Another fast race?

FrogTheBountyMuncher said:
Hi Orchid,

Thanks for the reply.

I used the RP tool to assess the others at 3.7 lb per length (You press click and it calculates it all for you), they come through at;

116 - Smoothtalkinrascal
116 - Lucky Beggar
115 - Cosmic Chatter
105 - Polski Max
93 - Mary's Daughter

I'm trying to find some Group form in the front three to justify the rating, I might just have to record it as a rogue time.

What do your calculations say?
Click to expand...

They say the form isn't worth p1sh. The time was dreadfully slow (check the TS figures too) so it was probably far from a true-run race. The only conclusion I'd draw from the race is that the handicapper has their measure.
 
Desert Orchid said:
Not quite what I said, though I see how you could think it:



The comments weren't intended to refer to the Lockinge, which was why I mentioned Hawk Wing - he'd gone off fast and looked to keep going, yet ended up posting a slow overall time (for the class of race).

I have a g/a of -0.35spf for Newbury on Saturday. That would add over a second per 3f split for Farhh and 1.4s for a 4f split. Would that affect your findings?
Click to expand...

no i've not bothered with an allowance because you don't need one to show even pace..if you look at the splits..its clear that the pace was even all the way through..which to me shows a race where the winner will show his true ability on time..which imo he did with a decent overall speed figure..TF agreed..and tbh if you think Farrh has only run a 112 ... after running even pace..then he is no better than that..which i don't think is possible

we don't need to get bogged down with allowances for the splits..just use bare times
 
i've tried to split the time of Hawk wing's lockinge and the bloody camera work makes it very difficult:(

visually i'm not convinced HW ran too fast early..the pack haven't got big gaps between them like in Farrh's race..visually i'd say HW's race was slower early than Faarh's..and so wasn't completely even..but i need a marker somewhere to split the times
 
But he might be able to run the final split faster once fully fit and pressed to do so. That -0.35spf is 2.8s over the mile - about 17 lengths. Because his main rivals ran very badly, he didn't have to run hard at any point in the race. He merely had to keep going at the same - even - pace to win.

I'd conclude he can run much faster than he did, so the 112 strikes me as about right.
 
EC1 said:
i've tried to split the time of Hawk wing's lockinge and the bloody camera work makes it very difficult:(

visually i'm not convinced HW ran too fast early..the pack haven't got big gaps between them like in Farrh's race..visually i'd say HW's race was slower early than Faarh's..and so wasn't completely even..but i need a marker somewhere to split the times
Click to expand...

It may be that HW put in a massive 2f split mid-race that killed off the oppo. I only know it was a slow overall time compared with the form (something like 111 from memory).
 
Desert Orchid said:
But he might be able to run the final split faster once fully fit and pressed to do so. That -0.35spf is 2.8s over the mile - about 17 lengths. Because his main rivals ran very badly, he didn't have to run hard at any point in the race. He merely had to keep going at the same - even - pace to win.

I'd conclude he can run much faster than he did, so the 112 strikes me as about right.
Click to expand...

112 is only listed class..and it means all the field ran well..and i mean well ..below their ratings.

visually..it was Frankel like..on overall time i personally rate it a very solid G1 time..TF rate it even higher.. sectionally it looked a true run race...and compared with the other races on the card..by far the highest speed figure on the card

if it was only a listed speed figure then every race on the card is about 10 lbs slower than their OHR's,,which i don't believe..you yourself have rated annecdote as a mid 90 speed figure for instance
 
Last edited:
I have Farhh running 28lbs faster than Annecdote before wfa adjustment.

I have Farhh running 13lbs faster than Hallelujah.

The other races were slow.

Because I have Farhh running to a time rating of 112 doesn't mean I'll be rating it 112. Given that Sovereign Debt (OR111) and Aljamaheer (OR110) have run that differential to the pound, I'd rate Farhh 9lbs better (120) than the runner up and he did it comfortably despite being reportedly less than 100% fit. So he'll be 120++ for the race. That's 4lbs short of my best rating for him last season but with strong prospects of improving on it. He looks to me to have a 127 performance in his locker.

But that doesn't mean his time on Saturday reflected that.

As for the placed horses running slow as well, they look like they were racing for place money from the off, being held up in rear off what couldn't have been a fast pace (by your figures). They've probably had their own wee separate race, effectively not much more than a training gallop.

But I have been known to be wrong, you know... :whistle:;):lol:
 
Last edited:
using the RP standards

Hallelujah 1.01 slower than standard
Farrh 0.27 faster than standard

bring both to per mile gives

Hallelujah 1.34 slower than standard
Farrh 0.27 faster than standard

difference = 1.61 sec per mile

divide by 0.0666...1lb at a mile

Makes Farrh 24 lbs superior to Hallelujah

which is fair...seeing as Farrh ran each furlong the same speed as H..but did it for a mile and not six furlongs


there must be at least half a dozen speed figure guys on here...where are your opinions..come on:)
 
Last edited:
Straight course: Hallelujah 108/ Farhh 121/ Prince Of Arabia 71/ Czech It Out 80/ Annecdote 103.

Rest: Remote 100/ Willing Foe 96/ High Troja 61.

WFA included in each case.
 
Gus, could I ask how many seconds you have between your standards at 6F8yds - 7F and 7f - 1M?

Your figures for the 7F races are way higher than mine, so I'm thinking you may have made 7F too easy to get.
 
OK, I've done the meeting again using the time comparisons published in the Weekender form pullout. Does the Weekender use RP Standards?

Remember, when I do a meeting I look for the fastest handicap on the card (as they're usually more truly run) for the most exposed horses (therefore fewer unknown quantities). In this case it was Hallelujah's race. This gave a g/a of -0.15spf, applying which gave the following time ratings:

Hallelujah 99
Farhh 116
Annecdote 87+w
Remote 90+w
 
By the way, I take it everyone is aware that the round course rail was dolled out, adding 24yds to distances on the round course?

The RP standards aren't right imo either, DO.

Looking at the ones that were being used on 10/11/12.

This is the time difference between their standard times.

NEWBURY5f34y
11.7
NEWBURY6f8y
11.8
NEWBURY7f
12.6
NEWBURY1m
27.4
NEWBURY1m2f6y
27.8
NEWBURY1m4f5y
17.3
NEWBURY1m5f61y
36.4
NEWBURY2m

Percentage of a furlong between the distances.

NEWBURY5f34y
89%
NEWBURY6f8y
96%
NEWBURY7f
100%
NEWBURY1m
203%
NEWBURY1m2f6y
199%
NEWBURY1m4f5y
126%
NEWBURY1m5f61y
272%
NEWBURY2m

Translated to seconds per furlong

NEWBURY5f34y
13.146
NEWBURY6f8y
12.292
NEWBURY7f
12.6
NEWBURY1m
13.497
NEWBURY1m2f6y
13.97
NEWBURY1m4f5y
13.73
NEWBURY1m5f61y
13.382
NEWBURY2m
 
Last edited:
CPGagie said:
Gus, could I ask how many seconds you have between your standards at 6F8yds - 7F and 7f - 1M?

Your figures for the 7F races are way higher than mine, so I'm thinking you may have made 7F too easy to get.
Click to expand...

Interesting that you assume I'm wrong!

12.2 secs between 6f8y and 7f.

13.5 secs between 7f and 8f.
 
That isn't what I was expecting you to post, as it makes it more confusing now.

Your margin between 7F and 1M is greater than mine, yet I end up with a faster figure for Farhh, but lower for both Annecdote and Hallelujah. It doesn't make sense.

My figures in brackets.

6F8yds - Hallelujah 108 (103) -5

7F - Annecdote 103 (89) -14

1M - Farhh 121 (124) +3
 
It will probably come down to our different methods of calculation.

As I've mentioned before, and for what it's worth, mine is set out in a thread called "Speedratings" at the back of the Archive section on TRF.
 
Tried to have a look, but unable to get on there at the moment for some reason.

I agree our methods are probably different, but the figures should still end up in the same ball park, as we're both rating in pounds.

It has got me confused though, as I was expecting you to post the exact opposite to what you did. Which is why I thought you may have made 7F too easy to get.

Please don't take it personally, Gus, or think I was being a clever dick. I double checked my standards for those trips and all seemed OK at my end before I asked.

If you happen see some figures of mine that seem out, please say so. Same for anyone else.
 
Angel Gabrial's race comes under the microscope today..harvard & yale runs.

going back to whether that race was fast or not..again without using traditional speed figure making so as to keep it as simple as possible..so no need to assess the ground or weight...no need for standard times

just a very simple point...when a 12f race is run ..per furlong ..just a little slower than a higher class 7f race on the same day..its has to be a very serious time ..irrelevant of any other calculations

12f. Angel Gabrial = 152.04 sec/12 = 12.67 per fur
7f. Excellent Guest = 88.26/7 =12.61 per furlong

when you consider that the difference between two similar class races at those distances should be in the order of 0.50 sec per furlong then its clear that running just 0.06 slower is pretty swift.

The round course has never had quicker ground than the straight...so this is an exceptional time
 
Hmm...

My Standard Times booklet suggests the differential is close to what it was.

Ascot 12f: 2m 30s = 12.5 spf
Ascot 7f: 1m 27s = 12.4286 spf

So 0.5s is an awful lot. The difference of 0.07-and-change still suggests Angel Gabrial might have been quick but not massively so.
 
Desert Orchid said:
Hmm...

My Standard Times booklet suggests the differential is close to what it was.

Ascot 12f: 2m 30s = 12.5 spf
Ascot 7f: 1m 27s = 12.4286 spf

So 0.5s is an awful lot. The difference of 0.07-and-change still suggests Angel Gabrial might have been quick but not massively so.
Click to expand...

standard times need to be removed from this tbh DO...using a universal standard would point..on a flat track.. to there being 0.5 between them...that won't change much no matter what the track..there will always be a similarish relationship between each distance... its not possible for a 12f race to be so close pf to 7f..its not actually possible if you think about it..its nearly twice as far

the standards you have quoted there look obviously flawed..they are like saying Seb Coe can run 800m as fast per every 50 yards as 100 metre champ..not realistic really
 
No, just because they don't conform to your own theories doesn't make them wrong, EC1.

As you know, it all depends on the conformation and topography of the track. The standard times for the two distances are what they are, based on actual times recorded.

Elsewhere there will be larger differentials, eg at Epsom it's 12.83spf at 12f and 11.5spf at 7f, over a second per furlong difference.

It may be that Angel Gabrial's race is good form but not necessarily because if was that much closer to the spf of the 7f race.
 
Back
Top