Juvenile Hurdlers 2014/2015

It looks like my initial view of Hargam isn't as good as i thought based on the official times...comparing overall times from the start of a race still seems to not really reflect an accurate measure.

My times taken from the first hurdle highlight this well in this instance.

Official Time from start of the race
Retrieve 217.7
Hargam 217.8

Times taken from first hurdle
Retrieve 187.1
Hargam 190.9

I don't know at what point they have started timing buts its interesting that between H1-H2 & H2-H3 both winners were going the same speed...in fact both winners got to H4 with just 1 second between them..so i can't see how they have gone much different from the start to the first hurdle to make the 3 second difference.

To me the time from the first hurdle is the best way of measuring real time differences..and in this case there is big difference between the two. The official timing method still leaves a lot to be desired looking at these figures.
 
That's the kind of analysis that really helps. Cheers, EC1. I might see if I can run the two race recordings in sync to see what happens. I watched Retrieve's race and they seemed to jump off smartly enough. I wonder if they started from well off the tapes.
 
i don't know whats happened but its disappointing DO as i casually glance at the official times to get interested in a comparison..with the new way of timing i thought this sort of thing was of the past..poor isn't it?
 
I've watched the recording as closely in sync as I can get them and the juves were at the first flight definitely a good bit before the handicappers. I suspect they might have jumped a bit quicker from a slightly more forward position (hard to be sure) and it's not exactly clear where the start line is.
 
which is why i time from the first hurdle...you know what you are dealing with then..3 seconds is a major difference from start to first hurdle..you could smoke a fag in that time...makes a nonsense of an overall time
 
They now time from when they go through the start line not when the tapes go up, so they definitely went 3 seconds quicker from the same point, so either the juveniles went quickly or the others went slowly. Watching both races will tell you.

Also this should mean you can accurately time and compare races from the starting point rather than the first hurdle which gives a fuller picture especially when there can be big differences in the length of the run to the first hurdle.
 
Last edited:
Maruco said:
They now time from when they go through the start line not when the tapes go up, so they definitely went 3 seconds quicker from the same point, so either the juveniles went quickly or the others went slowly. Watching both races will tell you.

Also this should mean you can accurately time and compare races from the starting point rather than the first hurdle which gives a fuller picture especially when there can be big differences in the length of the run to the first hurdle.
Click to expand...

i know they now time from they pass the starter ..i've probably mentioned it on here 20 times when people have thought ground is faster than it is based on times.

I'll have another look at the start..but the point is that from the first hurdle to the 4th they went a similar speed...and from that point on the novice race was slower and eventually ends up 3 seconds slower..that is more telling than the run up to the first hurdle and how long it took...they probably use more energy up going down to the start than they that run to the first hurdle in most races.

If horses pass the start and then go very slowly to the first hurdle..and you include that in a time that is supposed to represent the true ability of each field then you will get poor results.

In this case if you go by the full official time then Hargam is 151+..because both races are decently run ..but from H1 Hargam is 3 seconds slower...H1+ is a good point as it removes any early dawdle where horses are getting into their rythm.

In America there is no flat race ever timed from the start..they time from a beam after the start once horses are in motion..using the first hurdle is a similar beam...it removes the early dawdle that can appear and is more enlightening..as in this case.
 
Last edited:
Without timing from the line it doesn't consider the possibility of them going off too quick if more than one horse is determined to lead though Alan. I'm not suggesting this is the case here, but if horses burn too much energy at the start of a race it'll certainly have an impact at another point in the race, either by jockeys slowing it down once they've settled into a rythym, or by the pace folding at the end.
 
the run ups aren't large though Maruco..i know its a good run at musselbro..but at Cheltenham its about 7 seconds of running to the first hurdle.

its not perfect of course..and ideally i would prefer to measure from the start..but that causes more problems than measuring from the first hurdle generally

I doubt in many NH races they could waste that much energy running to the first obstacle that it would damage data more than timing from the start where they might walk for 50 yards and take 5 seconds longer than normal to reach the first hurdle

its about which will be more accurate at end of day..is adding 5 seconds of dead time to an overall time more accurate than ignoring the first half furlong or so of a 2 mile race. I'd always angle for measuring from the first obstacle..as a % call for accuracy

neither option is perfect..one is better than other though imo
 
Last edited:
Grey said:
Do you measure from the take-off or landing side of the hurdle?
Click to expand...

i measure from when the horse is half way over the hurdle..that way when you are watching a race and the winner is buried in the pack you can still see when the jockey is actually over the hurdle due to the bob up and down

I don't think it matters tbh..its just ease of doing

Talking about how some horses still do not actually start running before others at a start..its never mentioned by handicappers when they assess a race

I assume this is because its generally deemed that the start of a race isn't that crucial to calculations

One instance that did interest me at the time was that in the 2012 Champion Hurdle...ROR actually got the 5 lengths he beat HF by at the start of the race..not one person mentioned that though..or the many hundreds of occasions when similar happens

again..i assume that the start of a NH race is not deemed that crucial to the finished result..in respect of probably up to getting a 10 length start..i've never seen any AvB form person knock 5 lbs off a winner because the horse started with a 5 length advantage

another reason why i am quite happy to start timing from the first obstacle..the run up is not deemed important to anyone in the game from what i can see.
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
I can only assume there is some flaw in your analysis, EC.....156 horses do not get sent to Musselburgh!! :cool:
Click to expand...

I made the mistake of thinking Carlito Brigante was good enough to win the Champion Hurdle when he won the Scottish version in great fashion only to get my fingers burned.

He did very well mind you winning the Coral Cup the next year and did indeed end up on 157 when the handicapper hit him so hard 17lbs it ended his hurdling career

No offence to EC but I bet NJH is glad he's not the handicapper or Hargam might find one of his hoofs nailed to the floor.:lol:

I doubt if Barry Geraghty would have too much trouble making a decision which one to ride if AP wasn't retained as he is so up about Peace and co's chances it would be a no brainer.
 
Tanlic said:
No offence to EC but I bet NJH is glad he's not the handicapper or Hargam might find one of his hoofs nailed to the floor.:lol:
Click to expand...


I'd read the posts above yours..the officials timings in this instance gave a misleading picture..Hargam's race was slower than the handicap by 3 seconds in reality

like i've said many times on here..relying on the form book to give a true picture of events is not really ideal...ground conditions..times..official distances..so many misleading areas.

so NJH can relax

my time handicapping is as good as anyone's given the correct information to start with. I also err on the side of caution..and share if if i think i've spotted something.
 
Last edited:
you had days to take the pish you dork:)

i don't think you read it:)

its a shame..i'd have liked to have followed this one..may still win TH obviously but i thought it had shown us something there..disappointed
 
The case for peace and co gets stronger by the day.two of the principles flop again today.Sometimes when you look at something that appears to be too good you try your utmost to pick holes in it that aren't there.
 
Disappointed Fiscal Focus misses out. I had him at 16/1 in an E/W Ante Post Double With Vibrato Valtat at 20/1 for the Arkle. What is the story with that bet now? I read something on here couple weeks back, between Euro and granger I think, that confused me a little. Obviously both the Arkle and Triumph were NOT NRNB when I placed the bet. If both horses were non runners I would not expect my cash back, I understand that part. But I thought I still had an e/w single. So with FF now a non runner, is the bet dead? and if so, why or how ?
 
Double Handful said:
Disappointed Fiscal Focus misses out. I had him at 16/1 in an E/W Ante Post Double With Vibrato Valtat at 20/1 for the Arkle. What is the story with that bet now? I read something on here couple weeks back, between Euro and granger I think, that confused me a little. Obviously both the Arkle and Triumph were NOT NRNB when I placed the bet. If both horses were non runners I would not expect my cash back, I understand that part. But I thought I still had an e/w single. So with FF now a non runner, is the bet dead? and if so, why or how ?
Click to expand...

It'll be dead DH otherwise people would get around the ante post risk of losing your money by simply placing a selection in a double with a heavily odds on favorite (from any sport) on the understanding that should your horse not run you don't lose your cash, i.e. it goes onto a short priced single.
 
wilsonl said:
It'll be dead DH otherwise people would get around the ante post risk of losing your money by simply placing a selection in a double with a heavily odds on favorite (from any sport) on the understanding that should your horse not run you don't lose your cash, i.e. it goes onto a short priced single.
Click to expand...

Thanks Wilsonl .... Must say I'm disappointed with that. I feel a little silly and naive now. Asking myself how did I not know this!?! On reflection, last year was my first time really having any sort of Antepost portfolio for Cheltenham. Needless to say it was unfortunately an unprofitable one! Like a lot on here I have the Slimchance UDS/Vautour double backed. I thought I was the smart fella having Vibrato Viltat as cover in 4 different Ante post e/w doubles. With FF now out, that's 2 of the 4 gone and 1 of the others is with Shaneshill for the Nepute, which is looking increasingly unlikely.... :(
 
Some performance from Beltor. I had to back him for the triumph after because the prices were just wrong. Should be single figures. Could have won that by 20l if O'Brien had let him go earlier.
 
Back
Top