True but you are making an awful lot of assumptions here. If everybody is using flawed info then of course they will all come up with a similar flawed number. I guess what I am saying is not that different figure makers will be 30 points off but that there is certainly a margin of error that is associated with every number assigned because things are occuring in a vaccum. So when you start comparing numbers of a single race a year apart I think that a few points could fall within the range of error. Especially in the case of the Derby which is such an outlier race. If horses were running 95 beyers as opposed to 109 I could accept the premise that they make. But 104 versus 106 versus 101 versus 108 all seems to hardly be conclusive

It can be argued that Beyer has "boosted" the figures of several Derby winners over the last several years. If anything, they should probably be lower than they are.

I will say I think it has more to do with the methodology than the horses. In any case, trying to use figures as a historical measure is always going to have problems.

IMO which is semi-educated though not nearly as proficent with numbers as guys like you and Doug, horses in general arent as good/fast as they were just 12 years ago when started training. Of course I have no actual data to back this up so I'm pretty much like the rest of the industry...lol

I'm not arguing one way or the other, just saying we don't really know. Any decline in figures is just as likely to be the result of figure making methodology as it is the horses, and the same goes for any increase in the figures.

You are probably right which makes the case I was making in my original post even more valid. That far too often opinions are used as facts and in the rare incidences when facts are used they are often misinterpreted.

no figure regardless of the maker will ever trump class as the most important handicapping tool. I could use any figure.. beyer, equibase, thoro, rag.. to me all of those are interchangeable. The class a horse carries is the benchmark for picking winners.

No figure is exact. They are all subjective and over rated as a tool to handicapping. I don't need Andy beyer or Len ragozin giving me their opinion when I'm gambling.

As for the significance of a slower beyer for today's horses... that's a laughable gauge of the breed

If Groupie Doll didn't run Saturday would the beyer number for the derby have been higher?

It would have been the same.

Beyer typically splits his sprints and routes. Race #1 was a sealed track -- but the other 3 routes including the Derby all had the same variant.

Even if he didn't -- Groupie Doll is just one horse on a card with 10 dirt races -- she's not going to impact anything much by herself.

109 for winner and runner up. So the lack of steroids only deflates Derby figures?

Excuse my ignorance, but I have a few questions.

1- How can "par" ever truly be "par" when we are dealing with living breathing animals? My point is in golf, we have a par, par is a static number, not taking into consideration weather or particular course conditions for that day, nor the performance of other "golfers" on said day. Maybe they all sucked that day,or maybe they were all excellent? Why should that have any effect upon a performance figure?

2- With the invention of racinos with their boosted purses on lower/mid level horses, does this not pull decent stock horses away from the major circuit tracks, and thus boosting their stock and "pars"? Subsequently lowering the stock and "pars" of the major circuit track?

3- It seems to me that quantifying figures off of "par" to relate to the sports elite level is backwards.

A follow-up article, Jeradi: The Science Behind Beyer Figures:

http://www.drf.com/news/jerardi-scie...-beyer-figures

That article makes my questions even more prevalent than before. Jerardi writes early in the article that the numbers are exact math equations, then later in the article admits that the numbers are "about" or "around". It either it is subject to opinion or it isn't....