- This topic has 106 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
A fascinating debate.
And also a reminder of why some people make money out of racing and other spend time on a forum telling people about the prices they have got on other horses as a justification of their all encompassing knowledge.
If the official going report is to be believed that is an incredible performance and 8/1 for the QM is massive.
Trouble is something tells me it wasnt an incredible performance…something I cant put my finger on
The same two things as me I guess Cav – 1) it was achieved at Ascot 2) it was Tamarinbleu – a horse it is very hard to believe is suddenly a potential Champion Chaser after having looked nothing more than a decent handicapper for most of his career…
That said, as has been seen on this forum, you can make a sensible case for the horse being a very good one on the basis of this win. Time will (hopefully) tell…..
- Total Posts 17716
Just a couple of questions for the clockers on Tamarinblue’s time on Saturday.
Because the race is now run over a new distance, and was abandoned last year, this is the only race at anything like this level that has been run over the distance since the course was relaid, Given the paucity of races to base standard times on for this distance, just how reliable are those ST’s?
The surface on the straight course is discernibly faster than the rest of the course, and has been so, flat and jumps, since the course was re-opened. Owing to the rather odd distance of Saturday’s race (17f) is it not the case that more than 1/3rd of this race would have actually been run on a significantly faster surface than the remainder, a higher percentage of better ground than at any other distance, thus skewing comparisons with races over different distances?
Just curious, and in no way trying to detract from what was still, imo, a very impressive performance.MikkyMo, the essential difference is that there is not just one MikkyMo running at a meeting there will be dozens. That’s a big enough sample to imagine that not all MikkyMos are under-performing on a given day. It is also likely that not all riders of MikkyMos will have been happy to set a slow pace. You also have sectionals to help you should you need them. When running 32 sec as opposed to 30 sec you are likely to have run the last part of the 200m (or whatever) more quickly in the former than the latter due to having conserved energy early.
I’m going back to look at my standards/sectionals at Ascot from scratch. It would still be remarkable to run 17f in 253 secs on heavy going at a track like Ascot if the trip was as advertised, and the disparity between Tamarinbleu’s time and the other dozen winning times over course and distance is not in line with the reported differences in going (once adjustments have been made).
How would an odds-compiler price the odds of Tamarinbleu running in the various races open to him at Cheltenham? Champion Chase should be narrow favourite over Ryanair, presumably?
Thanks Simon, I get it now – it’s a lot more scientific than I thought.
I’ll get my coat
Mike
Interestingly, Tamarinbleu, despite clearly going quickly, finished off only slightly slower than did Bleu Superbe over course and distance on 21/12/07. Perhaps we should call the ground soft that day: the official ground was "good to firm". Or maybe they made a point of relocating the winning post between the two meetings.
Now you’re taking the p*ss, right?! All that tells us is that Tamarinbleu handled the ground well and was able to run a fast time in it. I was at both meetings – the first meeting was indeed good to firm, I was surprised when walking the track at quite how fast it was.
In contrast, Saturday’s ground was very soft. I am told by an experienced judge of ground that the ground actually moved when walking on it, it was that soft – I didn’t get the opportunity to walk the track myself. However I had an exceptional viewing point for every race and it was clear to a blind man that the ground was very tiring and very soft – the horses were literally on their knees from at least the final bend.
As an aside, how can anyone possibly use times to any great accuracy at Ascot? The new track hasn’t even be open for two years yet, this is only halfway through it’s second NH season. Therefore how can accurate standard times be compiled from such a tiny sample of data? Not only that, how can daft comments based on such incomplete data such as "the ground was no worse than good to soft" possibly be uttered with any seriousness?
Interestingly, Tamarinbleu, despite clearly going quickly, finished off only slightly slower than did Bleu Superbe over course and distance on 21/12/07. Perhaps we should call the ground soft that day: the official ground was "good to firm". Or maybe they made a point of relocating the winning post between the two meetings.
Now you’re taking the p*ss, right?! All that tells us is that Tamarinbleu handled the ground well and was able to run a fast time in it. I was at both meetings – the first meeting was indeed good to firm, I was surprised when walking the track at quite how fast it was.
In contrast, Saturday’s ground was very soft. I am told by an experienced judge of ground that the ground actually moved when walking on it, it was that soft – I didn’t get the opportunity to walk the track myself. However I had an exceptional viewing point for every race and it was clear to a blind man that the ground was very tiring and very soft – the horses were literally on their knees from at least the final bend.
As an aside, how can anyone possibly use times to any great accuracy at Ascot? The new track hasn’t even be open for two years yet, this is only halfway through it’s second NH season. Therefore how can accurate standard times be compiled from such a tiny sample of data? Not only that, how can daft comments based on such incomplete data such as "the ground was no worse than good to soft" possibly be uttered with any seriousness?
the horses were literally on their knees from at least the final bend.
I must have missed that.
As an aside, how can anyone possibly use times to any great accuracy at Ascot? The new track hasn’t even be open for two years yet, this is only halfway through it’s second NH season. Therefore how can accurate standard times be compiled from such a tiny sample of data? Not only that, how can daft comments based on such incomplete data such as "the ground was no worse than good to soft" possibly be uttered with any seriousness?
Since you ask, there have been about 100 races at the new course. If you were using overall race times alone that would not be adequate to compile standard times at most distances, but when used in conjunction with sectional times it is.
I don’t know who was responsible for the remark "the ground was no worse than good to soft" – it certainly wasn’t me – but I find it no more laughable than someone maintaining that the ground was bottomless in the face of physical evidence to the contrary.
So basically, for any clockwatcher, it’s simply a case of ‘time can never lie’ and visual evidence and common sense come to mean next to nothing?
Using time to evaluate flat racing is one thing, but there are just far too many variables over hurdles, and over fences, for me to think that they hold any sort of analytical, going predicting, value.
Surely what can be agreed on is that the new Ascot course has some variables that make the form questionable.
The times that are being recorded either suggest one of three positions: –
1 – The ground is "odd" and seems to enable quick performances whatever the official going – or whatever the jockeys/trainers say.
2 – The standards seem to be out or the distances are in some way wrong.
3 – Arkle has been reborn in many shapes and sizes, but only recently.
What this tells us is that there are reliability issues here. It does not mean Tamarinbleu is a superstar, but nor does it suggest that he has not improved, as we cannot tell given the existing variables.
Oh for the future days when we have a clue what the actual going is…
Surely what can be agreed on is that the new Ascot course has some variables that make the form questionable.
.
Interestingly
Nov 18th 2006 is the only other time the going was described as Soft (Time based ground is also given as Soft ) and looking at the first 3 home in those races, it seems to suggest the form on such going at Ascot is fairly reliable
Mention has been made on this thread, and elsewhere, that NH races should take place over a distance within +/- 100yds of the advertised distance. However, in the GPS age what excuse, except in the most exceptional circumstances, can there be for any races not taking place over a trip within centimetres of that advertised?
the way Twist Magic stopped on saturday looked more like he simply couldnt pick up on the surface rather than actual stamina. Maybe i need to see it again….
I can only agree with TC regarding the local weather. I live nearby too and frankly I can barely recall a wetter week. The course was waterlogged in places just a few days before
- Total Posts 17716
Clivex
Could I suggest that you also look at the closing stages of the Tingle Creek, where he again went from cruising to flat out at the point where stamina became an issue?
Much of his hurdle form also suggests he is better when stamina isn’t at a premium.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.