- This topic has 36 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
An interesting comment
Gauging a horse’s ability to successfully handle a class rise is best determined by matching performance to par
<br>
Posted by deleted member EC, shame he’s no longer here to give his input on this
<br>27/8/05 <br>Cartmel <br>div 1: Nov Hurdle =  4m 13.4 <br>RP comment..a fair pace to this race <br>div 2: Nov Hurdle = 4m 11.4
The second divison is 2 seconds faster than a decently run first div..both races will look the same afterwards as far as form reading is concened..but we know the 2nd division contains potentially better animals..if you belive time means anything in NH racing
In that race two horses beat the field 9 lengths..again pointing to those two horses being above the percieved level of this sort of race
Aviation won by 1.5 lengths from Moonfleet
Next time out Aviation won in the same class @ 11/4..3 runs from this noted run he won @ 28/1 a class up.
Next time out Moonfleet won @ 9/1 a class level up
<br>Wouldn’t using Class Pars  have been an ideal way of showing  these horses were capable of hacking it in higher Grades?
<br>
(Edited by empty wallet at 11:00 pm on Dec. 13, 2006)
EW,
The Raceform time ratings use class pars.<br>USA also use them because they do not have a universal rating handicap – pars there are complicated with the number of race conditions and are very crude methods for rating shippers with any acceptable accuracy.<br>Our classes 1-6 are largely based on prizemoney and that might be a more useful par than Class number.
Cheers Robert
Forgot about Dave Bellinghams figs
Interesting thought regarding the use of Prize Money as the Par instead
My thoughts have not got as far as the USA yet tbh, but there must be a way/method that can overcome their complicated race conditions
The key i think is the use of sectional times, but the method to use so it’s transferable to other countries like the USA
FPS calcs, energy distribution, sectional % to overall time, something along those lines, but those maybe start to  complicate matters
<br>A mammoth task 😮 and then there’s track variants 😮 😮
<br>
(Edited by empty wallet at 1:09 am on Dec. 14, 2006)
Talking about track variants, and going off at a bit of a tangent as a result, I was slightly troubled by a conversation I had with a Clerk of The Course at an all-weather track recently.
He said, proudly: "I aim to have the races run as close to Racing Post standard time as possible. If it is slower than that after the first couple of races I tell them to speed it up. If it is faster I tell them to slow it down."
No adjustment for the standard of the horses running, weights carried, margin of victory, or that sort of thing. Just alter it in the middle of racing if it doesn’t match up to Racing Post standard times.
😮
Quote: from Prufrock on 9:46 am on Dec. 14, 2006[br]Talking about track variants, and going off at a bit of a tangent as a result, I was slightly troubled by a conversation I had with a Clerk of The Course at an all-weather track recently.
He said, proudly: "I aim to have the races run as close to Racing Post standard time as possible. If it is slower than that after the first couple of races I tell them to speed it up. If it is faster I tell them to slow it down."
No adjustment for the standard of the horses running, weights carried, margin of victory, or that sort of thing. Just alter it in the middle of racing if it doesn’t match up to Racing Post standard times.
😮
S*** , oh well at least it will save me an hours work a day, back to the pin.
Quote: from Prufrock on 9:46 am on Dec. 14, 2006[br]Talking about track variants, and going off at a bit of a tangent as a result, I was slightly troubled by a conversation I had with a Clerk of The Course at an all-weather track recently.
He said, proudly: "I aim to have the races run as close to Racing Post standard time as possible. If it is slower than that after the first couple of races I tell them to speed it up. If it is faster I tell them to slow it down."
No adjustment for the standard of the horses running, weights carried, margin of victory, or that sort of thing. Just alter it in the middle of racing if it doesn’t match up to Racing Post standard times.
😮 <br>
Tell me about it. I tried to produce speed ratings for some of the Irish tracks, specifically Curragh and Leopardstown, a couple of years ago. After about 6 months of figures I read somewhere that "Leopardstown were going to start using electronic timing from such and such a date"! I was not happy.:angry:
Corm if this ain’t allowed delete
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/index.php?
Not read enough of it yet, but there looks to be some interesting stuff (mainly USA ) contained in these pages
(Edited by empty wallet at 3:03 pm on Dec. 14, 2006)
Quote: from empty wallet on 2:09 pm on Dec. 14, 2006[br]Corm is this ain’t allowed delete it
Not read enough of it yet, but there looks to be some interesting stuff (mainly USA ) contained in these pages
The link doesn’t work for me EW. Can you check it please
Interesting figures for 5f, Wallace, suggesting that on average there is 1.31secs difference between Classes 1 and 6. This is equivalent to about 30lbs on the Topspeed scale(at 5f, 1sec=22lbs).
This looks a bit tight when you consider that the difference between these two classes on the RPR scale is at least 40lbs. However, many speed ratings compilers have noticed that sprint races in the lower grades often produce times that are (surprisingly) faster than might be expected using RP standards.
Therefore, some of the Topspeed ratings at sprint distances in the lower grades are artificially high for the grade of race in which they were achieved. Worth bearing in mind, particularly with AW racing.
I did a study of class pars a couple of years ago and I wasn’t convinced, as the pars vary from course to course, using actual data.
Prize money is probably better, although I have found course grades to be superior.
Regarding the RP standards, if they’re supposed to represent what a mature, 100-rated horse should run the distance in on Good ground, is it not a little bit worrying that there have been just 16 races run below standard on Good ground at Newmarket since 1988?
All racetimes for Newmarket 7f –  Raceform median 86.5
0-100
Ave 85.97<br>Quartile 82.99<br>Median 85.29
0-95
Ave 85.15<br>Quartile 84.05<br>Median 85.03
0-90 (very small sample)
Ave 84.66<br>Quartille 82.63<br>Median 83.97
0-85
Ave 87.22<br>Quarltile 83.98<br>Median 85.06
<br>Conclusion, there’s possibly summat in it, but needs further investigation
<br>
(Edited by empty wallet at 8:24 pm on Dec. 14, 2006)
Samples data=3yo+ races and some are rather small, which looks like being a major problem
G2
Ave 85.22<br>Quartile 82.69<br>Median 84.68
Looking at the data, the Raceform median for this distance looks a tad on the slow side
(Edited by empty wallet at 8:53 pm on Dec. 14, 2006)
Artemis, remember this is a catch all table incoprorating every 5 furlong race for a 5 year period. I agree about the lower grade sprint times/ratings, some of these are way out of line. Topspeed seem to amend the going allowance for these races to make the final ratings look good.
EW, I cannot accept Raceform Median Times. A very crude method to produce standards and base ratings on. Not for me. When you look into the going allowances used by Raceform things get really disturbing. Check out the GA for all meetings at Brighton over the summer during the dry period.
Gareth, you are spot on. There are a lot of strage times within the RP standards. As I stated earlier, if a standard time has not been achieved by any horse within a 5 year peiriod something must be wrong.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.