- This topic has 36 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
I don’t bet on anything and have to say that in the past I’ve taken no notice of official ratings etc. However, I am trying to learn.
This is a bit of a novicey question but has anybody got the time (or the inclination!) to explain a little about timing. I understand the very basics of it, but that is all.
How is the timing made? Is it electronically done or manually? As I’m assuming that each horse in a race has it’s own timings, how is this done? Sounds a logistical nightmare to me but only because I don’t understand.
A little help here would be very much appreciated. <!– s:? –>
<!– s:? –>Hi reet
I am no expert myself and I know there are plenty on here who will be able to give you much more detail but essentially in this country they only give a time for the winner of each race.
The exception to this has been the Champions series races where they have been able to do sectionals on all the horses (as I believe they have do regularly elsewhere). How they do this I do not know (is it like the Marathon where there are sensors after each mile?)
Lots of people have campaigned for more use of sectionals and hopefully it is just a matter of time before they are commonplace.
There were some fascinating examples of them this week. In the Juddmonte for example you may be surprised that Frankel didn’t break the track record. A look at the sectionals tells you why. They went record breaking speed through the first 5/6 furlongs but then slowed appreciably between the 5 and the 3 as the pacemakers inevitably came back to the field. These were the slowest fractions of the race when normally you would expect an increase in the leaders time. Perhaps if Nathaniel had run and taken it up at the top of the straight we would have seen a quicker time.
Hope this helps.
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
There are two different timing systems in use: hand timing (often used at small bush tracks and fairs) and electronic timing (used at most major racetracks and almost all Quarter Horse races).
The old hand timing method is to simply use a stopwatch and click off at each point-of-call http://www1.drf.com/misc/pointsofcall.pdf. "Modern" hand-timers will show the fractions on the tote board.By far the most common electronic system is the Teletimer. http://www.teletimer.com/timing.htm Nowadays they are accurate to 1/100th of a second.
Hi reet
There were some fascinating examples of them this week. In the Juddmonte for example you may be surprised that Frankel didn’t break the track record. A look at the sectionals tells you why. They went record breaking speed through the first 5/6 furlongs but then slowed appreciably between the 5 and the 3 as the pacemakers inevitably came back to the field. These were the slowest fractions of the race when normally you would expect an increase in the leaders time. Perhaps if Nathaniel had run and taken it up at the top of the straight we would have seen a quicker time.
Hope this helps.
Frankel didn’t beat the track record because the going wasn’t firm enough Joni. The overall time was still exceptional, the second time he’s recorded a timeform timefigure of 136.
Our old friend Simon Rowlands (Prufrock) of Timeform has done an excellent write up on the International / Frankel / sectional timing…
http://betting.betfair.com/horse-racing … 12-43.html
Value Is EverythingMay come back to the subject after tomorrow Reetlass, when I have more time to give the subject justice.
Value Is EverythingThanks for that Ginge. Good reading and point taken about the ground though I still think the overall time might have been even faster had Nathaniel ran.
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
Excellent discussion of timing and lots of topics here http://thefiguresneverlie.blogspot.co.uk/?m=1
Don’t see how they can arrive at 136 without cutting loose the sprint hcp and Acomb. Which would beg the question why. The wind was cross and there was no obvious straight / round differential.
Very much doubt any such thing has happened. No differential going allowance is required to arrive at a time-based figure in at least the mid-130s for Frankel. But it depends on what standard times you are using.
More on sectionals here:
Hello,
Dear me, I cannot believe people rely on fractional etc.
It is the biggest urban myth racing has ever put together.
having residing and losing in the USA, all tracks are the same, so much so, the stirrups are shorter on one side than the other. The bullshit "fractionals" "speed" were invented by the Wise Guys to prompt a stupid post as this (all due respect).
Fractionals mean **** all at Catterick, Ripon or Folkestone, lose your money with dignity and stop finding excuses.
regards,
doyley
Very much doubt any such thing has happened. No differential going allowance is required to arrive at a time-based figure in at least the mid-130s for Frankel. But it depends on what standard times you are using.
I’m sure you understood Pru, but I will reiterate. If you haven’t split the variant but maintain that a 136 was run then I don’t see how your hcp sprint and Acomb timefigs don’t come out unfeasably fast if you have them all tied together.
Proprietry standard times, weights & measures & scales & conversions could explain some of it away, but I thought that reason unlikely enough to make my original comment.
I’m with Doyley on this:
I have never been and will never be a convert to the beliefs of the sectional timing brigade.
I remain firmly in the "racing is an inexact science" camp.
Although, in saying that,the horse who has the form, handles the course, is suited by conditions and runs faster than his opponents on that particular day, invariably wins the race.
For those remotely interested, Frankel won the Juddmonte in a time of 2m 6.59s ( fast by 0.91s ) which was slower than Sea The Stars’ time and just over 5 seconds slower than Duke Of Marmalade’s record winning time in 2008.
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
Hello,
Where were the sectional timings when Cox’s horse won at 25/1…******* bad jockeys matey!
regards,
doyley
For those remotely interested, Frankel won the Juddmonte in a time of 2m 6.59s ( fast by 0.91s ) which was slower than Sea The Stars’ time and just over 5 seconds slower than Duke Of Marmalade’s record winning time in 2008.
May not be a straightforward correlation or comparison as there was significant dolling-out of the rail last Wednesday: all the way down the back and most grossly on the two bends, plus the fact Frankel came across to the stands’ side to win
No idea how much extra yardage was added, anyone know?
I got the impression that if the race were an athletic event run in lanes around a bend, all began in lane 3 or above – unstaggered – and the winner drifted across to lane 8; so to labour the athletics analogy perhaps Frankel ran the equivalent of 410m rather than 400m but the clock judges reckoned he had covered the theoretical latter
May not be a straightforward correlation or comparison as there was significant dolling-out of the rail last Wednesday: all the way down the back and most grossly on the two bends
Really? The RP shows the Clerk’s yardage diff estimate at the top of the result analysis of the first race of a meeting if official distances have been altered. I saw no mention of it here. That’s the reason for my confusion if the bend was dolled out. What was the additional yardage?
<!– s:? –>
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.