Talk:Beyer Speed Figure

It is only "irrelevant" and "undue weight" to you. That is your opinion. The article stating, "In the 2008 Whitney Handicap, Commentator scored a 120. Over his career he has earned Beyers of 119, 121, and 123. Andy Beyer said he can’t recall a 7-year-old getting that high a number," must also be "irrelevant" and "undue weight" for a horse, to you as well? The article is clearly about explaining what they are, and showing/listing the top Beyer Speed Figures that horses ran. 124 beyer they both earned is among the top beyer speed figures any horses have run. It clearly is relevant to the article. Article also previously notes, "while extremely strong performances can rate as high as the 120's." Noting 120 speed figure ranges for both clearly should be in the article. Instead of just reverting, show why it shouldn't be, etc. 72.69.118.4 (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * These aren't records, they are just another round in your obsession with Easy Goer, Peteski. Now stop. and go read WP:UNDUE.  Either that, or create List of Thoroughbreds who earned Beyers over 120 and why we should care.  There will most likely be at least a dozen horses, maybe more.   Montanabw (talk)  19:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

What? Who? What? What are you talking about? Why should we "CARE" about all this, ""In the 2008 Whitney Handicap, Commentator scored a 120. Over his career he has earned Beyers of 119, 121, and 123. Andy Beyer said he can’t recall a 7-year-old getting that high a number"???? Why should we "care" about FOUR of Commentator's beyer speed figures and his career? What makes Commentator important to the article and not others? Why should we "CARE" about, "while extremely strong performances can rate as high as the 120's", and then have a list of many horses who did this? You are a hypocritical and contradictory. Do you have some bias in favour of Commentator or something? 72.69.118.4 (talk) 04:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hiding behind an IP does not insulate you from the rules. You keep inserting details about individual horses when it is mere trivia.  I don't have any opinion favorable or otherwise about any single horse, it's simply silly to publish a laundry list of anything other than, maybe the top five or ten Beyers in history.  A list of dozens and dozens of assorted records is rather absurd unless you want to create a list or table as a separate article, which could be useful. Beyers aren't even the only speed rating out there, and this article is about the figure itself, how it is calculated and used, not a trivia collection.  Montanabw (talk)  05:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hiding? What are you talking about? Nonsense, woman who curses. Timeform, Timeform, Timeform! Are Timeform ratings "mere trivia"? Is it you who determines that Timeform ratings are NOT mere trivia, and Beyer speed ratings are mere trivia? Look at that Timeform article Ms. knowitall. Timeform article is ok, and Beyers is not ok to do this in the article??? If it is "mere trivia" for 3 or 4 horses, then why isn't it mere trivia for ALL horses? You didn't answer my questions. Why should we care about Lava Man and Bordonaro, and not others?? If it is so important for you to create a new article of List of Thoroughbreds who earned 120 beyer speed figures or more, then go ahead and create it. Why is it ok with you to have a Timeform rating article which explains what IT IS, and ALSO has an ENDLESS LIST of the Top Timeform ratings in the SAME ARTICLE? Are you a hypocrite or contradictory? Or you want to start making different articles with lists? I also started the beyer horses list, similar to list of horses in Timeform article. For some reason, horses names not showing up. 72.69.118.4 (talk) 06:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If you learned to edit, maybe your edits would not get reverted. Frankly, the timeform charts are a little long for the flat races and could be spun off into a list, but that's not my circus.  Go do some actual work and create a ranked chart like the timeform article has, I won't complain.  But random, out of context trivia that you are inserting here makes no sense. Your writing is disorganized and you need to stop attacking me and try actually doing things correctly.  Also lay of the gender-based personal attacks.  I called your edit summary bullshit and you called it back, now we're square.  Do it right or do it over.   Montanabw (talk)  08:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I never cursed. You did. We are not square. What? You never answer anything. Is Timeform ratings random, out of context trivia also?? Why is it ok with you to have a Timeform rating article which explains what IT IS, and ALSO has an ENDLESS LIST of the Top Timeform ratings in the SAME ARTICLE? Are you a hypocrite or contradictory?72.69.118.4 (talk) 12:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Drop it. You are making decent contributions to the article now, so you might notice I am reverting less. Here, you are choosing to misunderstand what I am trying to tell you and instead are attacking me personally.  I am neither contradictory nor a hypocrite, I'm just telling you how to do things properly; similarly I could inquire if you are behaving like a tendentious troll or just a mere jerk?  However, I am NOT going to make such an inquiry.  Instead, I made some cleanup edits on the article that you could use in the future to guide your edits.   Montanabw (talk)  21:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

YOU "drop it" if you feel the need to "drop it." I wanted to point out that I never cursed. You cursed, not me. You need to learn how to be less abrasive to people. You may get better feedback if you do. You also need to learn that you think you know it all, when you actually don't. After all your complaining, stating that it was, "Mere Trivia, Irrelevant, Out of Context Trivia, etc," now it is a "decent contribution"? Why thank you so much. But, Please don't tell me it is now a "decent contribution" just because I showed you the Timeform article, and then tried to make a similar list/article? Did this somehow make it "relevant, in context, not mere trivia etc"? 72.69.118.4 (talk) 04:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I have over 8 years experience on wiki, more than 60,000 edits and over 15 featured articles to my credit; so yes, I do feel perfectly able to tell you how I think things ought to be done and I am glad to see you are learning, whether from your own discoveries or my reverts, that also is irrelevant. I'm glad you found Timeform and felt you could do some modeling from it.  I am abrasive when I encounter annoying little trolls and I call it as I see it.  So deal with your own behavior, which is aggressive and intimidating, whether you choose to cuss or not. I've lived over 50 years on this planet and if I call bullshit on occasion, it generally is deserved.   Montanabw (talk)  05:45, 6 July 2014

What? YOU deal with your OWN behavior. The point is YOU were abrasive to ME without me being an "annoying little troll." Been on wiki for over 8 years 24/7 all day and all night. What would a person like this be considered? A proper wiki troll with abrasive behavior? As if you haven't had some of your contributions rightfully edited numerous times over your 8 years? YOU "drop it" if you feel the need to "drop it." You need to learn how NOT to be abrasive to people who are NOT TROLLS, and who do NOT Deserve your abrasive behavior. You may get better feedback from people who are NOT trolls, and who do NOT deserve your abrasive behavior, if you do. YOU were abrasive to ME without me being an "annoying little troll." That is the main point. You also need to learn that you actually don't know it all. You never answered- -After all your complaining, stating that it was, "Mere Trivia, Irrelevant, Out of Context Trivia, etc," now it is a "decent contribution"? But, Please don't tell me it is now a "decent contribution" just because I showed you the Timeform article, and then tried to make a similar list/article? Did this somehow make it "relevant, in context, not mere trivia etc"? Maybe, for an over 50 year old, being on wiki 24/7 all day and all night, for 8 years has made you the way you are. But, irrespective of all of this, how did my "Mere Trivia, Irrelevant, Out of Context Trivia, etc," suddenly now become a "decent contribution"? How Did this somehow become "relevant, in context, not mere trivia etc"? All you had to was: - not be abrasive, and simply state that my contributions can be considered decent, relevant, in context, and not mere trivia, if you make a similar list like the Timeform article, or other articles. Simple as that. Why not try this in the future.72.69.118.4 (talk) 06:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Just edit the damn article, you've begun to do some decent work, which surprised me given what a jackass you are being here. I'm done discussing this. Montanabw (talk)  17:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I am a "jackass" for making decent contributions that were relevant and in context. You are the "jackass" who is abrasive to people for no reason at all.72.69.118.4 (talk) 17:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Article additions
Never ever heard of the Count Fleet 150 record. I frankly think it is b.s. No horse, living or dead, was ever faster than Secretariat at his peak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.100.61.4 (talk) 03:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm moving some material from the article to the talk page here because it appears to be mere trivia and there is not an explanation of how it ties in. We also need sources because this reads like a cut and paste edit. I'm not opposed to restoring it, but we need sources and a little refinement. Montanabw (talk) 04:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

In 1999, top-figure horse Charismatic (108 in its previous start) paid $63.00 to win the Kentucky Derby, while in 2002, top-figure War Emblem wired the field, paying $42.00). Top-figure Ghostzapper paid $7.00 when he easily wired the field in the 2004 Breeders' Cup Classic.  Arcangues, who paid $288.00 to win the 1992 Breeders' Cup Classic, had defeated 1991 two-year-old champion Arazi by six lengths on the grass in Europe, which translates to a Beyer figure fourteen points higher than Arazi's.  All of these high-priced "figure horses" won after the much-lamented mainstreaming of the Beyer figures in 1992. This is important in the Beyer speed figure system why...?   Montanabw (talk)  04:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Cigar's apparent rise to greatness was actually consistent with his second start, in which he earned a 97 Beyer without Lasix, at two, prior to running on the grass for the first time. If one factors in natural improvements in his figures due to age, experience, turf experience, and the addition of Lasix, even his 133 in the 1996 Massachusetts Handicap, or his many 120+ Beyers during his sixteen-race winning streak, should not have surprised anyone. This might be a good example, but needs a source and less breathless sportswriter prose tone. Montanabw (talk) 04:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Thirty minutes prior to Secretariat's 1973 Belmont win, Forego turned in a smashing allowance win from off the pace, signaling his rise to prominence. It has been speculated that had Forego run instead in the 1973 Belmont, and been allowed to rate off the 1:09.4 six-furlong duel between Secretariat and Sham, he would have been very competitive in what ight have been one of the greatest races of all time. Forego's subsequent track records of 1:20.1 for seven furlongs at Belmont suggests he was the only legitimate threat to Secretariat's Triple Crown win.

Forego was in the 1973 Kentucky Derby and came in a respectable fourth. He was a great horse, but he would have never, ever beaten Secretariat. Whoever wrote that passage forgot the inconvenient fact the two had already met, and Secretariat slaughtered him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.100.61.4 (talk) 03:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Appears to have no real relevance at all to speed figures, appears to be mere trivia about the Secretariat era. Montanabw (talk) 04:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Kind of a cluttered mess
There's a lot of good information here, but the Records section had a lot of unnecessary information that didn't need to be there, and was a giant block so hard to read. AfleetAlexsBalance (talk) 00:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)