The 2025 Eclipse Stakes

[barjon]

Don’t agree. The numbers are fact, the observation is impression. And, as I said, the numbers often belie my impression of how the race went. In the same way commentators often talk about a horse displaying a fine turn of speed overtaking half the field at the end when all they are actually doing is keeping on when the others are slowing down. The numbers tell you, though.

So far as observation goes I often get a different impression when I’m there (no longer, alas) than seeing it on TV. And certainly a different impression if I catch a look at the head on.

 

[Dingo Bingo]

Apologies - only just spotted this:
The figure is derived from the RP on-screen replay,where the box (above the mph speed) shows11.86 secs for the 9th furlong.

It's the same as the RTV replay then, Reet, as that also shows the same, non of the published sections show that though.
What I described happening must have been a coincidence, but I did check it with another race too, so a double back to back coincidence.
I'm obviously wrong about them averaging the time of the leader and 2nd horse at each section. The Eclipse 9th and final furlong were just incorrect on the live screen display (or the published sections are). I really thought I'd learned their method, but seems they're just a bit iffy on the live broadcast.

 

[Desert Orchid]

I stopped reading after this line:

“The pars are derived from dozens of performances which gave rise to fast times (relative to the horses’ abilities in the prevailing conditions)…”

So fast is relative, the conditions are subjective, and the pars come from a few dozen races — but we’re all supposed to shut up and bow to the number?

You don’t get to sneer at other opinions while pulling a figure out of your hole.

I think that remark refers just to the Eclipse and, to be honest, I've never been convinced by 'pars' since I read Nick Mordin's book.

I still much prefer the old standard times which were derived from many years of times. The Standard Time from 2001 for 10f at Sandown is 2m6.7s, so 0.3s (two lengths, 3.6lbs) faster than SR's 'par'.

(Something else I've noticed over the last 20 years is that RP standard times are very gradually getting close to the old Raceform Standard Times, suggesting to me that Ken Hussey was more accurate all those years ago.)

Regardless, what the figures do is to give a general idea about how the race was run. SR is saying it was slow with a sprint finish so any assessment of the form should be treated with appropriate caution as it is unlikely to replicate itself until the same scenario plays out.

 

[Desert Orchid]

A lot of this time-paralysis comes from people who aren’t talented enough to trust their eyes.

Exactly why I work on compiling ratings. I'd struggle to identify a racehorse from a clothes horse.

It's about doing what you do and hoping you can be good at it.

 

[Desert Orchid]

[Simon] seemed a nice enough guy in person. but he's dripping with pedantry and dogma.

Reminds me of me, then...

 

[Desert Orchid]

1 Races like this are analysed to DEATH - and in the public domain. By the time every fecker has put it under their microscope in a public debate the chances of finding value coming out of it are much diminished. As punters. we've already spent too long even thinking about it.

2 I happen to think they thought Sosie's pilot would make it attritional when he went to the front, he didn't, he slowed it down a bit. and given this the winner has quickened up well at the business end to win. But the next race any of them run in might pan up in a different way, obviously.

3 Trying to put ratings numbers on all this is a complete waste of time - time more usefully spent on who's busy - and who isn't - at Kempton Park tonight.

Analysing a race and concluding that the form is not reliable can be as valuable as finding one that others don't realise is sh1t hot.

 

[Coach miguel]

Clearly we could see delacroix started his run well behind ombudsman and ruling court and ran them both down. His 2 furlong and 3 furlong times weren't great as he had to switch and then get going again. With a clearer run I'm sure he'd have set cracking 2 and 3 furlong times.
Even with all this analysis we didn't learn that much bar the fact delacroix is a proper group one horse who will most likely still improve more. Because the early pace was slow it probably ran more like a 9f race rather than 10f.
We knew delacroix had it in him as he did an electric furlong at leapordstown.
Going forward I'd say delacroix will take a lot of beating over 10f and camille pissarro will be in the mix.
You can have all the data you want but extrapolating the right info is just down to human judgement.

 

[Coach miguel]

Analysing a race and concluding that the form is not reliable can be as valuable as finding one that others don't realise is sh1t hot.

The chester vase form was thought to be average. Seems not. Same with the Cheshire oaks. Best to wait before judging 3yos.

 

[Dingo Bingo]

(Something else I've noticed over the last 20 years is that RP standard times are very gradually getting close to the old Raceform Standard Times, suggesting to me that Ken Hussey was more accurate all those years ago.)

Those old split second standards are based on record times (I think with an assumed 100 rated horse carrying 9 stone, but I could be wrong abotu that). So RP standards getting shorter will happen over time.
I pulled all the RP standards apart a few years ago (maybe 7 - 8 years ago now). I looked at the time between each distance they had, and converted it to a time per furlong. Lots of them didn't make sense. I recall the 1M4F start at Wolves looking crazy, as despite the turn, the 1m4F horses starting there, were assumed to be clocking furlong times quicker than they were for the 1m1.5F start and their first furlong times.
So yeah, the difference between the standards between each distance (when converted into seconds per furlong), don't look right with a lot fo the RP standards, or at least they didn't and hadn't done for years. The actual distances were checked, as I had measured usign GE before they all got remeasured with shortcuts, thanks to Rowlands and his 1 off the rail average idealism for all CD's, not that it affected me, other than needing to alter spreadsheets.

I may have made that sound over-complicated.
1) Take the 6F STD and subtract the 5F STD, divide by 'actual yards' between the two distances and multiply by 220.
2) Take the 7f STD and subtract the 6F STD, divide by 'actual yards' between the two distances and multiply by 220.
Carry on like this until you've done all the distances at a course. Then you can consider bends and gradients and how the longer the distance the slower the horses. It will highlight where the RP STD's are in error (or any Standard times). Be careful of what now can be shortcuts though (rail huggers).
It's actually a really handy way to locate an error and double check your own srtandards. A crude example would be, you have the 1M standard correct and the 6F standard correct, but for some reason the 7F standard is too easy or too hard, it will show up, as the seconds per furlong at 7F will be either too close to the 6F, or too close to the 1M time. if you look at the number you produce doign this t a course and then look at the course on GE and consider things bends and usign the groudn above sea level in feet display, you can seriously fine tune and remove any errors from your (or any) standard times.

I made a spreadsheet for ease of use, but that'll be on an old laptop, and unsure if it will even fire up now. It's not hard to do it just using a calculator though.

 

[Slim]

I think that remark refers just to the Eclipse and, to be honest, I've never been convinced by 'pars' since I read Nick Mordin's book.

I still much prefer the old standard times which were derived from many years of times. The Standard Time from 2001 for 10f at Sandown is 2m6.7s, so 0.3s (two lengths, 3.6lbs) faster than SR's 'par'.

(Something else I've noticed over the last 20 years is that RP standard times are very gradually getting close to the old Raceform Standard Times, suggesting to me that Ken Hussey was more accurate all those years ago.)

Regardless, what the figures do is to give a general idea about how the race was run. SR is saying it was slow with a sprint finish so any assessment of the form should be treated with appropriate caution as it is unlikely to replicate itself until the same scenario plays out.

The fact that you can call bullshit on his 'par times' does make my point for me.

 

[Desert Orchid]

The par times could shift up or down but the graphics they allow wouldn't change. The graphics would still show a slow pace and a fast finish. His pars allow him to put a figure on them whether they're right or wrong.

What I struggle with re 'par' times, as expounded by Nick Mordin, is that the 'par' time for a 3yo at a mile might be different for a 4yo.

Standard times make no such distinction, the wfa scale doing the rest of the work.

How accurate the wfa scale may or may not be is another argument.

 

[Slim]

I don't worry about 3yos as a group. I just know I want to be on a 3yo in the Eclipse every year.

Another thing to look for is a 3yo that got handicapped over 10f+ with the WFA. You’d be amazed how badly they can be handicapped as a 4yo compared to a 4yo who earned their mark running against their own age group at 3.

 

[Frankel]

Even with all this analysis we didn't learn that much bar the fact delacroix is a proper group one horse who will most likely still improve more. Because the early pace was slow it probably ran more like a 9f race rather than 10f.
We knew delacroix had it in him as he did an electric furlong at leapordstown.
Going forward I'd say delacroix will take a lot of beating over 10f and camille pissarro will be in the mix.
You can have all the data you want but extrapolating the right info is just down to human judgement.

Will Delacroix improve for a fast run 10?
Ombudsman has had 7 runs, Delacroix has had 9 already. Who has more improvement? Depends on the pace angle I would say.
The boys in blue will surely run a pacemaker in York.
That said, if Field Of Gold gets the trip then everyone else is playing for 2nd.

 

[Desert Orchid]

Those old split second standards are based on record times (I think with an assumed 100 rated horse carrying 9 stone, but I could be wrong abotu that). So RP standards getting shorter will happen over time.
I pulled all the RP standards apart a few years ago (maybe 7 - 8 years ago now). I looked at the time between each distance they had, and converted it to a time per furlong. Lots of them didn't make sense. I recall the 1M4F start at Wolves looking crazy, as despite the turn, the 1m4F horses starting there, were assumed to be clocking furlong times quicker than they were for the 1m1.5F start and their first furlong times.
So yeah, the difference between the standards between each distance (when converted into seconds per furlong), don't look right with a lot fo the RP standards, or at least they didn't and hadn't done for years. The actual distances were checked, as I had measured usign GE before they all got remeasured with shortcuts, thanks to Rowlands and his 1 off the rail average idealism for all CD's, not that it affected me, other than needing to alter spreadsheets.

I may have made that sound over-complicated.
1) Take the 6F STD and subtract the 5F STD, divide by 'actual yards' between the two distances and multiply by 220.
2) Take the 7f STD and subtract the 6F STD, divide by 'actual yards' between the two distances and multiply by 220.
Carry on like this until you've done all the distances at a course. Then you can consider bends and gradients and how the longer the distance the slower the horses. It will highlight where the RP STD's are in error (or any Standard times). Be careful of what now can be shortcuts though (rail huggers).
It's actually a really handy way to locate an error and double check your own srtandards. A crude example would be, you have the 1M standard correct and the 6F standard correct, but for some reason the 7F standard is too easy or too hard, it will show up, as the seconds per furlong at 7F will be either too close to the 6F, or too close to the 1M time. if you look at the number you produce doign this t a course and then look at the course on GE and consider things bends and usign the groudn above sea level in feet display, you can seriously fine tune and remove any errors from your (or any) standard times.

I made a spreadsheet for ease of use, but that'll be on an old laptop, and unsure if it will even fire up now. It's not hard to do it just using a calculator though.

Yes, EC21 often argued along those lines and I see the logic in that approach but even the current RP times don't follow the logic so there must be something else at play. Could it be that 7f horses are just not generally as good at the top end as those over 6f and those over a mile? I don't know.

EC also highlighted the 10f ST at Newmarket as being out of kilter so I can only assume something like the straight mile has no bends and the 12f races have got into a proper stride by the bend; something like that. I find that if three races on the same day over the three trips there are truly run then the overall times tend to suggest the ST is right.

 

[reet hard]

Bearing in mind that York's a very different track to Sandown,and FOG might need a turbo fitted for the extra 2f?

 

[Ian_Davies]

Extra 2f and 110yds - York isn't the ideal place to go to test a miler over further.

And if August turns wet and it rains on that Knavesmire recovered marshland which consequently morphs into holding glue, it's definitely the wrong place to go.

 

[Dingo Bingo]

Yes, EC21 often argued along those lines and I see the logic in that approach but even the current RP times don't follow the logic so there must be something else at play. Could it be that 7f horses are just not generally as good at the top end as those over 6f and those over a mile? I don't know.

EC also highlighted the 10f ST at Newmarket as being out of kilter so I can only assume something like the straight mile has no bends and the 12f races have got into a proper stride by the bend; something like that. I find that if three races on the same day over the three trips there are truly run then the overall times tend to suggest the ST is right.

Yes, the current RP STD times are still wrong (probably). He's been tweaking them up and down each year for decades. If (is it still Dave Edwards?) he is using an x% average time from the top 30 or whatever racetimes for each CD, then that is flawed in itself.
1) Less races are truly run as the distance increases, as we know.
2) You can't have a tail wind in both the back and home straight, which exagerates point 1 further.
Straight course fastest times will inccorporate tailwinds. By default, a tailwind along the back straight means there'll be a headwind in the homestraight. The wind can never fully assist in a clocking on races on the round course. I'm pretty sure Topspeed STD compilation doesn't consider this when looking at the yearly top 30 fastest times (or however they do it).

I will try to show an example on Monday to what I mean regarding the difference between the standards. I know what EC was on about a few years ago (I think we're alluding to the same thing) and it is that, but I recall he was looking at the overall standards being progressivley slower per furlong as the distance increased which is logical. What I did was to use the same principle but looked at the time difference 'between' the standards, not as an overall view.

I'll start a different thread, or just PM you an example.

 

[Slim]

Extra 2f and 110yds - York isn't the ideal place to go to test a miler over further.

And if August turns wet and it rains on that Knavesmire recovered marshland which consequently morphs into holding glue, it's definitely the wrong place to go.

It's an absolute kip of a punting track after rain. It's just hard to imagine a wet August these days.

 

[Frankel]

Bearing in mind that York's a very different track to Sandown,and FOG might need a turbo fitted for the extra 2f?

Hence why I said 'if' he gets it. Adds spice for sure.

That said, there were some right fukcing underlings who thought the great one wouldn't get it.

 

[Ian_Davies]

It's an absolute kip of a punting track after rain. It's just hard to imagine a wet August these days.

As a student, for a holiday job I used to work in the early 80s for Habbershaws bookmakers who had a rails pitch at York.

They said it was hard to win there when it was quick and hard to lose when it got holding - even horses who went in the mud elsewhere often came unstuck.

 

[edgt]

It's an absolute kip of a punting track after rain. It's just hard to imagine a wet August these days.

It takes one day's rain to make g to f ground heavy at York; I was there in 1988 and it happened; that was a 3 day meeting.
Whoever named it "the Knavesmire " knew his onions.

 

[Ian_Davies]

Hence why I said 'if' he gets it. Adds spice for there were some right fukcing underlings who thought the great one wouldn't get it.

I didn't have a bet in Frankel's International, but I think these are the words of a lover of racing, not betting.

That's fair enough, but it misunderstands the other crew - when a horse is tens on trying a new trip, a value-seeking punter is entitled to ask the question regarding its stamina.

 

[Ian_Davies]

It takes one day's rain to make g to f ground heavy at York; I was there in 1988 and it happened; that was a 3 day meeting.
Whoever named it "the Knavesmire " knew his onions.

York form in holding ground can help - Beldale Flutter won the Dante in bad ground and returned to win in August in bad ground.

I agree holding ground is unlikely in August nowadays, but it's not impossible.

IF it happened, that 1m2f110yds suddenly wants some getting and they'd maybe never have a better chance of getting a Group 1 win at that commercially-beneficial trip into Lambourn.

 

[Slim]

As a student, for a holiday job I used to work in the early 80s for Habbershaws bookmakers who had a rails pitch at York.

They said it was hard to win there when it was quick and hard to lose when it got holding - even horses who went in the mud elsewhere often came unstuck.

I was at the three days of the Dante meeting one year with Lord Hartigan. It never stopped raining. We got word for the first winner at 16/1. It was the last winner I backed for the three days.

 

[Ian_Davies]

It's horrible for punters there when it rains, for sure.

And every year many people forget this.

I agree it's odds-on to be dry weather - and the only issue will be how much water they chuck on it - but if we get August storms I wouldn't want to be on Field Of Gold at a short price and, if he runs, I'd imagine plenty will be place laying him.