- This topic has 25 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
The WFA Table – practically untouched since the 1860s but with no mathematical reasoning presented. Why does the horseracing community continue to accept arcaic recipes (the Official handicappers’ methods, WFA) when we could address them and improve our sport?
Open Open Office Calc or MS Excel. Open copy of WFA table. Start with 2yos. Start with 5f data.
The WFA is in 2 week intervals. Make Jan 1 = 1, Jan 16 = 2 (2yos end at 24, 3yos end at 48 and for later distances, 4yos end at 72)
Column 1 = 1 to 72 (weeks)<br>Column 2 = 5f data => 47 lbs allowed @ week 6, 44 lbs @ week 7<br>Column 3 = 6f data…<br>and so on
Make Chart.
Set X-Axis : 1 to 72.<br>Set Y-Axis: the corresponding pounds allowed at each 2 week interval.
Do this for all distances.
What do you see? Does it make sense?
EC
I know how you(and many others) arrive at their standards. They are based on averages, either mean or median times. I’ve no quarrel with that. You know what they translate to in terms of class and you can make an assessment of the going from that. As I’ve stated before, the RP standards are based not on averages, but on the best achievable times, so they are bound to be lower than your own standards.
I think it is the going assessment where we are at odds. It’s the names we use to describe the going that causes the disagreement. The times on Wednesday were (by RP standards) within the range they describe as good, but measured against your standards they were indicating fast ground. What I’m saying is that good ground(as indicated by RP standards) can produce times not too far away from track records. If you read my last post, you will see that I believe the issue of describing the going is not black and white, or day and night.
Anyway, there were some interesting times recorded in the pair of races I mentioned yesterday. In the 5f sprints, La Cucaracha was 0.09 secs below the expected time, but surprisingly only 0.19secs(4lbs) faster than Hollbeck Ghyll, a horse rated 37lbs behind her on RPRs. Either the latter has improved dramatically or the going speeded him up and the Group 3 wasn’t as quick as we thought. Maybe the wind was up to it’s tricks, but this is a poser for ratings compilers. Personally, I would take a conservate view and assume that Hollbeck Ghyll, who won easily, has improved by about 8lbs and work from there.
The other pair of races featured a very good performance from the 2yo Cumin, who was only 0.29secs(5lbs) slower than the 3yo Dream Theme.<br>Adjusting for weight carried and WFA, Cumin is 23lbs better than the Class 2 handicap winner on this showing. Cumin won by 7 lengths and will be interesting next time if not aimed too high.
Robin
Most people accept that the WFA scale is an imperfect measure of relative maturity, but so are many other measurements form students/handicappers use such as time/weight/distance scales. The WFA scales have been amended by the RP to reflect their handicappers’ opinions, but they are still only averages with significant variances.
Mathematics isn’t much help, I’m afraid. If we made a proper scientific assessment of the possible errors in our form calculations, it would be so great that we might give up. <br>
EC,
What do we really mean by ‘Good’ ground?
I think yesterday(Thursday) the track was perfect for horses to stride out freely which allowed a top class horse, Yeats to break the 2 mile track record, and also Road To Love, a very useful 3yo handicapper to do the same. The going was good to firm based on RP standards. I’m no expert on soil husbandry, so I don’t know whether watering has a slowing effect if applied in a controlled way. It certainly does if the heaven’s open.
I heard Micheal Hills commenting on the ground today.<br>He said it was perfect good ground and he wasn’t surprised that records had been broken. He went on to say that if the ground was too firm, horses couldn’t get their toe into it and really push themselves forward and achieve fast times. The correlation between fast times and firmer ground still holds, but there must be some give in it, which is probably why there have been track records – the watering has actually helped.
Another course record went today if I am correct. Spectait covered 8f in 95.61 against the record of 95.66, so the going must be perfect again. I think they watered last night, so they seem to be doing a good job.
I can’t believe the debate about this. If horses are breaking track records the ground is fast no too ways about it. The ground may have a good covering of grass and a nice feel to it but it is still fast ground, you can’t break track records on average, everyday ground which is what good is – in the middle of hard and heavy.
If the ground is rock hard most horses won’t let themselves down, it’s clearly not rock hard ground but it is faster than genuine good ground it has to be.
(Edited by The Market Man at 6:34 pm on Aug. 4, 2006)
There is a huge difference between the wfa scale used by Timeform and the official one, and with good reason.
For instance, the official wfa for a 2yo at 5f in early April is 44lb, whereas Timeform use 27.
Timeform are much nearer the mark in my view (they have to be if their timefigures for 2yos are to be any use whatsoever).
The one I use is quite close to theirs but actually slightly tougher on 2yos still.<br>
Market Man,
The track records have been broken on fast ground, which is described as Good to Firm using the race times in conjunction with RP standards.
EC,
The going was certainly quicker on Thursday and Friday than it was on Wednesday. The corresponding going allowance for a description of Good is between -0.2 and +.10 secs per furlong, and for Good to Firm, +0.11 to +0.24 secs per furlong. As you can see, a very small change in the allowance moves the description from Good up to Good to Firm.
The effect of weight on horses performance is a subject in itself, made even more complex by the differing rates of maturity of individual horses. Unless we have specific information about a particular horse, we have to generalise. I believe some 2yos need every pound of the WFA allowance to bring their time performance into line with mature horses, while others need much less of an allowance. Every time I see a really good time figure for a 2yo, I am inclined to think the horse is ahead of the WFA scale and might not improve as much as other juveniles.
I’m sorry, EC, I must seem like a pain in the backside.
I agree with you about a very small change bringing about a change in description from ‘good’ to ‘good to firm’, but that’s just the way it is. Personally, I would just use the numbers, as you normally do, e.g +10 to mean about 10lbs faster than good – if that is what that means to you. Words are too confusing and have such shades of meaning that we end up arguing over them, even though our definitions of say, good going, are obviously different.
When I was in the school debating society many moons ago, we always wanted speakers to ‘define their terms’ to avoid confusion.
Since I am using RP standards, I have to define good going as in the range that produces going allowances of between -0.20 and +0.10, such allowances being calculated using the RP standards for race times, WFA, and RPRs used by Topspeed. I might also try to describe it in words such as ground that is generally regarded by jockeys, trainers and other professionals connected with racing as being a surface that allows the majority of horses to stride out freely without jarring themselves(good = beneficial).
Finally, I hope… I have to repeat that the RP standard times are the best achievable on good ground by very useful horses and therefore, they would look fast to anyone using mean or median time standards, and they will, in many cases be close to track records.
EC,
Nice to exchange banter….
By the way, I said ‘very useful’ rather than ‘very good’
In my mind, a ‘useful’ horse is one with a RPR of 85+ and a Topspeed just below.<br> <br>It’s those damn words again. Such rough tools. No wonder Lawyers make a good living arguing over nuances of meaning.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.