- This topic has 43 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
David Johnson asks
"Should handicappers have the same scale for poundage allowance on fibresand as on polytrack? In my opinion it is rather daft as horses always get more strung out on fibresand than polytrack. Does anyone have any cumulative distance beaten figures for field in handicaps over the polytrack tracks and on fibresand. Might make an interesting article when the turf season finishes."
(Edited by empty wallet at 3:10 pm on Sep. 25, 2006)
If you do it for Fibresand, should you do the same for Soft/Heavy on turf, where horses also get strung out?
(Edited by empty wallet at 3:15 pm on Sep. 25, 2006)
I think you should yes. Taking a look at the Dante for example. Race standards suggest that an 8-length winner of such a contest could be rated 130+. Few would argue though that Septimus was worthy of such a rating. Would that field have finished anywhere near so strung out under less testing conditions? IMO no.
Totally agree DJ
<br>The RP rated Septimus 119 , putting him as a Derby contender with Visindar 117, both of whom THEY overrated imo
Prufrock has some interesting stuff on all this. I once made some comment about how races on the Polytrack should be handicapped on a different scale to other surfaces and he shot me down in flames with some surprising stats, particularly about Lingfield.
I certainly adjust my poundage allowance for very soft and heavy ground. I don’t follow the AW that much and can’t comment but I suspect one of the reasons for extended distances is the greater number of non-triers in low-money races.
Only just seen this thread, so will cut and paste my remarks from another one:
I compared Lingfield Polytrack with Southwell Fibresand for my studies, as Wolverhampton hadn’t bedded down at the time (it was two or three years ago) and uses "odd" distances in any case.
All figures are average cumulative lengths beaten (stop-loss operated) per rival for handicaps from 2002 to 2004.
5 furlongs <br>Lingfield 0.422 <br>Southwell 0.473*
6 furlongs <br>Lingfield 0.456 <br>Southwell 0.647
7 furlongs <br>Lingfield 0.462 <br>Southwell 0.744
8 furlongs <br>Lingfield 0.582 <br>Southwell 0.941
* There is convincing evidence to suggest that 5f races at Southwell are, at least some of the time, run over about 4f 205 yds.
I have long used a factor of 0.8 for poundage on fibresand compared to polytrack (i.e. 10 lb on polytrack is 8 lb on fibresand), and the above figures, plus others I have, suggest this is not too far out for practical purposes.
One consequence from all this is that you come to the realisation that you should really have different poundage allowances not just for different distances, different times and different surfaces, but for different tracks as well!
Besides anything else, the finishing margins returned between horses are a function of their finishing speeds, which are influenced by….the tracks themselves.
I think my comments to Smithy were that Polytrack should be treated like "normal" turf going. That is not exactly true.
5f<br>all turf going 0.412
6f<br>all turf going 0.503
7f  <br>all turf going 0.560
8f<br>all turf going 0.647
But the difference between Polytrack and "normal" turf going is all but negligible once you adjust for the race times that are involved (which you obviously should do, as distance alone is not sufficient).
Average lengths beaten per rival also "prove" that you need a higher poundage allowance at shorter distances (presumably everyone knew that) and that you need a different poundage allowance on average for different ground conditions (I prefer to tie that in with overall race time).
Plus, they "prove" a hell of a lot more besides.
Quote: from Prufrock on 12:46 am on Sep. 26, 2006[br] that you need a different poundage allowance on average for different ground conditions (I prefer to tie that in with overall race time).
Is the calculation for this obtainable please ? ;) :biggrin:
Quote: from Prufrock on 12:46 am on Sep. 26, 2006[br]* There is convincing evidence to suggest that 5f races at Southwell are, at least some of the time, run over about 4f 205 yds.
Why?
The seconds per furlong for 5f is often totally out of line with seconds per furlong at longer distances (after all the allowances have been made). Video scrutiny suggest that they probably move the start around. I  walked the track and the start apparently usually used for 5f is short by the sort of distance mentioned if the other furlong markers are roughly accurately placed (there is the same yardage between them).
Southwell deny this and TurfTrax fail to respond to e-mails asking for confirmation of how far individual horses have travelled at Southwell.
Sectional timing analysis – whether arrived at objectively or subjectively – recognises the desirability of factoring such matters in TDK, but the former is not possible in the majority of instances.
Quote: from Ultimate Nightmare on 10:39 am on Sep. 26, 2006[br]
Quote: from Prufrock on 12:46 am on Sep. 26, 2006[br]* There is convincing evidence to suggest that 5f races at Southwell are, at least some of the time, run over about 4f 205 yds.
Why? <br>
Ultimate Nightmare,
You must understand there are some oddballs out there who attend British racecourses armed with a trundle wheel. ;)
OK. In my opinion, you should multiply the "usual" poundage allowance by 0.78 for Fibresand and 1.05 for Polytrack, but you have to factor in time as well as distance and should ideally factor in the precise track as well (I do this through standard times).
Still fine-tuning my calculations in this area after 30 years of trying…
Is it worth it? I think so.
I agree .. this is a very good read .. it makes you think that there are a few folk who actually know what they’re talking about.
I’ve quite a bit about speed ratings, I think the requirement for a standard time for each course/class is right. If I had the time .. I’d get that sorted out first. And then move onto looking at horses.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.