Newmarket July meeting

Yes, I checked the RP comments after I posted and then watched the race again several times.

I take back what I said about King's Lynn, in terms of whether another day is the target. It just looked like the jockey didn't want to lead and ended up in a poor position because the two groups merged very quickly and he, along with several others, got messed about.

Rohaan got a very poor tactical ride in the circumstances, held up in last. He had no chance of catching up on quickening horses and did well in the circumstances. I imagine the Ayr Gold Cup is very much on the agenda.
 
I don’t quite understand why there is any argument. Sectional timings are a useful way of confirming what your eyes have seen a can often correct what your eyes think they have seen. If your eyes are telling you they have gone too fast and will likely fade at the end, sectional times will confirm it. If your eyes are telling you that your horse has accelerated past others in the last half furlong, sectional analysis might indicate that it was the other horses slowing rather than yours accelerating that was the actuality.
 
BJ
Sectionals are a very useful tool,but interpreting by rote is a waste of time - is my firm opnion.
 
Last edited:
reet hard said:
BJ
Sectionals are a very useful tool,but interpreting by rote is a waste of time - is my firm opnion.
Click to expand...

So you keep saying. Personally I don't understand why you feel the need to continually go on about it, in a manner that is, at best, dismissive of other people's methods and, at worst, downright offensive.

We know what your thoughts on the matter are, you can shut up about it now. Your opinion is not the only valid one.
 
Has anyone advocated interpreting by rote?

Beyer may have thousands of followers worldwide but thousands relative to a world population of racing enthusiasts probably amounts to fewer followers of you on racing forums :)

On top of that, most other racing worldwide follows the US model of smallish oval tracks with a circuit rarely measuring any more than ten furlongs.

My reference to class pars was mis-directed. Those class pars for UK racing were made up by one of Beyer's then-foremost acolytes, Nick Mordin, another whose stuff I read, experimented with and abandoned.

But times are factual. It's how they are then interpreted that's key to getting the best out of them.

90% of my own figures are based on examination of collateral form and I learned the hard way that it's a complex process.

But I'm always open to any means of improving the accuracy of what I do. If sectional times can do that then I'd be plain daft to ignore them.
 
Last edited:
simmo said:
So you keep saying. Personally I don't understand why you feel the need to continually go on about it, in a manner that is, at best, dismissive of other people's methods and, at worst, downright offensive.

We know what your thoughts on the matter are, you can shut up about it now. Your opinion is not the only valid one.
Click to expand...
And yours are offensive,but hardly surprising.:rolleyes:
 
Desert Orchid said:
Has anyone advocated interpreting by rote?

Beyer may have thousands of followers worldwide but thousands relative to a world population of racing enthusiasts probably amounts to fewer followers of you on racing forums :)

On top of that, most other racing worldwide follows the US model of smallish oval tracks with a circuit rarely measuring any more than ten furlongs.

My reference to class pars was mis-directed. Those class pars for UK racing were made up by one of Beyer's then-foremost acolytes, Nick Mordin, another whose stuff I read, experimented with and abandoned.

But times are factual. It's how they are then interpreted that's key to getting the best out of them.

90% of my own figures are based on examination of collateral form and I learned the hard way that it's a complex process.

But I'm always open to any means of improving the accuracy of what I do. If sectional times can do that then I'd be plain daft to ignore them.
Click to expand...
C.E.D.
Meaning of rote in English
rote
noun [ U ]
usually disapproving
uk
/rəʊt/ us
/roʊt/
rote learning
Add to word list
learning something in order to be able to repeat it from memory, rather than in order to understand
Click to expand...
Reading one book by Beyer hardly makes you an expert,either.
 
When I worked in Halifax and everyone had the latest Timeform Black Book sticking out of their hip pocket, or hidden in their handbag, I recall Phil Bull saying that his Timeform ratings were the start line in analysis, not the finishing line. So it is with sectionals and I don’t see much to dispute about that.
 
Last edited:
reet hard said:
C.E.D.

Reading one book by Beyer hardly makes you an expert,either.
Click to expand...

You'd think being a retired languages teacher I would know the meaning of "rote" rather than having to look it up in a dictionary.

When did I ever claim to be an expert on sectional timing, class pars, etc etc??

All I've ever claimed is that I'm open to the idea that sectional timing can help broaden my interpretation of what my own methodology is telling me.

As for Beyer, I am entitled to dismiss his theories as irrelevant to me because he isn't based in the UK and his methods apply to US racing. Mordin is the one who transferred his methodology across to UK racing and made a total arse of it, in my opinion. Ken Hussey made more sense in one paragraph than Mordin ever did in a book.

Just as people like jinnyj are entitled to dismiss the views of people like Ken Pitterson - whose column in the Weekender lasted less than a season, from memory - so am I entitled to dismiss the views of someone I reckon is deeply flawed in their methodology.

I've certainly never dissed your methodology because I respect how you go about trying to find winners but it wouldn't work for me because I'm a different kind of learner.
 
Desert Orchid said:
You'd think being a retired languages teacher I would know the meaning of "rote" rather than having to look it up in a dictionary.

When did I ever claim to be an expert on sectional timing, class pars, etc etc??

All I've ever claimed is that I'm open to the idea that sectional timing can help broaden my interpretation of what my own methodology is telling me.

As for Beyer, I am entitled to dismiss his theories as irrelevant to me because he isn't based in the UK and his methods apply to US racing. Mordin is the one who transferred his methodology across to UK racing and made a total arse of it, in my opinion. Ken Hussey made more sense in one paragraph than Mordin ever did in a book.

Just as people like jinnyj are entitled to dismiss the views of people like Ken Pitterson - whose column in the Weekender lasted less than a season, from memory - so am I entitled to dismiss the views of someone I reckon is deeply flawed in their methodology.

I've certainly never dissed your methodology because I respect how you go about trying to find winners but it wouldn't work for me because I'm a different kind of learner.
Click to expand...
Blaming Beyer for Nick Mordin is laughable!
The'rote' reference was born of your following of a mechanical path without understanding what kind of trip the horses actually had, a path you're seemingly happy with.
My contentention is that more happens in a race than any amount of maths will show (a point Beyer made in one of his books you clearly haven't read), and your apparent obsession with figures has steered you away from this aspect.

Maybe you should review your "kind of learning".:)
 
reet hard said:
Blaming Beyer for Nick Mordin is laughable!
The'rote' reference was born of your following of a mechanical path without understanding what kind of trip the horses actually had, a path you're seemingly happy with.
My contentention is that more happens in a race than any amount of maths will show (a point Beyer made in one of his books you clearly haven't read), and your apparent obsession with figures has steered you away from this aspect.

Maybe you should review your "kind of learning".:)
Click to expand...

If I was desert I would be getting pretty miffed, reet, at your constant misrepresentation of how he operates. You simply haven’t been paying attention to any of his posts if you believe he follows a mechanical path without any understanding of what kind of trip a horse had. Keeping going on in near insulting terms does you a great disservice, I think. You’re better than that. You know your business and so does desert, as you both prove day after day on these boards.
 
Last edited:
barjon said:
If I was desert I would be getting pretty miffed, reet, at your constant misrepresentation of how he operates. You simply haven’t been paying attention to any of his posts if you believe he follows a mechanical path without any understanding of what kind of trip a horse had. Keeping going on in near insulting terms does you a great disservice, I think. You’re better than that. You know your business and so does desert, as you both prove day after day on these boards.
Click to expand...
All I've said is DO doesn't understand it properly,and that is not a misrepresentation.
 
Last edited:
reet hard said:
All I've said is DO doesn't understand it properly,and that is not a misrepresentation.
Click to expand...

Well that’s not how this reads “ your following of a mechanical path without understanding what kind of trip the horses actually had,”. You surely know that desert is interested in looking at sectionals to help inform his analysis of the race and is not following it mechanically and blindly. He keeps saying so and you keep asserting otherwise. Anyway no more to be said :).
 
For those still holding at least a passing interest in sectional information, this quote is directly from SR's blog published on the ATR site this afternoon:

[FONT=&quot]Sectionals not only confirm (or sometimes contradict) visual impressions in such instances, but they provide a way of quantifying the effects on individual horses and not just on the race as a whole. Do not listen to those who suggest otherwise: they may not have your best interests at heart.[/FONT]
 
Back
Top