Top Beyer Figures a Thing of The Past

[LifeAtZen]

Where have those 120 Beyer horses gone?

I miss them. You should, too.

When I broached the subject of this column to Andrew Beyer, he said it was going to be depressing reading.

True enough, but also, hopefully, educational.

I have questions. Perhaps, somebody has answers.

The 2011 Breeders' Cup Classic got a 104 Beyer Speed Figure. Those horses are supposed to represent the best of the best and that is the best the winner, Drosselmeyer, could do.

It was eight lengths from first to last, the very definition of mediocrity.

http://www.drf.com/news/jerardi-top-...res-thing-past

[Rick1323]

That is an interesting concept. That horses are slower today than a few years ago. I don't think so. Take Smarty Jones, and Afleet Alex. I never saw that much between them, but the BSFs did. I refuse to rate horses historically based on BSFs.....in fact in infuriates me when anyone does. Trust your eyes first and foremost.

Did anyone need numbers to know Cigar was a great horse? Is he really a lesser horse than Formal Gold? Is Formal gold really a faster horse? Again, trust your eyes.

BSFs are a handicapping tool, and a damn goodone. They not a final answer on who is the better horse. It can't even provide that when both horses are entered in the same race.

[Secretariat Forever]

We don't need BSF's to show there were no Smarty Jone's or Afleet Alex's this year.

We also don't need BSF's to prove a horse of recent years like Zenyatta is just as good or better than many of those "high beyer" horses of the past.

[sweettalk]

"low" bsf seems to tell everyone that the horses this yar sucked, and last, year, and the year before, and everuone here has blindly followed it. i cant remember the last time anyone ever said anything nice about a crop, and they then back this with bsf. not their own observations, but some number that some guy throws out and then readjusts 47 times.

[clocker]

The days of 70 home runs are gone, too.

[Commentator]

I honestly think that a lot of it has to do with the calculations of the numbers themselves. For one, I think a general reluctance towards giving close finishes a high number has arisen. Recall Ghostzapper and Saint Liam's Woodward, for example. That looked like it would be a massive number, but many believed that it was artificially lowered because Saint Liam was not deemed fast enough to earn a 120+. Later on, he would earn a 123 in a close finish with Commentator- and I distinctly remember reading that Beyer regretted giving out that number because Saint Liam "had never received a similar number." Well, he WOULD have if they had given out the proper Woodward number! Another good example of this would be Big Brown's Haskell. Gone are the days when Silver Charm could get a 117 for a half-length victory. Is it a function of the horses or the people behind the numbers? My guess is that it's probably a little bit of both.

I also think that it's a silly way of determining the quality of horses- it's more a way of judging how fast one certain horse ran on one certain day, and personal interpretation is always going to be a factor. However, if people insist on judging crops by the numbers I won't argue- after all, by those standards my favorite horse ever is also the second-fastest horse of the past decade! Although I guess it would also make 1997 one of the greatest years in racing history. The bizarre Beyer inflations of that year are a whole other issue.

[Secretariat Forever]

I honestly think that a lot of it has to do with the calculations of the numbers themselves. For one, I think a general reluctance towards giving close finishes a high number has arisen. Recall Ghostzapper and Saint Liam's Woodward, for example. That looked like it would be a massive number, but many believed that it was artificially lowered because Saint Liam was not deemed fast enough to earn a 120+. Later on, he would earn a 123 in a close finish with Commentator- and I distinctly remember reading that Beyer regretted giving out that number because Saint Liam "had never received a similar number." Well, he WOULD have if they had given out the proper Woodward number! Another good example of this would be Big Brown's Haskell. Gone are the days when Silver Charm could get a 117 for a half-length victory. Is it a function of the horses or the people behind the numbers? My guess is that it's probably a little bit of both.

I also think that it's a silly way of determining the quality of horses- it's more a way of judging how fast one certain horse ran on one certain day, and personal interpretation is always going to be a factor. However, if people insist on judging crops by the numbers I won't argue- after all, by those standards my favorite horse ever is also the second-fastest horse of the past decade! Although I guess it would also make 1997 one of the greatest years in racing history. The bizarre Beyer inflations of that year are a whole other issue.

you just gave very good reasons why I do not care for beyers and don't understand why some use them like they are the "tell all".

[Kurenai]

The last crops that I consider a good one was the one with Barbaro and Bernardini, Street Sense, Curlin and Hard Spun was good too.

Isn't it normal that there are "cycles"? A few years of down time, then the golden age starts again. Much like it was in the 70ies.

Apart from that maybe the steroid ban is partly to blame for that. Or maybe it's just that Beyer doesn't like to give out high figures anymore. *shrug*

It's been quite a while since a freak horse like Ghostzapper. I mean one of those hoses that run away 10 lengths from the field. Those are the horses that get the high numbers. Zenyatta was great, but her beyers would never reflect that for example.

[GinTalking]

The last crops that I consider a good one was the one with Barbaro and Bernardini, Street Sense, Curlin and Hard Spun was good too.

Isn't it normal that there are "cycles"? A few years of down time, then the golden age starts again. Much like it was in the 70ies.

Of course things go in cycles, but this crowd expects every year to produce several horses better than the year before it. That's unreasonable and unlikely. There will always be peaks and valleys, but many keep wanting to invent superstars. Ooh, big Beyer ... must be a star ... let's drool over him. Folks don't want to wait to really see what a horse has. I guess it's more about being the first to proclaim greatness ... which if you think about it, is really silly and a waste of time. Most of them will never reach greatness.

[Ballerina]

And here I thought this topic was about Andy Beyer's BSFs becoming obsolete.

[LifeAtZen]

And here I thought this topic was about Andy Beyer's BSFs becoming obsolete.

One can only dream

[dustino140]

One can only dream

Why? They're still wildly popular among horseplayers.

It seems that the people that bet the least hate Beyers the most. Not saying that bettors don't dismiss them at times, but saying that it seems that people hate them just for the sake of hating them.

[Psychotic Parakeet]

The quality of horses back then were better. We had less graded stakes races also. The focus is now putting out a bazillion get from the hot sires and hope one will make noise. So we end up with fields with mediocre horses and with only one or two that truly belong. Doesn't help also that owners are putting in a horse above its ability and set it up for failure (ala Uncle Mo) so an outsider snatches it and wins with a distasteful fig number. It seems to me that it is a mad dash to get a black-type win and then retire with the, "He has nothing left to prove" spiel or end up injured/sick. I firmly believe about 90% of these horses never hit their best stride because they are not given a chance long enough to shine.

Off-topic and I know I'll regret writing this... Zenyatta proved Beyer figures are also flawed. She should've never won anything with her low numbers.

[LifeAtZen]

Why? They're still wildly popular among horseplayers.

It seems that the people that bet the least hate Beyers the most. Not saying that bettors don't dismiss them at times, but saying that it seems that people hate them just for the sake of hating them.

I don't hate them, I just hate the controversy they cause. I feel sometimes that horses are only based upon their Beyers and I don't feel that's right. That's all.

[dustino140]

I don't hate them, I just hate the controversy they cause. I feel sometimes that horses are only based upon their Beyers and I don't feel that's right. That's all.

They cause controversy only when people use them in a manner which they aren't intended to be used.

[LifeAtZen]

They cause controversy only when people use them in a manner which they aren't intended to be used.

Which is very, very often.

[Thinair]

Why? They're still wildly popular among horseplayers.

It seems that the people that bet the least hate Beyers the most. Not saying that bettors don't dismiss them at times, but saying that it seems that people hate them just for the sake of hating them.

Bingo.

Nothing more hilarious than a bunch of people that don't really bet, and don't have even the slightest clue as to how to make speed figures, denigrating them. It's like religeous zealots telling people not to see a movie that they haven't even seen.

[the Ol'Line Rebel]

I hardly ever bet (used to visit a track once/twice a year, now maybe every 5). But I have great respect for the concept of speed figures. I learned about them - as an engineer it excited & fascinated me to possibly have real meaty numbers for this game. I still think they're great. However, the idea that 1 singular figure defines the horse - as any race - appalls me; it's not scientific. I prefer averages. Some horses aren't consistent even with figures so even averages don't work out for them.

[Thinair]

I hardly ever bet (used to visit a track once/twice a year, now maybe every 5). But I have great respect for the concept of speed figures. I learned about them - as an engineer it excited & fascinated me to possibly have real meaty numbers for this game. I still think they're great. However, the idea that 1 singular figure defines the horse - as any race - appalls me; it's not scientific. I prefer averages. Some horses aren't consistent even with figures so even averages don't work out for them.

One single figure has never defined a horse. Nobody that understands speed figures would ever say this.

People that don't understand speed figures? They would say this to try to make a non-existant point.

[the Ol'Line Rebel]

One single figure has never defined a horse. Nobody that understands speed figures would ever say this.

People that don't understand speed figures? They would say this to try to make a non-existant point.

Maybe you're right. It does seem to come out of those who disparage it, mostly. However, it does seem some really get hooked on 1 race, even if they're fans of BSF. Maybe they don't really understand it, either.

It cracks me up how people belittle Beyer, assuming he'll pick such horse with best BSF, or best last BSF, while many times I've read him ignore all that (never mind his comments in his books). Sometimes to his own detriment.