- This topic has 139 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
You
are
a stayer GT – If you were Frankel, Henry would have no hesitation in sending you to the Derby (annd he’d be plotting the 2012 Gold Cup too!!!)
Apart from Queally going too fast. (That is no criticism of Queally, had Frankel been restrained, he may have pulled too hard and not got home).
However, when a horse goes off at a pace normally too quick for the distance; it usually slows dramatically in the final furlong or so. Therefore, there are"pace and shape considerations"
to complicate things.
Ginger Tips,
The phrase was qualified by
"from the field"
i.e Frankel’s run and Queally’s riding of him was not compromised by what the other runners were up to. It was essentially a ‘full speed work ride’ in which Frankel was asked – or more likely decided for himself – to give his all. He did and had a hard race
From what little I’ve seen of Queally leads me to believe he’s an adequate jockey but not the strongest, not the best tactician, nor the best judge of pace; so essentially Frankel dominated the jockey and ran as he pleased, which is why I believe the timefigure is a sound if not concrete reflection of the form rating
I’m of the belief that horses allowed to do their own thing over an ideal distance in ideal conditions in which the jockey is no more than a 9st sack of potatoes lashed to his back tend to return top form and top time performances
Frankel is a not-quite-top-of-the-class mid 130s horse: time will tell
Reet Hard,
Thanks for the link, vaguely recall it, will refresh my memory when time allows
I knew what you meant Drone, just pointing out Frankel went too fast early. Therefore, did not run the even fractions which would have produced a faster over all time. Timeform did time the early part of the race (but not furlong by furlong) as Simon Rowlands expands on in his article, so the early speed is fact, and not supposition.
Thumbs up.
Value Is EverythingYou
are
a stayer GT – If you were Frankel, Henry would have no hesitation in sending you to the Derby (annd he’d be plotting the 2012 Gold Cup too!!!)
I’m not quick enough for a Derby Corm, Leger is my race.
Value Is EverythingTopspeed’s verdict from the Racing Post (delete if copyright problems)
"Faced with a stiff headwind head·wind he was never likely to establish any new benchmark times and taken at face value his winning time of 1m 37.30sec was over three seconds slower than the track record and 1.8sec outside Racing Post standard.
But once factoring in the allimportant going allowance, his performance warranted a Topspeed 132, topping the previous race best 129 posted by King’s Best in 2000.
When analysing the sectionals the usual caveats about hand times, points of reference and margin of error apply. From a standing start he covered the first furlong in 13.5sec, the second in 11.5, third in 11.0, fourth in 11.0 and the fifth in 11.5 which cumulatively means he covered the first five furlongs in an astonishing 58.50sec.
In effect he went at a Group 1 sprinter’s pace for five furlongs and, when clocking the consecutive 11-second splits, he was averaging 20yds – almost the length of a cricket pitch a second.
Understandably he slowed in the closing stages with the final three furlongs taking 12.5, 13 and 13.5sec respectively but considering the headwind and that he had no company to make him go even faster it was a staggering display of raw speed and power.
Frankel went through the first five furlongs in around 58.50sec – over a second quicker than the time Tangerine Trees clocked in the Palace House, admittedly not over the same section of the track – and then maintained a relentless gallop for a further three furlongs.
Looked at another way, Newmarket’s five-furlong track record established in 1994 by Lochsong is 56.81sec but factor in the going allowance from that day and the six-year-old’s ‘adjusted’ time becomes 58.61sec. Apply similar logic to Frankel and his adjusted time for the opening five furlongs on Saturday equates to 56.3sec.
Admittedly there are a few ifs and buts involved, but the comparison further illustrates just what an electrifying performance Frankel put up."
Dave Edwards’ hand-timed sectionals are not too far out from professional ones. What he does not mention though is that he made the going allowance as Good_Soft on Saturday and Soft on Sunday. (Official goings Good-Firm, Good in places). That is at a time when trainers cannot use the turf gallops as being far too firm during the current drought. Any light watering not absorbed overnight would get soon evaporated in the winds which were about 20 degrees to head on during the 2000g and were about 16 mph equivalence with gusts to 22mph.
Blue Bunting (seasonal debut) running from towards the rear, so not controlling the race pace, faced 22 mph headwinds gusting to 32 mph and finished 3.77 seconds above par. Frankel 1.80 seconds from the front setting its own pace. One gets a RPR of 133 and the other 116.
For Frankel to achieve those sectionals (which falsely imply 4 sub 11 second sectionals once the DE going allowance is added) and remain within the bounds of what horses can provenly run at historically (eg Secretariat Belmont Stakes, won by 31 lengths: 23 3/5, 22 3/5, 23 3/5, 24 2/5, 24 4/5, 25), then the ground can only have been very much on the firmer side of Good-Firm, the wind raising the allowance a little but nowhere near to zero. So the adjusted time was not so good as DE enthuses and there is no speedfigure evidence to back up the Timeform 142 claim.
It must be dawning on some people at least that rating races that are run entirely differently to the norm, as per Frankel, make a mockery of the die-hard rating methods of a past age.
- Total Posts 17716
Terrific stuff, Robert.
One of the most revealing posts I have ever read on this forum, and one which uses just plain facts and common sense to blow out of the water any amount of hyperbole from pundits and organisations that really ought to know better.
I have long felt that ‘going allowances’ are guesswork for the great majority who collate and purvey speed figures – now I am absolutely certain.
Bravo.Blue Bunting (seasonal debut) running from towards the rear, so not controlling the race pace, faced 22 mph headwinds gusting to 32 mph and finished 3.77 seconds above par. Frankel 1.80 seconds from the front setting its own pace. One gets a RPR of 133 and the other 116.
Blue Bunting "not controlling the race pace".
As if Frankel had an advantage and Blue Bunting a disadvantage?The strong headwind in the 1000 made it an
advantage not
to "control the race pace". They went too quick, with those in front early (and getting full effect from the wind) finishing out the back and those out the back early (with cover) finishing in front. You should look at the race again Robert. It favoured all the first three home to be held up out the back.
In the same way Dubawi Gold was advantaged against Frankel for being dropped out in a strongly run race.
Why use stuff from Topspeed with a rating from Timeform? That is not fair. After all, Timeform are not suggesting the going was anything other than good-firm.
Timeform Timefigure for 2000 Guineas 136
Timefigure for 1000 Guineas 118.Simon Rowlands says on betfair (see corm’s earlier link; delete if copyright issues):
Sectional analysis would have helped greatly in measuring the merit of how Frankel went about winning the 2000 Guineas, and not just that he did. But British racing does not have official sectionals, and the falseness of this economy becomes especially apparent on occasions like this.
Nonetheless, it is possible to establish that Frankel got to halfway in about 47.5 sec (after response delay and parallax error is accounted for). That is significantly faster than the Guineas for which we have electronic sectionals, including ones run under quicker conditions than this year’s. Frankel appeared to be posting 11-second or near-11-second furlong sectionals mid-race, something more likely to be seen in a top sprint.
If you want to come out with statements like "which falsely imply 4 sub 11 second sectionals", you should at least come out with your own times Robert. Particularly when two seperate organisations come to the same conclusion. What are your times?
Value Is Everything, just pointing out Frankel went too fast early. Therefore, did not run the even fractions which would have produced a faster over all time. Timeform did time the early part of the race (but not furlong by furlong) as Simon Rowlands expands on in his article, so the early speed is fact, and not supposition
Apologies, wasn’t aware of the Rowland article
Considering only a front-running performance such as Frankel’s, what would be the ideal fractions required to produce a faster time over a mile?
Moderate restraint to prevent ‘sprinters pace’ early leading to more-or-less even fractions?
Heavy restraint leading to slow early and quick final fractions?
And as you have mentioned would restraint have defeated the objective by a) annoying and unsettling Frankel and b) by fighting for his head using up energy that would otherwise have fed his legs
I do believe that allowing Frankel to do his ‘own thing’ unhindered by the jockey enabled him to show his best and possibly peak form from which he may not improve, and only maintain in future engagements if allowed the same run-of-the-race, which would seem unlikely now that trainers are wiser to his ways
A front-running sprinter-miler in my opinion, and a damn fast one
A most interesting horse, and race
Blue Bunting (seasonal debut) running from towards the rear, so not controlling the race pace, faced 22 mph headwinds gusting to 32 mph and finished 3.77 seconds above par. Frankel 1.80 seconds from the front setting its own pace. One gets a RPR of 133 and the other 116.
Blue Bunting "not controlling the race pace".
As if Frankel had an advantage and Blue Bunting a disadvantage?The strong headwind in the 1000 made it an
advantage not
to "control the race pace". They went too quick, with those in front early (and getting full effect from the wind) finishing out the back and those out the back early (with cover) finishing in front. You should look at the race again Robert. It favoured all the first three home to be held up out the back.
In the same way Dubawi Gold was advantaged against Frankel for being dropped out in a strongly run race.
Why use stuff from Topspeed with a rating from Timeform? That is not fair. After all, Timeform are not suggesting the going was anything other than good-firm.
Timeform Timefigure for 2000 Guineas 136
Timefigure for 1000 Guineas 118.Simon Rowlands says on betfair (see corm’s earlier link; delete if copyright issues):
Sectional analysis would have helped greatly in measuring the merit of how Frankel went about winning the 2000 Guineas, and not just that he did. But British racing does not have official sectionals, and the falseness of this economy becomes especially apparent on occasions like this.
Nonetheless, it is possible to establish that Frankel got to halfway in about 47.5 sec (after response delay and parallax error is accounted for). That is significantly faster than the Guineas for which we have electronic sectionals, including ones run under quicker conditions than this year’s. Frankel appeared to be posting 11-second or near-11-second furlong sectionals mid-race, something more likely to be seen in a top sprint.
If you want to come out with statements like "which falsely imply 4 sub 11 second sectionals", you should at least come out with your own times Robert. Particularly when two seperate organisations come to the same conclusion. What are your times?
GingerT,
I genuinely appreciate your enthusiasm for racing, but possibly you are not self aware of still being a little fish within a tiny pond of Astyanax Jordani, and may not realise how you are still more than a little wet behind the racing ears. Have a far more careful read of what I actually wrote – think about each line and throw away preconceptions and prejudice – learn something and move on to the next step. I won’t embarrass you further with explaining the basics of racing, time and pace but every statement you have made above is wrong and totally misses each and every point. This thread has gone on far too long so I am out.
robert, in Dave Edwards defence, I’m sure he would agree that the going was indeed on the fast side. His use of the terms Good to Soft and Soft for his going corrections are merely descriptions of the the positive allowances that he computed due to the headwind.
Drone, disagree with your view that Frankel is a headstrong sort who is not amenable to restraint. And others comments on here that suggest Tom Queally is just a passenger on a horse doing what he wants do a great disservice to a high class jockey.
Think Queally stated that he never thinks he is going that fast on Frankel due to his long stride, and pretty sure that is what happened on Saturday. When he looked behind at halfway and saw he was 10 lengths clear, he must have had a heart attack and realised he had overdone it.
This was the first time that Frankel has been let loose from the front. His jockey will have learnt a lot from this and can virtually guarantee that Queally will ride more even fractions in the future. I would even dare to suggest that Frankel will clock even better time figures this season and that we haven’t seen anything yet.
GingerT,
I genuinely appreciate your enthusiasm for racing, but possibly you are not self aware of still being a little fish within a tiny pond of Astyanax Jordani, and may not realise how you are still more than a little wet behind the racing ears. Have a far more careful read of what I actually wrote – think about each line and throw away preconceptions and prejudice – learn something and move on to the next step. I won’t embarrass you further with explaining the
basics of racing, time and pace
but every statement you have made above is wrong and totally misses each and every point. This thread has gone on far too long so I am out.
If i have misinterpreted your post Robert; then you should have made things clearer and not let it be subject to mistinterpretation. If you look at my first post in this thread, and compare it with what Timeform later said – I think I know about the "basics of racing, time and pace", and I hope a bit more than that. Timeform have echoed my points about Frankel being worth more than the distances imply and have since agreed Dubawi Gold to some extent flattered. Both purely because of pace.
As someone who captains a team against the likes of Racing Post and Raceform in a racing quiz, I think I know a fair bit, could be wrong.
I respect your knowledge of the sport Robert, you’ve said a lot on this forum and other forums I’ve enjoyed reading and indeed agreed with. However, this post did not seem up to your usual standard and -as it attacks both Topspeed and Timeform – they deserve to be defended.Value Is EverythingApologies, wasn’t aware of the Rowland article
Considering only a front-running performance such as Frankel’s, what would be the ideal fractions required to produce a faster time over a mile?
Moderate restraint to prevent ‘sprinters pace’ early leading to more-or-less even fractions?
Heavy restraint leading to slow early and quick final fractions?
And as you have mentioned would restraint have defeated the objective by a) annoying and unsettling Frankel and b) by fighting for his head using up energy that would otherwise have fed his legs
I do believe that allowing Frankel to do his ‘own thing’ unhindered by the jockey enabled him to show his best and possibly peak form from which he may not improve, and only maintain in future engagements if allowed the same run-of-the-race, which would seem unlikely now that trainers are wiser to his ways
A front-running sprinter-miler in my opinion, and a damn fast one
A most interesting horse, and race
As far as an optimum time goes, an even pace should produce the best time. However, to produce that best time a horse also needs to race in a position that favours him /her.
Had Frankel been able to produce even fractions he would have produced a better time / performance (won by further). Although had he needed to be restrained to do so, that could also affect performance adversely.
Frankel has potential to improve further in future (if able to again use front-running tactics). However, it is possible Frankel needs to lead to produce a similar rating. So I agree Drone, this may have shown Frankel’s hand and other trainers may act on it; by putting in a spoiler / sprinter pacemaker. Frankel may not be able to reproduce this type of performance very often.
Value Is Everythingit attacks both Topspeed and Timeform – they deserve to be defended.
Third-party opinion should always be treated with a degree of scepticism, particularly if it emanates from Sacred Cows
As far as an optimum time goes, an even pace should produce the best time. However, to produce that best time a horse also needs to race in a position that favours him /her.
Had Frankel been able to produce even fractions he would have produced a better time / performance (won by further).
Thanks for the ‘even fractions’ mantra: like all received wisdom it doesn’t necessarily apply all of the time. In the case of Frankel in this particular race I have my doubts, as rambled upon earlier. But I don’t know and very much doubt anyone else does either
Astyanax Jordani
If I may be permitted to offer a small correction Robert. As everyone who has passed O Level Biology should know, the ground-rule of Linnean binomial nomenclature is Generic Name upper case, Specific Name lower case
Astyanax jordani
in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king
When analysing the sectionals the usual caveats about hand times, points of reference and margin of error apply. From a standing start he covered the first furlong in 13.5sec, the second in 11.5, third in 11.0, fourth in 11.0 and the fifth in 11.5 which cumulatively means he covered the first five furlongs in an astonishing 58.50sec.
If I’ve interpreted this correctly, Dave Edwards five furlong sectional of 58.50 seconds is adjusted to 56.3 seconds in the second last paragraph of his article. That’s an adjustment of 0.44 seconds per furlong over five furlongs. Subtracting that from the second, third, fourth, and fifth furlong sectionals he details in his piece and only two of them come out sub 11 seconds, not four.
7 of Belmont Park’s 11 main track records were broken within one week either way of Secretariat’s Belmont, completely unprecedented. Many of them lasted for years.
A remarkably restrained reply from yourself GT, considering the condescension…
- Total Posts 17716
Cav
Allowing for the standing start and topspeed’s g.a., Frankel ran the first 5f at an average speed of 10.56 s.p.f which indicates pretty quick ground, as borne out by the official description and the going stick reading (8.8s).
Blue Bunting, carrying the same weight on the same ground (g.s.8.8s), but facing a c40% stronger headwind covered the c/d in just 1.97secs slower the following day.
Taking the fastest 3 races on each day as a template, the times for Saturday show an average 2.31 secs p.f. above standard, Sunday as 3.89, which implies Sunday’s stronger headwind made much more difference than the 0.10 s.p.f. allowed by Dave Edwards, and suggests the 17lb difference in the 2 performances is just plain wrong. It might also be worth pointing out that the 107 rated Tangerine Trees (9st) ran a time of only 0.3 secs above standard more than did Frankel on the same day, albeit over a shorter distance.
It’s also axiomatic that a horse making its own pace has a distinct advantage over the opposition, particularly so when that advantage stretches to an unchallenged 15l, and while Frankel is clearly a top class colt, he has yet, (imho), to prove the monster that so many have him. The SJP looks to be his for the taking, but he still has to meet the top older horses, and until then, no one can be certain of how good he really is.It’s been a great thread this, I’ve learned quite a bit from it. Some impart knowledge, some absorb it, which is exactly as a forum should be – though I’ve still got to figure out what a quiz team has to do with understanding pace.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.