Epsom Derby 2012

Bruce_Savage said:
That's where you bring in class pars to the equation so you can solve that problem and why sectionals are largely inferior and irrelevant to assessing a horse compared to final times and card correlation analysis.
Click to expand...

lets see an example of this then Bruce..and don't just bang figures up..explain what they signify..show us an example..preferably from Epsom on Derby Day.

sectionals aren't irrelevant..in fact exactly the opposite imo..but i am happy for you to prove me wrong..then in future i'll use your better method to assess races

thats why we are all here..to further our knowledge
 
Last edited:
Imo, times (and sectionals) are useful, but both have their limitations, as they take little account of the opposition.
Both Pour Moi and Camelot only did what they had to, to beat what they beat on the day, but (allowing for the relative winning distances) I'd be amazed if Main Sequence and Astrology didn't finish their 3yo season within a (relative) 7lbs or so of Treasure Beach and Carlton House.
 
Last edited:
reet hard said:
Imo, times (and sectionals) are useful, but both have their limitations, as they take little account of the opposition.
Both Pour Moi and Camelot only did what they had to, to beat what they beat on the day, but (allowing for the relative winning distances) I'd be amazed if Main Sequence and Astrology didn't finish their 3yo season within a (relative) 8lbs or so of Treasure Beach and Carlton House.
Click to expand...

i'm talking on the day though Reet..at that stage of career PM was some animal

we'll never know with PM for sure..but we missed out as watchers of racing when he never ran again imo
 
Sectionals would only be useful if every horse had the ability to go beyond the maximum level of velocity but given they all reach around 35-40 mph then it's largely irrelevant in terms of analysis relative to the horses ability and provide nothing concrete on comparison terms.

Unfortunately we'd all like time to be able to tell us something that to the naked eye we'd otherwise be oblivious too and we'd all love horse A to be able to run 45 mph and horse B 48 mph but unlike F1 we're dealing with nature in which there's a capacity on which any thoroughbred can reach.

Although in sectionals we have a minimal society who feel they have an edge but in reality my opinion suggests they are only indicative of telling us how strong a race is run which defeats the purpose of batting your eye lids against final times which highlight how long a horse has sustained his maximum level of velocity.

This is more important for me because the stronger a race is run the reduced probability due to nature that a horse is going to have the energy to sustain their maximum level of velocity especially the closer they lay in the race to the punishing fractions.

The latest trend is to time the final three furlongs at a point where races tend to start unraveling and many get caught up on fast sectionals based on slow early pace to come to a conclusion that we've witnessed something impressive which you'll find why many wide margin Novice Hurdling jog & sprint merchants are stuffed at Cheltenham.

Final times can also be accounted for class, without that we'd all be in trouble but even more importantly they should be used in relation to the other races on the card providing everything is adjusted to a mile.

In short if you want to find out how fast a race was run use sectionals but if you want a true underlying piece of information then use final times that are relative to other performances on the day.

Everything evens itself out in the end especially a horses ability to sustain their stamina reserves and nine times out of ten the final time is a reflective and honest examination of the winners performance on the day especially as class will be lost throughout the race eventually in parts that will be shown in the final time but if you don't know how to interpret the data in front of you then you might as well put up sticks and stop where you are.

Would be interesting if you could create yourself a sectional set of standards for the 12f at Epsom EC1.
 
EC1 said:
lets see an example of this then Bruce..and don't just bang figures up..explain what they signify..show us an example..preferably from Epsom on Derby Day.
Click to expand...

Well EC1, you certainly can't accuse Bruce of "banging figures up".
 
Pour Moi is described by Miesque( I think) as a horrible walker. I saw how he swung at least one foreleg on tv. Also he did not act at all on the Epsom track yet he won, snugly if the jockeys antics are to be believed. Galileo on the other hand floated around the track like a motorbike. Joseph stated how Camelot did not act well on the track as he had never been on anything like it. Considering they have a "replica Tattenham corner" in Ballydoyle I wonder. He won and won well. Time will answer the other questions.
as for time comparisons, apart from times on the day you cannot accurately compare day for day or year for year what with weather, watering, field size and other variables.
 
EC1 said:
the fps figures tell you how good a horse is
Click to expand...
...only if your going allowance is accurate.

I'm quite prepared to take on board the view of sectionalists - if I may coin the word - when they say, based on their experience and expertise, that the likes of Camelot is xlbs better than the bare form. I tend to express a belief that a horse is better than the bare form when I use a '+' or even a '++' in my ratings but I tend to limit that extra to notional amounts (unless there is clear evidence of a more specific amount, for example if a horse is eased down from a five lengths lead to a one length win I tend to credit it with the full margin of superiority).

As I said in my piece, I didn't think Camelot got the kind of tactical ride that would allow it to show its best form and I do believe it is a fair bit better than the bare rating. I just can't say by how much.

I can believe Pour Moi is a lot better than the bare form of his Derby - it wouldn't be difficult, would it? - but I don't know by how much and we'll never know. But it was not a strong in-depth race and this year's was arguably weaker.
 
edgt said:
Galileo on the other hand floated around the track like a motorbike.
...
as for time comparisons, apart from times on the day you cannot accurately compare day for day or year for year what with weather, watering, field size and other variables.
Click to expand...

I once ran my brother's Honda 50 into the canal. It definitely didn't float...

As for the rest of the quote, I agree.
 
Desert Orchid said:
...only if your going allowance is accurate.

I'm quite prepared to take on board the view of sectionalists - if I may coin the word - when they say, based on their experience and expertise, that the likes of Camelot is xlbs better than the bare form. I tend to express a belief that a horse is better than the bare form when I use a '+' or even a '++' in my ratings but I tend to limit that extra to notional amounts (unless there is clear evidence of a more specific amount, for example if a horse is eased down from a five lengths lead to a one length win I tend to credit it with the full margin of superiority).

As I said in my piece, I didn't think Camelot got the kind of tactical ride that would allow it to show its best form and I do believe it is a fair bit better than the bare rating. I just can't say by how much.

I can believe Pour Moi is a lot better than the bare form of his Derby - it wouldn't be difficult, would it? - but I don't know by how much and we'll never know. But it was not a strong in-depth race and this year's was arguably weaker.
Click to expand...


i don't think the derby ever has much strength in depth tbh DO
 
EC1 said:
i don't think the derby ever has much strength in depth tbh DO
Click to expand...

I'll maybe try and look out some figures from recent years. You might be right but Sea Bird's was extraordinarily strong and I think Nijinsky's was too.
 
Bruce

I've been making final time figures for years..i know their strengths and weaknesses

Final times don't tell you anywhere near enough as much as sectionals...if they did..i wouldn't go to the trouble of recording them..why would i?

For instance..the 12f races on Derby Derby all had slower than even pace..but if you assume one was truly run you overrate all 3 using traditional methods if you take all three in isolation

the finishing speed calculation tells you that all 3 were in the 114% range..which isn't fast enough early to give any of the 3 winners a top figure

in fact if you calculate a going allowance using the other races..bar the 5f race which is run on a different side of the rack..normally faster due to drainage away from it..you will get a going allowance that shows all three 12f race do not contain a fast overall time..that is backed up by the % finishing speed figures as well

the sectionals break the race down so you can measure acceleration at the end compared to the energy used early..you have not a prayer of measuring that off final time figures
 
OK...

2010: Sea The Stars, Fame And Glory, Crowded House, Rip Van Winkle - as strong a field as you could ask for.

2009: New Approach, Tartan Bearer, Frozen Fire (Irish Derby winner), Casual Conquest (six lengths Derrinstown winner) - very strong field.

2008: Authorized, Archipenko, Yellowstone, Strategic Prince - not as strong but probably stronger than this year.
 
EC1 said:
For instance..the 12f races on Derby Derby all had slower than even pace..but if you assume one was truly run you overrate all 3 using traditional methods if you take all three in isolation

the finishing speed calculation tells you that all 3 were in the 114% range..which isn't fast enough early to give any of the 3 winners a top figure

in fact if you calculate a going allowance using the other races..bar the 5f race which is run on a different side of the rack..normally faster due to drainage away from it..you will get a going allowance that shows all three 12f race do not contain a fast overall time..that is backed up by the % finishing speed figures as well
Click to expand...
I didn't need sectionals to arrive at that conclusion :p
 
010: Sea The Stars, Fame And Glory, Crowded House, Rip Van Winkle - as strong a field as you could ask for.
Click to expand...

Hmmm would argue against that. F&G and RVW were not exactly running over their ideal distances
 
Desert Orchid said:
OK...

2010: Sea The Stars, Fame And Glory, Crowded House, Rip Van Winkle - as strong a field as you could ask for.

2009: New Approach, Tartan Bearer, Frozen Fire (Irish Derby winner), Casual Conquest (six lengths Derrinstown winner) - very strong field.

2008: Authorized, Archipenko, Yellowstone, Strategic Prince - not as strong but probably stronger than this year.
Click to expand...


i thought you meant going into the race DO..i don't see how anyone at this time can say it has no strength in depth without knowing the future form..in past years in some of those years most people say..oh what a poor Derby..because the form going into it doesn't look much
 
Desert Orchid said:
I didn't need sectionals to arrive at that conclusion :p
Click to expand...


you were very smart imo;)..i didn't think the Derby was that fast by eye i will say...,,but when i calculated them..it made me feel better knowing just how slow or fast they were

i agree..you can guess it..and good guess it with experience like yours..but i need evidence..i must have it :lol:
 
Interesting debate though (not the paralysis by analysis stuff)

1990 Generous derby arguably a good one too?
 
Desert Orchid said:
OK...

2010: Sea The Stars, Fame And Glory, Crowded House, Rip Van Winkle - as strong a field as you could ask for.

2009: New Approach, Tartan Bearer, Frozen Fire (Irish Derby winner), Casual Conquest (six lengths Derrinstown winner) - very strong field.

2008: Authorized, Archipenko, Yellowstone, Strategic Prince - not as strong but probably stronger than this year.
Click to expand...

You are a year ahead of yourself. 2009 Sea The Stars etc. I know that folk want 4 to be the Classic age around here.:)
 
Difficult to say as Marju never ran over 12f again and after going Craven/Guineas/Derby/SJP in such a short period of time Dunlop bottomed him.
 
my point was that after most Derby's..exclude SST as that looked good beforehand..the general view is that the form is not that great..similar with the guineas...people have a view of the horses when they go into the race..a very small view as there isn't much of their careers to look at at that point

we can only judge the actual form of the placed horses later

imo..sectional anaylsis removes the need to know how good the oppo is..whereas form ratings need future form to make them more accurate
 
EC1 said:
the sectionals break the race down so you can measure acceleration at the end compared to the energy used early..you have not a prayer of measuring that off final time figures
Click to expand...

Why would you want to measure this EC1?

It's all immaterial given a thoroughbred won't accelerate past a certain point due to the laws of physics which means what must go up must come down and during the length of a race this distribution will be leveled out.

Just by looking at a number on a page won't tell you much I agree but that's where you have to interpret the visual evidence with the quantitative in order to come to a conclusion.

If you have your set up right then you should be able to tell through the standard deviation of the mean where you may be encountering outliers such as fast run races in which you eliminate from your calculations but by theory you'd naturally remove the two slowest.

Take for example; I have the variance of the Derby card (Minus two slowest times; Wrotham Heath & Fiery Lad) set to 4.03 in laymans terms this is Fast, the Standard Deviation is set to 0.91 creating upper and lower bounds of 3.12 & 4.94.

The St Nicholas Abbey race was timed on variance of 2.73 which is essentially an outlier being below 3.12 and to get him with the point of the range you'd have had to add 0.59s to his initial time which means that's been lost somewhere throughout the race.

Can your sectionals show me where this may have been lost? would
 
Bruce_Savage said:
Can your sectionals show me where this may have been lost? would
Click to expand...

yes..it was lost in the first 5f where he ran 3 seconds slower than ideal pace..thats what has damaged his final time..his downhill time was faster than even pace.

without sectionals neither you nor i would have known that for sure
 
Last edited:
As long as I knew it was lost and related it to lengths with visual evidence I'd of re-adjusted my initial viewpoint and calculations which takes about 5 minutes.

Each to their own though, not knocking your approach but you need to start setting yourself standards and pars to revert away from raw figures which mean nothing.
 
Back
Top