The 2000 Guineas (and beyond)

chroniclandlord said:
What figures does that leave you with for the placed horses, EC1?
Click to expand...

like i said to Gareth..i don't use actual speed figures as such..just expected times and whether a race is faster or slower than it should be.

but..3 lengths = 0.6 secs../0.07

so the 2nd horse is about a 119 figure

as said..the material to work with today isn't enough really so obviously it may be overrated

if you believe it ..then the 2nd and 3rd are interesting aren't they?

we could have done with just one more race as a yardstick as one of the 3..the listed race was very slow.
 
That sounds like you're using class pars, EC?

If the race won by Aghadoe starts out as a '90' based on the highest OR, what does the Guineas start out as?
 
Gareth Flynn said:
That sounds like you're using class pars, EC?



If the race won by Aghadoe starts out as a '90' based on the highest OR, what does the Guineas start out as?
Click to expand...

yes..the best method i've used..weight adjusting does me head in:)..and is more guessy..imo

expected time for the guineas...or any G1 is 125 minus 6 points for wfa if needed..119 today..

the expected times are only to assess the ground speed..the actual race speed figure is only calculated after ground speed has been assessed using true run races

you could in effect calculate your going allowance without the G1 in the mix..if you have enough races..I use the first 4 home in each race to increase the data as well.

handicaps are best races for relying on as well


***edited for 6 points wfa..not 5
 
Last edited:
Just in from the Curragh. Well done to Steve, Clive, Hamm, David and anyone else who said Canford Cliffs would stay.
Click to expand...

Thanks but i never really did and didnt back him! or anything else...

I was open minded about it really, but pedigree suggested so...to my limited appraisal. This factor never addressed here and still is the most relevant (without running evidence otherwise)IMO
 
all speed figure makers use pars of a kind..otherwise you don't have an ..expected time..i prefer the times to be raw when assessing the ground..other method means guessing how fast horse would run with x weight as pointed out earlier.
 
But why bother using class pars when you can just use the actual rating of the horse who actually produced the time?

Fencing Master would have barely sneaked into second in the 3yo handicap today. Same age, same weight, and same time (within 0.02s) of the actual second, Start The Party. If Start The Party had run that time in the Guineas, he would have been seen to blatantly hold down the form. You would have to justify him improving by nearly a full stone just to get Canford Cliffs up to his own OR of 118. To put Canford Cliffs up to the 126-level I mentioned earlier, you'd need him to have improved by a stone and a half, whilst also justifying Free Judgement and Viscount Nelson suddenly improving by ~10lbs simultaneously.

As it is, the result of the handicap suggests that Start The Party improved by around 4lb. Even a complete optimist couldn't have him improving by anything more than 10lb. And remember, Start The Party didn't even win his handicap!
 
But why bother using class pars when you can just use the actual rating of the horse who actually produced the time?

because using the winner means you will have to bring all the winners on the card to 9 stone to be able to compare the expected times...that to me is dicking around with guesswork..why adjust a time when there is no need?

anyone who does work off the winner in that way..will have to use a par anyway ..only difference is..its been messed with to bring to a common weight with the other races on the card
 
EC1 said:
because using the winner means you will have to bring all the winners on the card to 9 stone to be able to compare the expected times...that to me is dicking around with guesswork..why adjust a time when there is no need?
Click to expand...

But today you don't even have to do that. You've got the exact times. You've got horses of the same age carrying the same weight. For all intents and purposes, Fencing Master and Start The Party produced the same performance today. No guesswork involved: it's all there in front of us.
 
Fencing Master would have barely sneaked into second in the 3yo handicap today. Same age, same weight, and same time (within 0.02s) of the actual second, Start The Party. If Start The Party had run that time in the Guineas, he would have been seen to blatantly hold down the form. You would have to justify him improving by nearly a full stone just to get Canford Cliffs up to his own OR of 118. To put Canford Cliffs up to the 126-level I mentioned earlier, you'd need him to have improved by a stone and a half, whilst also justifying Free Judgement and Viscount Nelson suddenly improving by ~10lbs simultaneously.

it doesn't work like that though does it?

If Start The Party had run in the guineas..the early pace in that race would have meant he could not have produced that time..he would have been asked for too much too early and burned out..whereas in the handicap his pace distribution is in line with the opposition at that level.
 
Gareth Flynn said:
But today you don't even have to do that. You've got the exact times. You've got horses of the same age carrying the same weight. For all intents and purposes, Fencing Master and Start The Party produced the same performance today. No guesswork involved: it's all there in front of us.
Click to expand...

no its not..they are two separate races with different pace scenarios within them
 
Gareth Flynn said:
Maybe so, but if that's true then all time comparison between races is flawed.
Click to expand...

no its not :)

because overall race times are giving you the full picture of each race when truly run



lets reverse it

put FM in the 3yo handicap..he will be able to go the early pace easily and have petrol left at the end and beat the other horse easily

if we had split times you would be able to see that the handicapper had an easier time early and was allowed to run his race at a pace comfortable to him.

lets say for another argument - that both races were run in the same overall time..your argument then would deem the handicapper would have dead heated with CC?...when in fact he wouldn't because when the injection of pace came he would be left behind because the better horses have more acceleration..yes.. in a slow run race the handicapper might be closer than his rating would suggest..but he still couldn't accelerate to the same degree.
 
Last edited:
So what are you saying? That if the handicapper and Canford Cliffs, same age, same weight, had run a mile in exactly the same time, you wouldn't have them on the same bare time rating?
 
but where do you get the original starting speed figure from..you need some idea when you start how fast a race should be run..or you have no start point
Click to expand...

"How fast a race should be run" before the event is rendered irrelevant by "how fast the winner should have run" after it, when the winner might have won by 10 lengths, a nose, in a 20-runner field or in a field severely depleted by non-runners.

If we are agreed that the ability of a horse is an important component in how fast that horse should be able to run - which seems to be the premise of class pars - why guess this information before the event if you can assess it much more accurately after it?
 
Anyway, perhaps this is a discussion for another thread.

For my part, I doubted that Canford Cliffs could run above low-120s at a mile and I was wrong. I thought it was a most authoritative performance - backed up by the clock, to a greater or lesser degree :cool: - and would take him in a match bet against Makfi under similar circumstances.
 
Gareth Flynn said:
Ergo, Fencing Master and the handicapper should be on the same time rating.
Click to expand...

today ..yes of course...but that doesn't mean its the same performance..ie slotting handicapper in to guineas and saying it would finish in same place as FM.....you need to see both horses at their best in true run races to know what their best speed figure is

I know what you are saying - that taken in isolation.. todays races on paper.. re a speed figure ..would show both horses as being the same..but when each horse has appeared in a true run race their real ability will be shown by a timefigure that is representaive of how fast they can run

you can't judge a horse on one run though..even with traditional handicapping you can't...lets say a horse rated 70 runs in a slow run race and gets near a 100 horse..that wouldn't representartve of the horse because the only reason he got close was because the 100 horse has only sprinted 2 furlongs at the end of the race and has not been able shown his full superiority in that short a burst...but on paper the 70 horse was only 3 lengths behind ..then purely on that one run it looks like a 90 odd horse..when it isn't...so in isolation one rating will be misleading for one reason or another
 
J Alfred Prufrock said:
"How fast a race should be run" before the event is rendered irrelevant by "how fast the winner should have run" after it, when the winner might have won by 10 lengths, a nose, in a 20-runner field or in a field severely depleted by non-runners.

If we are agreed that the ability of a horse is an important component in how fast that horse should be able to run - which seems to be the premise of class pars - why guess this information before the event if you can assess it much more accurately after it?
Click to expand...


but on day one..with a blank sheet..how can you start without some type of par to judge against?
 
EC1 said:
today ..yes of course...but that doesn't mean its the same performance..ie slotting handicapper in to guineas and saying it would finish in same place as FM.....you need to see both horses at their best in true run races to know what their best speed figure is

I know what you are saying - that taken in isolation.. todays races on paper.. re a speed figure ..would show both horses as being the same..but when each horse has appeared in a true run race their real ability will be shown by a timefigure that is representaive of how fast they can run
Click to expand...

Of course. Canford Cliffs should be capable of running a time figure equivalent to his OR or better. I just don't think he did it today, which would guide me towards taking a conservative view of the form of today's race. It's more to avoid over-rating the placed horses, mind; CC clearly toyed with them today.
 
J Alfred Prufrock said:
I don't. I assess how well the horses actually ran. And so do most of the other speed-figure makers I know.
Click to expand...


topspeed uses pars..simply because he uses standard times..which are pars in themselves..each standard is a 100 horse carrying 9 stone on Good ground..thats a par

Split Second used pars ..used standard times
Mordin uses pars..uses standard times
Timeform ..do they use standard times?..if they do they also use pars

in fact all the published speed compilers I know off.. use pars ...standard times
 
Last edited:
Back
Top