Originally posted by gus+Jun 3 2007, 08:28 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (gus @ Jun 3 2007, 08:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Warbler@Jun 2 2007, 07:17 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Galileo
@Jun 2 2007, 07:07 PM
Incidentally...what was Motivators time performance like in the Derby?
I had him with a short head of Kris Kin (practically dead heated) I was pleased when I woke the next day to find the sporting press proclaiming a vulnerable horse to be unbeatable. Didn't help me mind you, although I was pretty confident he wouldn't win again, I still backed the wrong one
Motivator's time performance in the Derby was a very good one on my figures (129) and considerably better than Kris Kin's. Timeform's timefigure for Motivator was 128, "the best in the race for some years." I can just about accept that someone can decide to oppose such a horse in future races on the ground that he'll go off at a false price but how anyone could be "pretty confident" after such a performance that the horse wouldn't win again is beyond me, I'm afraid, and the fact that he in the event didn't is neither here nor there.
Authorized's time yesterday comes out at a minimum 129 and a maximum 131 on my figures. I'd go with the higher figure but the appropriate going allowance produces a figure for the Woodcote which is slightly higher than I'd expect so I'll probably settle for 129 which means a going allowance very slightly on the minus (i.e. fast) side. [/b][/quote]
Apologies for the delay Gus, but I've dug the figures out. Remember these are time based only and make no concessions to form in the ratings, or projections of other horses. To some extent winners who weren't pushed out can get penalised a bit thus, as it is the time they stop the clock in that I pick up, and there are a few rogues in the sample (as there always is).
Basically what I did is simply take cross the card comparisons as the races have remained largely unaltered over the last 8 years. Alright the 10F, 3yo, 0-105, was an all age race before 2002. The Dash was a listed race rather than a handicap, and the 12F, 0-100 was a 0-105 in 2003. Such methodology is of course limited, in so far as a slower run tactical affair generates a slow time, as it makes no concession to how the race was run. With pretty well identical conditions though, and being run on the same course in the same week every year, the only thing that alters significantly is the ground, and making adjustments to this is perhaps the most important thing to do. I remove the slowest time on each card, and then average thus, in an attempt to filter out any race that is notably slow and corrupts the calculation. Such an approach is simplistic and in this case almost certainly has flattered North Light as I believe there to be 3 slow times on his card making the ground appear slower than it was, and hence his performance quicker.
Authorized = 111.58+
North Light = 111.23?
Galileo = 110.35+
Motivator = 108.58+
Kris Kin = 108.41
(Eagle Mountain) = 106.58
Sir Percy = 104.76p
High Chapperal = 102.17++
High Chapperal's Derby was run on softer ground making it a little bit more vulnerable, but the timed based evidence suggests it wasn't necessarily that strong a pace, although it was always possible that the ground was cutting up during racing. That Sir Percy was flat out to the line and still ran a comparatively slow time about 6.75L's behind Authorized points to him being a particularly poor winner.
Specifically you asked about Motivator, (a horse who I thought was on a mark with Kris Kin, on these figures he's a about a head in front).
I believe there is another a line that suggested Motivator was not a vintage winner, and that concerns comparisons made against the respective times with the 12F handicap run an hour later. Now in each instance the Derby is faster, as you would expect. Where the gap between the times is large, then I'd accept you might just as easily be picking up on a slowly run handicap, as much as you are a fast Derby. Indeed, this would be the most likely explanation. Where the gap is smaller though, I tend to think there's a greater likelihood that you're alighting on a slower Derby, rather than a particularly fast handicap (though clearly handicappers can run pattern class times now and then).
The followinbg figures are the seconds and lengths that the Derby was run faster than the 12F C&D handicap.
Authorized = 4.39 secs / 25.75L's
High Chapperal = 2.16 secs /12.75L's
Sinndar = 2.10 secs / 12.5L's
Galileo = 1.84 secs / 10.75L's
North Light = 1.53 secs / 9L's
Kris Kin = 1.45 secs / 8.5L's
Sir Percy = 1.37 secs / 8L's
Motivator = 0.98 secs / 5.75L's
Now whether this proves anything, or has any grounds to be presented as evidence of anything either, or is just coincidence is of course a matter of opinion? The hierarchy that it generates is quite interesting though and wouldn't be too far removed from a legitimate rank order, its certainly nearer than my first rank order. You could point out that perhaps Motivator ran on to a particularly fast handicapper on his card? I couldn't disregard the possibility. The average distance however is 1.97 secs / 11.5L's, and Motivator was still significantly down on this expectation, or the handicapper was a group 3/ 2 horse in the making.
Personally I was reasonably happy that there was a stronger possibility that Motivator was a hype horse resulting from the visual impression he made in winning, rather than anything he managed on the clock, and thus prepared to take him on at short odds in the Eclipse. That I didn't find Oratorio meant that the insight (I use the word loosely) was wasted
In fact I'm tempted to see just who the hell won that handicap in 2005 now norty
(don't ask). Hard not to be impressed by the winner who was travelling far best from two furlongs out. In earlier times, AUTHORISED would have been nailed on for the King George but the quality of older horses staying in training is much improved and the recent record of 3-y-o in the Ascot feature far from inspiring.
