Robot Boy

EC1

EC1

On a break
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
17,679
Location
late 1960's early 70's
Check out his win in the Gosforth Park Cup tonight...up with the leaders at a monstrous pace...he powered away from them..those that were at the front with him finished out the back of the telly..must be some animal
 
Last edited:
Desert Orchid said:
Have you done a more in-depth analysis of the pace, EC1?
Click to expand...

no..to be fair its not worth doing as at 5 furlongs they don't run even pace in any race...all energy is used in the first two thirds of races ....but just check out where the other pace runners finished..tells a story..RB should have finished with them..its a near impossible feat he has accomplished..hence the thread. A Frankel like performance..obviously i'm not saying he is that good..but its a freakishly unreal performance
 
Last edited:
I only watched last night to see how Doc Hay ran but was aware RB made all. The idea of a pace runner keeping going while those around it fade is something I tend to note when going through the results (not until Wednesday at the earliest) so I'll make a point of checking RB out.

On that theme, Trail Blaze was beaten at Ayr last week but he lived up to his name and saw off the other pacemaker but left himself vulnerable to the two late finishers.
 
Thought it was a group performance and possibly a group 1. There were a couple behind it as well that looked progressive, couldnt get near him.
 
Won't be opposing him in a hurry.

He had been impressive at Musselburgh but this was a big improvement on that.

Be interesting to see if he goes for one of the bigger sprint.....maybe we'll all get rich :0)

Cheers EC
 
RPRs go 112 (against an OR of something like 94?) for the performance and it would seem he is still on a curve. Good spot, EC1.
 
I got curious after dropping in and reading this, EC.

I get it to around the 104 - 106 region. With my SF at 99 - 101 for the race. I've allowed +5lbs for racing upfront, which is as much as I'm prepared to go.

I think a lot of it's 'impressiveness' (is that even a word?) on the 27th was that it was the best part of a stone 'well in' off 92. I don't think its on a progressive curve so much, and more that the trip and ground were much more to it's benefit. Though that might not be the case, as perhaps the gelding operation last November has helped, so perhaps a 'little' more to come.

Can't see it being GP1, maybe Listed.

My tuppence worth anyway.
 
even if well in ..which he obviously is..its the distance he beats the other pace horses Chris...5lb isn't high enough for that imo..its probably more like a stone+ imo

lets say they a bit more sensible earlier on..and the pace had held up...how far would he have won? 10 length?..more

he's wasted energy that wiped the other pace horses out

at sprint level you only need to be 116 horse to win a Group 1..

be interesting to see anyway
 
Last edited:
I haven't taken sectionals, have you? By eye and looking at the other sprints visually, I don't think there was any real pace collapse.

The two that shot off in front from the start wouldn't have won anyway imo, no matter how they raced. The rest were right on it's heels.

Also, look at the draws of the first half home.

I don't think Confessional ran near it's mark either.

Fastest race for class on the day, but nothing special time wise. +5lb looks about right to me, as CD and going looked about ideal.

We'll find out soon enough. To be honest, that's only the second turf meeting I've looked at this season, so I'm mainly blind. I just don't have any interest in turf racing anymore.
 
it was never going to be a really fast overall time though..as they went too fast early to produce one

no point in sectionals at 5f as races run at that trip are not run at even pace

they may not have won..but it was a handicap so they weren't no hopers...and went back though shot..spent all their energy

its the manner of win against energy usage that caught my eye

its not hard to say the winner of a handicap is not a G1 horse..i'd say its an easy call..so if i'm wrong saying it could be then it won't be a surprise will it?
 
Last edited:
The race doesn't work out fast on my figures either.

If they went too fast would you not expect the hold up horses to have got into the frame late on? They could only manage 5th, 6th and 7th and they included the second and third favourites. The ones that finished in front of them were either held up touch, held up in midfield or prominent.

The winner has been put up 9lbs. That won't be enough to stop him if RPRs (110) or your figures are accurate.

I'll be rating the race around the placed horses and am looking at 108. He seems to be improving and may be better than the bare form so he'll be on 108p+? going into his next race. If he can find at least 5lbs for his next race he'll certainly be competitive in any 5f handicap. Whether he could hack it at the top level I have my doubts.
 
when a pace collapses it doesn't automatically suit hold ups..particularly at 5f where they have less chance to run through beaten horses..ie less distance to do it..whereas at further when you burn out then even a plodder at the back will pass you.

the overall time in pace collapses are never really fast..you should expect that DO

Frankel didn't run massive speed figures in the guineas or St James Palace..simply because he wasted energy too early

I'm not really seeing what's hard to point out here..it was same when Frankel won guineas....it was ..well he only won by 6 lengths...yes he did..but he should have lost by 30 ..is the real point

I'm using Frankel as an example of what happens when you waste energy early but still win..i'm not saying Robot Boy is Frankel
 
Last edited:
I do see what you're saying (in terms of the comparison with Frankel and I would have loved to have heard your analysis of Hawk Wing's Lockinge) but my difficulty is that if the others were affected by the pace collapse they too should be marked up and there is nothing in their form to suggest they should be.

Still, a collateral rating of at the very least 108 off a mark of 92 is extremely rare in itself so pointing this race out to us was a brilliant shout.
 
the closest prominent runner ...and he was only close to RB from halfway...was beaten 5.5 lengths..confessional..who was himself on a winning mark..and has raced prominently when trying in the past...he's been left for dead by racing a length behind RB from halfway

you can ignore the rest...the two who traded blows for the lead early..dropped right back as it was so hot early

i look for the race within the race..in this case those that raced prominently is the race i'm interested in in the race were well beaten..because they went too fast.

whatever rating RB has been given needs marking up by possibly 8/10lb's...which theoretically puts him near sprinting G1 level..imo..at 5f

we'll see anyway
 
Last edited:
My view is that the two that dueled for the lead early, probably did so after racing on slower ground than the winner did and totally blew themselves up.

If you toss out those two and then look at the race within the race, what are you left with? Confessional gets beaten a couple of lengths by what would be the normal winner of a race like that (which seems about right for that one these days), and the actual winner was the best part of a stone well in.

The winner probably had the best draw as well, as it looks like some uneven watering happened when looking at the draw.

I'm sticking with 105 anyway. :)
 
Potential for early 120s on my figures on the time alone, rapid.

Surely goes for the King George Sprint at Goodwood or similar?
 
It was only 1.23 seconds quicker than Pushkin Museum in the last. A 3yo running off 74 who took a keen hold early yet still made all.
 
I'm not quite as high, and it was also a 3yo. I have a difference in lbs between the two 5F winners of 24 - 25 depending on where I set the GA.

The point I was making was that Pushkin took a keen hold early, yet still made all, which means it was unlikely to have been run at an optimum pace, yet I'm still happy to award Pushkin a figure (against the clock) a touch higher than the OR it ran off that day.

RPR's tend to be artificially high, to the tune of around 7lb in my experience.
 
like i said Chris..overall time is still good if they have collapsed..you don't get really fast times under those circumstances

i'm not sure about you picking the bits of ground out that were slower;)..the draw stats on fast ground show there is no bias..you can assume they watered then as well..in fact stall 2 supplies most winners under those conditions..so those two early runners were not racing on slower ground using historical evidence

if this runs in a group 1 it should be what..about 12/1?...i'll take me chances
 
'IF' the pace collapsed and to what degree, that is essentially what is being discussed. I don't think it did or maybe just a touch, while you were assuming they all dropped like flies mainly due to last two home.

The finishing positions and the draws they came from was what I was looking at, not historical draw data ... I was offering what I thought was some possible (probable even) logical reason behind it. It makes more sense than simply saying it was a pace issue. Despite the pairs odds and overly early dash, they still shouldn't have finished that far back imo. They would if they started on slightly slower ground as well though, and the finishing position of the draws leans towards that a little.

15
14
9
10
13
12
11
7
6
4
2
3
1

Maybe there was a reason they chose to race up the middle of the track during the meeting, or maybe it was all coincidental.

Unless they had pop up sprinkler systems installed a few years ago, historical data and assuming they watered those meetings in the exact same location (and to the same volume as well) just doesn't sit well enough with me.

I really couldn't care less to be honest. I've tried to get my point across, but instead keep getting the idea that I don't understand pace.

Hope it romps home for you one day anyway.













In a 0-100 at Haydock. :)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top