Speed Figure calculation and usage

Gareth Flynn said:
Might be worth substituting Timeform's WFA scale for the official one, if you have it. Pretty sure theirs is based on analysis of actual results over a long period, rather than the "received wisdom" of the official one.
Click to expand...

be interesting that

to be fair..wfa isn't that important if you don't add it..but it can be useful having a good idea for expected times on a card with a lot of 3yo races

i have found the time corrections to give really good results with expected times..whereas using wfa suggested times doesn't work out.

its not be and end all..there are plenty of other aspects to discuss and what have you..wish a few more would take part..its an open discussion:D
 
Gareth Flynn said:
Might be worth substituting Timeform's WFA scale for the official one, if you have it. Pretty sure theirs is based on analysis of actual results over a long period, rather than the "received wisdom" of the official one.
Click to expand...

Timeform WFA allowances for early June are as follows, where a mature horse is allotted 10-0:

5f 4yo - 10-0
3yo - 9-10
2yo - 8-6

6f 4yo - 10-0
3yo - 9-9
2yo - 8-3

7f 4yo - 10-0
3yo - 9-8
2yo - 7-13

8f 4yo - 10-0
3yo - 9-6
2yo - NA

9f 4yo - 10-0
3yo - 9-5
2yo - NA

10f 4yo - 10-0
3yo - 9-3
2yo - NA

11f 4yo - 9-13
3yo - 9-2
2yo - NA

12f 4yo - 9-13
3yo - 9-0
2yo - NA

13f 4yo - 9-13
3yo - 8-13
2yo - NA

14f 4yo - 9-12
3yo - 8-11
2yo - NA

15f 4yo - 9-12
3yo - 8-10
2yo - NA

16f 4yo - 9-11
3yo - 8-8
2yo - NA

18f 4yo - 9-10
3yo - 8-6
2yo - NA

20F 4yo - 9-10
3yo - 8-4
2yo - NA
 
cheers Rory


working times to per mile would mean my wfa times are for 8f wouldn't they?..8lb at a mile..

i think thats why adding 15 looks wrong..situation explained i think..should have seen this before

i thinks its a doh for me

i am right here aren't i?
 
KING OF REASON
12Jun10 2:40 (Four Day) at York, ladbrokes.com Stakes (Handicap)

RAIN ON THE WIND
14Jun10 8:40 (Four Day) at Windsor, Verbatim Digital Storage Handicap

ONE GOOD EMPEROR
12Jun10 1:45 (Four Day) at Sandown, toteplacepot Handicap

START THE PARTY
11Jun10 7:55 (Four Day) at Navan, Lynn Lodge Stud European Breeders Fund Race
 
I would just like to repeat that I think it is legitimate to ignore weight-for-age (as opposed to weight) in form and time figures - not that I do - though any organisation judged on top-rated winners and the like is unlikely to do so for commercial reasons.

If you ignore it then you need to work in some sort of allowance for maturation or accept the limitations of the ratings without such an allowance.

Some people sneer at the idea of a one-size-fits-all approach to racehorse development while conveniently ignoring the fact that many ratings organisations do treat progress on an individual basis (think of the "p" and "P" symbols).

A wise bird once suggested to me that weight-for-age should really work hand in hand with weight-for-experience, and I think he was right.
 
Cheers, Rory. Their 13lbs allowance at 12f is only 2lbs shy of the BHA one (yet 4yos still get 1lb from older horses?)
 
I took the wfa allowance off 132 and used the Derby as the marker for the going allowance. It renders all the other races on the slow side but that doesn't worry me.

I've also used Cansili Dancer's race the previous day as the marker, rather than go overboard with its rating, again rendering the other races slow, but I'll bear in mind that maybe the principals are furhter ahead of their mark than I'm rating them.

As an aside, I wasn't sure what kind of legs this thread might develop but it's going pretty nicely, thanks mainly to you EC1!
 
Last edited:
just going back to wfa:)

a question for anyone that adds it

two races

one over 8f

one over 12f

both winners get the same bare speed figure..what would your overall speed figures be?
 
Ascot 15 June 2009

Going Allowance: +34lb per mile (Good/Firm)


115 GOLDIKOVA
122 EQUIANO
101 CANFORD CLIFFS
-80 STRONG SUIT
-71 MARINE COMMANDO

no wfa added

Canford Cliff's figure can be updated later in week - hopefully once we see some other races on the round course - it definately was a bigger figure than that looking at how the race was run.

Equiano's race holds the others down..the 2nd horse in that race..Markab.. is probably a fair marker for the going allowance.
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
just going back to wfa:)

a question for anyone that adds it

two races

one over 8f

one over 12f

both winners get the same bare speed figure..what would your overall speed figures be?
Click to expand...

Ok, so today Horse A, a 3yo, equals standard time over 8f carrying 9st.

In the next race, Horse B, a 3yo, equals standard time over 12f carrying 9st.

They both have a 'bare' speed rating of 100.

Using the official WFA scale, you would then add:

11lbs to Horse A (8f)

and

15lbs to Horse B (12f)

So Horse A ends up on 111, and Horse B on 115.

The better rating for Horse B reflects the idea that it is harder for a 3yo to equal standard time over 12f than it is for a 3yo to equal standard time over 8. Speclfically 4lbs harder.
 
Gareth Flynn said:
Ok, so today Horse A, a 3yo, equals standard time over 8f carrying 9st.

In the next race, Horse B, a 3yo, equals standard time over 12f carrying 9st.

They both have a 'bare' speed rating of 100.

Using the official WFA scale, you would then add:

11lbs to Horse A (8f)

and

15lbs to Horse B (12f)

So Horse A ends up on 111, and Horse B on 115.

The better rating for Horse B reflects the idea that it is harder for a 3yo to equal standard time over 12f than it is for a 3yo to equal standard time over 8. Speclfically 4lbs harder.
Click to expand...

I am not sure I am buying that Gareth - if both horses met at 10f ..then using only speed as the criteria here - they should dead heat..but..the lbs you are adding extra to the 12f horse makes it look a faster horse..how can it be faster?..it only looks faster because you added a non speed related rating.

i don't really see how its harder to earn a standard time at further.

but you agree that both horses are the same speed figure - and yet one gets a bigger figure than the other - a figure based on nothing to do with speed.

its an interesting one isn't it?
 
Last edited:
Gareth Flynn said:
That's the crux of it - I'm not surprised you don't agree with using WFA then.
Click to expand...

I'm talking purely in speed figure terms..not an ability to stay ..which the wfa scale tries to correct..in a handicapping scenario. When those two horse meet at 10f it will be how fast they can run between a and b just the same..the 12f horse won't be 4lb faster just because he met a standard at further.

its this mixing of a handicapping tool with a speed figure that isn't really adding up...and you may think you have explained it but imo you haven't.

i understand the wfa scale..and where it should be used...i just don't see how you can add extra speed points because they were earned over further...they have achieved the same speed figure..why is the 12f faster?..thats the real crux
 
Last edited:
this is the scale used by topspeed


At 5f 1 length = 3.6lbs
6f 1 length = 3.0lbs
7f 1 length = 2.6lbs
8f 1length = 2.3 lbs
9/10f 1 length = 2.0 lbs
11/12f 1 length = 1.6 lbs
13/14f 1 length = 1.4 lbs
15/16f 1 length = 1.2 lbs
17/18f 1 length = 1.1 lbs

picking out the 8f & 12f values for a length

8f = 2.3lb
12f = 1.6lbs

if the 8f horse is 1 length shy of maturity he still has to improve the same ratio as the 12f horse who is 1 length shy of maturity..so in speed figure terms they are both disadvantaged the same..so achieving standard for both horses requires the same proportional improvement..so if both hit standard they are the same speed figure..not 5lb different
 
Gareth Flynn said:
Topspeed also use a WFA scale.
Click to expand...

not seeing the relevance of that really..i used their scale of lbs per length purely out of laziness:)

anyone can use wfa..but i wouldn't give different speed figures to two 3yo horses that equal standard at two different distances..because purely as a speed figure they have achieved the same rating

thats the argument - how can you implement it correctly?

the correct way is how Beyer does it..he doesn't add anything to younger horses

we only do it to make it easier to compare younger horses with older ones re speed figures..but adding 15 extra speed points to one horse and only 10 to another horse purely because its a different distance just isn't logical..speed figure wise...imo

if you do that you will find that all Derby winners will have greater ratings than Guineas winners..purely because you added 5/6 more points to the Derby winners..not because they are faster..but just because they ran over further

speed figures are based on speed from a to b..wfa is used to remove immaturity bewteen age groups when they meet in a race
 
Last edited:
I don't agree with your Guineas/Derby example.

First of all, we should ask the question: should Derby winners and Guineas winners be, on average, rated the same?

For the sake of this, let's accept they should.

In that case, a correct WFA adjustment should be required in order for the average of the Derby winners to come up to the same average of the Guineas winners.

In other words, you wouldn't rate the average Derby winner higher than the average Guineas winner by using WFA; you would rate the average Derby winner lower than the average Guineas winner by not using WFA.
 
Gareth Flynn said:
I don't agree with your Guineas/Derby example.

First of all, we should ask the question: should Derby winners and Guineas winners be, on average, rated the same?

For the sake of this, let's accept they should.

In that case, a correct WFA adjustment should be required in order for the average of the Derby winners to come up to the same average of the Guineas winners.

In other words, you wouldn't rate the average Derby winner higher than the average Guineas winner by using WFA; you would rate the average Derby winner lower than the average Guineas winner by not using WFA.
Click to expand...

I think if you miss off wfa..the Derby and guineas winners would be of very similar speed ratings Gareth

the only issue with that comparison is that a fair few Derby's get low speed figures due to allowances being different at Epsom.

thats not a cop out either..its a big problem with getting a real measuer of the Derby speed figures.

you could say.. take the fastest 5 figures from 10 years maybe of each race

i'm not looking at it tonight though :)
 
i'll have a quick stab

on this thread DO posted his speed figures for the Derby over a few years...without wfa added....112 was a fairish average allowing for the allowance ruining a few years...I doubt the guineas average would be much higher..maybe DO would be able to post his figures for the last 7 or 8 guineas..to keep them from same source
 
Last edited:
Don't see how that would prove anything either way - too small a sample, which would be further reduced by weeding out races that weren't truly run, and all susceptible to any built in biases in the standard times that DO uses (Raceform's old ones, I think).
 
If you don't allow for wfa the Derby winner will on average appear faster - relative to stanmdard times - than the Guineas winner because horses are more mature in June.
 
Back
Top