July 3, 2006 at 09:52 #2765
I was intrigued by the time of the winner in the 5.10 race yesterday. Either this race has been incorrectly timed, which seems likely, or we have seen an exceptional performance by Mustameet. If anyone has a recording of the race, perhaps they could hand- time it.
According to my figures, the horse ran to a speed figure(adjusted for weight and going of +12) of around 125.<br>This is highly unlikely for a 5yo who has never done it before. The only other explanation apart from an incorrect timing is that the rest of the races on the card were relatively much slower than this event, which also seems unlikely. A figure of 125 is just about Group 1 standard and if the time is actually correct, the winner is a lot better than listed class.July 3, 2006 at 18:26 #73427
I’m not sure i’m correct here Artemis, but i believe the Sportsman use time to compile their SFR’s and they gave it 118
<br>i use raw figures and there’s now’t unusual as far as i can see, but Curragh times can be dodgy somtimesJuly 3, 2006 at 19:24 #73428
The time(if correct) was 1.8 secs faster than standard, equating to 25lbs, and the winner(Mustameet) carried 12lbs above the standard weight of 9st. This means the unadjusted (for going) rating is 100 +25 +12 = 137. I estimated a going adjustment of +12(good) based on the remainder of the card, which means 12lb of the speed figure is deducted because it is due to the effect of the ground. This gives 137-12= 125. If that was true, it would be faster than Soviet Song has ever ran. Now that cannot be so, can it?
Edit: Topspeed has rated the horse on 118, after deducting a going correction of 19(against the 12 I estimated). It is still a cracking speed figure and is the same as Soviet Song recorded in winning the Sussex Stakes (Group1).
(Edited by Artemis at 8:55 pm on July 3, 2006)<br>
(Edited by Artemis at 8:56 pm on July 3, 2006)July 3, 2006 at 20:25 #73429
I’ve just rechecked Artemis and adjusted for weight, i get 118 (same as Sportsman) with the going as GF on my scale
<br>possibly G2, but i’m dubiousJuly 3, 2006 at 20:46 #73430
Interesting, i get Bush Maiden 106, thats a black type performance, draw could be a factor thoughJuly 4, 2006 at 09:11 #73431
Topspeed has that horse rated 91(I had 98), which looks about right for the race – very good/useful handicapper.
In today’s Racing and Football Outlook, Mark Nelson’s Time Test has given Mustameet the highest figure of the season for a non-sprinter, although he doesn’t mention it in his column. I’m a little surprised that none of the commentators has mentioned this performance.July 4, 2006 at 10:10 #73432LUKEMember
- Total Posts 271
Was the rail moved on Sunday morning? If I am not mistaken there have been a couple of incidents in the past regarding times at The Curragh.July 4, 2006 at 11:19 #73433noreMember
- Total Posts 151
I got a figure of 116 for Mustameet but I wouldnt trust it. Aside from the fact that I am a relative novice at time ratings it has to be borne in mind there weren’t enough suitable races to ‘standardise’ it against on Sunday (only really Bush Maidens over CD). The shorter races were run on the straight course against the near rail and the longer races on a different section of the round course. Given the added variable of watering I suspect these races might as well have been run on different tracks.
Also, I use published standard times (not enough data yet to determine my own) and I suspect my source’s 12 furlong standard is ‘out’ (or more probably the stalls or rails were moved).July 4, 2006 at 12:04 #73434Gareth FlynnParticipant
- Total Posts 583
Was the race run on the round mile course? I’ve never seen any set of publically available standard times differentiate between the straight (well, dogleg) mile and the round mile at the Curragh, so I wouldn’t be surprised if the time is being over-rated because of that.July 4, 2006 at 12:10 #73435MonkeyParticipant
- Total Posts 141
Yes, it was run on the round mile, which is very different in character to the dogleg Guineas mile.July 4, 2006 at 14:20 #73436noreMember
- Total Posts 151
Good point, Gareth. Now I’m even more dubious about the value of my figures! :oJuly 4, 2006 at 17:48 #73437
I thought the figure looked too good to be true, but maybe it is kosher.
I didn’t know anything about the two distinct mile courses. Was the first race(handicap) run on this course? I find it hard to believe that professional speed raters will not be aware of the two mile courses and have seperate standards for each one.July 4, 2006 at 18:04 #73438
The difference between the two according to Raceform standard times is 0.1 secs, so maybe thats why others don’t bother with two different standardsJuly 4, 2006 at 20:14 #73439WallaceParticipant
- Total Posts 862
EW, I would be very wary of using any time/speed ratings data from Raceform. I have been a user of their computer based form applications for years but only recently discovered how crude some of their work is. My interest in race times is to estimate the going rather than compiling speed ratings. According to Raceform the going at Brighton on 15th June was Good.July 4, 2006 at 20:25 #73440
Quote: from Wallace on 9:14 pm on July 4, 2006[br]EW, I would be very wary of using any time/speed ratings data from Raceform.
I am Wallace, i don’t subscribe to it now ;)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.