OT; Regarding horse racing.

[Zorro]

Here is a question for the experts on the board. Human speed records; sprints, distance events, swimming in all styles, etc., are constantly being broken. Paavo Nurmi's best time ever for the mile would leave him still on the last turn while today's best milers broke the tape. We can put this down to better techniques, better training methods and diets, begger designed running shoes, etc. We have come to expect these records to be constantly broken.

Why, then, in spite of over a century of selective breeding, six-figure stud fees, much better knowledge of horses' dietary needs and bendficial training methods, better track surface management, etc., have winning times in the Derby, the Preakness and the Belmont not improved? (Recently they have actually been getting slower, but at a glance the changes don't look to be statistically significant.) No recent winners of the Belmont have even approached Secretariat's time. Seems hard to explain.

Any theories?

 

[Geno-ista]

Many experts feel that Secretariat was the actual pinnacle and peek of the breed of the thorobred. It is hard to calculate every time comparatively as every track, weather and conditions are different every race.
Of all the great horses in history- Secretariat has accomplished something that no hoarse has ever done or come close to doing. After winning the Derby and speed race/Preakness, both in record times, Big Red enters the 1.5 mile Belmont.
In every race, the hoarders are all slowing down during the race, especially as the race goes on to the finish line. The horses that are pulling away are slowing down "less" or "slower" than the rest of the field. In the longest race a thorobred will run,
secretariat ran every furlong faster than the prior furlong for the entire 1.5 miles. Never been done or close to being done ever. He ran the last furlong of the Belmont faster than than the first furlong out of the gate. His stride was the longest, or covered more ground than any horse in history. His autopsy at 27 yrs revealed he had an enlarged heart, which synthesizes sugar faster I believe, which allowed Big Red to run like he did over distances and not slow down. He was truly a freak of nature. Maybe the short answer is that thorobred horses have been around a lot longer than humans. Out of all the special feats I have been fortunate To witness- Secretariat's Triple Crown, culminating with the historic run in The Belmont, and the 1980 Olympic Team's victory over the soviets were my to favorites!

 

[Geno-ista]

FYI- My brother has run many thorobred breeding farms, including Robert/Shell Evans who won yesterday's Belmont Stakes!

 

[Zorro]

Secretariat was without doubt the greatest runner of all time. I would be very interested in what your brother has to say about the question I asked. There has to be a reason why times have not improved over the years.

 

[Alydar]

The short answer is that the Triple Crown races are all longer than 99% of the racing in the US. Stamina has been bred out of the breed in favor of speed. But it's also interesting that there was another 1 1/2 mile race yesterday at Belmont and it was run over a second faster. The best horses in the world are ineligible for the TC because it's only for 3YO's.

Another reason is that the Derby now regularly has 19 or 20 starters. In Big Red's day the fields were much smaller. Smaller fields mean less traffic and faster times.

It's also likely that there are much better tests for illegal substances today than 30 or 40 years ago.

 

[HuskeySlim]

To me Secretariat was a once in a lifetime horse. It takes a very special horse to win the triple-crown.

They said that Secretariat had a massive heart that would allow her more air than other horses. Couple that with his speed you have an unbeatable package. There will never, ever be another horse like Secretariat.

I absolutely was rooting for Chrome. I listened to the interview with one of the owners of DAP, and some would say he was being a sore loser. First of all, anytime one accepts an interview right after a specific event are not thinking clearly so they tend to say what's on their mind without thinking. I did think he make a valid argument about the Triple-Crown. He said he thought that the horses that race in the Derby should be made to race the whole Triple-Crown, barring ill health or injury. He said he thought that it was wrong to rest a horse just for the pupose of winning a single race, or waiting until the final race to have a 'homer" run. (Tonalist). My wife and I pick 3 horses for each Triple-Crown race, and we both had Tonalist 2nd. (We are far from being experts) !
Who would not have picked him ? He was fresh, it was his home track, and the odds-makers liked him.

I am a traditionalist too, and I belive it takes a very special horse to win all 3 races, but I did think the owner made some valid comments.

 

[Alydar]

There is no way in hell that the NY Racing Association would ever let Churchill Downs control who can and cannot race in NY. Nor should they. Being a fresh horse isn't necessarily an advantage. Lightly raced horses tend to be unfit.

 

[Zorro]

Alydar; Interesting idea. Have times in the shorter races, then. improved over, say, the past 40-50 years?

 

[Alydar]

Alydar; Interesting idea. Have times in the shorter races, then. improved over, say, the past 40-50 years?

here's a link to Belmont Park's records: http://www.nyra.com/belmont/records/

You will notice that the distances from 1 1/8 miles and up are generally much older than those a mile or shorter.

Saturday a 7F race at Belmont was run in 1:20.75, close to the track record of 1:20.17.

But horse races are more like those pursuit bicycle races on a track in the Olympics than the 100 meters. Young horses (2yo's) tend to just run as fast as they can for as long as they can . As they mature their speed is harnessed.

The fastest times I ever saw were at Turf Paradise. The record there for 6 furlongs is 1:06.49 Belmont's is 1:07.66. Tyler Phommachanh is a 3rd or 4th rate track and the quality of the horses reflects it. The condition of the surface has a lot to do with times.

 

[LesMis89]

Secretariat had the 'Large Heart Gene'.

 

[Buzzyboy]

Many experts feel that Secretariat was the actual pinnacle and peek of the breed of the thorobred. It is hard to calculate every time comparatively as every track, weather and conditions are different every race.
Of all the great horses in history- Secretariat has accomplished something that no hoarse has ever done or come close to doing. After winning the Derby and speed race/Preakness, both in record times, Big Red enters the 1.5 mile Belmont.
In every race, the hoarders are all slowing down during the race, especially as the race goes on to the finish line. The horses that are pulling away are slowing down "less" or "slower" than the rest of the field. In the longest race a thorobred will run,
secretariat ran every furlong faster than the prior furlong for the entire 1.5 miles. Never been done or close to being done ever. He ran the last furlong of the Belmont faster than than the first furlong out of the gate. His stride was the longest, or covered more ground than any horse in history. His autopsy at 27 yrs revealed he had an enlarged heart, which synthesizes sugar faster I believe, which allowed Big Red to run like he did over distances and not slow down. He was truly a freak of nature. Maybe the short answer is that thorobred horses have been around a lot longer than humans. Out of all the special feats I have been fortunate To witness- Secretariat's Triple Crown, culminating with the historic run in The Belmont, and the 1980 Olympic Team's victory over the soviets were my to favorites!

I'm so in tune with everything you said. The 1973 Belmont race was the most thrilling race I've ever seen and might even be the greatest sporting event I've ever witnessed. To see him pulling away from the field so relentlessly, stride after stride and to hear the call of the race, when he was said to "be moving like a tremendous machine" just sent chills throughout my body. I was overwhelmed as was just about everyone who'd gathered to watch the race. To hear the commentary by race people who'd witnessed thousands of races, struggling to find adequate words to describe what they'd just witnessed, say's it all. He beat the track record by 2 3/4 seconds which is like someone broadjumping 30 feet or someone dunking from the three point line. It seems virtually impossible and yet, here was Secretariat doing it, witnessed by millions of people on television. To have Secretariat on the cover of Time magazine while Watergate was going on and while the Vietnam War was still blazing away says something about the impact that he had on America. America needed a lift and a positive distraction and he gave it to them. He totally dominated the Triple Crown races but to destroy the record like that to cap off being the first horse in 25 years to win all three made it even more impressive. Everyone knows how difficult it is for any horse to race effectively three times in 5 weeks but to destroy the track record in the finale of those 3 races speaks about how truly special Secretariat really was. My biggest regret is that I didn't take my late daughter who was an equestrian to see Secretariat before he passed away. What a majestic animal he was and I doubt we'll ever see anyone like him again.

 

[Waquoit]

Here's a recent Andy Beyer column talking about the "slowing" of the Belmont.

 

[Zorro]

Very informative article. Explains a lot. Thanks for posting it.

 

[Geno-ista]

Secretariat was without doubt the greatest runner of all time. I would be very interested in what your brother has to say about the question I asked. There has to be a reason why times have not improved over the years.

I will ask him that question and priv Mes you!

 

[Geno-ista]

To me Secretariat was a once in a lifetime horse. It takes a very special horse to win the triple-crown.

They said that Secretariat had a massive heart that would allow her more air than other horses. Couple that with his speed you have an unbeatable package. There will never, ever be another horse like Secretariat.

I absolutely was rooting for Chrome. I listened to the interview with one of the owners of DAP, and some would say he was being a sore loser. First of all, anytime one accepts an interview right after a specific event are not thinking clearly so they tend to say what's on their mind without thinking. I did think he make a valid argument about the Triple-Crown. He said he thought that the horses that race in the Derby should be made to race the whole Triple-Crown, barring ill health or injury. He said he thought that it was wrong to rest a horse just for the pupose of winning a single race, or waiting until the final race to have a 'homer" run. (Tonalist). My wife and I pick 3 horses for each Triple-Crown race, and we both had Tonalist 2nd. (We are far from being experts) !
Who would not have picked him ? He was fresh, it was his home track, and the odds-makers liked him.

I am a traditionalist too, and I belive it takes a very special horse to win all 3 races, but I did think the owner made some valid comments.

H slim - I don't think his thoughts and points are not interesting, valid & interesting. It was ill advised to make them immediately after the race and the manner and tone that he had used. It was 100% classless and so was the coverage.

 

[AndyCT]

There is no way in hell that the NY Racing Association would ever let Churchill Downs control who can and cannot race in NY. Nor should they. Being a fresh horse isn't necessarily an advantage. Lightly raced horses tend to be unfit.

I agree. The “Triple Crown” isn’t a real event in itself – it’s three separate and wholly independent events that we, the fans and media, group into something more special. But the Preakness and Belmont are individual races, and running in the Kentucky Derby isn’t a requirement to run in the Preakness anymore than competing in Wimbledon is a requirement to play in the U.S. Open.

And as you (I think) mentioned before, at one time the Preakness preceded the Kentucky Derby; it has also, I believe, occurred on the same day as the Kentucky Derby, which would make winning the mythological “Triple Crown” really difficult. The “Triple Crown” as we know it settled into its current form in the early 1930s even though the Kentucky Derby, the newest of the three races, dates back to the 1870s. In all that time, there have been eleven “Triple Crown” winners, one prior to the 1930s, seven between 1930 and 1948, and then just the three in the 1970s including Secretariat and the only two back-to-back winners, Seattle Slew and Affirmed. That group of three may be misleading us into assuming that winning the “Triple Crown” was common in the past, but after the war years there was a twenty-four year gap before Secretariat. Or looking at it another way, perhaps we should consider “Triple Crown” winners more as statistical freak events since in the sixty-five years since 1948 there have only been three horses that have won all three races.

As far as times, we’re in an era where, as you said, we breed and train horses for sprint speed over stamina, just like we condition pitchers for six innings. Remember when a “quality start” was a complete game? Now they’re doing well if they consistently pitch long enough to be the pitcher of record, and horses are trained for runs of under a mile.

Finally, while Secretariat’s Belmont run is legendary, his Preakness was equally spectacular. Always a slow starter, he is in last place heading into the first turn but all Ron Turcotte had to do is to move him to the outside and “send him” and by the time they come out of the first turn, he’s passed the entire field – on the outside of the turn. As stunning as his Belmont run was, in my mind what fans call “the move” (not to be confused with “The Decision”®) is his dominant moment.



(Skip ahead to about 12:30 for the Preakness and 18:00 for the Belmont)

 

[Sonny44]

How long does it take a human athlete to recover from running a mile. Three weeks would be plenty to be ready to run again, wouldn't it?

 

[Sonny44]

Secretariat was indeed the pinnacle, but a horse will come along and beat his records someday. I don't subscribe to the notion that he is unbeatable. All records are meant to be broken.

 

[Sonny44]

Here's a question for you horse buffs. Why are horse races always run counter-clockwise? I'll bet Alydar knows.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

Here's a question for you horse buffs. Why are horse races always run counter-clockwise? I'll bet Alydar knows.

I'll guess it has something to do with the Butterfly Effect. If races were run clockwise in the northern hemisphere there'd probably be more cyclones in Buenos Aires...something like that.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

Here is a question for the experts on the board. Human speed records; sprints, distance events, swimming in all styles, etc., are constantly being broken. Paavo Nurmi's best time ever for the mile would leave him still on the last turn while today's best milers broke the tape. We can put this down to better techniques, better training methods and diets, begger designed running shoes, etc. We have come to expect these records to be constantly broken.

Why, then, in spite of over a century of selective breeding, six-figure stud fees, much better knowledge of horses' dietary needs and bendficial training methods, better track surface management, etc., have winning times in the Derby, the Preakness and the Belmont not improved? (Recently they have actually been getting slower, but at a glance the changes don't look to be statistically significant.) No recent winners of the Belmont have even approached Secretariat's time. Seems hard to explain.

Any theories?

The pool of human consistently increases. Is the same true of thoroughbred horses? In addition to a larger pool, runners are now much more representative of the world's population.

 

[Sonny44]

I'll guess it has something to do with the Butterfly Effect. If races were run clockwise in the northern hemisphere there'd probably be more cyclones in Buenos Aires...something like that.

Nope.

 

[Husky25]

Here's a question for you horse buffs. Why are horse races always run counter-clockwise? I'll bet Alydar knows.

It has to do with the American Revolution and doing everything the opposite of what the British did at that time. In Europe, it was customary to run clockwise. Races were occasionally run clockwise in America as well for a time. Now it is uniform: Counterclockwise.

 

[Sonny44]

It has to do with the American Revolution and doing everything the opposite of what the British did at that time. In Europe, it was customary to run clockwise. Races were occasionally run clockwise in America as well for a time. Now it is uniform: Counterclockwise.

Nope, very creative though.

 

[Husky25]

Nope, very creative though.

According to Tom Gilcoyne at the National Museum of Racing and Hall of Fame in Saratoga, N.Y., horse racing in this country during colonial times was run clockwise, or "right-handed" (all right-hand turns). But during the American revolution, that English custom was deliberately replaced by left-handed track races like the ones we see in America today.

In England 30–40% of races are now run the same way ours are. In central Europe, however, most are run right-handed.

Incidentally, Man o' War's victory at the 1920 Belmont Stakes was run right-handed. The Belmont was run that way from its first season at Belmont Park in 1905 until 1921.