Sectional Timing

T

trackside528

At the Start
Joined
Apr 30, 2006
Messages
5,377
Have been interested in sectional timing for a while now, but have never really got round to investigating it due to a combination of lack of time and lack of resources.

What do people make of sectional timing with regards to National Hunt racing? Surely it could be, at the very least, a means of reinforcing (or disproving) visual perceptions of pace (or lack thereof)?

Of course for those of us merely using stopwatches and replays, NH timing is also more feasible given that it allows significantly more leeway for human error than flat racing. However, in order to do sectionals it is necessary to have a pretty in-depth knowledge of where a sectional (the most basic being the half-way point) falls on a race-track. While I can do this by memory for a few tracks using landmarks (admittedly not the most scientific!) it seems rather simplisitic.

How do people get around these pitfalls? Obviously the easiest way is to compare sectionals for two races run over the same course and distance on a given card, but even this is seemingly not the most accurate method.

Do a set of sectional 'standards' exist? Is there any service that provides sectionals for Irish racing (ala TurfTrax)? Is TurxTrax itself a waste of money (have heard it called a few unkind names!) or invaluable for anybody serious about sectionals?

Ultimately, are sectionals for NH racing, even if accurately done, worth the time and effort?

I realize there are a number of questions above ~ pretty much reflects my knowledge of the matter at the moment. Just seems pretty obvious to me that raw times are worth very little unless they are accompanied by sectionals.
 
"What do people make of sectional timing with regards to National Hunt racing? Surely it could be, at the very least, a means of reinforcing (or disproving) visual perceptions of pace (or lack thereof)?"

I have used them for many years now for precisely that reason, and occasionally for in-running betting. The difficulty with sectionals over jumps is not getting accurate ones - they are very easily taken for the leader at least at an obstacle - but with getting accurate overall times and distances through which to put them in context. As with Flat racing, the single most important sectional tends to be around the final 25% of the race (the time of the other 75% is implied by that). I would recommend timing from the third-last at most courses.

"Do a set of sectional 'standards' exist? Is there any service that provides sectionals for Irish racing (ala TurfTrax)? Is TurxTrax itself a waste of money (have heard it called a few unkind names!) or invaluable for anybody serious about sectionals?"

Only privately, I believe. My own ones over jumps are restricted to a couple of courses in UK and in need of an update. TurfTrax does not produce electronic sectionals any longer, and I am unaware of anyone ever having produced them in Ireland for publication.

While it is laborious to produce your own sectionals, the upside is that few people bother to do so and there is an edge to be gained.

"Ultimately, are sectionals for NH racing, even if accurately done, worth the time and effort?"

I would suggest that they are useful, but only realistically in the context you mentioned at the beginning. Coming up with actual sectional ratings needs both accurate overall times/distances (and standard times) but a lot of work. This is possible on the Flat, but you are battling against the inaccuracies of basic information, such as overall race time, over jumps.

One advantage of sectionals over jumps is that pace biases can be massive and yet are often not noticed.
 
Last edited:
Cheers, Prufrock.

Your last sentence pretty much sums up my interest. You often, particularly in Ireland, hear pace analysis phrases such as "sure they only went handy/steady etc," but surely there must be some merit in a numerical analysis, however basic.
 
As an example, I have heard/read a number of different versions of what the run of the race was in the contest in which Carlito Brigante beat Alaivan at Leopardstown over Christmas. They may have gone slowly for a while early but they went hard thereafter and came home slowly - markedly slower than the other hurdle races on the day - as a result.
 
I'd love to see a sectional analysis of Cooldine's RSA.

To the naked eye, they seemed to go off fast and never relent.
 
J Alfred Prufrock said:
As an example, I have heard/read a number of different versions of what the run of the race was in the contest in which Carlito Brigante beat Alaivan at Leopardstown over Christmas. They may have gone slowly for a while early but they went hard thereafter and came home slowly - markedly slower than the other hurdle races on the day - as a result.
Click to expand...

Interesting example, J Alfred Prufrock.

Just to put a bit of substance to it. Using the timing from three out methodology:

2m2f maiden hurdle - 4:34.29 (King's Bastion)

last 3: 1:26.89 (31.7%)

2m2f maiden hurdle - 4:24.50 (Whodoyouthink)

last 3: 1:25.56 (32.3%)

2m juvenile hurdle - 3:57.20 (Carlito Brigante)

last 3: 1:27.19 (36.8%)

2m2f mares handicap hurdle - 4:31.50

last 3: 1:26.00 (31.7%)

Timing may be a shade off (courtesy of my mobile!!), but it is obviously apparent that the Carlito Brigante race is something of an anomoly. Would seem to suggest the run of the race strongly favoured those who were held up off the pace. Whodoyouthink looks to have recorded the most "efficient" time on the card.

Obviously the times suggest that the three quarter point of 2m/2m2f race at Leopardstown probably isn't three out, but is actually a point on the flat which is a bit of a pain.

Very difficult to put each race into perspective without having standards though to be honest. What do you make of it, Prufrock?
 
The question is almost how to use these sectionals - for example, what consitututes a positive race in terms of sectionals - that with a quick time from 3 out, or does that show the race run at a dawdle and the stamina of the beaten horses never got a chance to figure?
 
The problem with Carlito's race was made worse by how keen the leaders were despite the strong pace up front - it is not as if they settled well going that pace.
 
I came to a similar conclusion to you, trackside, but I am going to look at other Leopardstown meetings (mindful of inner course/outer course issues and possible moving of hurdles).

I have just tipped up Alaivan for the Triumph in my blog. I think you'll see a much better performance in a race in which he gets cover and settles.

You can look for a number of things with sectionals. A simple "the leaders went too fast/too slow, so Horse A has done well/badly" or a more sophisticated adjustment of the final time in light of how that time was arrived at.

I favour the former over jumps and the latter on the Flat. When there is time to do anything at all.
 
Last edited:
Hamm said:
The question is almost how to use these sectionals - for example, what consitututes a positive race in terms of sectionals - that with a quick time from 3 out, or does that show the race run at a dawdle and the stamina of the beaten horses never got a chance to figure?
Click to expand...

That's my issue as well. Without the benefit of sectional standards, as well as the obvious problem of using 3 out as such a rough benchmark, it's difficult to put the times into perspective.

The most reliable way I can see at the minute is through direct comparisons with other races on the card at similar enough distances, but even that is a bit ropey.

edit: cross-posts there, Prufrock. Are you using other races on the card as a comparative guide or some other method? It's entirely possible (and a fairly regular occurance I would guess) on an Irish NH card that 4 hurdle races are run and not one of them in an 'efficient' manner!
 
Last edited:
You can estimate how far out the sectional was from the available information (the estimate does not have to be spot on).

D = overall distance
T = overall time
t = sectional time
d = estimated sectional distance = average of (D*t)/T

Then convert to an estimated finishing speed, expressed as a % of overall speed.

=(d*T*100)/(D*t)

KB = 101.36%
Who = 99.22%
CB = 98.27%
BD = 101.37

With more information (assuming it is reliable) from other races at the track you can get a better idea of how long the sectional is, and, more importantly, what a good sectional % is. In this (estimated) instance it could be something like 101.

The amount you should adjust the overall time is a function of the difference between actual finishing speed and optimum finishing speed. Just to make things more difficult, optimum finishing speed differs according to circumstances (though not by much for "normal" ones).

One of the chief problems of doing this over jumps is that different criteria are used by different organisations and individuals for when a race actually starts (when the runners pass the start or when the tape goes up) and that there are different standards of accuracy in taking times whatever criteria are used.
 
Last edited:
For those that don't cross boards, there's a thread on trf entitled 'Virtual Meydan' that includes some discussion about turftrax and its lack of support from the authorities.
 
J Alfred Prufrock said:
It was. Final 3f for winner was about 36.2 sec, which translates to a closing sectional speed of around 110% of average race speed. Much higher than would usually be the case.

Under those circumstances he is a damn good horse. I think he has a serious chance in the Melbourne Cup providing that also comes down to relative speed rather than a slog.
Click to expand...

Thought I would move this over from the Leger thread as its interesting stuff. When I tracked your estimate back to get the distance of the sectional though (using Dxt/T formula), I got ~2.66f out which altered the % significantly. At the risk of sounding stupid, where are we differing.

Given the 1m6f amateurs handicap was run in a time nearly two seconds quicker than the Leger, I suspect it's my maths that's suspect here!
 
I have Sans Frontieres running about 36.2 sec from the 3f marker. It does not specifically matter whether the 3f marker is AT the 3f point, providing it does not move and comparisons can be made between races and between meetings, based on the assumption that it IS 3f out.

(T*d*100)/(t*D)

gives you

(190.36*3*100)/(36.2*14) = 112.7%

It looks as if you have assumed he ran an even pace and then engineered the closing sectional distance from that, as ~ 2.66 is ~ 3/1.127

There were a couple of blogs about sectionals on betting.betfair.com:

http://betting.betfair.com/horse-ra...mon-rowlands-betting-master-class-310810.html

and one specifically about how Cape Blanco won the Irish Champion:

http://betting.betfair.com/horse-ra...-cape-blanco-stormed-leopardstown-070910.html
 
Thanks for that, Prufrock. My mistake in not realizing that calculating the sectional distance and then inputting it into the calculation would assume a perfectly evenly run race! Maths is certainly not my strong point...

The reason I made the mistake was to try to combat the fact that the sectional (as you know) had to be done from an awkward side-on camera angle that made accurate sectionals difficult (and certainly time-consuming) to achieve. The thing that is really drawing me back in any case is the fact that I can't convert the sectionals to any tangible, figures-based "edge," for all that they reinforce what is usually (though certainly not always) evident from a combination of overall race time and visual evidence. Do you feel there is enough of an "edge" (becoming a well-worn cliche at this stage...) there to justify keeping sectionals on a day in-day out basis, Prufrock (or anyone else)?
 
Last edited:
I have had a few false starts along the way, mostly to do with trying to get others involved to share the at-times Herculean workload of taking hand-held sectionals, but am currently going it alone and concentrating on a smaller number of tracks.

And, yes, it is proving to be worth the effort. :)
 
Excellent news. The more information available to punters the better as far as I'm concerned. Credit to the powers-that-be over there.

Interesting to look back on this thread. It's a great pity that Prufrock doesn't post on forums any more, having gone over to Twitter. Given his new brief to represent the interests of punters, spending a bit of time on here wouldn't do any harm, I'd have thought.

James Knight is another now solely on Twitter and it would be nice to hear from him every now and again.
 
gus said:
Excellent news. The more information available to punters the better as far as I'm concerned. Credit to the powers-that-be over there.
Click to expand...

... and relegates the BHA further towards pub league status when it comes to looking after punters.
 
Hurrah for the Irish.
At the very least they'll be proper furlong-by-furlong measurements, and not the ridiculous 3 and 5f tranches we suffer from at Epsom and Cheltenham, where we are asked to swallow this myth of even pace, even though there's no sane way of judging pace changes of any horse at intermediate intervals.
Let's hope they shame the BHA into doing the same.
 
Last edited:
gus said:
Excellent news. The more information available to punters the better as far as I'm concerned. Credit to the powers-that-be over there.

Interesting to look back on this thread. It's a great pity that Prufrock doesn't post on forums any more, having gone over to Twitter. Given his new brief to represent the interests of punters, spending a bit of time on here wouldn't do any harm, I'd have thought.

James Knight is another now solely on Twitter and it would be nice to hear from him every now and again.
Click to expand...

To my considerable surprise, I bumped into Prufrock in a restaurant in Sheffield last night. Friendly chap, he seemed slightly surprised himself to be recognised.

I mildly chided him about not posting any more on here but I didn't get the impression he was thinking of resuming.

If I'd had my wits about me I'd have robbed him of his mobile as he was leaving on the off-chance he has Timeform's standard times on there...
 
Last edited:
Back
Top