In the article Andy Beyer wrote contained above in this thread, he made a comparison to races eons ago won up front on "off tracks" and how the results indicated those sloppy/muddy Churchill Downs off tracks skewed the results which would have otherwise occurred on "fast tracks".

I totally disagreed with his 1948 comparison and gave him credit for the 1994 race where Tabasco Cat came out of the race and demonstrated to me any rate he was the class of the crop. (Concern might argue with that.) I would point out that Go For Gin was close to T-Cat in the next two Triple Crown races, so his Derby win wasn't a fluke.

Initially, I didn't want to look at 1925. I didn't want to take the time, but I realized if I'm not gonna be like Andy, I should dig a little deeper and I usually do, so I did. The horses listed in the below spreadsheet are listed in finishing order. Draw you're own conclusions, but I believe the top two finishers were very good. They had great win ratios and great money ratios for the era. Granted the winner pocketed 53K for this one race which indicates the value of the average race back then. The horse that I see that you might be able to make a case for having been impacted by an off track is the fourth place horse which won the most money in a much longer race career. He also won by far the most Stakes, but it appears the winner was a blueblood and pointed for this and a career at stud. So how far out of form did this race fall?

http://www.kentuckyderby.com/2003/derby_history/derby_charts/years/1925.html

Dont get me wrong I know this a simplistic review. But its not as simplistic as saying: "Wet track races go to those up front".

http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/djdalton/1925_Stats.xls