Top Beyer Figures a Thing of The Past

[Somnambulist]

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

They're not meant to do it, but people will do it anyway.

[dustino140]

They're not meant to do it, but people will do it anyway.

It then seems that the people who do it should be condemned, not the figures themselves.

[Thinair]

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.

Horseplayers look at many factors, and after a race is over, it's usually easy to point out how one could have found the winner if only they had ignored one factor or another. However, it's the bottom line that matters, not any single race or horse.

[Thinair]

They're not meant to do it, but people will do it anyway.

Once again, not people that understand speed figures.

Do any sane people think the 119 defined Rock n Roll?

[Thinair]

It then seems that the people who do it should be condemned, not the figures themselves.

That too.

[Somnambulist]

Once again, not people that understand speed figures.

Do any sane people think the 119 defined Rock n Roll?

I should hope not, but you never know. I've probably bet 10 times in my entire life (I'm a bad fan, I know, but losing money has never been my thing), but I think speed figures are easy enough to understand. And I'm not even a math person. I like handicapping sometimes and think they're useful. What I think happens is that people form their opinion of them based on isolated cases and what they read on this form. Reading the background on how he comes up with it can be pretty boring so that turns people off too. Plus people tend to use them on a consistent basis and you're only hated when you're in the spotlight.

Although, I have run into some players at the track who are regular bettors and don't overly like them too much. To each their own I suppose.

[Thinair]

I should hope not, but you never know. I've probably bet 10 times in my entire life (I'm a bad fan, I know, but losing money has never been my thing), but I think speed figures are easy enough to understand. And I'm not even a math person. I like handicapping sometimes and think they're useful. What I think happens is that people form their opinion of them based on isolated cases and what they read on this form. Reading the background on how he comes up with it can be pretty boring so that turns people off too. Plus people tend to use them on a consistent basis and you're only hated when you're in the spotlight.

Although, I have run into some players at the track who are regular bettors and don't overly like them too much. To each their own I suppose.

On the highlighted part, that's what makes the handicapping world go round, and nobody should tell other players how they should play. Just as people that don't understand something shouldn't criticize it.

On using one number to define a horse....look at it this way....should people use one bad number to define an otherwise talented horse? Why should it be the other way around?

[Somnambulist]

On the highlighted part, that's what makes the handicapping world go round, and nobody should tell other players how they should play. Just as people that don't understand something shouldn't criticize it.

On using one number to define a horse....look at it this way....should people use one bad number to define an otherwise talented horse? Why should it be the other way around?

Oh, I agree with you. They've attained the status of an end all to be all tool and I'm not sure how.

[Thinair]

Oh, I agree with you. They've attained the status of an end all to be all tool and I'm not sure how.

I don't really think so. People that understand speed figures don't give them that status. It's people that don't that have tagged them as such....in order to knock them.

They are part of the equation.

They are, however, as good a measuring stick as we have to measure horses from different generations that didn't face each other. That doesn't make them the only measuring stick. Once again, those that don't understand them, and thus want to knock them, pretend that they are used as such. They aren't.

[Codysmom55]

I don't really think so. People that understand speed figures don't give them that status. It's people that don't that have tagged them as such....in order to knock them.

They are part of the equation.

They are, however, as good a measuring stick as we have to measure horses from different generations that didn't face each other. That doesn't make them the only measuring stick. Once again, those that don't understand them, and thus want to knock them, pretend that they are used as such. They aren't.

The problem I have with a number defining the quality of a horse is when a 2 year old or early 3 year old runs once or twice and a number is assigned to that performance. When such a number is assigned, it DOES NOT take into consideration that particular youngster is growing and maturing and has room to improve. The number that is assigned is a badge that is unfair, because a number cannot guage changes. A number assigned to a fledgling performance is a stigma for a youngster who is just learning.

It is not about understanding the dynamics of numbers - it is about understanding that numbers do not define a growing, changing, maturing animal who doesn't need to have some subjective label heaped upon them before they reach peak performance.

[Somnambulist]

T

It is not about understanding the dynamics of numbers - it is about understanding that numbers do not define a growing, changing, maturing animal who doesn't need to have some subjective label heaped upon them before they reach peak performance.

The figures DON'T do that. They never have intended to. The assumption that they define a "growing, changing animal" is incorrectly given to these figures by people. That's what we're musing about.

[Thinair]

The problem I have with a number defining the quality of a horse is when a 2 year old or early 3 year old runs once or twice and a number is assigned to that performance. When such a number is assigned, it DOES NOT take into consideration that particular youngster is growing and maturing and has room to improve. The number that is assigned is a badge that is unfair, because a number cannot guage changes. A number assigned to a fledgling performance is a stigma for a youngster who is just learning.

It is not about understanding the dynamics of numbers - it is about understanding that numbers do not define a growing, changing, maturing animal who doesn't need to have some subjective label heaped upon them before they reach peak performance.

Good example of someone that needs to post without understanding speed figures at all.

[Codysmom55]

Good example of someone that needs to post without understanding speed figures at all.

You're right, thinair. But, you have no understanding of the horse itself, so I guess we're even.

[Matt Converse]

The days of 70 home runs are gone, too.

Exactly. The steroids are gone now, the horses are going to be slower.

[Thinair]

Exactly. The steroids are gone now, the horses are going to be slower.

Steroids didn't make horses run faster.

[LifeAtZen]

I wish we could get through one thread without insulting each other.

[Slewbopper]

BSF = Biased Speed Figure

I will never understand the Skippy/Formal Gold/Will's Way numbers and the Bull's Woodward not cracking 123. How can this be considering he beat 7 G1 winners by 5 with "devastating ease."

Curlie's 119 in the BCC should have been higher also, but by 2007 Beyer was already giving lower numbers out so he probably thought "I can't give this horse the 124 he deserves" because it would mean he was wrong about that years outstanding 3 yo crop whose numbers didn't reflect this the rest of the year.

[dustino140]

You're right, thinair. But, you have no understanding of the horse itself, so I guess we're even.

Priceless.

[dustino140]

The problem I have with a number defining the quality of a horse is when a 2 year old or early 3 year old runs once or twice and a number is assigned to that performance. When such a number is assigned, it DOES NOT take into consideration that particular youngster is growing and maturing and has room to improve. The number that is assigned is a badge that is unfair, because a number cannot guage changes. A number assigned to a fledgling performance is a stigma for a youngster who is just learning.

It is not about understanding the dynamics of numbers - it is about understanding that numbers do not define a growing, changing, maturing animal who doesn't need to have some subjective label heaped upon them before they reach peak performance.

Even more priceless.

[GinTalking]

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

There ya go. People watch a race and can't tell if it was a good race or not because they have to wait until the Beyer comes out.

It's a tool that tells an owner with a $20,000 claimer if his horse is going to be competitive against horses coming in from other tracks. At least that's where it means a little something to me.

But I don't have to watch an impressive 3-length victory by a horse with graded stakes winners behind it to know that the winner was probably a little better than average. And neither do most of you ... but still you hang on that little number as if it were giving you the keys to Fort Knox.