"to eliminate ground conditions each section is expressed as a % of energy used compared to overall time...a lower % means they are going faster than par".
OK.......I'm already tripping out my nut trying to read these numbers, so let me ask a couple of questions regarding the above:
Re your equation, I'm reading this as follows; If overall time is 100 seconds, each section should be run in 33.3 seconds, if each section is same distance. But that's clearly not the case based on %ages you've used above. Is it therefore based on the distance covered between each section? For example, if the sections are 4f, 3f and 3f exactly, would the 'target distribution' be 40/30/30 seconds?
I'm guessing the above is only right to a degree, because the target pace-distribution for maximum energy output might mean they need to go faster at the end, or mid-race, or whatever such analysis deems to be the case on a per-track/per-Going assessment. This is a clumsy way of asking whether the %ages are influenced by all of distance, ground and pace factors?
Once these percentages are established, do these constitute the 'par' you reference above i.e these figures 38.7...36.7...24.8
I readily concede that this could be down to me missing some crucial-yet-simple factor, that is hidden in plain sight, but if a 1% variance equates to 12L, and this is derived from the Time versus Distance equation you've described above, can it be evenly applied to the first two sectors i.e are they the same trip? Also, you state that you eliminate ground-factors by using 'energy expended over time', but you will surely use more energy on softer patches of ground than you would on quicker, and given the subtle variances that exist all over a race-track on a given day - let alone taken as a relative sample over a number of years), doesn't this equation tend to dismiss something that almost certainly has a bearing on pace?
I'm not trying to rubbish your research, or question it's validity. I'm just trying to see if there will be a penny-drop moment for me, because as things stand, this kind of analysis looks just as flawed as any other type of analysis. Nothing is ever conclusive, and the suggestion that form-analysis (whatever its shape) is "guessing", and Time study has eliminated the question marks and evolved into a science, is to ignore the obvious.......we're all of us ultimately guessing.
the reason i used the % method is it removes the need to adjust times..i have got them all adjusted for going as well as bare times..i know you don't like the going being used..hence we use bare times and compare each section to overal time.
the sections are all the same as they are between hurdles..I picked teh 3 examples as we are all pretty much in agreement..and the figures also back up..that those 3 races were run at even pace.
we don't need to know the distance between hurdles or teh going conditions with this method..although i do have those distances between hurdles and could express them in any way that suits.
no.. if it was a 100 seconds..it wouldn't be evenly split as all 3 splits are different distances..hence i've given you 3 examples of even pace to give you an ideal % split each section should give if run evenly..then i took the average of those 3 to benchmark any other race.
I'll use Vautour as an example
total time from 1st hurdle to finish = 220.12
time spent in first section = 85.4
% of race spent in 1st section = 38.8%
to find the distance in lengths faster or slower as i did with Rooster..his overall time was 225...time in first section was 84.7..which is 37.6%
as that is 1% faster than par [38.7%] we want to know what 1% of 225 is..which is 2.25 seconds..and treating 1 length as approx 0.19 seconds = 11.8 lengths. It doesn't really matter what you treat a length as..because in that first section we know that the race is being 2.25 seconds too fast.
those pars are pretty good..you can see where the pace is put in a race at a glance really
i've tried to keep this away from messing with times so that you can see quiet easily that Rooster Booster was winning through staying on when others had burned out. We have had another race similar to Rooster Boosters..that was Punjabi's win
these are
Punjabi's splits
37.1%....36.2%...26.6%
compared to even pace gives..
1.6% fast in first section..20 lengths too fast
0.5% fast in 2nd section ..6 lengths too fast
1.8% slow in last section....21 lengths slow
as with RB..Punjabi ran slower later due to the fast early exertions...the whole field as with RB are slowing very quickly and the horse that stays best wins that kind of test..Celestial Halo was just beat in that..but was a stamina horse and like Punjabi relished that hard early test
if you get a number of horses that relish the stamina test..then they can stay with the lead...but they are all getting very tired and only those with reserves can keep plodding a bit faster longer
so saying..well such and such was on that lead and wasn't beat far..doesn't mean the pace wasn't too fast..it just means that some horses will tire quickly when going too fast early if they are speedier types..whilst others will just keep going and stay with the pace..but they are all stopping faster than par..you just can't see it by eye as you have nothing to compare with..something will always keep going no matter how fast they go
