- This topic has 14 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
Hello TRF,
I was looking through my racing database when I stumbled upon a change in how beaten distances are recorded. Around May 1st 2006 accurate distances over 30 lengths started to be shown in the official results. Before this time the maximum gap between horses recorded was ‘dist’ that I’ve always taken to be 30 lengths or more.
Does anybody know exactly when this started and why? Also, is ‘dist’ used anymore and if so how long is it now?
Thank you.
Mike
Welcome. Mike, I find your handle a little confusing, gender-wise.
Don’t know when it happened but I believe all distances are now arrived at from the time calculations.
So I would assume that we won’t see ‘distance’ any more in races that have been electronically timed, of course when you see the comment "no time taken" then distances will be arrived at in the former manner.
……but, I have always been told to "never assume because it can make an ass out of you and me"
Colin
Thanks Colin.
Hmmm, I hadnt really noticed that! Maybe I’ll try and get a name change.
I found some races after this date with ‘dist’ eg:
[code:o4j9s9ry]http://www.racingpost.co.uk/horses/result.sd?race_id=421559[/code:o4j9s9ry]presumably they didn’t use the new system.Did a quick search on google for information about this but couldn’t find any.
Do you know if the numbers recorded before and after this date are equivalent. I.e. does 10 mean the same thing? Was it just a case of reporting longer distances more accurately than ‘dist’?
I know there were later changes on Monday 25th February 2008 and again on Sunday 15th June 2008 as detailed by BHB:
[code:o4j9s9ry]http://www.britishhorseracing.com/inside_horseracing/media/releaseDetail.asp?item=085716[/code:o4j9s9ry]
and here
[code:o4j9s9ry]http://www.britishhorseracing.com/inside_horseracing/media/releaseDetail.asp?item=086639[/code:o4j9s9ry]Mike
I believe that the lengths-per-second (lps) calculation differs now depending on the prevailing going (5lps on Gd or better with 4lps on Gd/Sft or worse or something like that)
Don’t know how the speed boys manage nowadays with shite like this.
Why on earth can’t the RP just record times for each horse?
If you get The Irish Field, they actually give the times of the horses. All this 4L, 3.75L etc is archaic.
If this was the 100m Olympic final, would you expect
1. Usain Bolt 9.69
2. Tyson Gay (nse)
3. Asafa Powell (shd)No. Ridiculous. Just give us the times.
Jumps-wise, and in a freeze frame era, you could also work out the time it took a horse to actually run the course by clocking when it crossed the start line (as some get left at the start).
Why on earth can’t the RP just record times for each horse?
If you get The Irish Field, they actually give the times of the horses. All this 4L, 3.75L etc is archaic.
If this was the 100m Olympic final, would you expect
1. Usain Bolt 9.69
2. Tyson Gay (nse)
3. Asafa Powell (shd)No. Ridiculous. Just give us the times.
Jumps-wise, and in a freeze frame era, you could also work out the time it took a horse to actually run the course by clocking when it crossed the start line (as some get left at the start).
I presume it is an editorial decision – the distances in the RP / Raceform etc come from the official print out supplied by the judge which shows both time and distance. Personally I would much prefer to have the time recording for all the runners.
When I next get the chance I will ask someone from the RP about using times for all runners.
Also if I am viewing a race from a point near the line I make a note of the distances as I see them by eye as opposed to the official call
Hi all
Have just seen your query about distances – am just off to Ascot but will reply tonight unless anyone else has done in the meantime
LeeOK, here we go…
After each race the judge sends a list of finishing positions, and the official distance between each of the finishers, to the press room. However, the “distances” are not actual distances – they are calculated from the time separating each runner at the line (this information is provided by the photo finish equipment).
Today (Sunday) at Ascot, the formula was 1 second = 6 lengths. For Flat racing on soft ground, this becomes 1 second = 5 lengths. There are other formulae for jumps racing.
For any distance in excess of 30 lengths, even though the time lapse is usually available, the judge records a “distance”. However, these days, for the sake of completeness, the team of Racing Post and Raceform race-readers will manually convert that time into a distance. Therefore, Tungsten Strike – officially beaten a “distance” by the horse preceding it at Ascot today – was in fact 5.99 seconds behind it according to the judge’s sheet, which computes to 36 lengths.
While the formula converting from times to distances is better than it was, since it now takes into account (to some extent) the difference between good/fast and soft ground, it isn’t perfect. The calculation should be dependent upon the finishing speed of each runner, but that also varies according to the length and quality of the race, and the nature of the track, none of which are taken into account.
And there can be discrepancies. If Horse A beats Horse B by 10 lengths (by sight), but Horse B’s jockey then eases down and takes 3 seconds to reach the winning post, on today’s terms that would be an official margin of 3 x 6 = 18 lengths, which is nearly double the visual margin.
I can understand why some of you might think that it would be more straightforward to record the time of each horse rather than do the fancy calculations, but most punters have spent a lifetime working on the basis of lengths rather than seconds, and that’s why the conversion is made. But it’s not my decision!
Hope that helps, happy to answer any points as usual if you have any, just post here or PM me.
Lee
I’m working for the Post at Brighton today (Monday), so if you spot anything there that you think is relevant to the discussion, don’t hesitate to mention it!
While the formula converting from times to distances is better than it was, since it now takes into account (to some extent) the difference between good/fast and soft ground, it isn’t perfect.
Thanks for the overall post Lee.
However, given that lengths beaten is now subject to the vagaries of the going description as given by the clerk of the course on the day of racing I would say that it is far from perfect.
You could have a theoretical situation where a meeting starts on Good ground and lengths are calculated at 6 lengths per second and then the going is changed to Gd/Sft after a couple of races and the remainder of the card is calculated at 5 lengths per second.
That can’t be ideal in anyones world.
While the formula converting from times to distances is better than it was, since it now takes into account (to some extent) the difference between good/fast and soft ground, it isn’t perfect.
Thanks for the overall post Lee.
However, given that lengths beaten is now subject to the vagaries of the going description as given by the clerk of the course on the day of racing I would say that it is far from perfect.
You could have a theoretical situation where a meeting starts on Good ground and lengths are calculated at 6 lengths per second and then the going is changed to Gd/Sft after a couple of races and the remainder of the card is calculated at 5 lengths per second.
That can’t be ideal in anyones world.
Spot on David also, even ignoring the random nature of going reports, don’t forget there are only two calculations to cover everything from hard through to heavy – most unreliable.
I also agree with Lee that the distance of a race is also a major factor as they will, normally, be charging across the line a much quicker lick in a five furlong sprint than in a two mile marathon – yet the time / distance calculation will be the same.
I’ve just checked back through some earlier meetings this summer – on good to soft ground the converter appears to be set to five and a half lengths per second (halfway between the good ground 6 and soft ground 5), but I agree there are a lot of things (including so-called "bottomless" ground, particularly in jumps races where the horses virtually walk home, for example) not taken into consideration.
Though it’s not perfect, the general accuracy of the conversion is constantly monitored – until recently, all Flat races were converted at 5 lengths per second regardless of the going, and it was very obvious that on firm ground, an official 5 lengths was often more like 7 to the eye.
I expect quite a few of you noticed that, but maybe weren’t aware why…
As for the wider issue of finishing speeds, maybe there should be a special table for races at Towcester in heavy ground!
As for the wider issue of finishing speeds, maybe there should be a special table for races at Towcester in heavy ground!
I have this covered – Towcester finishing speeds in 10 easy gradings;
1 – kept on dourly
2 – kept on less slowly than most
3 – plugged on
4 – plodded on
5 – lumbered on
6 – virtually walked over line
7 – staggered over line like yer granny on a Sanatogen Tonic Wine bender
8 – overtaken by passing slug
9 – jockey got off and pushed horse
10 – crowd pushed jockey pushing horseHTH
Jeremy
(graysonscolumn)Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
The predecessors of Racetech actually had a booklet of tabulations that allowed the photofinish camera to be adjusted in "horizontal" travel speed terms for each racecourse, each going and race distance. The object being to make the photofinish print look normal ie horses were not elongated nor shortened when the camera speed was too far out with reality. However, some Clerks in the 80s refused to look at the prints and would only call distances by eye – there were some horrendous cock-ups and wrong horses called so that Jockey Club handicappers had to view local bookmaker’s SIS to have any inkling as to the truth. A standard length has never been accurately defined and remains undefined to this day. I wrote an article recently in Raceform Update to explain all this.
The Jockey Club decided that the simplest way forward was to adopt my suggestion to use the photofinish print timer to give time-lengths (TL) so that as they crossed the line 1 TL = 0,20 seconds, Flat and 0.25 seconds NH. There never was any intention to find finishing speeds, nor beaten lengths – just simple time differences that could ALL be expressed as accurate time-lengths for any course, any distance, any going. The recent BHA changes completely miss the point of accuracy, simplicity and reliability. I gave an example at Newmarket July Cup where the official going changed 3 times, no official description agreed at all with the race time based going, and the finishing speeds of each winner I measured was nowhere near what BHA had presumed in their changes.
If BHA want finishing speeds, actual distances run and accurate beaten lengths, then fund the sectional timing and accurate going work that Turftrax pioneered for each racecourse in UK – so that UK racing comes into the 21st Century.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.