Why Aren't Horses Getting Faster?

ukathleticscoach wrote:

I also don't understand how you could not train them more endurance wise and get improved results. Having said that most of the races are a sprint for the horses

The horses are not bred for endurance training at all. They are much too fragile to go out and do "long runs" or "long intervals" or whatever the hell else parallels people want to draw from running.

Horses are still heel striking. As soon as they teach one the right way to run, watch out!

OK OK Already wrote:

Horses are still heel striking. As soon as they teach one the right way to run, watch out!

Do horses have heels?

Wise Guy wrote:

OK OK Already wrote:

Horses are still heel striking. As soon as they teach one the right way to run, watch out!

Do horses have heels?

I believe when female horses go into heat they develop round heels.

Ray wrote:

Is there improved technology and training methods?

I was amazed in talking to a top trainer a few years ago that the horses don't do anything that resembles workouts as we know them.

Obviously, you have not visited letshorserace.com

They should develop an alter g for the horses so they can run more without getting injured heh. Why dont they have them run in the water? Doing some aerobic development for a 2 minute race has got to be helpful its still the same circulatory system as a person.

NOT

The Stache wrote:

For the most part, track technology has not improved much - dirt or grass. Sure, advances have been made, and some track have actually gone synthetic to help prevent the catastrophic injuries.

Shoe technology - what are shoes?

I've been told by horse trainers here in FL (where a number of Derby horses and winners have come from) that thoroughbreds are SO bred for this type of racing, that essentially, you just go through sharpening in training. There are not all the years of base-building like in humans. It's BRED into them, essentially. You get them on the track and run through some fast race-prep type of work. I am greatly simplifying here, but basically the answer here is BREEDING. You can breed numerous generations of horses under one watchful knowledgeable eye and really hone the abilities of the horse to racing. Humans don't do this.

I've had 40 years involvement in horse racing so know a few things.

Hill training, somebody asked. Most European horses do the bulk of their work on hills. European and UK courses are mostly hilly and there is much more emphasis on races of " classic" (12f/2400m) distance and beyond.

American training methods are very different to those of many countries. Very high stress methods that lead to huge numbers of injuries. Possibly necessary because the US for reasons unbeknown to the rest of the world like to race mostly on tight dirt tracks.

Drug testing is far more thorough then in athletics, certainly in places like Australia, UK, Europe, Japan, Hong Kong anyway. Racing authorities run virtually totalitarian societies, if your horse's shit so much as smells funny someone will know about it and you will get a visit from ther stewards.

Secretariat is probably the greatest US horse of all time, he ran spectacular times but there was virtually no serious drug testing in the US at that time so who knows?

Current Australian sprint star Black Caviar (top ranked horse in the world), a female runs sectional times that suggest she is a better sprinter than any from the past. She has not smashed records simply because they seldom let her go full tilt for more than a furlong after which she has usually put a break on the opposition. No incentive to push her to the line and risk injury.

Frankel runs sectional times that suggest he is a better 3 year old over the mile than any horse in my memory.

So You Think ran sectionals last spring that suggest he is the best middle distance horse in Australian history. He will find several of similar ability now he is in Ireland/Europe/UK.

Modern racehorses world wide (except possibly in the US) are generally superior to those of the past. Some of the champions of the past were as good as the modern stars but the depth is far, far greater now. Secretariat won the Belmont by 31 lengths such was his dominance. He could have gone to Europe, Japan or Australia and would have been good enough to beat their stars over the 12f. These days he would run into a dozen or more horse world wide just as good as him.

Horses I had dealings with 30-40 years ago would win good races running times that would see them trail the field in lowly maiden class races these days.

Thoroughbreds have been specifically bred for the task of racing for centuries. Not surprisingly some absolute freaks have appeared at times. The modern thoroughbred is generally a superior animal to those of the past. However those freakish talents of the past were probably as good as most of the modern stars

Great post from a clearly well-informed horse racing man, thanks.

Its all about self awareness.

Horses dont have the same motivation as humans. They dont know that the good life they life is because they are fast. Much of improvement is mental, horses and other animals just dont have it.

Plus, T-breds are about as genetically specific for racing as possible. there are no other "kenyan" horses

Very interesting

Followed Kauto Star for years over here. He had an Ovett like change of pace and would usually plough through the last fence just to keep you on your toes

Humans are just like horses in that they will usually run faster in a pack.

Titan wrote:

Horses dont have the same motivation as humans.

Maybe humans would run faster if they were being beaten with a riding crop on the last lap?

This question comes up every year. Here's a few discussion point:

1. It's the breeding.

2. The breeding leads to very similar if not identical training.

3. The Derby isn't a distance race for horses. If anything it's a long sprint....much like say a 400m is for a human.

4. Endurance riding is typically 50-100miles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endurance_riding)

Many more things can effect a horse's ability to race than actual training such as breeding, diet, grooming, the rider, # of previous races, race surfaces, starting position, etc.

Every horse in the Derby has a GREAT pedigree, they have been bred to be champions. The difference between first and last could simply be going to the well too often (too many races), not going to the well enough (too few races), inexperienced rider (it's no coincidence that the best horses have the best riders), difficulty in riding surface (some horses don't run well over mud and now it seems most races are run over synthetic surfaces vs the Derby's dirt), starting position (no horse as EVER won the Derby from the 1st pole), and then of course there is the actual distance of the race. For many if not all of the Derby horses the Derby is the first race in which they've gone a mile and a quarter. In many cases, especially today, the winner comes from the back down the stretch. So many horses are bred for speed, speed, and nothing else that many in the Derby get to that 7-8 furlong distance and crap out. If I remember right many of the endurance breeds are in Europe and very few US Thoroughbreds can trace any bloodlines to those endurance breeds.

Anyway, take a look at the KY Derby winners over the years and their pedigree:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_Derby

Lots of former Derby winners and successful race horses in each of the winner's pedigrees.

Alan

Look especially hard at the winners sired by Mr. Prospector and his line.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Prospector

Even many Derby so-called "cinderellas" have Mr. Prospector blood so I'm not sure how much you can call them a cinderella.

Over the years if you did nothing but bet money on the Mr. Prospector line you'd probably be a very rich man.

Alan

Just on times. Makybe Diva (triple winner of Melb. Cup) ran Aussie record of 1.58.73 for the Flemington 2000m (grass)in 2005, compared to Secretariat's 1.59.4 for 2011m Kentucky Derby (dirt). Flemington is a slower track than C.Downs.

Brave Chief (so-so performer at best) won a race at Australia's Sandown racecourse, a hilly grass track in 2.24.31 for 2400m in 2000, compared to Secretariat's 2.24.0 on the flat fast Belmont dirt circuit for 2414m.

Bago won the Arc in 2.25.0 in 2004 on the tougher Longchamps 2414m course.

Conduit won Breeders Cup turf in 2008 with a 2.23.4.

The mighty High Chaparral and Johar took 2.24.2 to dead heat in the 2003 edition.

etc. etc.

hannsen wrote:

Why dont they have them run in the water?

i know of a few trainers who actually use aqua running in their training.

R0N wrote:

[quote]Total Knob wrote:

There isn't any incentive for them to get faster - take the Derby, if you win in 2:05 you get the same money as you would if you won in 1:59.

This is idiotic. If you run 2:05, you don't get any money if someone ELSE runs 1:59. That's the incentive to run faster.

I think what he means is that no-one cares about absolute times in horse racing. Betting drives the sport, not records or win/losses. There'd be the same amount of $ activity if they took twice as long to go around. If anyone got too good their odds would be so short the excitement would be gone. I don't know, but could well believe horses do not train hard at all. Nor will they ever.

If you want a great read on this subject I highly recommend The Fit Racehorse II. It delves into recommended training programs, as well as why interval training is shunned by the industry (it's all about the $ spent on breeding, interval training throws a curveball at the whole process)

http://www.amazon.com/Fit-Racehorse-II-Tom-Ivers/dp/0972511504/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1304993017&sr=8-1

The turf records for North America are faster than the dirt records. Spectacular Bid ran 1:57 4/5 for 1 1/4 on dirt in 1980, while Hawkster ran 2:22.xx at 1 1/2 on turf in 1989.

Many of the North American records have not improved in the past twenty years.

http://www.horsehats.com/horse-racing-records.html