- This topic has 291 replies, 53 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
A lot of people confuse acceleration with stamina, infact i’d say 80% of those interested in speed do!
Do they really???? 80%? thats why i couldn"t tell the difference between Usain Bolt and Fat Brendan Foster! I am a Dick!
- Total Posts 17716
I think some one has lost the plot, would a moderator please clear the last few posts up as they’re irelivant and inappropriate to what’s turning out to be an interesting topic.
At the end of the day a horse will in general achieve or nearly achieve his maximum of either a slow or fast pace, it is just natural that this happens so in truth everything tends to even its self out.
And you"re going to meet up with this Muppet on Saturday Corm!! Good luck,just keep your eye out for the Yellow Van!
I think some one has lost the plot, would a moderator please clear the last few posts up as they’re irelivant and inappropriate to what’s turning out to be an interesting topic.
You are so far out of your depth Mr W! Try just dipping your toe in before you swim with the Sharks!
ARMCHAIR JOCKEY
“Have Timeform attempted to compare Dream Ahead’s sectional times – approximate or otherwise – with those of other horses on the same day?”I cannot speak for Timeform, but I believe it is impossible to gauge sectionals at Newmarket given the camerawork. It would be good if it was not so, as there is a lot of data from the course from some years back with which handheld sectionals could be compared.
FIST
“They [Timeform] are using at yardstick through horses like Approval who is a group winner.”Thank you for confirming at last in print that you do not have a clue as to how Timeform assesses horses. It is worth you digging out some of David Johnson’s blogs or the articles that have appeared on Timeform’s homepage for nearly a decade now. Then again, why bother?
CAVELINO RAMPANTE
“…other horses rated without the benefit of sectionals won’t have had similar opportunity for a possible increase on the bare form figure based on optimal and actual finishing speed, which gives Frankel an unfair advantage in this case, imo.”Just so that we are absolutely clear on this, as it might well be an error committed by one of the earlier posters, the adjustment in the first place is to the TIME and Timeform has always adjusted FORM in the light of time.
By the same token, should Timeform refuse to upgrade horses that achieve good overall times, simply because gauging good overall times is difficult/impossible in other circumstances (such as in Ireland and France, where times and distances are frequently wrong)?
I believe you should use what information exists in order to come up with as accurate an assessment as possible of the horse(s) involved. And, yes, you should be consistent in using that information where it exists.
- Total Posts 17716
You can’t ignore a horses ability to accelerate. The real Champions of the racing world could quicken of a fast pace or a slow pace which to them made what happenned in the first 3/4 of the race totally irrelevant.
I think Frankel is alredy in that category. I used my own method of finding out just how fast he is the day after the race and nearly fell off my chair.
If he had been in the same place at the same time as Rip Van Winkle this young upstart would have kicked him into touch and he was being eased by Tom Queally.
There is no bigger test for a horse than his first visit to a race course. The can be perfectly fine on the gallops but the shock of so many people and the roar of the crowd is a brand new experience to them. Many run green, wander all over the joint, haven’t a clue what to do and must be thinking Help!!!!!!!! Like a kid going to school for the first time.
The connections of Nathanaiel thought he was a certainty that day and had fortunes on him from 7/1 to 3/1 in a matter of minutes.
Frankel at a guesss wouldn’t be as forward as the gmbaled on runner up. Held up had a wall of 7 horses in front of him 3f out had still 5 in front of him 2f out and had to be ridden to get into a challenging position.
Nathanial wasn’t stopping and would have been a very impressive winner but for Frankel who stuck his neck out like a real racehorse and held him all the way to the line.
He passed the toughest test of a young horses life with flying colours and you my friend are a mile of the mark.
Ok, but "the timefigure is just 112, which if anything, is slightly below par for the race."
So the timefigure is adjusted for sectionals which then impacts on the final form figure, which brings it back to square one of Frankel’s rating being adjusted to account for sectional timing.
Personally I have no problem with this, the more hard data that goes into the mix the more accurate the rating at the end.
My point is though, doesn’t it render comparison against other 2yo’s both this year and in years gone by somewhat inaccurate when the latter haven’t had the benefit (or detriment) of actual and optimum finishing speed analysis applied to their ratings.
Why don’t those who criticise Timeform ratings, show how they’d rate the horses concerned and explain why they rate them that way?
Could it be because they don’t have a clue?
Pace in the race is an important part for anyone working out form.
Value Is EverythingI think Frankel is alredy in that category. I used my own method of finding out just how fast he is the day after the race and nearly fell off my chair.
When will you realise your chair has never been a horse? Ffs!
Just because Timeform "rate" Dream Ahead a lb "better" does not mean it is "the tip".
Frankel deserves to be a shorter price because of his potential and likely ground. Although if I was having a bet at current prices it would be Dream Ahead.
Value Is EverythingMy point is though, doesn’t it render comparison against other 2yo’s both this year and in years gone by somewhat inaccurate when the latter haven’t had the benefit (or detriment) of actual and optimum finishing speed analysis applied to their ratings.
And my point, which it seems I have not explained clearly enough, is that you should rate a horse as accurately as you can with the information that is available to you at the time. To do otherwise is to sell the process short.
Horses with sectional adjustments to their times seldom exceed their form ratings. Frankel’s win was one of the exceptions.
Whether Windy City, or El Gran Senor or Tromos, or whoever, deserved extra credit we do not know. But those horses were rated as accurately as they could have been at the time, according to the information at the handicappers’ disposal, and that might well have meant a more subjective attempt to allow for the manner of their victory, as opposed to just the victory itself.
I would call it progress.
Ok, but "the timefigure is just 112, which if anything, is slightly below par for the race."
So the timefigure is adjusted for sectionals which then impacts on the final form figure, which brings it back to square one of Frankel’s rating being adjusted to account for sectional timing.
Personally I have no problem with this, the more hard data that goes into the mix the more accurate the rating at the end.
My point is though, doesn’t it render comparison against other 2yo’s both this year and in years gone by somewhat inaccurate when the latter haven’t had the benefit (or detriment) of actual and optimum finishing speed analysis applied to their ratings.
If this race had been run ten years ago at Ascot:
1) The official winning margin would have been 8 lengths on time to second considerations alone
2) The winning margin would have been less still as horses didn’t get as spreadeagled at the old Ascot
3) no sectional times would have meant no massaging of the ratingThe difference would probably amount to a stone in an area where champions are distinguished by the odd pound or two!
No wonder Racing For Change want to stage Champions day at Ascot from now on, with the possibility of some Sleepy Hollow Wallah holding forth on what they’ve run to as they flash past the post.
The course will throw up ‘horses of the century’, like Harbinger and Frankel, to these poor lost souls every other year.
2)As you know, the conversion of times to margins is taken into account by Timeform, even if it is not by other ratings "authorities".
As you know, the conversion of times to margins is taken into account by Timeform, even if it is not by other ratings "authorities".
The last time I looked, which was admittedly a year or two ago, it wasn’t. A horse who’d won by 6 lengths on good (present system) was marked up more on average, erm 20% more IIRC, than a horse who’d won by 5 lengths under the old system.
When did the change take place?
I am a freelancer who, among other things, advises Timeform on handicapping matters. But I am not on their staff and, you may recall, had nothing at all to do with them for a couple of years not so long ago. You are best addressing any queries about the past directly to them.
Pru,
Can I just ask if you have any emprical evidence to support your sectional timing methods or are the underpinnings simply theoretical?
Timeform are complete idiots!! i would love to see their win stats as they have cost me dearly a number of times by either backing their selection or been put off my own!! i know its my own fault for being swayed but these guys are supposed to be experts but they often appear clueless and their look for improvement rational for their star rating does not appear to work to well. I am certain that far more of their two star rated horses win than their five star!! So i wouldnt mind what they think about dream ahead or frankel. Personally i think its very difficult to gauge the better horse until after the weekend but we must remeber not all classy 2yos hold there form to be classic winning 3yos so even the winner may not be the best horse next year. Remember st. Nich abbey last year, what a complete flop!! Anyone think clive brittain is right to be so confident in zaidan?? does he really have a chance!!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.