The Sectional Thread

[Desert Orchid]

I wasn't sure which thread to use for this so thought I'd start one that focuses on sectional times and comparisons.

Hopefully it will help stimulate debate.

Who knows, maybe even Prufrock will be tempted to join in?

I've had a look at the CCGC and Novice Chase yesterday over the same course and distance and won respectively by Chatham Street Lad and Fusil Raffles.

As ever, my timings are as rough as a Dundee whoor since they deal only in whole seconds taken as the leaders' withers are over each obstacle, so could be a couple of lengths out either way, taken from the first fence/flight rather than when the clock starts (not the same as the race start).

I also plan to compare the 2m race won by Sky Pirate for his 2m trip, just out of curiosity. I'll post that later.

The story of the above two races is quite easily told. From F1 to F9 they went second-for-second up front. Over the next two the novices pulled ahead, were hauled back and pulled ahead again. By F14 they were about 10 lengths in front, a lead they held until two out.

This is where the picture changed nothing short of dramatically.

In the short run from two out to the last, Chatham Street Lad was three seconds (15 lengths) faster.

From the last to the line, he pulled a further 25 lengths clear. That is truly mindboggling.

Runner-up Midnight Shadow also took the run-in five lengths faster than Fusil Raffles.

They appeared to go quite strongly in the novices' race with Quel Destin struggling at halfway and Fusil Raffles himself seemingly staying on past a tiring leader from the last.

Even in the CCGC, the pace-setters were dropping out going to two out as the tempo told yet the winner just ran away from them. I'll try and convert these comparisons to figures during the week but I reckon it backs up my immediate impression that we saw a Graded horse in a handicap. I can see me going very positively with my figures. They are probably festival-esque.

 

[barjon]

Yes, Chatham Street Lad looks some horse. In the novice Fusil Raffles had a hard time himself overhauling the dying Lieutenant Rocco . Mind you, if Midnight Shadow took 5 lengths out of him after the last compared to Chatham Street Lad’s 25 lengths then that says Chatham Street Lad took 20 lengths out of Midnight Shadow and it doesn’t look like that particularly since the winning margin was only 15 lengths and Midnight Shadow was already about 4/5 lengths behind at the last?

 

[Desert Orchid]

I also plan to compare the 2m race won by Sky Pirate for his 2m trip, just out of curiosity. I'll post that later.

Given that Gino appeared to blaze a trail you would expect his timings to be a bit faster than the longer races.

Not a bit of it.

He ran from F1 to F8 in exactly the same time as the leader in the novices' race (which was over half a mile further)

He actually lost a second to the next fence before pulling it back by the next (five out). By three out he had lost another second but he had run his race and now Ibleo was taking over and upping the pace. Ibleo was ten lengths faster than both the longer races from three out to two out.

From two out to the last Ibleo was ten lengths faster than the novices but five lengths slower than CSL.

From the last to the line Ibleo was passed by Sky Pirate and the distance was completed in the same time as CSL. Sky Pirate was probably half a second slower (since he was behind Ibleo at the jump) but he did it easily. He has still probably run the distance more than 25 lengths faster than Fusil Raffles, which you might expect given the shorter race trip but it also means CSL has won a strongly-run two and a half mile race with the finishing kick of a two-miler.

 

[Desert Orchid]

Yit doesn’t look like that particularly since the winning margin was only 15 lengths and Midnight Shadow was already about 4/5 lengths behind at the last?

The 25 lengths refers to the comparison with the leader in the novice race.

And, as I said, my timings are rough and definitely in need of checking. I would need to go back and compare individual horse timings for a clearer picture and that's a bit of a fouter.

 

[barjon]

The 25 lengths refers to the comparison with the leader in the novice race.

And, as I said, my timings are rough and definitely in need of checking. I would need to go back and compare individual horse timings for a clearer picture and that's a bit of a fouter.

Yes, I realise that. You also said Midnight Shadow was 5 lengths faster than Fusil Raffles, therefore that would make CSL 20 lengths faster than MS? That doesn't seem right - from the winning distance 15 lengths and CSL being in front by 5l lengths at the last it would seem he was only 10 lengths faster than MS?

Just a thought, but don't let it create more work

 

[Maxbet]

The novices ran the same pace as the 2 milers until two fences to go...then the extra distance and the 21Lb extra weight took it's toll up the hill to the finish.

Fusil carried 12Lb's more than Chatham, had no Peleton to shield within and went the pace of Gino trail, weakening well after he'd had enough...I'd be upgrading that novice race...

 

[reet hard]

Sectionals are a useful tool in the right hands. However, they're a misnomer for application to NH races, run over unmeasured and variable segments. It's also true that a horse can gain lengths on another when jumping any obstacle or on grounds of impediment, rendering value as a proper guide to pace measurement unreliable, at best.
Having said that, electronic NH race times can prove useful, particularly in conjuction with practiced race-reading, and they show a 6.74secs difference between the above races, which shows the CCGC had better pace somewhere. Can't feign the interest to find out where, or figure the yardage that involves, but the difference between novices and experienced handicappers will surely have played a part.

 

[Desert Orchid]

Without knowing if there were any adjustments for rails being dolled out and just using the comparative times as published in the RP, I'm still getting very big figures for Chatham Street Lad.

Including calculations for weight carried, CSL was 17lbs faster than Fusil Raffles (OR 150, might go up this week) and 28lbs faster than Sky Pirate (134, likely to go up about 10lbs).

I look forward to seeing what my own figures say later in the week.

 

[ep1987]

From the last to the line, he pulled a further 25 lengths clear. That is truly mindboggling.

As has been pointed out it was in fact 15 lengths further clear after the last for a 'winning' margin of 20 lengths over Fusil Raffles.

 

[Desert Orchid]

As has been pointed out it was in fact 15 lengths further clear after the last for a 'winning' margin of 20 lengths over Fusil Raffles.

As I said, my timings are crude but I have CSL going from 2 out to the last three seconds (15 lengths) faster than FR (but he was ten lengths behind to start with). From the last to the line he was a further five seconds (25 lengths) faster. On my crude timings he covered the whole race six seconds (30 lengths) faster than FR.

The official times, as published in the RP, have CSL running overall 6.74 seconds faster (29.5 lengths at the trip) than Fusil Raffles.

CSL came from behind FR [on the clock] two out.

I suspect we're not arguing the same points.

 

[reet hard]

The novices ran the same pace as the 2 milers until two fences to go...then the extra distance and the 21Lb extra weight took it's toll up the hill to the finish.

Too many of the pace horses finishing prominent suggest it was more of a speed test than one of stamina. Might explain the winners finish to some degree, too.

edit to add; Referring to the h'cap chase,of course.

 

[reet hard]

Delving further into race-times, it appears - according to RP standard times - the Bula was (relatively) the fastest time of the day, yet that, itself , wasn't nearly a searching gallop, a view confirmed by the replay, where the field (sans Goshen) were virtually in line abreast in the closing stages, a view supported by 6 of the 10 finishers being within 4l of the victor.
The logical conclusion (imo) is none of the races on the day were run particularly quickly, which throws into question the actual state of the ground (assuming both courses were similar) and ensuing going allowances redundant (an assumption the RP swerves, by changing the g/a between the 2.25 & 3.00 races, indicating the groud had dried out by 0.43 spff in the interim :blink ??

 

[barjon]

Yes, I realise that. You also said Midnight Shadow was 5 lengths faster than Fusil Raffles, therefore that would make CSL 20 lengths faster than MS? That doesn't seem right - from the winning distance 15 lengths and CSL being in front by 5l lengths at the last it would seem he was only 10 lengths faster than MS?

Just a thought, but don't let it create more work

Mornin’ desert,

Sorry to be a dumbo on this, but I wonder if you would re-visit my earlier post (quoted above) relating to the comparative runs from the last and let me know how I’ve got it wrong. Thanks

 

[Desert Orchid]

Mornin’ desert,

Sorry to be a dumbo on this, but I wonder if you would re-visit my earlier post (quoted above) relating to the comparative runs from the last and let me know how I’ve got it wrong. Thanks

Not making excuses, barjon, but I will get back to you on this asap. I've just this second been given cancellation appointment at the eye hospital and if they treat me it might put my vision out of commission for a week!

(Just in time for Christmas. Great.

 

[barjon]

Not making excuses, barjon, but I will get back to you on this asap. I've just this second been given cancellation appointment at the eye hospital and if they treat me it might put my vision out of commission for a week!

(Just in time for Christmas. Great.

Ok,hope it goes well

 

[Desert Orchid]

Mrs O has cancelled a meeting in order to take me to hospital so I've gained a wee bit of time.

My comparison (re 'further 25 lengths') was CSL v FR but it assumes - using Simon Rowlands's ballpark 5-lengths-per-second rule of thumb, which I disagree with but he only uses it for illustration, which I get - so I need to look at MS separately.

CSL was just under 2s behind FR two out but got to the last a second ahead of him and from the last to the line he took another 5s off FR. As official times show, he was about bewteen six and seven seconds faster for the whole race and that margin is accounted for form two out to the line.

CSL v MS: they jumped two out pretty much together. CSL got to the last between one and two seconds ahead of MS (this is where the 'whole second' clock puts us at a disadvantage because it doesn't look like 10 lengths, more like six) and from the last to the line CSL was three 'whole' seconds faster than MS. I said some time back on another thread that using 'whole' seconds could make for conversions to lengths up to five lengths (slightly less) wrong and this is where the anomaly arises, I think, since the official margin was 15 lengths. So CSL has gained a further nine or ten lengths on MS from the last to the line.

Perhaps my excitement at the visual performance fuzzied my communication of what I was noting down.

Hope this helps.

 

[barjon]

Mrs O has cancelled a meeting in order to take me to hospital so I've gained a wee bit of time.

My comparison (re 'further 25 lengths') was CSL v FR but it assumes - using Simon Rowlands's ballpark 5-lengths-per-second rule of thumb, which I disagree with but he only uses it for illustration, which I get - so I need to look at MS separately.

CSL was just under 2s behind FR two out but got to the last a second ahead of him and from the last to the line he took another 5s off FR. As official times show, he was about bewteen six and seven seconds faster for the whole race and that margin is accounted for form two out to the line.

CSL v MS: they jumped two out pretty much together. CSL got to the last between one and two seconds ahead of MS (this is where the 'whole second' clock puts us at a disadvantage because it doesn't look like 10 lengths, more like six) and from the last to the line CSL was three 'whole' seconds faster than MS. I said some time back on another thread that using 'whole' seconds could make for conversions to lengths up to five lengths (slightly less) wrong and this is where the anomaly arises, I think, since the official margin was 15 lengths. So CSL has gained a further nine or ten lengths on MS from the last to the line.

Perhaps my excitement at the visual performance fuzzied my communication of what I was noting down.

Hope this helps.

Thanks, Desert, hope all went well at the eye hospital and that they can do something about your deteriorating eyesight. Fingers crossed.

Can I re-cap and accepting we’re talking rough and ready. In your original post together with the latest you say:

1. CSL gained 25 lengths on FR last to line.
2. MS gained 5 lengths on FR last to line.
3. CSL gained 10 lengths on MS last to line.

It’s MS “only” gaining 5 lengths that doesn’t sit right with me me. Shouldn’t it be 15 lengths by reference to 1 and 3?

I say this because, like Maxbet earlier, I think it was the novices dying that caused the remarkable pick up of CSL and that would be confirmed if MS did something similar. It was, of course, still a classy performance by CSL.

 

[Desert Orchid]

Hi barjon.

Not long back and my eyes are still dilated from the drops for the scan so I hope I'm reading my numbers correctly.

Two out CSL & MS were pretty much beside each other, a second behind the leader in FR's race. From memory, I think FR was a few lengths off the leader.

Two out to one out:
CSL 11s
MS 12s
FR 13s

One out (ie last fence) to line:
CSL 17s
MS 20s
FR 22s

That suggests MS was another ten(-ish) lengths faster up the run-in.

I think I know where I mis-read my original figures to come up with five lengths. Put it down to a brain fart but I'm pleased to receive constructive comment.

It all helps the debate.

If we accept that the novices were'dying' up the hill, wouldn't that point to a strong pace, which is certainly how it looked with the Lieutenant chappy-horsey seemingly striding strongly out in front. Yet, the handicap has ripped the arse out of it from two out, the winner covering the split from two out to the line a second faster than the pace in the two-mile race. (I haven't yet done a direct comparison between CSL and Sky Pirate from two out to the line. I suspect CSL was faster.)

 

[Maxbet]

the winner covering the split from two out to the line a second faster than the pace in the two-mile race. (I haven't yet done a direct comparison between CSL and Sky Pirate from two out to the line. I suspect CSL was faster.)

Not worth doing Do....Sky Pirate never came off the bridle up the run in....CSL was driven out...

 

[Desert Orchid]

(I haven't yet done a direct comparison between CSL and Sky Pirate from two out to the line. I suspect CSL was faster.)

Two out to the line CSL was a second faster but from three out to two out SP was two seconds faster.

I think it was worth doing, Maxbet, if only for the academic exercise.

Scu said in his post race interview he was flat out at the top of the hill and couldn't get any closer than he was so his stamina has kicked in. He did appear to be cruising but at that stage of a race I'm never convinced they can find much more than a length if driven right out.

It still suggests CSL was finishing fast off a strongly run race.

 

[barjon]

Desert,

Let’s hope the scan throws up something useful. You must be pretty worried about it since it does seem a helluva lot more than a nuisance after all.

Back to CSL. Obviously he’s hot stuff to have won like that (and MS no slouch, either), but I think his class may be exaggerated by comparison with FR’s time from two out and in the run-in. I just thought that might temper your rating a touch.

 

[Grasshopper]

This isn't said to be cheeky or to run-down the debate, but the question I always ask when Sectional discussions are surfaced is:

"What can this analysis tell me about how a horse is going to perform in its next race?"

If it can't help inform the answer, isn't Sectional analysis all just a bit like.....I dunno....pointless navel-gazing?

How do I go about applying Sectional analysis from an event in the past, to an event in the future - where I do not know in advance the precise nature of the ground, or the precise nature of the pace that will apply? I've always been somewhat of an arch-septic about times in Jumps races for primarily this reason i.e. I can't see how it can usefully be applied as part of weighing-up a race that's yet to be held, and would perhaps give it more credence if someone was able to provide me with an answer to this question.

PS: I get the whole "Good horses can run bad times but bad horses can't run good times" thing.........but that doesn't really tell me anything more than what is already self-evident.

PPS. Please don't respond with how this can be applied more usefully on the Flat, because we all know I couldn't give a monkeys.


DO, hope you get your yaks sorted soon.

 

[Maxbet]

I think it was worth doing, Maxbet, if only for the academic exercise. Scu said in his post-race interview he was flat out at the top of the hill

At no point did Sky Pirate come off the bridle, Scu's hands never left his trouser pockets...I would suggest whatever he said post-race, was for the handicappers ears!

This was Sky Pirates first race at 2 miles, he beat a good benchmark of handicappers as if he'd just joined them 2 out. This is exactly the course he will run on against horses of the same ilk on Friday at Cheltenham come March...Hills have got this one very wrong at 16/1....

 

[Desert Orchid]

This isn't said to be cheeky or to run-down the debate, but the question I always ask when Sectional discussions are surfaced is:

"What can this analysis tell me about how a horse is going to perform in its next race?"

I'll answer this part first (assuming I can find answers at some point to the rest of your post, GH :lol, I don't study it from that angle. I study it to get a better idea of how good the horse is. Maybe a more seasoned sectionalista like Prufrock can interpret the data more effectively along the lines of your angle.

What the sections tell my rudimentary reading of them is that CSL is probably some way better than my first impression.

I wondered if they had gone too fast up front and the race fell apart. I was disappointed that Coole Cody wasn't ridden as aggressively as last time and I put that down to the change of jockey or maybe the horse not being fully over a hard race last month. But I'm more inclined to believe the sections are telling us that it was a very efficiently-paced race since most of the principals were in the front half of the field all the way and it may be that that's where you need to be in a classy race at the track. It couldn't possibly have been a slow race since they largely went the same pace as the two-miler and left the CD novices for dead.

It won't tell me what each horse will do next but it gives me a better idea of how strong the form is and that is important to me.

What will help tell me what the horse will do next is the handicapper's reaction. If he 'just' raises the winner 15lbs for the win and leaves Midnight Shadow alone, I reckon the latter will win a very decent handicap off the same mark.

As I said the other day - and say often - is that I always like to at least consider the 'take x out of the equation' approach. Take CSL out of the equation and Midnight Shadow is an impressive winner in his own right from a very strong, competitive field who have run a fast pace due to efficient sections, almost as fast as the two-milers and faster than highly-rated novices who were taken along at a fast pace themselves.

I do think someone who takes their racing as seriously as you do, GH, might be missing out on an important angle in evaluating horses and races. I would urge you at least to follow the debates with an open mind.

As General George S Patton said, "If we're all thinking the same then at least one of us isn't thinking."

 

[Grasshopper]

OK......thanks, DO - that makes sense to me.

I was trying to draw an anology to Sectionals perhaps being more useful in terms of supporting (or deriving) a rating, rather than to ‘find a winner’....but it didn’t read very well, so I pulled it from my post.