August 6, 2006 at 12:34 #74671clivexMember
- Total Posts 3420
Come on now
Not quite how it read was it? :) But tahts the trouble with posts sometimesAugust 6, 2006 at 12:39 #74672clivexMember
- 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 :)August 6, 2006 at 13:53 #74673empty walletMember
- 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
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)August 6, 2006 at 14:43 #74674johngringoMember
- Total Posts 89
Nice to find you again!August 6, 2006 at 16:26 #74675Andrew HughesMember
- Total Posts 1904
Who is Chompy?August 8, 2006 at 17:56 #74676
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.August 8, 2006 at 18:49 #74677guskennedyMember
- 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.August 9, 2006 at 07:51 #74678davidjohnsonMember
- Total Posts 4491
How reliable are Ascot ratings considering they are in effect racing on a new track?August 9, 2006 at 15:35 #74679
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.August 9, 2006 at 18:26 #74680
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)August 10, 2006 at 10:08 #74681
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.August 10, 2006 at 17:29 #74682
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.August 10, 2006 at 18:06 #74683AnonymousInactive
- 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 Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â 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)August 10, 2006 at 18:32 #74684
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.August 10, 2006 at 21:06 #74685WallaceParticipant
- Total Posts 862
IÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢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>
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.