The home of intelligent horse racing discussion
The home of intelligent horse racing discussion

CUMIN

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 85 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #74671
    clivex
    Member
    • Total Posts 3420

    EW

    Come on now

    Not quite how it read was it? :) But tahts the trouble with posts sometimes

    #74672
    clivex
    Member
    • Total Posts 3420

    Bloody hell EC calm down

    I take on board yours and stavs ratings as something which is of some interest. Its an added angle but will never dominate my thinking, for well discussed reasons

    Where ive got annoyed is when bizarre conclusions are drawn from slowish times. Yeats GC being a prime example as well as Sir percy’s derby of course

    I think your Ciumin point was of interst but  others may have reasons to doubt the overall profile of the horse when talking top level. They have every right to voice these….

    Cheer up ffs :)

    #74673
    empty wallet
    Member
    • Total Posts 1631

    Quote: from clivex on 1:34 pm on Aug. 6, 2006[br]EW

    Come on now

    Not quite how it read was it? :) But tahts the trouble with posts sometimes

    <br>

    Yes Clivex, yer probably right there, it was not a very good explanation, hopefully the 12.24 post explained it better

    (Edited by empty wallet at 2:54 pm on Aug. 6, 2006)

    #74674
    johngringo
    Member
    • Total Posts 89

    Hi EC!

    Nice to find you again!

    #74675
    Andrew Hughes
    Member
    • Total Posts 1904

    Who is Chompy?

    #74676
    Artemis
    Participant
    • Total Posts 1736

    Mark Nelson, who compiles the TIME TEST in the Racing and Football Outlook has given Cumin the highest speed rating for a juvenile filly this season. I don’t know how he compiles his ratings, but he has Cumin on 56 and Elhamri on 63. Maybe the Topspeed rating of 89 was pretty useful, on reflection.

    #74677
    guskennedy
    Member
    • Total Posts 759

    I do take into account wfa and my figures are Elhamri 118 from Strategic Prince 117 among the colts and Cumin 113 top filly.

    #74678
    davidjohnson
    Member
    • Total Posts 4491

    How reliable are Ascot ratings considering they are in effect racing on a new track?

    #74679
    Artemis
    Participant
    • Total Posts 1736

    The Topspeed ratings always include the WFA allowance, which as we’ve already established is at best only an average. I don’t think they are less accurate than + or – 5 or 6lbs.

    #74680
    Artemis
    Participant
    • Total Posts 1736

    Yes, I was surprised that it was a bit low. I don’t know which race Topspeed used as his ‘key’ race that day, but I suspect it was the 5f sprint won by Hollbeck Ghyll on the straight course and Road To Love on the rest of the course. Hollbeck Ghyll’s time was only just behind La Cucharacha, but they are miles apart on RPRs, so that keeps the speed ratings down for the other races. Otherwise Topspeed, bound by the formula used, would have to award Hollbeck Ghyll a very big rating, far too big really – and this would mean that Hollbeck Ghyll’s RPR would have to be upped to match it.

    Hollbeck Ghyll was rated 88 by Topspeed (Cumin 89), so the 2yo was faster. If he’d rated Cumin at 109, say, Hollbeck Ghyll would have to be 108. If that horse runs well in the Nunthorpe, then Topspeed will know he got it wrong.

    Did you rate any of the sprints on the Thursday, EC?

    (Edited by Artemis at 7:29 pm on Aug. 9, 2006)

    #74681
    Artemis
    Participant
    • Total Posts 1736

    EC,

    I think there are fundamental differences between the RP standards and those of time followers who use median/means or class pars. Most of these we’ve already discussed, so no point going there again. Subsequent events are a good way to look back and see if ratings were justified, although this can only be circumstantial evidence.

    #74682
    Artemis
    Participant
    • Total Posts 1736

    What you say about differentials is logical, but the differences at Goodwood between 5f, 6f, and 7f seem reasonable enough given the configuration of the course.

    The 5f standard of 57.80 is one of the fastest in the country because it is largely downhill. At 6f, 13.0 secs is allowed for the extra furlong and at 7f racing round a bend, 13.6 secs for the extra furlong. I haven’t any access to any other standard times to compare to the RP, but I cannot imagine the differentials would be much ‘different’.

    Again, I have to say that RP standards are not gleaned from averages. If they were, they would be noticeably higher at every distance.  

    #74683
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    • Total Posts 17718

    I seem to recall, from the dim and distant past, that RP standard times were formed from the average of the 10 best times, over the past 10 years, for each particular distance.<br> If that is still the case, then the standard times would  reflect the average class level of the better races over each distance, which in Goodwood’s case would mean that the 7f standard would be harder to attain than the 5f standard, as generally speaking, the former would attract higher class horses than the latter.

    (Edited by reet hard at 7:07 pm on Aug. 10, 2006)

    #74684
    Artemis
    Participant
    • Total Posts 1736

    The best times, adjusted for the horse’s RPR rating and weight carried, seems to be how the standard is set. You should be able to deduce the standard from a set of low grade(truly run) races by making the adjustments for RPR, and weight carried – even Weight For Age correction included. I don’t think it matters too much about the grade of horses because the standard can be adjusted to match the grade.  

    #74685
    Wallace
    Participant
    • Total Posts 862

    I’m in the process of building a database to calculate standard times on a rolling basis.  The database has every race time for the last 5 years.  These have been standardised to 9 stone using the same scale as the Racing Post (as provided by Artemis) and WFA.

    Using only races where the official going was Good or Good to Firm produces the following averages for Goodwood.

    Standardised times<br>5f   58.71<br>6f   72.45<br>7f   87.20

    Racing Post standards<br>5f   57.8<br>6f   70.8<br>7f   84.4

    It is difficult to reconcile the RP standards when you look at lots of course/distance combos and in some cases the RP time has not been achieved by any horse in the last 5 years.  I find this a bit alarming especially as the difference between the standardised time and the RP times is not consistent.  <br>

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 85 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.