- This topic has 21 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Just read this thread and I have to agree almost totally with Prufrock and reet hard that it’s invariably fast ground that produces these record times aided and abetted by decent horses and the occasional tail wind.
Rather obvious, as someone has already said.So, the consensus is that a course record time is a function of fast ground, tail wind and a decent horse. That’s fine, I have no problem if that is the case, but what I am interested in is the individual contribution that these three factors make to the record time. Previously I had thought that most of it came from the ability of the horse, now I am much less sure.
Putting it another way, there is a strong suggestion in the data that virtually any horse, even one of modest ability, is capable of returning a record time under certain, not particularly exceptional, conditions. That is my main point, personally speaking I find that, if true, to be a surprising conclusion. It would then seem to follow that the clock mostly measures ground and other environmental conditions, rather than ability!
Jim,
Several of the minor tracks without any top class races have course records that are slower than the standard times given by say Racing Post. The standard time being that achievable by a top class horse on good going (carrying 9 stone and no wind effects presumed). So at a minor track a race may achieve a new record but the speed rating will be relatively low if it achieved by a moderate horse. It is the going correction that corrects for not only going but class, wind, wrong times and wrong distances.
The race times achievable by the range of horses from seller to a Group One is quite narrow, say 3 seconds in a 5f sprint. So if a sprint race had a suitable selling plater running on a dolled off hard going strip and Group One horses running on watered going it is likely that the plater might win. If they all raced on the same ground, the plater would be 18 lengths in arrears.
…the throwaway statement ‘the faster the going the faster the time’ may not actually be wholly true.
Best to read again the whole of my post that contained that statement.
Prufrock would be able to confirm this but I’m pretty sure Timeform have long recognised the importance of wind and factor it into both their Timefigures and their time-assessed going corrections.
That is correct. They use something called "vector analysis" (introduced by Phil Bull many moons ago) and the detailed observations of their racecourse reporters and local Met Office readings.
I don’t know precisely how the figures are calculated in this manner and have to admit that my own figures estimate the effect of wind far less scientifically, adjusting rather crudely for whether the wind seems to be behind, head on or sideways (and often a combination of these).
The effect of the wind is seldom more than 25 lb (for those who express their findings in that particular language), whereas the difference between good going and firm going will be in the region of double that and, obviously, the difference between a 50-rated horse and a 125-rated horse is treble that.
They use something called "vector analysis" (introduced by Phil Bull many moons ago) and the detailed observations of their racecourse reporters and local Met Office readings.
I don’t know precisely how the figures are calculated in this manner and have to admit that my own figures estimate the effect of wind far less scientifically, adjusting rather crudely for whether the wind seems to be behind, head on or sideways (and often a combination of these).
The term "vector analysis" (simply) infers that both the magnitude and direction of the wind are taken into account in the calculations, so it sounds similar to your own method, maybe differing only in the detail.
The effect of the wind is seldom more than 25 lb (for those who express their findings in that particular language), whereas the difference between good going and firm going will be in the region of double that and, obviously, the difference between a 50-rated horse and a 125-rated horse is treble that.
Prufrock,
That’s very helpful, I think you are saying that wind/ground/ability typically splits in the approximate ratio 1:2:3?
Two observations though. I would have thought that 50-rated and 125-rated winners at the SAME racecourse is a little on the extreme side, although I agree that it can happen.
Secondly, we are not talking here about any old ‘Firm’ ground, we are talking about the ground associated with course records. So, if your ground ratio was derived by any sort of averaging technique it may under-estimate that particular ratio. Hope that makes sense.
What I am getting at is that the ground ratio may be higher than your estimate and the ability ratio lower, leading to the conclusion that ground may well dominate when course records are set. Interesting!
That’s very helpful, I think you are saying that wind/ground/ability typically splits in the approximate ratio 1:2:3?
Actually I am not. The figures are merely illustrative and not intended to be definitive.
Put another way, a strong wind may be equivalent to the difference between, say, "average" good going and average good to firm going and between a 100-rated horse and a 75-rated horse (or between horses of the same ability carrying 8-00 and 9-11).
Vector analysis is a mathematically sound technique (which I seem to recall doing at school), though it is very dependent on precise and accurate information in the first place, whereas I just estimate as best I can in a cruder manner.
Best to read again the whole of my post that contained that statement.
Apologies Prufrock. I made the cardinal error of skimming through this thread too rapidly and didn’t take on board what you’d written before I posted.
I’ll accept your conclusions as I daresay you’ve got hard (no pun intended) evidence to draw on, rather than my wishy-washy supposition.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.