- This topic has 18 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
I’ve noticed that the fast ground at Doncaster has produced a number of races where the winner and placed horses have come from quite a way back and those that have set the (usually fast) pace have dropped away.
I know that if horses go too fast in front, it sets the race up for closers and that too steady a pace gives closers a difficult job. I’m just wondering if this is a ‘going related’ thing in most cases, or if some jockeys are unable to set a pace that gives them a chance to get home.
I suppose fast ground is liable to cause horses to go too quickly and that heavy ground makes jockeys hang on to their mounts so that they don’t run out of energy.
I may have answered my own question, but it raises others such as:
Is the AW track at Lingfield usually too fast for jockeys to judge the pace on front runners?
Any thoughts from pace students on the above would be appreciated.
You may very well have come up with a good explanation for the effect and to to do this without mentioning the b**s word is a bonus!
I think you have answered your own question. Eloquently.
Always be wary of generalisations in this (and in many other) areas. But I think you are aware of that.
I think that you are danger of going down a cul-de-sac if you decide that it is going related. For example, it was rattling fast at Sandown yesterday and it was an advantage to race close to the pace. Also see Dubai Dynamo’s all the way success at Doncaster today. It is almost always related to how fast the pace is, and how even. In My Humble Opinion.
Absolutely, the welsh wizard.
There is a tendency to go too steadily when conditions get testing – it mainfests itself in margins between horses besides anything else – and to some degree horses at the back are liable to be running on more churned up ground than those at the front.
But each race should be viewed as a unique event, with a unique pace profile.
Yes, WW, Dubai Dynamo.
No sooner do you notice an effect and hey presto, it is reversed. Same with the b**s (draw or track)….. nearly let it slip out.
A canny piece of riding by John Egan, I thought.
Aye, beware of generalisations in this game. Thousands of unique chaotic events every year and we try to formulate rules for them that can be applied generally. It’s a wonder we are sane……well, I think I am…
Very true Artemis .. front running hudlers tend to be good value on soft ground, imo.
There is also the theory that a tail wind helps front runners and a head wind, closers. But as the first two days at Donny were near calm and today there was a headwind (in the straight) doesn’t exactly add credence to that theory as far as Dubai Dynamo is concerned.
Citing one ‘counter example’ is of course pointless and proves nothing but does I think amplify Prufrock’s statement:
"Each race should be viewed as a unique event, with a unique pace profile"
Elucidating the PACE and SHAPE of a Flat race is of fundamental importance and should be the starting point when planning to unravel a bet (imo)
…and a failure to get to grips with these factors is what ultimately led to defeat in my quest to turn a regular and long term profit from punting the Flat.
Good luck.
I’ve noticed that the fast ground at Doncaster has produced a number of races where the winner and placed horses have come from quite a way back and those that have set the (usually fast) pace have dropped away.
I know that if horses go too fast in front, it sets the race up for closers and that too steady a pace gives closers a difficult job. I’m just wondering if this is a ‘going related’ thing in most cases, or if some jockeys are unable to set a pace that gives them a chance to get home.
I suppose fast ground is liable to cause horses to go too quickly and that heavy ground makes jockeys hang on to their mounts so that they don’t run out of energy.
I may have answered my own question, but it raises others such as:
Is the AW track at Lingfield usually too fast for jockeys to judge the pace on front runners?
Any thoughts from pace students on the above would be appreciated.
Artemis,
My theory is that the jockeys may put more store by judging how well the horse under them feels to be going in front, rather than being able to "set", with any accuracy, a theoretically required pace.
For non-polytrack AW, apart from kickback issues, it is very difficult for horses to "accelerate" at the end of races, as even if the energy is there, sufficient traction to increase speed on the surface is not, and horses getting up to a steady cruising speed to lead in front are consequently difficult to catch.
Yielding ground on turf is also hard for horses to gain traction, particularly those without "rounder" actions. Softer ground just needs the strength to maintain a steady plugging on pace, as it is exhausting to even try making up lost ground.
When the ground is fast or on tractable AW such as polytrack then the leading horses can go well for longer but just overdo it and fade. Others can keep going to the line but with a rapidly closing gap. When the top jockeys ride polytrack AW they seem to able to win more from the front than normal. Other horses can simply just go faster in mph terms than other horses on such ground.
The length of run-in, width of track, going towards the centre of the track closers might run on, uphill, downhill or level to finish, adverse undulations, number of runners to pass, how far behind they have left it, how well the front runners are lasting, relative weight carried by horse etc also have significant effects on closer chances.
For a large flat course like Doncaster, with turf in perfect condition, closers would be less disadvantaged than elsewhere, but their best chances might actually come with Good ground in small – normal field sizes, if the argument held that the front runners would more likely tire then than on fast ground and the closers also have the room, length of run-in and traction to have a better chance of actually catching up near the line.
I think one has to bear in mind several factors that might help or hinder closers. These do vary in relative importance with the course and many of the above race conditions.
My theory is that the jockeys may put more store by judging how well the horse under them feels to be going in front, rather than being able to "set", with any accuracy, a theoretically required pace.
Unless you are talking about Steve Cauthen
interesting post robert
Do you think the turf condition at York is responsible for hampering closers (been debated here recently)?
Something about this thread struck me after Fullandby won the Portland today. I ruled him out because he’d previously looked to need soft ground. Is it possible that some horses have more of a pace preference than a ground preference- in his case he needs the leaders to come back to him, which may be more important than underfoot conditions? Could be an interesting angle especially in sprints?
I think you might be on the right track carvillshill.
Horses have an optimum everything – the obvious being distance and going, but their are several more subtle factors which can also have a huge effect on performance.
The pace angle is an interesting one, whether it has more effect than going depends entirely on the individual horse concerned or the extreme of going encountered on the day.
As Drone points out in his post – unravelling the likely pace shape of a race is one the key elements to horse selection and as Robert99 describes in his post – Course confirmation has an effect on either run style and/or pace.
It is essential IMO to have a solid grasp of each courses unique configs and how they can lend themsleves to a certain type of pace / horse running style. It is important to note these can sometimes change due to ground conditions.
On the subject of wind conditions – I’m not convinced by the tailwind theory of suiting front runners too much, IMO it would have to be quite a significant tailwind to have an impact of the run style. The headwind can appear to suit closers, but this may have as much to do with front-runners in general being short-runners and their stamina wilting in the face of the wind. The cross-wind is something which seems from the eye to have an effect on results and anyone being at Newmarket on a gusty day can testify. Stocky/well built horses that are running over a trip slightly short of the best – say a 7 furlong performer running over 6 furlongs chances can be improved IMO by the cross-wind.
Something a little extra i’ll throw into the mix would something I’ve noticed at Lingfield. Horses with proven form on turf over a furlong longer than the race they are in at Lingfield seem to do well. Could this be the fact that the course is tiring but essentially downhill early forcing horses to go quicker than they would usually and tiring in the straight, therefore suiting those closers and/or horses with proven form over slightly longer?
In my opinion
, the intelligence of the jocks (or lack of it) makes any pre-race pace or draw analysis, hit or miss! 
Colin
- Total Posts 17716
Fascinating subject; a few observations.
Pace is important in every race, but (imo) should not be viewed separately without considering such influences, as going, course configuration, distance, and the class of the opposition.
Many ignore the last one but, as such as Detroit City, Fair Along and Cav Okay have demonstrated, even horses that can run fast times can be found wanting for pace when meeting better class horses.
One horse that epitomises the need to take all factors into account is last years L’Abbaye winner Desert Lord. Possibly the fastest horse in training, he only just lasts 5f, and then only in the right circumstances.
He first showed what he is really capable of in the 06 Vodaphone Dash where he had good handicappers on toast from 1f out. He then proved unable to quite last home in gp3’s at Goodwood and the Curragh, but come the L’Abbaye once again had the perfect combination of a quick 5f and fast ground and was able to hold on against gp1 horses.
Had the ground been faster in this year’s Nunthorpe, he would probably have been the bet of the season, and Kingsgate Native wouldn’t have seen the way he’d gone, but it wasn’t to be on that ground. He is still a proper gp1 horse, and may well prove so at Longchamp, but only in his particular circumstances,
Fullandby, imo, is a horse that has got quicker as he’s got older, and is able to run better, over shorter, now than previously. He was able to win the best 5f race he has ever contested at Ayr this season, earning a RPR only previously matched over stiff 6 and 7 furlongs in previous years, and it was that speed, allied to a good pace, that enabled him to get home over yesterday’s fast ground extended 5f.
Incidentally DJ, Yeats is another that has got faster as he’s got older, a view supported by his 2 runs against modest opposition earlier this season, and endorsed on a couple of occasions by his connections.
I wouldn’t judge him on his subsequent form either, as I am reasonably sure he has been trained since with an eye on the Melbourne Cup, a much more valuable prize from a breeding perspective than anything he has contested this season. Yesterday was just a rehearsal imo, and the probable reason why Scorpion was allowed to set such a steady pace.
As far as the theories about pace at York and Lingfield go, unless anyone can prove differently, I will stand by my long-term maxim that, if it defies logic, it probably isn’t true.Thanks for some interesting and thought provoking responses.
It really is a complex equation which can be partly explained by several theories, many of which are complementary.
I agree with those who begin their analysis of a race with a consideration of the track, how it is likely to ride on the day and what shape the race is likely to take given the running styles of the runners. In this context, abilities(ratings) in isolation do not seem so important as I thought they were. I should be looking at track, going, shape of race, and pace, that apertained when those ratings were achieved. In other words all ratings are relative whereas I have treated them on many occasions as being absolute.
it makes the job much harder, but the analysis should be much more sound.
My theory is that the jockeys may put more store by judging how well the horse under them feels to be going in front, rather than being able to "set", with any accuracy, a theoretically required pace.
Unless you are talking about Steve Cauthen
interesting post robert
Do you think the turf condition at York is responsible for hampering closers (been debated here recently)?
Clive,
I have posted below the race details of York winners, pace and nearest finishing closer or vice versa. On the fast ground, made all types were able to last home despite the market not generally favouring them The fields were mostly quite small so closers had no credible traffic problem issues to overcome.
Babyshambles in fact did best of the closers considering relative odds and in the largest field of the day with the overall race pace being Slow. Philanthropy, Captain Macarry and Sporting Gesture are examples where relatively unfancied horses can do well if they take a good lead at Moderate – Slow/Fast pace on fast going. Mighty Moon was able to rally under the Slow pace and narrowly failed. Echo of Light was even able to make all at a Fast pace on the fast ground.
York
5 September 2007
Racing Post data
Going 0.39 GF
Wind: moderate, half against2.00: 5f, 14 ran, Pace = 52%, Slow
1. Zahoour Al Yasmeen, 7/1 (close up, led from half way)
3. Babyshambles, 14/1 (raced in rear, nearest at finish by 2.5L)2.30: 7f, 8 ran, Pace = 69%, Moderate
1. Giant Love, 2/1f (made all)
3. Deira Dubai, 3/1 (held up, challenged final furlong, 0.85L)3.05: 12f, 7 ran, Pace = 72%, Moderate
1. Philanthropy, 25/1 (led, clear over 3f out)
2. Sandbuch, 5/2f (held up, not reach winner, 2.5L)3.35: 9f, 7 ran, Pace = 98%, Fast
1. Echo Of Light, 5/4f (made all)
2. Halicarnassus, 9/1 (held up, not reach winner by 2.5L)4.10: 6f, 11 ran, Pace = 56%, Slow
1. Captain Macarry, 11/1 (made all)
4. Flowing Cape,7/1 (held up, nearest at finish by 1.65L)4.40: 14f, 6 ran, Pace = 53%, Slow
1. Generous Gem,13/8f (held up, led over one furlong out)
2. Mighty Moon, 100/30 (tracked leaders, headed over one furlong out, rallied, by 0.3L)5.10: 12f, 9 ran, Pace = 80% Moderate-Fast
1. Sporting Gesture, 7/1 (made all)
3. Daryal, 5/2f (held up, beaten by 0.85L)Nice stuff…the sort of research im too lazy to carry out
Someone on here quoted a jockey stating that it was a difficult course to pick up on.
Some courses which are perhaps tricky configuations, suit front runners because they can occasionally slip the field (Sandown used to have a lot of this) but otherwise the nature of the ground must play a part
Same thing on rowley mile in the autumn sometimes
, the intelligence of the jocks (or lack of it) makes any pre-race pace or draw analysis, hit or miss! 
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.