Top 25 3yo's 1987-2007

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by easy goer

This is an interesting discussion certainly but the one thing I dont get is why are some folks so certain that Smarty Jones is overrated? The one horse that I find that looks most similar to him in terms of his career/three yr old season is Majestic Prince.

9 wins out of 10, and failed to win the Belmont.

But in Smarty's case he seems more dominant over his field than Majestic Prince. And, he came very close to winning the TC whereas Majestic Pr. really had no chance from the start. That to me makes his run at the TC even more exciting than MP.

I dunno if MP is in the Hall of Fame (I didnt look at the site) but clearly a close case can be made for him and if so...how can you be so certain that Smary is overrated?

Here for starters:

http://www.drf.com/row/pps/smartyjones.pdf

http://www.drf.com/row/pps/funnycide.pdf

Draw a line above Funny Cide's Belmont and compare the Beyers for the two to that point. Smarty got a 99 or 100 in the Belmont which is missing. There really isn't much to seperate them now is there? One just happened to run against much better horses and the other had the benefit of retiring right after his peak.

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Draw a line above Funny Cide's Belmont and compare the Beyers for the two to that point. Smarty got a 99 or 100 in the Belmont which is missing. There really isn't much to seperate them now is there? One just happened to run against much better horses and the other had the benefit of retiring right after his peak.

So it's all based on Beyer numbers? I knew I was missing something.

Hey I'll bet I can post the BSF from a 3yr old campaign from a classic winner and you tell me which horse it was:

104-107-112-111-104

WHose that? Sea Hero? The Scoundrel? Dr. Fager? Tudor Minstrel?

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by easy goer

So it's all based on Beyer numbers? I knew I was missing something.

Don't sell yourself short....you're missing more than that.

Being that most top horses retire early, and never get to meet horses of other generations, there really is no unbiased way to compare them without using speed figures. Since Beyers are the most widespread it is hardly surprising that people use them as the example.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Don't sell yourself short....you're missing more than that.

Being that most top horses retire early, and never get to meet horses of other generations, there really is no unbiased way to compare them without using speed figures. Since Beyers are the most widespread it is hardly surprising that people use them as the example.

You know what we ought to do is take the best sets of BSFs from three year olds to determine who really are the top 25. I wonder where Lionheart comes out. Or LITF, or Go for Gin..

[zippyneedsawin]

Originally Posted by easy goer

You know what we ought to do is take the best sets of BSFs from three year olds to determine who really are the top 25. I wonder where Lionheart comes out. Or LITF, or Go for Gin..

That may not be as easy as it appears. When the results are tabulated, they may need to 'adjust' the figures.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by zippyneedsawin

That may not be as easy as it appears. When the results are tabulated, they may need to 'adjust' the figures.

Once again, as Beyer has said, they only adjust figs in an attempt to make them more accurate.

What is your, or any of the previous posters that took silly and ignorant potshots, knowledge of figuremaking? How many years did you make them? At what tracks? Where do you stand on split variants? How do you view pace as it affects final time and do you personally adjust your numbers to take this into account?

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

What is your, or any of the previous posters that took silly and ignorant potshots, knowledge of figuremaking? How many years did you make them? At what tracks? Where do you stand on split variants? How do you view pace as it affects final time and do you personally adjust your numbers to take this into account?

Not even pedigree snobs can compete with BSF snobs...

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by easy goer

You know what we ought to do is take the best sets of BSFs from three year olds to determine who really are the top 25. I wonder where Lionheart comes out. Or LITF, or Go for Gin..

Actually, that is the best idea on this thread. I wish I had access to all of them. I think 1987 was the first year they were published so they should all be out there somewhere. They (or other speed figures) are the only fair way to compare horses from different crops.

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Originally Posted by easy goer

So it's all based on Beyer numbers? I knew I was missing something.

The more you read, the more you will know that almost everything in horse racing depends on Beyer Speed Figures on this board.

They are the Bible here.

[horseofcourse]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Here for starters:

http://www.drf.com/row/pps/smartyjones.pdf

http://www.drf.com/row/pps/funnycide.pdf

Draw a line above Funny Cide's Belmont and compare the Beyers for the two to that point. Smarty got a 99 or 100 in the Belmont which is missing. There really isn't much to seperate them now is there? One just happened to run against much better horses and the other had the benefit of retiring right after his peak.

OH man...that's my schtick!! I used to get humiliated on the other board for doing this!!

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by horseofcourse

OH man...that's my schtick!! I used to get humiliated on the other board for doing this!!

LOL, I originally credited you for it but then I wasn't sure if you'd want me to or not so I deleted it.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Here for starters:

http://www.drf.com/row/pps/smartyjones.pdf

http://www.drf.com/row/pps/funnycide.pdf

Draw a line above Funny Cide's Belmont and compare the Beyers for the two to that point. Smarty got a 99 or 100 in the Belmont which is missing. There really isn't much to seperate them now is there? One just happened to run against much better horses and the other had the benefit of retiring right after his peak.

I've argued for years that the Beyer on the Count Fleet was flat out wrong. They can't necessarily be taken at face value, you know that.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by philcski

I've argued for years that the Beyer on the Count Fleet was flat out wrong. They can't necessarily be taken at face value, you know that.

I've argued for years that the 2004 Kentucky Derby is a complete throw out due to the hurricane like rain that hit Churchill less than an hour before the race. That race can't necessarily be taken at face value, you know that.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I've argued for years that the 2004 Kentucky Derby is a complete throw out due to the hurricane like rain that hit Churchill less than an hour before the race. That race can't necessarily be taken at face value, you know that.

No argument against that, completely agre. Was the equivalent of this year's BC. Still... the two best probably ran 1-2. Maybe Birdstone or the Cliff's Edge gets a piece if it's dry instead of Imperialism, and perhaps the race is a little faster against the clock (which, to be fair, was a pretty fabricated Beyer, as it had to be.)