Why did Ascot add water?

rorydelargy said:
Various courses have hurdle and chase tracks which vary enormously in their topography, not to mention the measurement of distance being occasionally ambiguous. Fontwell, Kelso, Ludlow and Sandown are tracks where the courses diverge entirely and where times cannot be easily compared.
Click to expand...

I see your point, Rory, but there are two sets of standard times for each NH racecourse to allow for the differences in their chase and hurdle tracks.

Only since this spring have the calculated going and the official going been so widely disparate at so many different courses, with the hurdle tracks returning times that are some 5/6 seconds per furlong slower than the chases on the same card in some cases.

Even allowing for the deluge of biblical proportions last summer, the going calculations have never been so widely different from either the official or chase track goings as they have this year.

Until this spring/summer, I have rarely had to make 2 separate going calculations for the chase and hurdle tracks (apart from Sandown and Leicester), but over the past 5/6 months it has been necessary to do so for at least 1 meeting a day.

The only thing I could think of to account for it was Shadow Leader's posting concerning the deteriorating quality of the ground raced on.

Just thought I'd pick a few brains, so if anyone has any suggestions?
 
Warbs may be able to offer his wise words on this one?

Or he'll just say concentrate on the flat and hibernate during the Winter?! :D
 
is it always the same Redhead?..ie always the hurdle track that is slower than the chase course

if it was distances being changed then you would expect it to be random..sometimes chase courses faster...sometimes hurdles

the only suggestion I might have is that the hurdles tracks are used less due to races being generally shorter on average...therefore the ground is not as compacted as the chase courses are...in many chases they are running a number of times on the same piece of track...whereas many hurdles races are 2 miles...novices etc

the extra compacting of the chase courses may make them quicker than the more open hurdles tracks

just a theory
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
is it always the same Redhead?..ie always the hurdle track that is slower than the chase course
Click to expand...

(I made an error in my last postings and said "seconds per furlong" rather than "per mile" - problem with being at work and trying to do 2 things at once.)

Yes it is, EC1. Only where the course has produced genuinely good ground do the two tracks show similar times. Exeter on Wednesday needed 2 separate calculations, with an average difference of 6 seconds per mile between the chase and hurdle tracks.

However, Towcester (where the jockeys said the ground was perfect)showed similar times on both chase and hurdle tracks which, until this spring/summer, used to be the norm throughout the year (barring the odd racecourse such as Sandown or Leicester).

I know that the hurdle tracks get more chewed up than the chase tracks, but that is usually predominant through the winter months and nowhere near as prevalent as it has been for the past 7 months.

I'm baffled:confused:
 
Some courses do have quirks in their geometery (like Ludlow) but for the most part hurdles courses tend to be slower due to the ground. This occurs most readily when theres a bit of rain around, as hurdles races can have up to 3 or 4 times the runners and they cut the ground up much more quickly. The best way you can evidence this is to just take a month like December or January and work you're way through every jumps race run in the UK in the RP database (takes about half an hour). Just note the number of occasions that a split going description is given. I'm prepared to speculate that on about 90% of the times it will be the hurdles course that earns the heavier description.

Rail alignment is of course a notorious problem and this will account for discrepancies. Some courses follow a pre-prepared plan it seems every year. Expect taunton to throw up some strange figure around late November.

There's another issue to do with turning speeds. If both courses are the alleged same distance, then the inside track will be tighter due to the geometery of having to fit inside the outside course.

Google Earth offers us a very accurate tool of measuring track lengths now from the armchair. It's much easier to do with flat racing, as one can pretty well see worn ground where the stall have been. Jumps presents more of a problem.

Dave Edwards mounted a campaign a couple of years ago after kempton was re-laid as chase times were routinely quicker than hurdles times by a significant margin. After about 6 months the BHB agreed to re-measure the course and he won a moral victory. The hurdles course was longer than advertised and the chase course shorter. However, it transpired that the BHB allowed something like a margin of 50 yards either side (or something like that) and both courses were on their respective limits, but found to be officially within their margin for error. To be honest in these days of laser measurements it shouldn't be beyond the ken to do it.

I might have a go myself at doing the RP thing, but there's a google earth mystery that I think I've solved related to Cheltenham. It was mentioned on a forum about 6 months ago, and I think I might have cracked it 6 months later. I'll pop it up elsewhere.
 
Thanks Warbler - I await your Cheltenham thread with interest.

My main problem is why these discrepancies have become so prevalent during the last 6/7 months. I've been keeping speed ratings for the past 15 years and have never seen anything like this during that time.

Now and then through the winter there would be very large differences between chase and hurdles courses for the obvious reason, but very rarely in the summer. Certainly this year has been wet, but the discrepancies didn't show up last year, which was just as wet.

The strange thing now is that at least one jumps meeting per day is throwing up hurdle times that are significantly slower than chase times when broken down to seconds per mile. Many of these discrepancies are on what has been given out as good or faster ground. Are so many Clerks of Courses such bad judges of ground (I know my local one is, but he must surely be an exception)?

Surely not all hurdle races are being run at crawls, with sprints at the end or vice versa?

The only thing I can think of is that many Clerks have become paranoid about watering and do so even when unnecessary.

I will try to find the time to adjust my own standard times and see what that throws up.
 
Warbler said:
How are you legilsating for the class of horse/ race?
Click to expand...

Different differentials allowed for each class of race - always taken into account when (as often happens in Ireland) you get 1 good-class race surrounded by low-grade maiden and handicap races.

I have devised a rough scale for the various ratings achieved in different class races e.g. a top-notch rating in a class 3 130 handicap would be comparable to a useful rating in the class above it.

The ratings themselves are also a fairly good rule-of-thumb for the actual pace of a race, although sometimes a very strong early pace will result in a low rating due to tiring at the finish - the Irish Champion Chase being a case in point.

Adjustments are made for long-margin winners who ease down, fast finishers and last fence fallers who otherwise had their race in the bag.

An Capall - I leave weight out of it where possible to keep things simple (maths is not my strong point), but a high rating achieved under a big weight is always taken note of.

I use the ratings as an indicator of a horse's ability and rely on form and what I see to corroborate this.

I am beginning to think that it may be purely down to the weather, although why it should have shown up so suddenly and sharply during the last 6/7 months when other wet summers have not had such an impact still puzzles me.
 
Warbler said:
Dave Edwards mounted a campaign a couple of years ago after kempton was re-laid as chase times were routinely quicker than hurdles times by a significant margin. After about 6 months the BHB agreed to re-measure the course and he won a moral victory. The hurdles course was longer than advertised and the chase course shorter. However, it transpired that the BHB allowed something like a margin of 50 yards either side (or something like that) and both courses were on their respective limits, but found to be officially within their margin for error. To be honest in these days of laser measurements it shouldn't be beyond the ken to do it.
Click to expand...

Some hilarious times run at Kempton yesterday to illustrate the point. Snap Tie beat standard by 12.28 secs (which is getting close to a full furlong). The appropriately named Woolcombe Folly beat standard by 8.35 secs
 
Last edited:
Back
Top