The 2000 Guineas (and beyond)

EC1 said:
plenty of reasons..none of them convince me though..he just isn't a miler imo..he might be a 7f horse but i would be sprinting with him..thats where his best form is
Click to expand...

His best form was in the Guineas. But fair enough. We'll see in the St James Palace... different opinions are why they have a market... imo yours is wrong.
 
SteveM said:
At this level it certainly strongly suggests that in relative terms he does stay. His style of running is confusing most. He has a single burst of blistering excelleration. The trick is knowing when to use it. The thing you should appreciate is that fast horses can also get a mile. It's plain nonsense to say that that the colt finishing the best (that was also placed) in a classic run over a mile and run in a reasonable time does not get the trip.

Like I've said earlier. I think ridden differently he may well have beaten DT. On the other hand DT is a very good horse in his own right. Newmarket would also not suit Canford as well as Ascot. Flatter tracks will suit him very well, the dip at Newmarket did not suit him at all... enough reasons?
Click to expand...

he has been ridden differently against DT..up with the pace in the Greenham...from behind in the guineas..same result both times..what other ways are there?
 
SteveM said:
His best form was in the Guineas. But fair enough. We'll see in the St James Palace... different opinions are why they have a market... imo yours is wrong.
Click to expand...

I would argue his very best form was in the Coventry..a race he won with blistering speed

i like these dicussions Steve..made me look hard at these animals for sure :)
 
Really interesting stuff. For one with a very limited knowledge of Timefigure's (or any speedfigures), is the fact that this year's comes up to average about as good an indicator as we're going to get that the race probably wasn't as slowly run as many (myself included) initially thought? Is it altogether unfathomable for a jog and sprint affair to get a decent Timefigure?

Canford Cliffs certainly wasn't finishing off the race like a steam train, but that is surely understandable given that he pulled pretty fiercely for at least 2f. I'm reluctant to make a judgement one way or the other. Remember somebody saying earlier Canford Cliffs reminded them of Dutch Art's run in the race; to me it reminded me every bit as much of Ravens Pass (a horse whose stamina I seriously underestimated).

Elusive Pimpernel took my eye from an unpromising position. Probably had a poor draw in hindsight with relatively little pace to tow him into the race and as a result was further back than ideal. Finished like an express and I can just see him and Fencing Master coming up the Sandown hill now in the Eclipse!
 
Last edited:
trackside528 said:
Really interesting stuff. For one with a very limited knowledge of Timefigure's (or any speedfigures), is the fact that this year's comes up to average about as good an indicator as we're going to get that the race probably wasn't as slowly run as many (myself included) initially thought? Is it altogether unfathomable for a jog and sprint affair to get a decent Timefigure?

Canford Cliffs certainly wasn't finishing off the race like a steam train, but that is surely understandable given that he pulled pretty fiercely for at least 2f. I'm reluctant to make a judgement one way or the other. Remember somebody saying earlier Canford Cliffs reminded them of Dutch Art's run in the race; to me it reminded me every bit as much of Ravens Pass (a horse whose stamina I seriously underestimated).

Elusive Pimpernel took my eye from an unpromising position. Probably had a poor draw in hindsight with relatively little pace to tow him into the race and as a result was further back than ideal. Finished like an express and I can just see him and Fencing Master coming up the Sandown hill now in the Eclipse!
Click to expand...

a proper jog and sprint won't give a decent timefigure....thats why the 3yo handicap won by Oasis Dancer is very dubiously rated by topspeed..laughably so.....that is done to make sure they give a reasonable figure to the main race...its rating manipulation and topspeed does it regularly.....obviously there is a point where the early pace isn't possible to be pulled back late on due to the maximum speed its possible to run late on....too much time lost early will not be pulled back later..even though some on another forum seem to think its possible :lol:

the guineas pace was just slack enough early on to damage the overall time by about 9lbs/10lbs..i make my figures for accuracy..not to look good for the masses...and there is no way the speed figure for the guineas was as high as it should have been. For instance..at Newbury ...Dick Turpin recorded an excellent figure of 125 on my calcs...so we know that the guineas winner...in a truly run race... this year ...should have been capable of at least that figure seeing as the winner beat DT...the only reason we haven't got a speed figure of about 128 for Makfi is because the early pace prevented that happening...his figure of 118 is not pedestrian buts 10lb shy of what the race should have been run in.

to highlight this again..as i pointed out earlier..Makfi won on the same ground that Cockney Rebel ran on..but was 1 second slower..again that highlights there is something odd about the Timeform rating ..they gave CR just 3lb higher speed figure than Makfi.....for a second!...again..it looks good to give guineas winners decent figures.
 
Last edited:
Weren't there massive tailwinds for Cockney Rebel's and Finsceal Beo's wins? That was a major factor in the times being faster despite the ground not being.
 
either way the race times reflected the same loss/gain..so bare times can be still be used

1 second definately equates to more than 3lb that is for sure.

Speed figures should reflect what happened..not what looks good
 
Last edited:
The 'working' going allowance I had was fast by 0.25s per furlong but, as I said, it makes Jack My Boy (and therefore those not beaten far) in the 3yo 6f handicap appear to be a long way ahead of their ORs. I can't accept that so I have to assume it was the only true race of the day and I reckon it would bring my time rating for Makfi down to around 100 (+ wfa), which would be pretty pedestrian for a Guineas yet 6lbs faster than the fillies version the next day off a GA of -0.06spf.
 
nice to see an independent view DO...one that reflects reality rather than making it fit..anyone one else make speed figures here??

how would that allowance compare with Cockney Rebels year..remarkably similar I would think/hope?
 
That was a difficult day...

Cockney Rebel was 28lbs faster than Beaver Patrol, suggesting it was extraordinarily fast, but it made everything else look far too fast for its class too, so BP's race must have been pretty slow in reality.

I then came up with a GA which would allow Aqmaar a time rating on a par with its form rating, and Cockney Rebel still emerged as top drawer. This seemed promising and everything looked rosy with Aqmaar, Echelon and Cockney Rebel all putting up appropriate-looking times vis a vis their form figures. However, it made Salford Mill uncomforably fast (for me). A lto of people went with that figure and SM was widely touted for the Dante and Derby, iirc., but I couldn't get my head round it: it still mde the beaten horses behind SM awful fast.

Eventually, I bit the bullet and went with the view that SM had run the true race that day - ie nowhere near as fast as suggested - which made the going allowance -0.43spf, indicating very fast conditions. It put Cockney Rebel back in the pack of average Guineas winners at 110+ wfa (13lbs), or 123 outright, which I felt was about right.

My GA for Newmarket last weekend, by the way, was -0.39spf, so you're right. Not much in it and very fast conditions, for whatever reason.
 
Last edited:
Desert Orchid said:
That was a difficult day...

Cockney Rebel was 28lbs faster than Beaver Patrol, suggesting it was extraordinarily fast, but it made everything else look far too fast for its class too, so BP's race must have been pretty slow in reality.

I then came up with a GA which would allow Aqmaar a time rating on a par with its form rating, and Cockney Rebel still emerged as top drawer. This seemed promising and everything looked rosy with Aqmaar, Echelon and Cockney Rebel all putting up appropriate-looking times vis a vis their form figures. However, it made Salford Mill uncomforably fast (for me). A lto of people went with that figure and SM was widely touted for the Dante and Derby, iirc., but I couldn't get my head round it: it still mde the beaten horses behind SM awful fast.

Eventually, I bit the bullet and went with the view that SM had run the true race that day - ie nowhere near as fast as suggested - which made the going allowance -0.43spf, indicating very fast conditions. It put Cockney Rebel back in the pack of average Guineas winners at 110+ wfa (13lbs), or 123 outright, which I felt was about right.

My GA for Newmarket last weekend, by the way, was -0.39spf, so you're right. Not much in it and very fast conditions, for whatever reason.
Click to expand...

thanks very much DO - that means a direct comparison between both guineas bare times is fair..making Makfi's guineasa full second slower....and yet he gets a 120 Topseed figure and a 121 with Timeform..which isn't really possible.
 
EC1 said:
to highlight this again..as i pointed out earlier..Makfi won on the same ground that Cockney Rebel ran on..but was 1 second slower..again that highlights there is something odd about the Timeform rating ..they gave CR just 3lb higher speed figure than Makfi.....for a second!...again..it looks good to give guineas winners decent figures.
Click to expand...

Agree, or disagree with the rating, fine I have no problem with that. You know more about speed figures and their compilation than I ever will. But your accusation that Timeform are speeding up the figures to give a higher rating to give a guineas winner a 'decent' figure is well wide of the mark. Quite what they gain from doing so I have no idea.
 
davidjohnson said:
Agree, or disagree with the rating, fine I have no problem with that. You know more about speed figures and their compilation than I ever will. But your accusation that Timeform are speeding up the figures to give a higher rating to give a guineas winner a 'decent' figure is well wide of the mark. Quite what they gain from doing so I have no idea.
Click to expand...

I don't know what is gained...I suppose they want big race winners getting big figures..but a race that is 1 second slower isn't 3lb slower..and DO's figures agree re the track speed...maybe its an error

its not complicated to understand..in fact its beyond me how anyone creating timefigures can give incorrect figures to that degree..as highlighted..Topspeed gave a horse a speed figure 8lb ahead of its OHR in an obvious jog/sprint race just so they can give the guineas winner a decent figure..its beyond me how pros cannot spot an obvious slow race like the 3yo handicap.

the problem is that because a Topspeed and Timeform are industry benchmarks its assumed they are never wrong or make errors
 
Last edited:
Do you take wind into account, EC1? If there was a strong tailwind the day of Cockney Rebel's Guineas (don't remember either way) the Timefigure would take that into account (don't ask me how!) which would potentially account for the discrepancy between that race and this year's renewal.
 
I don't see how the wind can be taken into account to any accuracy- if all the times are slowed/speeded up either by ground or wind you get the going allowance just the same..all figure makers calculate their going allowance on times alone

thats why DO and me both get similar allowances

all i know is that both days show that the true run races match up on times..I doubt very much that Topspeed alter anything for wind..in fact their allowances are shown as one figure aren't they?...they assess each racetime and see if common ground re the allowance can be reached..whether that allowance is made up up of slow/fast ground or wind speed . Thats why sometimes the wind can mess up assessing the going..but the allowance will have included the wind speed in all instances.

Don't know how Timeform do it

the main indicator of overrating is the figure given to the 3yo handicap on Saturday..that tells you the whole day has been overrated just on its own..if that race had a true speed figure..about 10 less than Topspeed gave it ..you would pull all the other races back by 10..which would make Topspeeds figure for Makfi 110
 
Last edited:
at the end of the day if people feel it was a true run race..its their choice..but the evidence imo clearly points to otherwise

we all have to make our own assessments ultimately :)
 
Taken from Timeform's (excellent) website:

Wind Strength & Direction
Race times are also very much affected by the strength and direction of the wind prevailing during racing. A wind behind in the straight will assist the runners throughout in all races run on the straight course, but will be adverse to the runners for part of the way in races run on the round track. The times of straight races will be speeded up, but the precise effect upon the times of races run on the round track will depend upon their distances and starting points. Considering the unusual layout of some of the courses in Britain, and remembering that the wind may blow at any strength from any point of the compass, it might be thought that the problem is an intractable one. Nevertheless it can normally be handled quite satisfactorily by vector analysis, provided the direction of the wind is known, conditions do not vary during racing and sufficient data is available. A 10-knot wind makes a great deal of difference to race times, so it is important always to have reliable information as to wind strength and direction, direction particularly. Timeform sees that accurate information is obtained.
 
you are missing the point though Track..the times are adjusted for the card by Topspeed and by anyone else for one allowance..yes wind speed can make ground seem faster or slower..but it doesn't alter the relationship between times.

as said..Topspeed will have given one allowance for saturday..if you pay RP price you can see that allowance..check..i bet its one allowance for all races....they have given the 3yo hcap a speed rating too high for a slow run race..which automatically makes all the other ratings too high..if they gave that race a figure that really reflected the speed of the race it would pull all the speed figures for every race down and their rating for Makfi would not be 120.

the times on both days were comparable...whether that similarity was caused by ground or wind doesn't come into it unless you want the exact going.

i'll try and demonstarte it...just making a cuppa
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure we are on the same wave length here.

My basic assumption is that a race run on virtually identical underfoot conditions with an assisting tailwind will surely be run in a faster time than one not assisted by the wind. Timeform are presumably able to take these considerations into account which might account for the variation. Nothing to do with the wind affecting the ground.

With regards to Topspeed, reading you and a few others convinced me a while back that they were of no real use and I've stuck to that view since.

edit: Would be really good if one of the Timeform boys could clear things up.
 
Last edited:
this is a bare bones way of showing you Saturdays meeting..there are 2 races that I got as true run

all figures are brought to a per mile basis

Tartan Gigha's race
Time 110.15
race bare speed figure 124
expected figure 100
24lbs fast

Jack My Boy's race
Time 71.54
race speed figure 120
expected figure 94
26lbs fast

Makfi's race
Time 96.35
race bare speed figure 134
expected figure 120
14lbs fast

Oasis Dancer's race
Time 97.94
race bare speed figure 111
expected figure 94
17lbs fast


taking into account the first 4 placed horses in each of the top two races gave a going allowance of 22lbs...so the times were being sped up by 22lbs.

If you look at the bare speed figure for each race..no matter where you put your going allowance those figures are a sliding scale...so if you make the 3yo handicap [Oasis Dancer] a true run race..which it wasn't..you would knock off 17lbs from all races..this would make all 8 horses involved in the top two races as all having run 7lbs faster than their ratings..very unlikely.

If you make Oasis Dancers race 7lb fast..which I believe TS did.. you would only knock off 10lbs from all races...so all 8 horses in the first two races would be 14lbs fast..which would be totally laughable...which is why its not possible to give Oasis Dancers race a bigger figure.

but...all those figures are tied together..you can't change one without changing them all.

the actual going allowance I calculated by using the 8 horses from the fastest 2 races was as said actually ..22lbs per mile fast

once you knock off 22lbs form each race time you get

Tartan Gigha = 102 which is 2lb faster than expected
Jack My Boy = 98 which is 4lb faster than expected
Oasis Dancer = 89 which is 5lb slower than expected
Makfi = 112 which is 8lb slower than expected



For 3yo races you need to add back 6 speed points at this time of year..which makes Makfi's race a 118..same with other 3yo races

now..it could be argued that i've actually been generous..because the 3yo handicap still might be overrated for a jog and sprint..so if you take the view that Jack My boy only ran a par race..that would then knock 4 speed points off each race....i didn't do that..its possible that OD is better than OHR so has probably in reality run 8 or 9 behind what it should have been capable of anyway

As you can see..its all a sliding scale..if i move Oasis Dancer up by those 5lbs it starts making Makfi look a reasonably run race..this is what Topspeed did..they moved it up a bit more than that though and made OD's race faster than par.

hope that makes sense..I'm not going into great detail about how i get this and that..just trying to demonstrate how each race ties together..and that you can't change one rating without affecting the others.
 
trackside528 said:
I'm not sure we are on the same wave length here.

My basic assumption is that a race run on virtually identical underfoot conditions with an assisting tailwind will surely be run in a faster time than one not assisted by the wind. .
Click to expand...

yes of course it would Track..but there is no way you can split wind and going..so you make your allowance based on finishing times ..i'm not necessarily saying the ground was the same..but the allowance was..which makes a comparison of bare time then viable..I should have stressed allowance rather than ground initially..sorry :)
 
Last edited:
The thing about Newmarket, though, is that the straight course is 10f so the only difficulty with the wind is whether it was stronger for one race than for another.

A very fast going allowance, such as was present on Saturday and in 2007, would take into account the wind on the day but not any variation between races. That was why I referred very deliberately to "conditions" rather than "going" or "ground". Fast "conditions", by my interpretation, means that all the factors were taken into account. It isn't an exact science, however. It can't be. all it is is a guide to get a better idea of the value of form. I very much doubt if Timeform have access to detailed meteorological variances for every minute of every meeting at every course. I reckon if they did they'd have it plastered all over their literature.
 
Desert Orchid said:
The thing about Newmarket, though, is that the straight course is 10f so the only difficulty with the wind is whether it was stronger for one race than for another.

A very fast going allowance, such as was present on Saturday and in 2007, would take into account the wind on the day but not any variation between races. That was why I referred very deliberately to "conditions" rather than "going" or "ground". Fast "conditions", by my interpretation, means that all the factors were taken into account. It isn't an exact science, however. It can't be. all it is is a guide to get a better idea of the value of form. I very much doubt if Timeform have access to detailed meteorological variances for every minute of every meeting at every course. I reckon if they did they'd have it plastered all over their literature.
Click to expand...


we are all working from final time figures DO aren't we basically?..the variation in figures depends on how races are interpreted re fast or slow...if you pick a race out and say its fast and set your allowance to it and its actually a jog and sprint..you will mess up a whole card. What I have noticed with such as Topspeed is that they always have some races fast..even on days when ALL the races are slowly run..its down to race reading as well as doing the calculations.
 
Back
Top