20 sprint performances (8f and under)
1993-2005 has 18
2006-2018 has 2
2010 til now has 1

It lists the top 21 performances on dirt of more than a mile
1993-2005 has 20
2006-2018 has 1
2010 til now has 1

So while I understand that horses like Ghostzapper and Formal Gold and Cigar were special horses, am I to believe that we can't even produce horses like Sky Jack, Concerned Minister, or Stephen Got Even? Like Aptitude, Mariah's Storm, Kiridashi, or Ormsby?

So maybe it's not just needing an understanding of how to make figures but also an understanding of the way the scales have changed and how to fit a figure into a historical context. For example, maybe 110 is the new 120 (not saying it is but just making the point). If you understand that, then a 105 is looked at a little different but if you try to compare numbers from today to numbers of yesterday, it will look like Swiss Skydiver's second fastest Preakness ever is still slower than the top 27 2yo horses ran from 1993-2018.

you routinely hear Beyer defend the big figs from the past, that said other figure makers seem to disagree that horses are getting slower? I think CJ's figs are higher of course he takes pace into account. I dont follow Jerry Brown but he also seems to digree from Beyer in that horses are slower in 2020 than they were 25 years ago? some suggest the tracks are deeper? How the heck would anyone save a trainer or super know for sure? These are interesting conversations to have, I have no problem challenging Fig orthodoxy, sometimes they break out races, sometimes they make artful assumptions, it ain't perfect or is it meant to be. But the random "I think its a tad light" stuff is comical.

[Dahoss]

Freddy being a voice of reason is so 2020

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by freddymo

you routinely hear Beyer defend the big figs from the past, that said other figure makers seem to disagree that horses are getting slower? I think CJ's figs are higher of course he takes pace into account. I dont follow Jerry Brown but he also seems to digree from Beyer in that horses are slower in 2020 than they were 25 years ago? some suggest the tracks are deeper? How the heck would anyone save a trainer or super know for sure? These are interesting conversations to have, I have no problem challenging Fig orthodoxy, sometimes they break out races, sometimes they make artful assumptions, it ain't perfect or is it meant to be. But the random "I think its a tad light" stuff is comical.

Someone made a comparison that I don’t know how much merit it has but that I do at least find interesting. Much like the way we don’t see the freakish home run totals in baseball anymore, has the cleaning up of the sport as far as illegal drug usage in horses, led to a more realistic product?

I think there are several factors that lead to lower figures but not necessarily slower horses. Don’t shoot me if I have this wrong but I think I remember years ago that when they use par figures for the Beyer system, it’s based on the past three years? Is that accurate? I feel like in general, we breed lesser horses. There is such a demand on horses due to having so many tracks and so many races that they need to breed more horses and I feel like it makes the sport sacrifice quality for quantity. I once read that about 70-75% of the races in this country are under 8f so now you add in breeding more for speed than stamina. Now, add in the fact that as we get newer and younger blood in game from a human perspective, they are more and more into the “instant results” era so we are breeding more horses to be precocious early rather than the ones that develop later and improve with age. All of these things lead to less sturdy horses that run far fewer times which makes it that much harder to get a base on them. Because top horses run so infrequently now, you get a lot more slower horses running in top races and that will throw a lot of numbers way off.

So I think that overall, the horses are slower than in the past but I think the best ones are still as fast as the best ones have been before. It’s worth noting that we don’t get to see as many of the top 3yo horses like American Pharoah run as older horses and that plays a part in it also.

[Alabama Stakes]

Originally Posted by freddymo

you routinely hear Beyer defend the big figs from the past, that said other figure makers seem to disagree that horses are getting slower? I think CJ's figs are higher of course he takes pace into account. I dont follow Jerry Brown but he also seems to digree from Beyer in that horses are slower in 2020 than they were 25 years ago? some suggest the tracks are deeper? How the heck would anyone save a trainer or super know for sure? These are interesting conversations to have, I have no problem challenging Fig orthodoxy, sometimes they break out races, sometimes they make artful assumptions, it ain't perfect or is it meant to be. But the random "I think its a tad light" stuff is comical.

What’s really comical is that these beyer numbers, which have gotten significantly lower over the years, can’t really compare hosses from past to present. Who decided that they should be so much lower ? That filly ran 1:53.2. If they went another 1/16 she most likely shades 2:00 for a mile and a quarter. Is that another 105 ? I mean if figures now can’t be compared to the past, what good are they in a historic sense ? They’re not. They are the most overrated thing out there. If you couldn’t see that authentic and the filly were motoring home, you don’t know what you’re watching. 105 .....pfff

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Alabama Stakes

What’s really comical is that these beyer numbers, which have gotten significantly lower over the years, can’t really compare hosses from past to present. Who decided that they should be so much lower ? That filly ran 1:53.2. If they went another 1/16 she most likely shades 2:00 for a mile and a quarter. Is that another 105 ? I mean if figures now can’t be compared to the past, what good are they in a historic sense ? They’re not. They are the most overrated thing out there. If you couldn’t see that authentic and the filly were motoring home, you don’t know what you’re watching. 105 .....pfff

Quite an answer.

Couple of things...why are you so hung up on something you think are overrated and useless?

There was a 2 hour break from the Defrancis to the Black Eyed Susan’s. It would appear the track sped up significantly...unless you think Miss Marissa improved like 20 points in winning the BES.

Beyer and CJ seem to be in agreement over the fig. That’s good enough for me.

[Alabama Stakes]

I don’t look at beyer numbers at all. I’m just using a common sense idea that if a filly runs the second fastest time in Preakness history, that it would get a significantly higher number than 105. As far as juicing the track up, isn’t that one of those conspiracy theories that you frown upon.

You watched the stretch, did it not appear to the naked eye that those two were running very fast ?
Were you surprised the beyer wasn’t higher ?

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Alabama Stakes

I don’t look at beyer numbers at all. I’m just using a common sense idea that if a filly runs the second fastest time in Preakness history, that it would get a significantly higher number than 105. As far as juicing the track up, isn’t that one of those conspiracy theories that you frown upon.

You watched the stretch, did it not appear to the naked eye that those two were running very fast ?
Were you surprised the beyer wasn’t higher ?

I shouldn’t bother but...I’ve never said a track speeding up is a conspiracy theory. It’s a fact, it happens. I learned a long time ago that usually when track records are broken it is a function of the track and not the horses.

When cheap claimers run ridiculous times at Turf Paradise or a track like that...would it make sense to give them ridiculous figs? Isn’t that when common sense comes in?

As usual you’re stuck on things totally unrelated to the fig like it was a filly that won, she also won your favorite race therefore should get a higher fig....instead of doing what Freddy suggested.

The top two finishers ran huge races but common sense should tell you that the rest of the field didn’t run tops compared to what they had run before while getting beat a pole and Miss Marissa also didn’t drastically improve. The track sped up.

It doesn’t diminish what Swiss Skydiver did. It’s just reality. You should try and be a part of it more.

[southerndutch]

Sorry if this is off topic, but Im still wondering what Beyer Knicks Go received in Sunday’s third at Keeneland when he set a new track record while “geared down.” Anyone?

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by southerndutch

Sorry if this is off topic, but Im still wondering what Beyer Knicks Go received in Sunday’s third at Keeneland when he set a new track record while “geared down.” Anyone?

107