It is my understanding that these numbers are based not only upon final time and a daily track variant but that that they are also somewhat based upon the horses past history and how his numbers compare to other horses he's run against.

I didnt think that was the case as I read Beyer on Speed or whatever that early book was and didnt come away with that impression at all. But after the controversy with back fittting the BSF earned by Summer Doldrums or whatever horse it was it was explained to me that the history of the horse is part of it.

Which brings up an interesting pt. If that is the case, then arent all these numbers a bit self fulfilling? I mean at this pt. with all these 3 year olds having run so many races, a colt would have to run a whopper of a race in order to break the logjam and run a 105 or 110 BSF. Right? Otherwise all the other numbers would have be adjusted up if he were to say run a marginally better race.

At this pt. with so many races among these horses already in the books and already been assigned numbers, then the next race out is going to have to fit within this range, unless it is monster huge.

So the whole process becomes self fulfilling. Namely because it is subjective.

So if the idea is that these numbers prove that this years class is not so hot, I dont buy it. Show some objective data. Does anyone use final times? What about beaten lengths? Or look at established stakes records.

Could it be some sort of "recession" in these Beyer ratings is going on? In chess they have ELO ratings which over time have an inflationary element to them. SO Gary Kasparov's rating is now higher than Bobby Fischer's ever was. ANd Fischer's was higher than Alekhines, but whether Kasp. was that much better than Alekhine is not a given....

Didnt they run the TB derby in stakes record time? What Beyer SPeed figure was earned?

They ran a full second faster than when Limehouse won that race, and you are claiming on the other thread that Limehouse is a better horse than most of these contenders this year. Maybe you are too wedded to the figs??