is the breed slowing down?

[stancaris]

For the last few decades the average time for a Belmont Stakes winner was around 2:28. However, in the last 4 years all Belmont winners were 2:30 or higher:

Palace Malice------------2:30.70
Union Rags------------ -2:30.00
Ruler on Ice-------------2:30.88
Drosselmeyer------------2:31.77

It looks like this slowing down could be a new trend. Perhaps the breed is no longer capable of the stamina and durability that their ancestors displayed 40 years ago.

Secretariat ran the fastest Belmont in 2:24. Easy Goer and AP Indy are tied for the second fastest Belmont stakes--2:26.0. Secretariats son, Risen Star won the Belmont in 2:26 2/5 which certainly is commendable, but not the Commendable that won the Belmont in 2:31 1/5.

[Altanbarr]

Baseball players are also hitting fewer home runs.

[Patuxet]

Worth noting that My Memoirs and Pine Bluff -- 3/4s and a head behind A. P. Indy-- ran it at least as fast as Risen Star.

Gallant Man ran the first sub 2:27 Belmont in 1956. Aside from the five already mentioned only four others equaled that feat: Point Given (2001), Affirmed & Alydar (1978) and Tabasco Cat (1994).

In the 30 years prior to Gallant Man only five horses managed to run a sub-2:29 Belmont: War Admiral (1937), Count Fleet (1943), Citation (1948), Middleground (1950) and Native Dancer (1954).

Elite company indeed!

[jagger]

I don't think that the breed is slowing down as much as it is just stagnant for not just 4 years but at least 100 years. 100 years ago, the Derby winner Old Rosebud won in 2:03 flat, 0.66 seconds faster than California Chrome. There has been NO increase in performance in over 100 years. Times that won human swimmers and runners Olympic Gold Medals and World Records 40 years ago, now barely are times that get you on the team. Roughly, VERY roughly, human athletic performance has improved somewhere between 8 -10% over the last 40 years.

Lots of factors for NO improvement in thoroughbred performance. Breeding....as there is much more interest in shorter races, horses are being bred accordingly and are much more quarterhorse in structure now. Training....not much difference really in training techniques in the last decade. And, not much difference in training methods for a sprinter versus a rout horse. Training undoubtedly being the difference in human athletic performance as breeding hasn't changed. Human runners and swimmers have learned that they can train MUCH harder/longer than they did 50-60 years ago. Horses now are generally significantly undertrained. Secretariat trained HARDER between the Preakness and the Belmont. Conquistador Cielo won the G1 Met Mile less than a week before winning the Belmont. Do you see anyone with a training/racing regiment like that these days?

[DDT]

Given the fact that most experts agree that the race horse is 25% genetic and 75% environment, which I believe is true, I agree with jagger, the methods of training and the dynamics of racing are the reasons for the slower recent times for the Belmont winners.

DDT

[stancaris]

Racehorses may be 25% genetically influenced and 75% environmentally influenced but when it comes to distance racing like the Belmont stakes we have a different game. A sprinter cannot win the Belmont stakes. In order to win such a race, the horse must be bred for Classic distances and carry Classic blood.

Palace Malice- out of Preakness and BC Classic winner, Curlin.
Union Rags carried Gone West (I/C) as his Broodmare sire and Nijinsky (CS) as his second damsire.
Drosselmeyer had a strong dosage profile of 7-2-10-2-1 with representation in all 5 altitudinal groups and the highest in the Classic group.
Summer Bird was a son of Belmont winner, Birdstone and had Preakness winner, Summer Squall as his broodmare sire

[DDT]

Stan

This post is very similar to all of your posts. First you post that the times are slowing down because of breeding tactics and then point out that three of those slow winners were bred to classic standards, so any logical person would assume that breeding was not or is not the reason for the slow times, it is the training methods and racing dynamics that are the reasons for the classic bred winners winning the race in slow times. You cannot have it both ways.

DDT

[stancaris]

So, now all my posts are very similar and I am according to you always wrong. I have a wife that tells me the same thing--- I have been wrong for 47 years. Not once have I ever been right. Well that is just not true. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

OK, maybe its training for speed that has caused the last 4 Belmonts to be run in 2:30 or worse.

[DDT]

Stan

I never said your posts were wrong, why is it always a question of right or wrong with you, you are entitled to your opinions, right, wrong or indifferent.

DDT

[TJ]

I'm still trying to understand what this thread is doing in the handicapping section? Since we have Racing, Pedigree Analysis and General Discussion forums, with much more views for a topic such as this one? That being said and to stay on point as to what this section was targeted for (Post and discuss your picks and selections here)...I hope the "breed" slows to a walk in this years Belmont Stakes, while trying to pass California Chrome in the Belmont:>). TJ

[DDT]

TJ

I did not start this thread, only responded to it.

DDT