J Alfred Prufrock
At the Start
Hey, cheers, EC! I would have described it as one of the greatest thrills of my life, but inspection of the sectionals suggest that my fella got the run of things so I am actually quite disappointed... :lol:
Sectional Analysis
- Thread starter EC1
- Start date
My take on it would be along these lines (I think);
In the first case, since reconfiguring the course it would appear that this is the first time that the Wokingham beat the Jubilee, although they're often closer than you'd expect, as it wouldn't be unheard of for the handicap to have a couple of group horses running of obliging weights, the raw times are as follows
2009 = Wokingham by +0.76 secs
2008 = Jubilee by +1.04 secs
2007 = Jubilee by +0.10 secs
2006 = Jubilee by +0.03 secs
High Standing, Asset and Rock of Rochelle all beat Art Conniseur, but using 1L = 0.17 secs, so too it would appear did Markab racing on the stands side.
I don't normally dabble in median times but took the first six home on either side and reckoned the ground was riding +0.82 fast on the far side and -0.33 slow on the stands side. Both od these figure would fall within the description of 'Good', but as has been noted previosuly, Good ground can cover a spectrum. At six furlongs the far side seem to have enjoyed an advanatge of about 6.75L's, which is obviously not insignificant in a sprint. It might be fairer however, to say that some of the midfield runners had given up on the stands side, and to use the first 3 home instead. Obviously using their times is going to make the ground a bit quicker and probably more accurate in terms of what the course was capable of being ridden to
Far Side = +1.38
Stands = +0.34
which is worth about 6.25L's at a mile. At race distance this is about 4.5L's. By virute of having to largely carve out his own trail and seemingly beating Art Conniseur and running about 0.62 secs behind High Standing, Markab has run a big race to get to where he has, as indeed has Prohibit. I'd estimate that Markab has got within 3.64L's of the winner on ground that was against him to the tune of 4.25L's.
A few jocks were mentioned as swithcing their mounts from the stands to the far side, even though none of them did so to any effect finishing largely in the midfield, but at least you could credit them for gettign the call right even if the switch proved to big an obstacle to overcome. So credit of sorts to messrs
Crowley, Munro, Callan and Lane - special mention though for Richard Hughes who appears to have been noted for going the other way and switching from the far side to the stands side on Nota Bena who finished 16th and 3rd in his group.
In terms of the amount of water that's gone down and how the draw bias has been reversed, you'd probably need to do the same exercise with the Hunt Cup, and Britannia, as the second named present a half way marker in the story of the migrating draw bias.
One suspects that if history is anything to go by and we actually get a spell of good weather some time, that Newmarket will do the same for the July meeting, which from a punting point of view could take the first couple of races on the card out of the equation each day until you know where you are
In the first case, since reconfiguring the course it would appear that this is the first time that the Wokingham beat the Jubilee, although they're often closer than you'd expect, as it wouldn't be unheard of for the handicap to have a couple of group horses running of obliging weights, the raw times are as follows
2009 = Wokingham by +0.76 secs
2008 = Jubilee by +1.04 secs
2007 = Jubilee by +0.10 secs
2006 = Jubilee by +0.03 secs
High Standing, Asset and Rock of Rochelle all beat Art Conniseur, but using 1L = 0.17 secs, so too it would appear did Markab racing on the stands side.
I don't normally dabble in median times but took the first six home on either side and reckoned the ground was riding +0.82 fast on the far side and -0.33 slow on the stands side. Both od these figure would fall within the description of 'Good', but as has been noted previosuly, Good ground can cover a spectrum. At six furlongs the far side seem to have enjoyed an advanatge of about 6.75L's, which is obviously not insignificant in a sprint. It might be fairer however, to say that some of the midfield runners had given up on the stands side, and to use the first 3 home instead. Obviously using their times is going to make the ground a bit quicker and probably more accurate in terms of what the course was capable of being ridden to
Far Side = +1.38
Stands = +0.34
which is worth about 6.25L's at a mile. At race distance this is about 4.5L's. By virute of having to largely carve out his own trail and seemingly beating Art Conniseur and running about 0.62 secs behind High Standing, Markab has run a big race to get to where he has, as indeed has Prohibit. I'd estimate that Markab has got within 3.64L's of the winner on ground that was against him to the tune of 4.25L's.
A few jocks were mentioned as swithcing their mounts from the stands to the far side, even though none of them did so to any effect finishing largely in the midfield, but at least you could credit them for gettign the call right even if the switch proved to big an obstacle to overcome. So credit of sorts to messrs
Crowley, Munro, Callan and Lane - special mention though for Richard Hughes who appears to have been noted for going the other way and switching from the far side to the stands side on Nota Bena who finished 16th and 3rd in his group.
In terms of the amount of water that's gone down and how the draw bias has been reversed, you'd probably need to do the same exercise with the Hunt Cup, and Britannia, as the second named present a half way marker in the story of the migrating draw bias.
One suspects that if history is anything to go by and we actually get a spell of good weather some time, that Newmarket will do the same for the July meeting, which from a punting point of view could take the first couple of races on the card out of the equation each day until you know where you are
Last edited:
EC1
On a break
:lol:
Again Warbler, agree with your findings. A par race for the jubilee and wokingham should see the Jubile about 0.7 faster..if the winner is a decent G1 type..I think this years race is a good one and the pace was good..now we won't really know how good the winner is on time figures
The only good bit about it is we had a fair few days to suss out what was happening, its not always easy over 3 days.
EC1
On a break
I have looked at lots of Derby sectionals and have come to the conclusion that making a final rating based on sectionals is hampered by possible straight/round course differences..particularly on slower ground as Prufrock has mentioned..High Chapparal is the only winner I don't get a sensible figure for due to this..the slowest ground Derby in recent years...on better ground its a decent tool.
The good news is that most of the ones I have looked out create a nice charted curve..based on early fraction v late fraction. Put simply all you need to do is look at the early fraction..and the final fraction ...this highlights how decent the performance is by whether its above or below the curve which represents a 120 performance.
So..using early and late pace times its possible to compare Derby winners ..but whilst I was doing this I meant to compare runners from the same race..which removes any ground differences that can spoil comparions as with HC. So tonight I have gone through this years Derby....quite interesting.
This is a far better way of using this analysis..just knowing if Derby winner A is better than B is alright for novelty value..but I think this could highlight horses who didn't win a race but were the best horse in the race...basically...giving a realistic figure to a horse with a bad trip....in this case...a bad pace trip.
I believe I have found a real nugget..if I this has any merit..the key words:lol:.....the figures say that MASTEROFTHEHORSE was actually the best horse in the Derby...and given a decent pace on Sunday I reckon he will beat Fame & Glory....actually on paper he is better than STS.....but STS had more left than we can measure so I wouldn't be confident on that one.....but M has produced one of the best split performance in the Derby...if his pace had been distributed correctly I think he would have won the Derby unless STS had a fair bit left.
These figures are not pinpoint..but I've spent a decent amount of time estimating distances behind the winner etc
The relationship between early and late pace does correlate..using feet per second figures ..this a slimmed down version of the early pace (EP) then expected late pace (LP).
EP is the average of the first 2 splits to the 3.5f marker
LP is the last 3.5f
example
(EP) 48.50 fps ...(LP)58.15 fps
so if a horse runs 48.50 feet per second (av of first two sects ) to 3.5f out ...it needs to run the last 3.5f at 58.15 feet per second to equate to a 120 performance.
the scale goes along these lines
48.50 - 58.15
48.90 - 57.95
49.30 - 57.50
49.70 - 56.75
50.10 - 55.75
50.50 - 54.50
50.90 - 53.00
The sectionals for the first 3 in our Derby..and as I say..these are by eye..but pretty good I reckon..
Sea The Stars 49.03 - 58.10
Fame & Glory 48.85 - 58.31
Masterofthehorse 48.86 - 59.01
If you put these against the graph..which is obviously continous compared with the rough table I've cobbled above..
STS should have run the last 3.5f at 57.80 fps to equate to a 120 horse....as he ran it in 58.10 fps he is approx 1.20 length better than 120...so approx a 122 horse...I am basing that on running for the last 40 seconds approx of the race..just to give a superiority value.
F&G should have run the last 3.5f at 58.00 fps to equate to 120...as he ran it in 58.31 fps then he is approx 1.24 lengths better than 120...so again a 122 horse...and fractionally better than STS......but we have to assume STS had something left..which I think he did...I'm pretty sure that F&G was all out so we do have a good measure of him here. I'm not going to dwell on whether STS had much more ..but on paper..F&G has run a very slightly better figure due to his poorer trip.
here is the interesting one
Masteroftehhorse should have run the last 3.5f at 57.99 fps...as he ran it in 59.01 fps then he is approx 4 lengths better than a 120 horse...a 126 horse.
If this is any good, has any merit...Masterofthehorse will win on Sunday...he will be well suited to a similar pace to F&G...and I believe he is a better horse.
let me have some feedback..even if its just to say its shite
The good news is that most of the ones I have looked out create a nice charted curve..based on early fraction v late fraction. Put simply all you need to do is look at the early fraction..and the final fraction ...this highlights how decent the performance is by whether its above or below the curve which represents a 120 performance.
So..using early and late pace times its possible to compare Derby winners ..but whilst I was doing this I meant to compare runners from the same race..which removes any ground differences that can spoil comparions as with HC. So tonight I have gone through this years Derby....quite interesting.
This is a far better way of using this analysis..just knowing if Derby winner A is better than B is alright for novelty value..but I think this could highlight horses who didn't win a race but were the best horse in the race...basically...giving a realistic figure to a horse with a bad trip....in this case...a bad pace trip.
I believe I have found a real nugget..if I this has any merit..the key words:lol:.....the figures say that MASTEROFTHEHORSE was actually the best horse in the Derby...and given a decent pace on Sunday I reckon he will beat Fame & Glory....actually on paper he is better than STS.....but STS had more left than we can measure so I wouldn't be confident on that one.....but M has produced one of the best split performance in the Derby...if his pace had been distributed correctly I think he would have won the Derby unless STS had a fair bit left.
These figures are not pinpoint..but I've spent a decent amount of time estimating distances behind the winner etc
The relationship between early and late pace does correlate..using feet per second figures ..this a slimmed down version of the early pace (EP) then expected late pace (LP).
EP is the average of the first 2 splits to the 3.5f marker
LP is the last 3.5f
example
(EP) 48.50 fps ...(LP)58.15 fps
so if a horse runs 48.50 feet per second (av of first two sects ) to 3.5f out ...it needs to run the last 3.5f at 58.15 feet per second to equate to a 120 performance.
the scale goes along these lines
48.50 - 58.15
48.90 - 57.95
49.30 - 57.50
49.70 - 56.75
50.10 - 55.75
50.50 - 54.50
50.90 - 53.00
The sectionals for the first 3 in our Derby..and as I say..these are by eye..but pretty good I reckon..
Sea The Stars 49.03 - 58.10
Fame & Glory 48.85 - 58.31
Masterofthehorse 48.86 - 59.01
If you put these against the graph..which is obviously continous compared with the rough table I've cobbled above..
STS should have run the last 3.5f at 57.80 fps to equate to a 120 horse....as he ran it in 58.10 fps he is approx 1.20 length better than 120...so approx a 122 horse...I am basing that on running for the last 40 seconds approx of the race..just to give a superiority value.
F&G should have run the last 3.5f at 58.00 fps to equate to 120...as he ran it in 58.31 fps then he is approx 1.24 lengths better than 120...so again a 122 horse...and fractionally better than STS......but we have to assume STS had something left..which I think he did...I'm pretty sure that F&G was all out so we do have a good measure of him here. I'm not going to dwell on whether STS had much more ..but on paper..F&G has run a very slightly better figure due to his poorer trip.
here is the interesting one
Masteroftehhorse should have run the last 3.5f at 57.99 fps...as he ran it in 59.01 fps then he is approx 4 lengths better than a 120 horse...a 126 horse.
If this is any good, has any merit...Masterofthehorse will win on Sunday...he will be well suited to a similar pace to F&G...and I believe he is a better horse.
let me have some feedback..even if its just to say its shite
Last edited:
I can see the logic, and if we believe as we're taught, that fast overall times are the product of evenly distributed speed across the sections then there's something to work with because we're essentially talking about swings and roundabouts dependent on where the pace is.
I've got a feeling incidentally, that if you time RVW's last section you'll find he's about a neck away from STS including having to reposition himself having met a bit of intereference, but we'll save that for another day.
I'm trying to think what value the insight is in terms of what information it is that you're actually capturing?
We're essentially trying to profile where the fastest 3 furlongs are and what this tells us about a horse?
Presumebly if the pace comes early then what we're getting is some indication of stamina? If it comes late, then we're picking up acceleration? and if its evenly distributed then your getting what I'll call class for sake of a better word.
I'm can half see it, but I'm also wondering what relevance knowing that MotH finished off fastest from a slow early pace is, if we can reasonably anticipate that we think the early pace will be fast at the Curragh? My first thought is that you're capturing information about a sprint finish, when in actual fact we've got to bet in terms of which horse will be best suited to sustain their challenge for the longest period (stamina by any other name).
Does it automatically follow that because a horse can save or use at one end of race that it reproduces it at the other end. I remember playing round with something similar for Brave Inca's Champion Hurdle, and was somewhat surprised to find that Macs Joy ran the second mile the fastest, and fastest finisher was actually Briarus. But then I never built anything for the early fractions, and didn't try to convert these into a class rating, which is the currency you're trading through which lends it a unit of measurement that takes both ends of the equation into account.
My gut reaction is that there's something in it, and is so very often the case "you can only get the correct answer if you ask the right question". Right now I'm not too sure what the correct question is, but I can't think of anything more pertinent that the one you're asking as you're at least trying to convert the figures and distribution of pace to class.
I've got a feeling incidentally, that if you time RVW's last section you'll find he's about a neck away from STS including having to reposition himself having met a bit of intereference, but we'll save that for another day.
I'm trying to think what value the insight is in terms of what information it is that you're actually capturing?
We're essentially trying to profile where the fastest 3 furlongs are and what this tells us about a horse?
Presumebly if the pace comes early then what we're getting is some indication of stamina? If it comes late, then we're picking up acceleration? and if its evenly distributed then your getting what I'll call class for sake of a better word.
I'm can half see it, but I'm also wondering what relevance knowing that MotH finished off fastest from a slow early pace is, if we can reasonably anticipate that we think the early pace will be fast at the Curragh? My first thought is that you're capturing information about a sprint finish, when in actual fact we've got to bet in terms of which horse will be best suited to sustain their challenge for the longest period (stamina by any other name).
Does it automatically follow that because a horse can save or use at one end of race that it reproduces it at the other end. I remember playing round with something similar for Brave Inca's Champion Hurdle, and was somewhat surprised to find that Macs Joy ran the second mile the fastest, and fastest finisher was actually Briarus. But then I never built anything for the early fractions, and didn't try to convert these into a class rating, which is the currency you're trading through which lends it a unit of measurement that takes both ends of the equation into account.
My gut reaction is that there's something in it, and is so very often the case "you can only get the correct answer if you ask the right question". Right now I'm not too sure what the correct question is, but I can't think of anything more pertinent that the one you're asking as you're at least trying to convert the figures and distribution of pace to class.
EC1
On a break
thanks Warbler
the idea seems too easy..obviously there is more to it than what I have done
if you put that scale above on a graph you can see the curve ...which is based on actual Early/late distribution...those figures/curve are based on all the derby winners I've looked at
this reminds me of the debate over Dancing Brave...he ran best late in his Derby...when a horse finishes like that... is it finishing faster than it was entitled to do? ...given he saved energy early...measuring those that have done more than they were entitled to do is the key to seeing which horse has actually achieved something special.
it is that which I hope this measures..as with MTH...he was entitled to be finishing...as was every horse that saved energy early...but his finishing effort is above what is expected..I'll do RVW tomorrow.
This also should work the other way..if a horse goes too fast early..he still has a target time to meet to hit that 120 mark in the last fraction...so it can have very slow late fractions but still show to be a good horse due to showing fast early
the idea seems too easy..obviously there is more to it than what I have done
if you put that scale above on a graph you can see the curve ...which is based on actual Early/late distribution...those figures/curve are based on all the derby winners I've looked at
this reminds me of the debate over Dancing Brave...he ran best late in his Derby...when a horse finishes like that... is it finishing faster than it was entitled to do? ...given he saved energy early...measuring those that have done more than they were entitled to do is the key to seeing which horse has actually achieved something special.
it is that which I hope this measures..as with MTH...he was entitled to be finishing...as was every horse that saved energy early...but his finishing effort is above what is expected..I'll do RVW tomorrow.
This also should work the other way..if a horse goes too fast early..he still has a target time to meet to hit that 120 mark in the last fraction...so it can have very slow late fractions but still show to be a good horse due to showing fast early
The more I think about it, the more I quite like the idea and it's application of logic and physics. It kind of combines Mordins fastest 3 furlongs analysis with Graeme North's distribution of effort.
My next reaction is that there's a danger that you're capturing horses who perform at Epsom. That's a bit clumsy actually. Using the classic generation of 3yo colts sets as good a benchmark as you can get, but Epsom itself wouldn't be an ideal track, as there as to be a danger of either over-looking something, or wrongly attributing something else. I don't think it's a big danger though, and I'd be pretty confident the insight you're capturing outweighs any negatives.
My other feeling is that as a weapon it should prove more informative for mile and 10F's races. Much below a mile and you're going to have serious difficulty with reliable timing as you'll be dealing in hundreths and even thousandths, although I could certainly see that it might have its most potential at 6F's having said that.
In fact thinking out aloud, 6F's to 8F's might just be it's best application, as these distances would most closely lend themselves to the concept of balancing the scales on either side, and would narrow the field of error that the middle section which still accounts for some 50% of the race distance could throw up.
Whilst you've got those 3yo colt standards for Epsom, you might as well capture the Coronation Cup and Oaks though having done the hard work, and who knows, with Look Here and Youmzain running in the next 48 hours you might unearth an insight (without prejudices of course)
My next reaction is that there's a danger that you're capturing horses who perform at Epsom. That's a bit clumsy actually. Using the classic generation of 3yo colts sets as good a benchmark as you can get, but Epsom itself wouldn't be an ideal track, as there as to be a danger of either over-looking something, or wrongly attributing something else. I don't think it's a big danger though, and I'd be pretty confident the insight you're capturing outweighs any negatives.
My other feeling is that as a weapon it should prove more informative for mile and 10F's races. Much below a mile and you're going to have serious difficulty with reliable timing as you'll be dealing in hundreths and even thousandths, although I could certainly see that it might have its most potential at 6F's having said that.
In fact thinking out aloud, 6F's to 8F's might just be it's best application, as these distances would most closely lend themselves to the concept of balancing the scales on either side, and would narrow the field of error that the middle section which still accounts for some 50% of the race distance could throw up.
Whilst you've got those 3yo colt standards for Epsom, you might as well capture the Coronation Cup and Oaks though having done the hard work, and who knows, with Look Here and Youmzain running in the next 48 hours you might unearth an insight (without prejudices of course)
Last edited:
You've talked me into it EC.
I like the theory in that you're taking a position that the early pace and the final pace are critical, and that the middle part of a race is for the jockeys to simply screw up their racing position and little to do with the horses ability. There's a safety net in their to capture information about horses that either use up early energy and are therefore drawing on their stamina later on, as well as something that captures their ability to conserve it and hence draw on acceleration for a fast finish. By expressing this as a see-saw you can profile both angles and convert it into an expression of class,
In addition Masterofthehorse has at least run (what I believe to have been a fast paced) 12.5F race in the Vase and that race certainly worked out much better than the much vaunted Dante. I was happy to attribute his defeat to Golden Sword to Murtagh mis-reading the race and under-estimating the winner. In any event, given that O'Brien horses improve by about 5.5L's from their debut to the target under these circumstances (my own crude estimate based on speed figures) there was a reasonable expectation that he'd reverse at Espom, and probably would have won at Chester if Murtagh hadn't given him too much to do.
That being so, his stamina shouldn't be in doubt given that he's arguably one of the few horses lining up whose proven he can run a fast pace at 12.5F's, and to some extent we might even treat the Derby itself as being more akin to the Dante and Derrinstown in terms of what it ended up riding to. I don't believe there's any real reason to think that Fame and Glory won't get a stiff 12F's at the Curragh, but equally, I wouldn't be completely confident that the two aren't actually much closer matched then perhaps we're thinking, and their prices showing. As you say, and I'm sure I read someone else noting it (I think it was Tyrone Molloy?) Masterofthehorse was the fastest finisher at Epsom, although he wouldn't have got to STS, he doesn't look like needing to at the time of writing.
In any event, all that hard work deserves a reward, so I'm prepared to side with your theory as I think there's merit to it in principle
I like the theory in that you're taking a position that the early pace and the final pace are critical, and that the middle part of a race is for the jockeys to simply screw up their racing position and little to do with the horses ability. There's a safety net in their to capture information about horses that either use up early energy and are therefore drawing on their stamina later on, as well as something that captures their ability to conserve it and hence draw on acceleration for a fast finish. By expressing this as a see-saw you can profile both angles and convert it into an expression of class,
In addition Masterofthehorse has at least run (what I believe to have been a fast paced) 12.5F race in the Vase and that race certainly worked out much better than the much vaunted Dante. I was happy to attribute his defeat to Golden Sword to Murtagh mis-reading the race and under-estimating the winner. In any event, given that O'Brien horses improve by about 5.5L's from their debut to the target under these circumstances (my own crude estimate based on speed figures) there was a reasonable expectation that he'd reverse at Espom, and probably would have won at Chester if Murtagh hadn't given him too much to do.
That being so, his stamina shouldn't be in doubt given that he's arguably one of the few horses lining up whose proven he can run a fast pace at 12.5F's, and to some extent we might even treat the Derby itself as being more akin to the Dante and Derrinstown in terms of what it ended up riding to. I don't believe there's any real reason to think that Fame and Glory won't get a stiff 12F's at the Curragh, but equally, I wouldn't be completely confident that the two aren't actually much closer matched then perhaps we're thinking, and their prices showing. As you say, and I'm sure I read someone else noting it (I think it was Tyrone Molloy?) Masterofthehorse was the fastest finisher at Epsom, although he wouldn't have got to STS, he doesn't look like needing to at the time of writing.
In any event, all that hard work deserves a reward, so I'm prepared to side with your theory as I think there's merit to it in principle
EC1
On a break
thanks for the input Warbler, much appreciated.
I think 8f would be ideal..I like the idea of making 3 splits and averaging the first two as well as i've done here..it breaks the race down enough to see what variation of pace exist within the segments without overdoing it..taken to its nth degree you could have sectionals every hundred yards..but would you know more about how the horse ran without overloading yourself with unnecessary information?
Using it as an individual race analyser..rather than comparing races with each other also seems of more use for profit for the future....lets say you analysed 10 races and found just 3 horses like MOTH that haven't won but would have done if ridden at even pace...which I am hoping that the measure against "expected" final split should suggest....would make it worthwhile.
When I did the Derbys..I also threw in a handicapper for comparision to see how that fared...
Coin of the Realm
49.30 - 54.84
with an early split of 49.30...the final split should be 57.50 for 120 horse..a 54.84 split would say that Coin Of The Realm is 11 lengths shy of a 3yo 120 horse..which would make it approx a 104 horse....so WFA needs knocking off that and also COTR only carried 8-7 against the 9-0 that the graph has been based on...a total of 14lb wfa + 7lbs ..making COTR an 83 horse on what it achieved in that race. This seems to be a fair refelection of COTR.
I haven't got video now of that COTR race..would anyone know if any site would have this?..RUK only hold them for a few days which is how I viewed it last time...but it would have been interesting to check out Drill Sargeants splits seeing as he won next time.
I'll check the Coronation if its still on Youtube.
Gus
I did the figures for Troy and the overall speed figure I got was 120 [no wfa]...thats a good figure but not a clockbuster as such.
The sectional based ratings for past Derby winners (rounded down) are:
NIJINSKY: 48.67 - 59.51 = 129
GALILEO: 49.62 - 57.45 = 124
MOTIVATOR: 50.49 - 54.81 = 121
NEW APPROACH: 49.29 - 57.55 = 120
TROY: 49.34 - 57.25 = 119
AUTHORIZED: 50.91 - 54.80 = 131
SIR PERCY: 49.33 - 57.03 = 118
SEA THE STARS: 49.03 - 58.10 = 122
I think 8f would be ideal..I like the idea of making 3 splits and averaging the first two as well as i've done here..it breaks the race down enough to see what variation of pace exist within the segments without overdoing it..taken to its nth degree you could have sectionals every hundred yards..but would you know more about how the horse ran without overloading yourself with unnecessary information?
Using it as an individual race analyser..rather than comparing races with each other also seems of more use for profit for the future....lets say you analysed 10 races and found just 3 horses like MOTH that haven't won but would have done if ridden at even pace...which I am hoping that the measure against "expected" final split should suggest....would make it worthwhile.
When I did the Derbys..I also threw in a handicapper for comparision to see how that fared...
Coin of the Realm
49.30 - 54.84
with an early split of 49.30...the final split should be 57.50 for 120 horse..a 54.84 split would say that Coin Of The Realm is 11 lengths shy of a 3yo 120 horse..which would make it approx a 104 horse....so WFA needs knocking off that and also COTR only carried 8-7 against the 9-0 that the graph has been based on...a total of 14lb wfa + 7lbs ..making COTR an 83 horse on what it achieved in that race. This seems to be a fair refelection of COTR.
I haven't got video now of that COTR race..would anyone know if any site would have this?..RUK only hold them for a few days which is how I viewed it last time...but it would have been interesting to check out Drill Sargeants splits seeing as he won next time.
I'll check the Coronation if its still on Youtube.
Gus
I did the figures for Troy and the overall speed figure I got was 120 [no wfa]...thats a good figure but not a clockbuster as such.
The sectional based ratings for past Derby winners (rounded down) are:
NIJINSKY: 48.67 - 59.51 = 129
GALILEO: 49.62 - 57.45 = 124
MOTIVATOR: 50.49 - 54.81 = 121
NEW APPROACH: 49.29 - 57.55 = 120
TROY: 49.34 - 57.25 = 119
AUTHORIZED: 50.91 - 54.80 = 131
SIR PERCY: 49.33 - 57.03 = 118
SEA THE STARS: 49.03 - 58.10 = 122
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,034
I'm not sure I fully follow the maths or the logic but it made me go and check the Derby again and I didn't approciate that MotH had come from a fair bit further back than his stablemates, so I might just row in with it tomorrow.
EC1
On a break
Coronation Cup
ASK: 49.14 - 58.08 = 121
YOUMZAIN: 49.11 - 58.50 = 123
LOOK HERE: 49.05 59.08 = 128
You can knock 3 off Look Here if you wanted due to the fillies allowance but the figures show that Look Here was the best horse in the race and theoretically if meeting more even sectionals next time should take some beating.
I made a mistake with the wfa earlier as well..the comparison line on the graph is the average RPR figure for all horses used..which has wfa included...this highlights again why I don't add wfa lbs to times but would rather use time difference lbs..all the 3yo's rated here can theoretically be given a few extra lbs for wfa..timewise about 7 lbs....but that is also a theoretical assumption that they will improve by that much until mature...personally I prefer to assume that the figure they earn is as good as they are at that time..they may be the finished article timewise. Authorized for instance has put in best figure I've got...was he fully mature timewise when he won the Derby..because 131 is a large figure if you want to think he might improve another 7lbs on the clock until he was 4. To me its akin to giving a mature 2yo an average wfa allowance on top of its ability when it doesn't deserve it because its actually ahead of average maturity.
Also even though Nijinsky was 2nd best on the figures to Authorized..he was cantering..how much more was there?..another 10lbs worth?...a mid 130's animal imo just based on this...maybe more
ASK: 49.14 - 58.08 = 121
YOUMZAIN: 49.11 - 58.50 = 123
LOOK HERE: 49.05 59.08 = 128
You can knock 3 off Look Here if you wanted due to the fillies allowance but the figures show that Look Here was the best horse in the race and theoretically if meeting more even sectionals next time should take some beating.
I made a mistake with the wfa earlier as well..the comparison line on the graph is the average RPR figure for all horses used..which has wfa included...this highlights again why I don't add wfa lbs to times but would rather use time difference lbs..all the 3yo's rated here can theoretically be given a few extra lbs for wfa..timewise about 7 lbs....but that is also a theoretical assumption that they will improve by that much until mature...personally I prefer to assume that the figure they earn is as good as they are at that time..they may be the finished article timewise. Authorized for instance has put in best figure I've got...was he fully mature timewise when he won the Derby..because 131 is a large figure if you want to think he might improve another 7lbs on the clock until he was 4. To me its akin to giving a mature 2yo an average wfa allowance on top of its ability when it doesn't deserve it because its actually ahead of average maturity.
Also even though Nijinsky was 2nd best on the figures to Authorized..he was cantering..how much more was there?..another 10lbs worth?...a mid 130's animal imo just based on this...maybe more
EC1
On a break
Look Here in a worse scenario than Epsom, 2 fur less, slow pace, too far off it..no real chance of winning
i'm interested in her but not in this type of race
i'm interested in her but not in this type of race
Irish Stamp
Forum Moderator
Is Look Here the new Speciosa?
People convinced she has an open G1 in her and keep inventing excuses when she gets beat?
People convinced she has an open G1 in her and keep inventing excuses when she gets beat?
EC1
On a break
you don't really need to invent excuses really, they are all in place...placed in a Leger, Oaks winner...running in two back to back tactical races..the second one over a trip way short of her best and held up off the slow pace
if she were a handicapper, I'd say what a great way to get handicapped
if she were a handicapper, I'd say what a great way to get handicapped
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,034
What, put Seb Sanders up?
EC1
On a break
it didn't hurt the cause for certain
if F&G ran his next two races at 10f and got beat..as is likely..particularly off slow paces..would we assume that excuses were being made for him by stating..the race didn't suit?
if F&G ran his next two races at 10f and got beat..as is likely..particularly off slow paces..would we assume that excuses were being made for him by stating..the race didn't suit?
Irish Stamp
Forum Moderator
EC1
On a break
i just think they are trying the 10f route which is wrong for her, if she gets a reasonably run 12f and still doesn't shine then I would probably be agreeing with you
the obsession with getting stayers to win at 10f is growing..Conduit is another one..they nearly win so connections keep persevering..but to me its a waste of the horse
the obsession with getting stayers to win at 10f is growing..Conduit is another one..they nearly win so connections keep persevering..but to me its a waste of the horse
EC1
On a break
todays run by RVW has given me a bit of hope after MOTH ran so poorly
RVW's Derby sectionals (I thought these were already on this thread) were:
48.92 - 58.52
expected 2nd sectional for 120 horse off the 48.92 should be 57.95...so RVW would be just over 2 lengths better than the 120.
RVW's run today is a good advert for MOTH..as MOTH has shown more here than he did...will he produce it again...time will tell.
RVW's Derby sectionals (I thought these were already on this thread) were:
48.92 - 58.52
expected 2nd sectional for 120 horse off the 48.92 should be 57.95...so RVW would be just over 2 lengths better than the 120.
RVW's run today is a good advert for MOTH..as MOTH has shown more here than he did...will he produce it again...time will tell.
Last edited:
EC1
On a break
it was too bad to believe Gareth..should get a price on him anyway
I wonder if AOB will shove him in the Leger
If he does..that could be the pay day
I wonder if AOB will shove him in the Leger
If he does..that could be the pay day
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,034
Better take an ante-post price before it then.