TGJB,

Based on all the commentary, I think there are several questions that need to be answered.

1. If horses are faster, have they improved equally at both short distances and long distances? (you should have this answer in your database)

2. If horses are faster, have they improved as much as your figures suggest or is there a bias in your methodology that is making your figures get faster at a rate that is not consistent with improvement? (could exist in either direction)

3. Is it possible that selective breeding has not produced faster and better horses as one would assume? Perhaps there have been some unforeseen negatives. For example, few would argue that today's horses are as sound and rugged as a couple of decades ago. Something went wrong! Could the use of drugs (legal and illegal) that enhance track performance have allowed bad and/or less premier genes to get into the gene pool that in prior decades would have been eliminated because races were cleaner?

4. Other than the instances where figure makers are making all their figures "based on" or "anchored to" pars like Rags, why isn't everyone else's figures showing that horses are faster?

5. Are standardbreds as advanced as thoroughbreds in their development as a breed or have they simply been in a period where improvement was more likely in general and even more likely in degree because of immaturity relative to thoroubreds?

Here are also some "intuitive" counter possibilities to your view. There's no science here, but these are things that IMO are worth thinking about.

In general, at least a portion of the improvement in human athleticism is related to the fact that there are many more humans in the world now and a higher percentage of them take sports very seriously because of the financial rewards and changing politics.

1. The crop of registered yearlings is smaller now than it was in the late 80s.

2. A higher percentage of our best yearlings are sent to Europe, Asia, and elsewhere in the world now than in prior decades.

3. A higher percentage of our best stallions are sent overseas and/or remain there after racing overseas.

4. There has been a handful of figures earned recently that intuitively don't make sense to anyone based on subjective evaluations when lined up against the universally recognized top horses of just a "handful" of years ago.

I'm not looking to get into a long debate with you because I don't know the answers. I'm not even taking a position here. I just wanted to point out some of the counter possibilities that are swirling around in my head. Your own case speaks for itself.



Post Edited (11-16-04 19:59)