Dosage: Pedigree & Performance
Main Menu         Search

Thoughts on the Decline of the Modern Thoroughbred

The demise of the Thoroughbred is just around the corner.  At least that's the claim of those who argue that owners, breeders and trainers are systematically destroying the very base upon which great racehorses are built.  According to the critics, today's Thoroughbred has been selected mainly for speed at the expense of conformation, resulting in a more fragile animal less capable of withstanding the rigors of training and racing while, at the same time, less effective at classic distances.  Presumably the owners, in the quest for quick returns on their investment, prefer speedy, precocious types likely to make an impact early and enhance their value in the shortest amount of time.  The breeders, responding to the demands of their customers, the owners, gravitate towards breeding stock most likely to achieve those goals.  The trainers, wishing to please their clients, push the horses beyond their physical limitations without establishing the proper foundation.  Many critics suggest that a combination of short-term commercial interests, a failure to uphold the traditions of classic racing and inferior training methods is responsible for the perceived decline. On the other hand, there are those who refute the critics and claim that the Thoroughbred of today is as good or better than he ever was.  They remind us that every generation has used the same arguments when comparing the "good old days" of racing to the present.  To an extent they are correct.  Many references to excessive speed in the Thoroughbred are a century or more old.  Presumably, breakdowns have continually been a problem, and since the beginning of commerce, someone has always schemed to make a quick buck. Both sides have their points, but since there is no objective measure available, an assessment of the relative strengths and weaknesses of contemporary Thoroughbreds is a subjective exercise.  Nevertheless, we can use the collective judgment of experts at least to appreciate how a few acknowledged authorities feel about the matter.  And we can do it without biasing the answer because we don't have to ask them the direct question: "Is the Thoroughbred of today as good as the Thoroughbred of the past?"  Rather, we do it by analyzing the results of a poll identifying the greatest racehorses of the 20th century. In late 1998, The Blood-Horse magazine asked seven well-known racing figures to judge the best Thoroughbreds of the 20th century based on their performances in North America.  There were no nominees to choose from and no preconditions for selection.  One hundred and ninety two horses received at least one vote, from which were identified the top 100. The seven experts included:

Howard Battle: Keeneland racing secretary
Lenny Hale: Vice president, Maryland Jockey Club
Jay Hovdey: Executive columnist with Daily Racing Form
Bill Nack: Senior writer, Sports Illustrated
Pete Pedersen: Senior steward in the state of California
Jennie Rees: Racing writer and columnist, the Louisville Courier-Journal
Tommy Trotter: Steward at Gulfstream Park (on leave)

The following table displays the results of the poll, listing the selected horses by rank, along with their year of birth, sex, sire, dam and owner.

There may be some discussion about the relative ranking of a few horses, and there are probably a few others that could be named to replace some already on the list.  Nevertheless, we will take this result at face value and use it to examine how the experts, although unknowingly at the time, revealed their attitudes about the changing quality of the Thoroughbred. Chart 1 uses the raw data in the table to plot the ranking of the horses against the year in which they were foaled.  In the chart, the horizontal axis represents the year while the vertical axis represents the rank.  The result shows, not unexpectedly, a great degree of scatter, with data points spread across the chart in what appears to be random fashion.  However, if we apply trend line analysis to the data points, we may be able to observe patterns over time.

This result (blue line) suggests almost no change in perceived quality throughout the century, with the horses clustered at the beginning regarded almost as highly as those at the end.  One might conclude that, in the opinion of the experts, quality in the Thoroughbred has remained reasonably constant over the last 100 years.   If anything, today's Thoroughbred is marginally superior to his counterpart of a century ago. However, the story may not be that simple.  If we use a more subtle and complex analytical technique, second order polynomial regression, we observe a different pattern as shown in Chart 2.

This means that a larger number of higher ranked horses are clustered in that time frame.  The upward trend since then reinforces the position of the critics in that the horses on the list selected since mid-century are, as a group, not as highly regarded as those that came immediately before them.  The overall pattern seems to have been continual improvement through the first half of the 20th century followed by a gradual decline since then. This study is far from definitive because the rankings are objective only to the extent that humans apply their best judgment.  On the other hand, since there is no purely objective standard to use, the opinions of the seven experts are as a good as any and better than most.  The result of their judgment is that changes have occurred and that the best of recent years are not quite up to the level of the best that preceded them.