So how long is a length? in seconds

M

mrussell

At the Start
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
690
Location
Mostly London
Hi,

I was disappointed to find this in Wikipedia:
"In horseracing, until 1995, for pace handicapping purposes, the time generally allotted by pace handicappers for a horse to run a length (approximately 11 feet) during the course of a race was long thought to be a fifth of a second. This long held misconception was turned on its head by the works of Gonzalo Sandoval via his research into the internal fractions of thousands of Thoroughbred horse races. The resultant formulas and algorithms are what comprise his subsequent empirical pace handicapping work called REXPOINTE Pace Handicapping. This method of pace handicapping is used by many fans of the Sport of Kings."

Apart from trying to emulate Sr. Sandoval, which would take me a month of Sundays:

Is anyone conversant with the current thinking .... is there 1 general value following his work or are we looking at more, discrete values?
 
I guess, since we do not have sectional times here, it's an irrelevant question. To quote from another source (unvalidated, to say the least, but it's a decent gloss on why it's a "doesn't matter here" question):

"What the REXPOINTE premise maintains is that a length at the end of a race is
"longer" than a length at the beginning of that same race. REXPOINTE doesn't mean
longer in the physical/literal sense. By "longer" REXPOINTE means, the time it takes for
a horse to run a length changes (becomes longer) as a race progresses. This is because,
almost invariably, horses tend to slow down more the farther they run. What this
translates into or means to the speed and pace handicapper is that, because a length
is run in less time during the first part of a race, a length gained or lost during this
part of a race should be "weighted" in such a manner as to reflect this time
difference when compared to a length gained or lost during the latter part of a race."

I'm kind of glad we don't have sectionals here -- too much information!
 
Sounds like someone is using Wikipedia for a bit of self-advertising.

Anyway, in British racing at least, a 'length' is a unit of time, not distance.

I'm nicking this from Simon Rowlands article on Betfair's site:

http://betting.betfair.com/horse-racing/betting-strategy/post-182-010409.html

Whereas once a length in the UK was a length in visual terms (whatever that is), now it no longer is. A length has been a conversion of a time lapse in the UK for well over a decade now, so pounds-per-length (conventional form handicapping) and pounds-per-second (conventional time handicapping) have long since been inextricably linked.

Between 1997 and early in 2008, the official conversion in place was five lengths-per-second on the Flat and 4 over jumps, regardless of the fact that horses will finish at vastly different speeds under different circumstances.

The following conversions have been in place since 15th June 2008 :

* Good or quicker turf, and polytrack at Kempton, Lingfield and Wolverhampton = 6 lengths per second

* From good (good to soft in places) to Good to soft (Soft in places), and polytrack at Great Leighs = 5.5 lengths per second

* Soft (good to soft in places) and softer, and fibresand at Southwell = 5 lengths per second.
Click to expand...
 
I was always schooled on what I believe to be an American formula, which is where speed rating (or its modern day use) really originates from, and that involves 0.17 secs equals 1 length. The 0.20 secs has been kicking round for decades and given that horses have been getting demonstrable quicker then I suspect 0.17 might be nearer the mark by now anyway. However, it is of course worth noting that different tracks will have different characteristics as will the going so without using it in conjunction with standard times, class pars, and track variance it's only a rule of thumb (but then you have to draw a line somewhere I suppose).

Strangely enough the same book also puts NH horses at 0.20 secs, which had me scratching my head a bit. It's probably more important that what ever you use, that you do so consistantly, as the same hierarchy should still emerge
 
Thank you, Gareth & Warbler. There always seems to be someone kind enough to answer questions here.

(I asked bc of a need to translate 'lengths beaten' to time.)
 
the simplest method I think is just to divide a race length by the length of a horse...the average length of a horse as I understand it is 9ft...seem to remember this being the concencus view.

over 5f in 60 seconds:
3330ft/9ft = 367 lengths:
1 length = 60sec/367 = 0.16 sec

over 8f in 98 seconds:
5280ft/9ft = 587 lengths:
1 length = 98sec/587 = 0.17 sec

over 12f in 155 seconds:
7920ft/9ft = 880 lengths:
1 length = 155 sec/880 = 0.18 sec

even if you change the going to soft its not going to make loads of difference..for instance

over 5f in 66 seconds:
3330ft/9ft = 367 lengths:
1 length = 66sec/367 = 0.18 sec

over 12f in 164 seconds:
7920ft/9ft = 880 lengths:
1 length = 164 sec/880 = 0.19 sec


National Hunt

over 16f in 236 seconds:
10560/9ft = 1173 lengths:
1 length = 236 sec/1173 lengths = 0.20 sec
 
Last edited:
I've always worked it out at about 0.17s per length.

I've been saying for some time that Turftrax almost invariably showed that horses are slowing down throughout the final furlong of a race.

Remember when Kelly Holmes won the Olympics? She looked to be finishing strongly yet soon after the race the time analysts were telling us she'd run exact fractions throughout the final lap so the others were slowing down. They hailed it as the ultimate in pace running.
 
EC1 said:
the simplest method I think is just to divide a race length by the length of a horse...the average length of a horse as I understand it is 9ft...seem to remember this being the concencus view.

over 5f in 60 seconds:
3330ft/9ft = 367 lengths:
1 length = 60sec/367 = 0.16 sec

even if you change the going to soft its not going to make loads of difference..for instance

over 5f in 66 seconds:
3330ft/9ft = 367 lengths:
1 length = 66sec/367 = 0.18 sec
Click to expand...

Yep. I came to the same conclusion years ago. 0.02s is about a short head but roll the difference per length out over the full five furlongs and it works out almost 7½ lengths. Such are the margins for error when race-riding, one might argue.
 
I tend to work on a neck being 0.35 of a length and a head at 0.15. I don't equate a short heads or a nose to any distance but if I may occasionally add a point/pound to the winner if I think it was always holding the other(s).
 
Yep, worth noting that those are the BHA's definitions. Private handicappers should, of course, use what works for them.
 
Surely then any handicap placed on the horse should also take into account the horses true confirmation to be accurate.
 
DO - how would TurfTrax's theory fare in France, then, where the pace of the race is arse-about-face? (Oooh, lovely bit of doggerel there!) Slowly, slowly, slowly, then whooooosh at the end? They sure aren't slowing down towards the finish there!
 
For anyone interested, Nick Mordin will be reprising his method of speed-rating in The Weekender for the next 2/3 weeks. Always a good source of ideas.
 
krizon said:
DO - how would TurfTrax's theory fare in France, then, where the pace of the race is arse-about-face? (Oooh, lovely bit of doggerel there!) Slowly, slowly, slowly, then whooooosh at the end? They sure aren't slowing down towards the finish there!
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to know. It may be that in France the pace is more even, allowing them to save their big push for the final 2-2½f, which would in turn mean the horses weren't subjected to as hard a race as in this country.

It might also explain why some French horses win good races over here with an apparently-strong finish. Maybe they're just ridden more intelligently.
 
redhead said:
For anyone interested, Nick Mordin will be reprising his method of speed-rating in The Weekender for the next 2/3 weeks. Always a good source of ideas.
Click to expand...

A bit of schadenfraude on my part, but I will try and make a point of getting it thus, as I've harboured a suspicion that all's not been going to well with Nick for a couple of years now looking at some of his selections. I remember being slightly concerned when I first started compiling my own and looking at his web site the next week to see we only had something like a 50% correlation. Slowly I came to realise that he was finding more losers than me
 
I'm all for doing better than the pundits, which is easily done these days, bar the odd one or two.

However, the one I really love to beat is Gerald Delamare. Doesn't happen often, but it feels good when I do!
 
Back
Top