Does this sound logical?

[Desert Orchid]

This query is aimed primarily at those of us who study times and/or compile time ratings so feel free to go away if it doesn't interest you.

(It would be great if Prufrock had a look in and helped the discussion along.)

I have not been a fan of Topspeed since Dave Edwards took over from the late Ken Hussey. It's probably because his time figures are - as far as I am aware - derived from class pars which, based on my reading of Nick Mordin and other devotees of the methodology, are a seriously flawed means of calculation.

In fact, I rarely, if ever, use his time time comparison with standard times because I think those standard times are flawed. However, going slightly off at a tangent for a moment, I think those STs are evolving and are gradually harmonising with the old Ken Hussey Standard Times. I've been using the old Standard Times published around the turn of this century.

In the last few days while revisiting the Ascot form with a view to firming up my own form and time ratings, I wanted to know for certain if the stated comparisons with Standard Times took into account extra yardage covered due to rail movement. I don't have a list of current Standard Times at each of the tracks - I don't think they publish them in booklet form any more - but always adjust the Standard Times I do use accordingly. For example, the extra 14 yards covered on the first two days on the round course equated to approximately 0.8s, or four lengths, or 9lbs at 8f, or 6lbs at 12f, which I think is significant for all fourteen yards themselves might seem piddling.

I emailed the RP for clarity and the reply surprised me.

They tell me that the extra yardage is taken into account in the going allowance.

This is what doesn't strike me as a logical approach.

In NH racing, rail movement can account for over 100 yard per circuit. In a staying race, that's almost a furlong, probably around 16 or 17 seconds. So if a race is 34 seconds slow, almost half of that can be accounted for by rail movement? That could be the difference between soft ground and heavy ground and could be seriously misleading. Granted, that's heading towards the extreme of the situation, but it doesn't strike me as logical or satisfactory.

Maybe I'm thinking all wrong here so I'd welcome other enthusiasts' views on the issue.

 

[ep1987]

Obviously ground based standards are best used as a guide only. But the RP methodology for rail adjustments is lazy and nonsensical although not unsurprising when their coding still shows all jockeys in French races to be riding overweight.

There are too many flaws to list but some obvious ones are non-linear ground effects (GS to S slowing down horses less than S to H), smaller rail adjustments not being accounted for at all and rails moving within a raceday leading to inconsistencies.

 

[Desert Orchid]

Thanks for taking the time to read and reply, ep.

I'm pretty sure the adjusted yardage for rail movement is based on GPS and is meant to be accurate. (Personally, I'd still prefer transponders to be used to show exactly how many yards/centimetres each horse travelled in a race. If a horse raced wind on a bend the transponder would reflect this.)

Am I right in suspecting you live in Ireland? I ask because your second paragraph reflects the kind of frustration regularly expressed by Simon Rowlands regarding Irish racing in his Sectional Spotlights over at the ATR site.

Thanks again.

 

[barjon]

Desert, I gave up on time many years ago since the variables (some of which you and ep have already mentioned) are such that it’s extraordinarily difficult to be sure that you are comparing apples to apples. That said, it is indisputable that fast horse can run slow and slow horses cannot run fast, so trying to to pinpoint (a very blunt pin necessary) where horse fall across that spectrum remains pertinent. I have hope that sectional analysis is helpful - once I understand it properly .

The other problem is when horses carry a “false” time figure - you might recall I was always suspicious of the speeding bullet performance of ASADNA - for one reason or another.

 

[reet hard]

There's more to horse racing than time,imo
eg:The much vaunted Hawk Wing ran a supposedly massive time in the Lockinge, but he merely had an easy lead, and any horse racing against thin air has a much easier time than one which is challenged -wherever that challenge comes.
Don't believe it - check ou course record times in the RP, you'll find a lot of mediocre horses hold course records for that very simple reason.

 

[Desert Orchid]

There's more to horse racing than time,imo
eg:The much vaunted Hawk Wing ran a supposedly massive time in the Lockinge, but he merely had an easy lead, and any horse racing against thin air has a much easier time than one which is challenged -wherever that challenge comes.
Don't believe it - check ou course record times in the RP, you'll find a lot of mediocre horses hold course records for that very simple reason.

Absolutely.

I only really use times to see the extent to which they back up seemingly good form performances although we're entering the stage of the season when I do like to get a time handle on 2yos that can come under the radar since my time ratings are calculated differently from Topspeed, etc.

I reckon 99% of my study revolves around collateral form and race standards but I'm more than happy to spend an hour or two researching times, more so since sectional timing became more accessible.

 

[ep1987]

Just to make sure I understand the RP methodology; when X number of yards are added to a race they use the standard for the next slowest going (that's what I understood the OP to mean)?

Sectionals are definitely useful in telling you the pace of a race (sometimes the eye-test can be deceiving) and when you can compare apples to apples it can give extra insight into a horse's ability. The main mistake that I see being made is not accounting for the energy saved earlier in the race by fast finishers and therefore upgrading them too generously (Graham Cunningham at RTV).

The best data is at france-galop in my opinion with the coursetrack sectionals lacking detail (and not always being reliable as with last year's Derby meeting for example) and the ATR efficiency ratings making assumptions that I'm not fully confident in (I don't think pars scale linearly with race class, especially on undulating tracks).

To answer the earlier question; born and lived most of my life in Leeds, but am half Irish.

 

[Desert Orchid]

Just to make sure I understand the RP methodology; when X number of yards are added to a race they use the standard for the next slowest going (that's what I understood the OP to mean)?

No, I'm at a loss as to how they can use extra yardage to arrive at a going allowance.

Sectionals are definitely useful in telling you the pace of a race (sometimes the eye-test can be deceiving) and when you can compare apples to apples it can give extra insight into a horse's ability. The main mistake that I see being made is not accounting for the energy saved earlier in the race by fast finishers and therefore upgrading them too generously (Graham Cunningham at RTV).

There is a formula that I have on file which was, as I understand it, devised to allow calculations for accurate upgrade to reflect the expense of energy through a race and arrive at "accurate" upgrades. I think where some people go wrong is in taking the upgrades out of context. The upgrades, I concluded early on, are in relation to time ratings and it is a mistake to translate them directly across to form ratings. At the same time, a horse that has run inefficiently is entitled to have its performance upgraded but it is important to make sure the performance itself is not over-rated to start with, and that's a whole new discussion.

The best data is at france-galop in my opinion with the coursetrack sectionals lacking detail (and not always being reliable as with last year's Derby meeting for example) and the ATR efficiency ratings making assumptions that I'm not fully confident in (I don't think pars scale linearly with race class, especially on undulating tracks).

I wasn't aware of the French sectional data. I must check it out. Thanks for brining it to my attention.

To answer the earlier question; born and lived most of my life in Leeds, but am half Irish.

The assumption on my part was that Simon Rowland regularly berates the Irish authorities for their casual attitude towards accurate course measurements, rail movement and overall timing. He doesn't have the same beef with UK racing so I assumed you own comments were based on your experience with Irish racing.

 

[reet hard]

No matter how you dress it up, the eyes are still vital in establishing what happened in a race, and the ability to interpret that logically and correctly.
Despite all the figures thrown about, many 'sectionalistas' made a balls of such as the Derby and the Guineas, yet it wasrelatively straight-forward from the unsophisticated,'old fashioned' approach to what happened in the races.
Sectionals were a product of US racing, and designed for flat,tight and uniform tracks, often on a dirt surface, and bear little relation to our myriad courses and conditions, but have been corrupted by those who beiev the clock tells all.
It doesn't, yet phrases like 'even pace' and 'truly run' (both bollox,imo) are in danger of becoming common parlance.
I've said it many times before, and I'll keep on saying it "horses don't run against clocks, but against other horses" and the nuances of pace can change in a few strides, let alone furlong by furlong,or a distance of ground,so is often missed by mathematical appraisal,simply because you can't bend pears into apples. :lol:

 

[Desert Orchid]

Yes, all well and good, reet, but the eyes can and do deceive. Plenty of professional, experienced commentators misread races as they unfold before their very eyes.

There's no harm in using the clock to support or gainsay the visual impression.

You could say the same about athletics but elite athletes' coaching is all about getting the "splits" right. Same in swimming.

Where things differ in athletics is that when it comes to the likes of Olympic finals it does become more fundamentally about beating your opponents tactically whereas in the likes of Diamond League meetings there's often an element of running against the clock.

Yes, it's about beating your opponents but if you beat the clock the chances are you are also beating opponents that aren't capable of beating the clock.

 

[reet hard]

Athletics and swimming are human pursuits, and horses don't wear watches .
Beating opponents (in anything) is often due to no more than happenstance;ignore,skirt around or try to reduce to figures at your own peril.

 

[Maxbet]

This query is aimed primarily at those of us who study times and/or compile time ratings so feel free to go away if it doesn't interest you.

(It would be great if Prufrock had a look in and helped the discussion along.)

I have not been a fan of Topspeed since Dave Edwards took over from the late Ken Hussey. It's probably because his time figures are - as far as I am aware - derived from class pars which, based on my reading of Nick Mordin and other devotees of the methodology, are a seriously flawed means of calculation.

In fact, I rarely, if ever, use his time comparison with standard times because I think those standard times are flawed. However, going slightly off on a tangent for a moment, I think those STs are evolving and are gradually harmonising with the old Ken Hussey Standard-Times. I've been using the old Standard-Times published around the turn of this century.

In the last few days while revisiting the Ascot form with a view to firming up my own form and time ratings, I wanted to know for certain if the stated comparisons with Standard Times took into account extra yardage covered due to rail movement. I don't have a list of current Standard Times at each of the tracks - I don't think they publish them in booklet form anymore - but always adjust the Standard-Times I do use accordingly. For example, the extra 14 yards covered on the first two days on the round course equated to approximately 0.8s, or four lengths, or 9lbs at 8f, or 6lbs at 12f, which I think is significant for all fourteen yards themselves might seem piddling.

I emailed the RP for clarity and the reply surprised me.

They tell me that the extra yardage is taken into account in the going allowance.

This is what doesn't strike me as a logical approach.

In NH racing, rail movement can account for over 100 yards per circuit. In a staying race, that's almost a furlong, probably around 16 or 17 seconds. So if a race is 34 seconds slow, almost half of that can be accounted for by rail movement? That could be the difference between soft ground and heavy ground and could be seriously misleading. Granted, that's heading toward the extreme of the situation, but it doesn't strike me as logical or satisfactory.

Maybe I'm thinking all wrong here so I'd welcome other enthusiasts' views on the issue.

Yes, all well and good, reet, but the eyes can and do deceive. Plenty of professional, experienced commentators misread races as they unfold before their very eyes.

There's no harm in using the clock to support or gainsay the visual impression.

You could say the same about athletics but elite athletes' coaching is all about getting the "splits" right. Same in swimming.

Where things differ in athletics is that when it comes to the likes of Olympic finals it does become more fundamentally about beating your opponents tactically whereas in the likes of Diamond League meetings, there's often an element of running against the clock.

Yes, it's about beating your opponents but if you beat the clock the chances are you are also beating opponents that aren't capable of beating the clock.

If a rail movement can be deemed as adding 14 yards to the course, what does running around the outside (2 wide, 3 wide) do to that particular horse's distance?

I often wonder, do you add rail movement for a horse that runs around a course like, say Chester for example?

Then ask yourself this, did the horse going wide have better ground, if so, to what calculation, did the inside offer a golden highway, again same question....

Time is a waste of time unless you know all the imponderables. Reat is right, the eyes and a combination of as many imponderables as you think necessary are what's key....

 

[barjon]

In a properly run 5 furlong race on good ground a fast horse that has shown it can do it in less than 60 seconds should beat a slow horse that has shown it can’t do it in less than 60 seconds. Thus, it is the fast horse’s race to lose - which it can do dependent on the tactics employed. What can’t happen, though, is the slow horse running the race in less than 60 seconds (improvers excepted :lol

 

[Maxbet]

In a properly run 5 furlong race on good ground a fast horse that has shown it can do it in less than 60 seconds should beat a slow horse that has shown it can’t do it in less than 60 seconds. Thus, it is the fast horse’s race to lose - which it can do dependent on the tactics employed. What can’t happen, though, is the slow horse running the race in less than 60 seconds (improvers excepted :lol

5 furlongs around Chester or 5 at Epsom, straight or circular, course specialist against a faster horse elsewhere...

 

[barjon]

5 furlongs around Chester or 5 at Epsom, straight or circular, course specialist against a faster horse elsewhere...

Of course, but I’m talking like for like - how the two horses have run over the straight 5 furlongs at the same course, for example.

 

[reet hard]

In a properly run 5 furlong race on good ground a fast horse that has shown it can do it in less than 60 seconds should beat a slow horse that has shown it can’t do it in less than 60 seconds. Thus, it is the fast horse’s race to lose - which it can do dependent on the tactics employed. What can’t happen, though, is the slow horse running the race in less than 60 seconds (improvers excepted :lol

Lingfield AW 5f is a piece less than 60s, and the course record was set by Bessa's Lad (OR 69) -by virtue of a soft lead.

 

[Desert Orchid]

If a rail movement can be deemed as adding 14 yards to the course, what does running around the outside (2 wide, 3 wide) do to that particular horse's distance?/QUOTE]

I've touched on this before. If we say a horse width while running is three feet (to allow for some space between horses), then a circuit will add about 19ft, approx two lengths (at approx 9ft per length) per horse width wide. Horses aren't uniform in build or length so it can only be an approximation but it doesn't mean it can't be allowed for. If I'm conscious that a horse has race wide throughout I will add a + or ++ to my figure for it to allow me to prefer it over a horse that has a similar rating, all other things being equal (which they obviously aren't) but that's where transponders would take the guesswork out of it.

I often wonder, do you add rail movement for a horse that runs around a course like, say Chester for example?

Yes, I do. If the form book says to add, for example, 9 yards to a distance due to rail movement, I'll come up with a time for those nine yards based on the standard time for the trip at the track and allow for it when comparing the race time with the standard. This is why I started this whole discussion and emailed the RP about it.

Then ask yourself this, did the horse going wide have better ground, if so, to what calculation, did the inside offer a golden highway, again same question....

Again, something I often ask myself. I try to take each situation on its own merits.

Time is a waste of time unless you know all the imponderables. Reat is right, the eyes and a combination of as many imponderables as you think necessary are what's key....

What works for you and reet works well. What works for me works well. What's the beef either way?

 

[barjon]

Lingfield AW 5f is a piece less than 60s, and the course record was set by Bessa's Lad (OR 69) -by virtue of a soft lead.

So? All that shows is that Bessa’s Lad can run it that fast. Which means, all else being equal, that he will beat anything that can’t.

 

[reet hard]

And a 69 rated horse holding the course record.

 

[barjon]

Makes me suspicious of the timing, otherwise the horse does have the ability to run that fast . Let a few 100+ horses run at Lingfield and see what they can do.

 

[Desert Orchid]

Course records are meaningless without context.

I hold the 100m record for my street...

 

[reet hard]

Re-read the thread - there's plenty of context.

 

[Maxbet]

Bigger horses travel faster downhill than lighter horses, this is before exertion. Hence horses for courses. Bridal horses have an acute advantage at Chester. Some horses can be a stone better on heavy ground. the list of imponderables is endless.....


Edit...love this..

Woman jockeys have more lead in the saddle...is it or isn't it an advantage...

 

[jinnyj]

Bigger horses on the whole may not have such good balance as lighter framed horses so I can’t see that theory working out. Handling a downhill track is very much to do with natural balance and whether a horse gallops on its “forehand” i.e. that’s tipped forwards with the weight distribution very much on the front end. This makes it hard for the horse and the rider will need to sit harder against them to keep the balance steady.

Chester needs a nimble handy horse but yes one that can travel easily in a race probably has an advantage.

Some horses are much better on heavy ground than others just because their action goes through it better so they look superior. Often a knee action which hits the ground harder finds softer ground more comfortable. Similarly big feet can act like snow shoes with greater weight distribution and is one trait I would look out for.

Carrying more lead in the saddle as opposed the jockey being the weight tends to concentrate the weight all in one area so is thought to be of a disadvantage.

 

[Desert Orchid]

We all know all the imponderables.

Surely it's all about trying to find winners and/or horses whose odds are more generous than they should be, and for that surely it's important to have a close a handle as possible on a horse's ability. Does it really matter whether you do it by eye or by numbers so long as you're getting it consistently right as often as possible?

Would I have backed Yahoo in Desert Orchid's Gold Cup on fast ground? Never in a million years but on the day I thought the very heavy ground would have been somewhat of a leveller and it's things like that you have to take into account beyond bare ability levels.