The Dewhurst

EC1 said:
but surely at Newmarket..its not possible to run 100% in a true run race anyway over the last 2 furlong the ...last 2f would be expected to be slower due to the last furlong being uphill..in a true run race on good ground you would be looking at 12.5 -13.00 sec.. last furlong time for instance

the challenge stakes isn't a problem time at all..its a great marker for the dewhurst

in fact ..if the challenge stakes is a slow time then the ground would time at Good..which it clearly wasn't

on good to soft..Twice Over has already run a very slow figure...if the Challenge Stakes is only a 106 race..then twice over has run 36lbs below par..very hard to beleive..its slow enough at 26lbs under par.

I would love to see if any other speed figure maker had the challenge stakes 15lbs slow..i had it 4 slow and that still gives Frankel a bare 121 figure..because it would have to be Good ground to give it that figure..does anyone think it was Good ground?..i know i certainly don't
Click to expand...

Frankel ran it in 101.2% and Cape Dollar in 99.7%.

I have Red Jazz 19 slow. Timeform has Red Jazz 22 slow.

Red Jazz's time is 0.31 sec slower than Frankel's. That is about 5 lb slower. They both carried the same weight. If weight-for-age is taken into account then Red Jazz's time is something like 21 lb slower than Frankel's. If weight-for-age is not taken into account the difference remains about 5 lb but you are operating on a completely different scale to anyone who is incorporating weight-for-age.
 
J Alfred Prufrock said:
Frankel ran it in 101.2% and Cape Dollar in 99.7%.

I have Red Jazz 19 slow. Timeform has Red Jazz 22 slow.

Red Jazz's time is 0.31 sec slower than Frankel's. That is about 5 lb slower. They both carried the same weight. If weight-for-age is taken into account then Red Jazz's time is something like 21 lb slower than Frankel's. If weight-for-age is not taken into account the difference remains about 5 lb but you are operating on a completely different scale to anyone who is incorporating weight-for-age.
Click to expand...

if Red Jazz was slow..then the ground was good on your allowance ..as said above..thats not possible

the flaw as i see it..is that you using wfa to push down RJ's rating..to me thats really flawed..because that allowance is hypothetical and does not exist on the day

2yo races shouldn't be used to gain going allowances..simply because you haven't got a reliable mark on them.

your going allowance must point to Good ground with RJ rating being so slow..surely you know it wasn't

to call RJ's race slow..again..i'm amazed..it just isn't a slow run race..i'm staggered any racereader thinks it is..in fact is it April 1?

you should be crediting Frankel with beating RJ's time..not using the Dewhurst to push all the other races down...doesn't make sense to me that
 
Last edited:
if Red Jazz was slow..then the ground was good on your allowance ..as said above..thats not possible
Click to expand...
No it was not good on my allowance (or on Timeform's). It was 116 on my allowance, which is Good to Soft.

2yo races shouldn't be used to gain going allowances..simply because you haven't got a reliable mark on them.
Click to expand...
Completely and utterly disagree.

your going allowance must point to Good ground with RJ rating being so slow..surely you know it wasn't
Click to expand...
See above.

to call RJ's race slow..again..i'm amazed..it just isn't a slow run race..i'm staggered any racereader thinks it is..in fact is it April 1?
Click to expand...
Red Jazz finished notably slowly - about 1.5 sec slower for the last 2f than Frankel - that is a fact. That implies that the race was not run in an efficient manner.

EC, I have never ridiculed your attempts to get to grips with time analysis, no matter how amateurish and illogical they appear to me. I would appreciate it if you would extend me the same courtesy.
 
if you look at a race like Haffhd's guineas..his finishing speed was 97.23%...that was a true run race..possibly just too fast early..but it highlights that the last 2f of the 8f course in that instance doen't average out at 100%..due to the uphill finish

so RJ's % isn't pointing to a slow finishing time its probably about average for Newmarket
 
Last edited:
Are you getting these sectionals from the RUK footage or in some other fashion, Prufrock?

Manual timing from what are close enough to head-on shots seems scarcely practical to me.
 
Last edited:
J Alfred Prufrock said:
No it was not good on my allowance (or on Timeform's). It was 116 on my allowance, which is Good to Soft.

Completely and utterly disagree.

See above.

Red Jazz finished notably slowly - about 1.5 sec slower for the last 2f than Frankel - that is a fact. That implies that the race was not run in an efficient manner.

EC, I have never ridiculed your attempts to get to grips with time analysis, no matter how amateurish and illogical they appear to me. I would appreciate it if you would extend me the same courtesy.
Click to expand...

if you got good to soft then your standard time must be set in the Good/firm area..not good. Your suggestion is that RJ was capable of running a second faster..as i said above..RJ would then only be 2.7 ish seconds outside the track record..thats not good to soft.

your last sentence..i think you are the one ridiculing me..amateurish & illogical?...that looks patronising and elitist to me.

well..I am only an amateur..and of course that makes me less knowledgeable than others..in the eyes of professionals...whatever they may be in the context of this..how do you distinquish a pro at this game then..is it so many races rated?...so many years at it..where you have worked?

i wasn't meaning to ridicule anyone..i'm just staggered that anyone thinks a horse can run 85 seconds over 7f at Newmarket on Good/Soft ground

if you say the first furlong is 13 seconds..from a standing start..then a horse has to run 12 second sectionals..every furlong including the last uphill one

I doubt thats possbble on the ground we saw on Saturday..but you must think thats possible if you think the ground was Good to soft and that RJ hasn't run near his OHR
 
trackside528 said:
Are you getting these sectionals from the RUK footage or in some other fashion, Prufrock?

Manual timing from what are close enough to head-on shots seems scarcely practical to me.
Click to expand...

Newmarket did used to supply sectionals through Turftrax? Not sure if they still do.

Your point is the reason I've never got into sectionals, I know a few people who make them pay but I see too much grey area with manual timing them myself.

Be interested to hear how others manage to do it successfully, I find there already aren't enough hours in the week to complete speed ratings without bringing sectionals into it!
 
My understanding was that Turftrax stopped producing sectionals entirely a couple of years back.

The viability of sectionals is largely dependent on camerawork. I mainly concentrate on Irish racing (where I don't think actual speed figures are viable for a number of reasons) but certain tracks - Leopardstown and Dundalk to take two examples - provide a good opportunity to get relatively accurate sectionals.

More of an aide to my form analysis (anything that can replace the subjectivity of the naked eye with a figure must be worth giving a go) than anything else.
 
Last edited:
I wonder how many people who make speed figures us the Topspeed standards for Newmarket

even as an amateur..I can see there is something seriously wrong with them.

I don't know what standards Gus or Pru use..i assume their own..but if its the RP ones the flaws are clear to see.

Firstly..I'll just post my standard on true Good ground for a 90 race..or class C..for 7f there...86.20

ok..thats open to question..as is any standard..but its based on class C races over 7f in true run races on official Good ground..some of those races are on good..some will be g/s..some will be g/f..but taking a median [the average gives the same} of races all brought to class C with a 90 best horse gives that figure..its a s good a method as any for finding a standard for good ground.

I tend to find that the Topspeed standards are faster than mine..which is understandable as they based on about class B..ie a horse rated 100 carrying 9-0. I see a similar difference between mine and Topspeed's..EXCEPT when it comes to Newmarket and a couple of other courses...imo their standrads are more like G/F.

I also calculated class C with races run on official Good/Firm..that figure is 85.10...now those two calculations sit pretty well together..Good = 86.2..& G/F= 85.1.

Whether anyone thinks that method of making standards is shit or not..its logical..and hopefully not too amateurish:)

the Newmarket standard is 83.20...thats fookin staggering...yes it should be faster than mine..but by 3 bloody seconds!!!!

there is something very wrong with that time..and all their times at Newmarket are extremely fast

another way to crosscheck how accurate a standard is..if you thinks it miles out..is to compare it to the course record...no its not to a millisecond..its a rough guide if you think a standard is so far out its daft:)

Topspeeds 7f standard is just 1 second slower than the fastest ever time recorded there..that alone tells you there is a problem. Now if every other course had that same difference re the course record and teh RP standard..I would still question it..but at least it would be consistent

If you look at Ascot..the 7f record time there is 84.94..but the RP standard is 2 seconds slower..similarily their 8f standard is 2 seconds slower than the record

Obviously we have to stick to quality courses where horses are around the 100 mark to keep this comparable...at lower quality courses its quite understandable that a 100 standrad can be as fast as the fastest ever race run due to low standard of horse competing.

Lets look at York..the old 7f202y course where we have had many races run..the record is 94.81..the RP standard is 98.00...thats over 3 seconds slower than the record..yes Concer Uns ground was bloody hard but even if you slowed Concer Un down by a second..its still 2 seconds faster than the RP standard..which I wouldn't argue too much with.

again at York..the 6f214y course had plenty of races on it..the record is 81.31..the RP standard is 83.5...again 2+ seconds slower than the record.

So..there is a pattern with teh RP times..over distances that have had fast ground and plenty of races..2 seconds seems to be where their standard is usually set at 7f and 8f

then you have Newmarket..where over 7 & 8f their standard is set just 1 second slower than fastest times..some of those records are wind assisted too..but the RP still only have a good ground standard 1 second slower

it dosn't make sense does it?..their Newmarket standards are clearly in Good/firm territory..thats why topspeed most times says the ground is Good or slower there..because to run faster than their standard is very difficult on good ground..in fact impossible
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
Another forum has a complete section on speed figures going into detail about how they are calculated.
Click to expand...

I have gone into my own method of calculation on TRF and it's still on there in the archive section.

I've no doubt at all that plenty of holes can be picked in it but it's a worthwhile exercise as far as I'm concerned.

Basically, the standard times I use are the old Raceform ones circa 1990 which I think are also the ones DO uses. As time has passed some adaptations have been necessary but I'm happy with the Newmarket standards in particular.

Dealing with the Red Jazz/Frankel issue, my view is pretty straightforward. Frankel's time is faster than Red Jazz's by 0.31 secs plus weight-for-age. As I've said, that's 22lbs on my figures. If Red Jazz's race was truly-run (or efficiently-run which I accept might be a better way of putting it) then Frankel's time performance (and those of the placed horses in the Dewhurst) would be so far into the stratosphere as to be unbelievable. The only conclusion I can draw is that Red Jazz's overall time was quite slow. In fact, the time of the Rockfel was of considerably more assistance to me in coming up with a figure for Frankel.

Weight-for-age is a controversial subject in this context. EC and I have clashed over it on TRF in the past. In fact, we fell out over it (which I regret). I happen to believe in it but there's more than one way to skin a cat.
 
gus said:
I have gone into my own method of calculation on TRF and it's still on there in the archive section.

I've no doubt at all that plenty of holes can be picked in it but it's a worthwhile exercise as far as I'm concerned.

Basically, the standard times I use are the old Raceform ones circa 1990 which I think are also the ones DO uses. As time has passed some adaptations have been necessary but I'm happy with the Newmarket standards in particular.

Dealing with the Red Jazz/Frankel issue, my view is pretty straightforward. Frankel's time is faster than Red Jazz's by 0.31 secs plus weight-for-age. As I've said, that's 22lbs on my figures. If Red Jazz's race was truly-run (or efficiently-run which I accept might be a better way of putting it) then Frankel's time performance (and those of the placed horses in the Dewhurst) would be so far into the stratosphere as to be unbelievable. The only conclusion I can draw is that Red Jazz's overall time was quite slow. In fact, the time of the Rockfel was of considerably more assistance to me in coming up with a figure for Frankel.

Weight-for-age is a controversial subject in this context. EC and I have clashed over it on TRF in the past. In fact, we fell out over it (which I regret). I happen to believe in it but there's more than one way to skin a cat.
Click to expand...

cheers Gus

I agree that wfa is a tough one re speed figures.

I personally just can't be adding lbs to a horse's rating that it hasn't achieved..but that doesn't mean i don't have an expected time for a juvenile..its just that i don't like adding it on after..and I don't really like to use a juvenile to form a going allowance..yes you can back up an allowance..but not base it on a 2yo..imo

Beyer doesn't add wfa on his figures..and i think its the right course

if i did add wfa..i would be looking at reducing RJ's rating too..but..its this that points out to me that its wrong to reduce a mature time in favour of a juvenile one.

I got RJ's time 4 slow..which does indeed make the Dewhurst very high rated ..but only IF you add the wfa..but if you view Frankel as his bare rating..in my case 121..is that really high IF he didn't go on at 3yo?...alternatively if he does develop at an average rate then my mature rating is suggesting a 140ish mark.

As it is..i think its more realistic to judge a 2yo on his bare figure...after all..he hasn't proved that he is capable of improving 17/18 time lbs..but he has proven he can run to a 121 now..IF my figures are accurate..but now then..121 isn't actually a massive figure is it in the whole scheme of things?...particularly if he doesn't develop much more.

if you don't add wfa..you don't ever get hypothetical ratings..you get a true picture of actual ability.

i agree you do have to have a lower expectation when looking at the expected time..obviously

do you think the RP standards are way to hard to achieve over the shorter distances at newmarket?
 
Last edited:
In fact, the time of the Rockfel was of considerably more assistance to me in coming up with a figure for Frankel.

yes indeed..Frankel is 20 lb faster than a G2 winning filly

it then depends on what rating a 2yo G2 filly should get..on my figures it wouldn't be hard for a G2 filly to run a 98/100 figure without wfa added..which would point to Frankel being a 120 ish time
 
Ardross said:
Enter Picture Editor perhaps !
Click to expand...

And quickly exit...

If Frankel comes out of the Guineas well (particularly if he wins it!) he will surely contest the Derby unless the owner finds something else for the race. A Galileo Dewhurst/Guineas/Derby winner would be priceless.
 
I wouldn't write Picture Editor off just yet - Cecil said he felt he was over the top for the year.
 
He was the pick of the paddock and his lack of speed was disappointing

Thought Mongan gave him a poor ride - he seemed to panic .
 
Back
Top