- This topic has 47 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 20 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
….we will inevitably end up singing at slightly different volumes and occasionally in a different key altogether.
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each. I do not think that they will sing to me" even.
:o
……. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each. I do not think that they will sing to me….
A memorable line: very wistful.
(Edited by Artemis at 6:50 pm on May 2, 2005)
Ec
Your example race was actually run on 19th April 2002 at Newbury, not 4th May.
Kyllachy obviously ran a race with Group class written all over it. Which is why he went off 2/1 favourite for the Palace House Stakes in his next race. The collateral form rating I gave him at the time would only be equalled or exceeded at 5 furlongs once or twice in an average year. No experienced handicapper rating the race could have been anything other than impressed. The time, 0.30 fast on good/firm ground was excellent but less important than the performance at the weights.
Trace Clip went on to run excellent races off higher marks, at least three of which were equal to or better than his Newbury performance. I put him up 2 lbs at the time. It was his misfortune to go from an excellent trainer to someone who cannot train sprinters for toffees at the end of the season. Which explains why he did not win again.
Red Millenium won a listed race at 3YO and her performance at Newbury was probably on a par with that and also her Goodwood Group 3 run. Later in the season she was retired, so again she had little opportunity to win.
Your representation of these horses and what Kyllachy beat on the day is a complete distortion of the facts. he beat a highly competitive field of handicappers rated 90-107 by 1 3/4 lengths, 2 lengths and 1 1/4 lengths on fast ground, giving weight to most of them.
Yes I did back Kyllachy in the Palace House at 4/1 with Blue Square. Time played only a minor part in the decision. Collateral form said he had a big chance.
<br>"In a minute there is time<br>For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse"
T S Eliot, besides creating J Alfred Prufrock, obviously had an interest in in-running on 5f sprints judged on the above. Clever man.
Not to mention time analysis: "…and indeed there will be time…"
Indeed.
<br>Interesting debate, just a pity about the example chosen.
CPGagie said earlier on this thread that he didn’t think Kyllachy could have run a Gp1 time in this race and I reckon he’s spot on.
But my view has nothing to do with the merits of speed figures over collateral form, or the possibility of placed horses being ‘dragged’ to a fast time.
No, the problem is that the actual race time EC is basing his arguments on was wrong. It’s shown in the official form book as 59.7 seconds. When I saw that I was immediately suspicious (5F races under 1 min at Newbury are as rare as truth in politics), and I checked the time off tape. Having hand timed the race six times, I made the time 60.7.
I raised this with Raceform and with Newbury and they admitted that the official electric timing had broken down for this race and they had used a hand recorded time. They wouldn’t say whose hand time it was!
In my view, that time was wrong and hence the speed figures were useless. Errors in the official times are not uncommon – when I was making speed figures for the AW on a regular basis, I would find one or two each week that looked odd and proved to be incorrect when checked by timing off the TV.
You can also regularly find differences between the times reported by Raceform in the official formbook and those given by Timeform in the Perspective. I believe that Timeform also check all times using video equipment.
AP
<br>
I only awarded one really big figure all last season..so I doubt I am trying to do a Mordin.
If this is normal and you only tend to award one big figure a year, then it’s a bit of a bummer that, after putting in all that work, in 2002 that big speed figure came about due to mistiming of the race.
That’s a big problem with UK turf speed figures – the data is unreliable (mainly due to distance changes) and the tendency must be toward GIGO.
Steve
Going allowances,assessment’s now there is a topic, :cool:
Please continue,a good thread btw
Quote: from EC on 11:30 pm on May 3, 2005[br]
a bloke shoved a stick in the ground whilst having a fag 6 months ago..and confirmed it for them;) <br>
<br>:biggrin: :cool:
<br>
EW
I only have to time the first race and I have a FAR better idea of the ground than man with stick
Ok, hypothetical situation:
The first race of a Musselburgh card in early May is a 5f 2yo auction maiden with 7 runners.
The race has 4 debutants plus 3 horses that were well beaten at long odds last time out.
It’s won by a short odds horse from one of the better yorkshire yards.
The official time for the race is 63.2 secs.
How’s the ground riding?
Steve
Steve
I think you meant EC,but here we go
<br>I like to see a race run personally,and make a calculation from the time and the horses finishing in the frame,
Going on past runs of 5f maidens,i’d say the going would be GOOD/GOOD to SOFT,and personally i’d sway toward’s GOOD to SOFT until more evidence becomes available
(Edited by empty wallet at 1:17 am on May 4, 2005)<br>
(Edited by empty wallet at 1:27 am on May 4, 2005)
EC, would you know of a website that gives the race time pretty quick after the race. Since I cant see live racing I’ve hunted high and low, and the best I could find was The Sporting Life, averaging around 30 – 40 mins later.
As you can imagine, its a bit of a p**s
er for me if I strongly fancy somthing, and want to look at the time from the race before for ground confirmation. Really, its only of any use to me if any previous race was a large HCP or Group race, and preferably over a short(ish) trip. Would still be nice to have at times though.Cheers<br>
Re the hypothetical Musselburgh race:
I really don’t know how anyone can deduce the going from such a race with any accuracy. These are 2yos in May with very little known form: they could be anything from moderate to very poor. We need to have a very good idea of the standard of the race and the horses taking part to put any meaning to race times for the purpose of working out the going.
Artemis
My point exactly.
I’d bet good money that, if I walked the course before this race (without a stick), I could call the going with far greater consistency than someone who just had the time (plus the race card).
We need to have a very good idea of the standard of the race and the horses taking part to put any meaning to race times for the purpose of working out the going.
Very true.
Plus the actual pace of the races. The actual distances might help, too.
Contrary to what EC thinks, I think time is a useful tool in assessing a race.
From time to time, I consider compiling my own speed figure. However, each time I’ve decided against it precisely because so much bad data is out there.
If he believes that SFs give him an edge despite this, and that this edge is big enough to justify the time it takes to make the figures, then fair play to him.
However, I find he can be very blinkered to the fact that similar conclusions about horses can be derived using non-speed methods such as common sense and a good pair of eyes.
Steve
<br>Maybe the time will run on the TV screen one day – I assume it doesn’t on UK Racing, I don’t know for sure as I don’t subscribe.
I’m looking forward to this simple addition…if Channel 4 are prepared to drown out parts of the screen with Turftrax, surely they could stick the race time in one of the corners of the screen.<br>
2yo maidens 5f Muss
What is the Hypothetical races going based on time ?
<br>bhb ratingwinner timegoing<br>058.3 secsF<br>058.4 secsF<br>7858.8 secsGF<br>058.8 secsF<br>7158.9 secsGF<br>058.9 secsF<br>059.2 secsGF<br>059.5 secsGF<br>059.6 secsGF<br>059.62 secsF<br>059.8 secsGF<br>059.8 secsF<br>6459.85 secsF<br>059.86 secsF<br>059.9 secsGF<br>6659.9 secsGF<br>059.97 secsF<br>060.0 secsGF<br>060.0 secsGF<br>060.15 secsF<br>060.2 secsGF<br>060.2 secsG<br>060.2 secsG<br>060.27 secsF<br>060.3 secsGF<br>060.3 secsG<br>060.5 secsGF<br>060.63 secsGF<br>060.68 secsG<br>061.0 secsGF<br>061.0 secsG<br>061.0 secsG<br>7261.1 secsS<br>061.1 secsG<br>061.1 secsG<br>6161.15 secsG<br>061.2 secsG<br>061.21 secsG<br>061.23 secsG<br>061.3 secsG<br>061.3 secsGF<br>061.3 secsG<br>061.3 secsG<br>061.37 secsG<br>061.57 secsG<br>061.6 secsG<br>061.68 secsG<br>061.84 secsGS<br>061.9 secsGS<br>061.91 secsG<br>061.96 secsG<br>062.0 secsGS<br>062.29 secsG<br>062.46 secsGS<br>062.5 secsGS<br>062.99 secsGS<br>063.0 secsGS<br>063.4 secsGS<br>066.3 secsHY<br>
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.