- This topic has 139 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
DJ – many thanks. Looking forward to seeing the info.
Guys – have the debate but please respect other people’s right to put forward a different view, even if you disagree with it. Condescending posts which descend to criticism of the person rather than their argument don’t help keep these debates on a civil level.
GT –
Had Frankel been able to produce even fractions he would have produced a better time / performance (won by further).
Not guaranteed. Not guaranteed at all. Many of his rivals were discomfited by the early pace and would have run much better times themselves had Frankel not burnt them off. Had he run ‘even pace’ the complexion of the race would have been totally different.
if Frankel had indeed run even fractions, can anyone name a horse that would have still been fast enough to give him a lead for even 2f?
Personally doubt it and he would still not have seen another horse. Off even fractions, Frankel would have been 5-6 lengths clear at halfway instead of 10-12…… and pretty sure he would have been 10-12 lengths clear at the finish clocking a time figure off the scale for a 3yo.
The Racing Post sectionals showed Frankel ran 2 seconds (10-12 lengths) slower (admittedly up hill) in the final furlong compared to some of the furlong splits in the first half of the race.
Even the 6th and 7th furlongs were run between 5 to 8 lengths slower then the first half furlong splits
Relatively speaking, he was decelerating markedly in the final 3 furlongs and legless up the hill.
Disagree strongly with those that suggest the horse is headstrong and just did what he wanted with Queally as a passenger.
Think Queally will admit he got the fractions wrong, but will learn a lot from this and will see an even more devastating display next time off a more even pace.
Also think those who believe Frankel may be a soft touch and will buckle under pressure are also very misguided. Things went badly for him in the Dewhurst, yet he buckled down and ground it out.
it 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
Thanks Drone – I wish there were more like you.
As you have offered, I feel obliged to reply one last time. You are of course correct but surprisingly I did get 100% in ‘O’ level Biology.
However, it is only gentlemanly to offer the slackjaws at least one straw to clutch at. Of course they miss even that – so what is the point, when Betfair does user generated nonsense so much better?Robert
There is no denying that Frankel is fast ,very fast, like Wilson. But will he stay. A ha that is the question.
Robert
Your last two posts display all that is unpleasant to me when reading UK forums. Patronising, condescending in the extreme. Both posts are full of retribution without giving an actual opinion of your own, bar sneering at others.
Lets hear your views without the rudeness shall we. How do you view Frankel regarding the split times?
However, it is only gentlemanly to offer the slackjaws at least one straw to clutch at. Of course they miss even that – so what is the point
Linnean
Well I, having attained 10% in O Level English Language obviously never went on to carve out a career in Comparitive Philology; hence the unforgiveable error of using a monophthong instead of a diphthong in a word of Scandinavian origin
Linnaean
It would have taken the most chiselled of jaws to spot that, admittedly
Never mind Robert, to your credit all are fair game. It’s not only the Slack that get a taste of your acid fingers but the Smart, Smarter and Smartest too – happy days
David Johnson,
Rumour has it that the ten-digit code to the tungsten safe marked ‘Timefigures of the Good and Great’ is to be found scribbled on the front page of a 1941 edition of ‘The Daily Worker’ hidden in the attic of The Hollins, Halifax
HTH
Thanks for making the effort, look forward to seeing them
.
.
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.
.
.Taking the information from the Racing Post Results webpages gives the following information. The three fastest races on Saturday (other than the 2000Gns) averaged 0.44 seconds per furlong slower than standard. The three fastest races on Sunday (other than the 1000Gns) averaged 0.61 seconds per furlong slower than standard. I excluded the two Classics on the basis that, in statistical terms, one shouldn’t compare a subject data point with a class of points that contains the subject itself. This difference of 0.17 seconds per furlong would be modified by the Saturday template races being better class, with winning horses carrying on average five pounds less weight. Also the pace of the Sunday races might be slower with trainers and jockeys taking note of the experiences of Saturday’s wind and trying to seek cover from the wind rather than striding out. While track conditions usually do not vary by much over a six race span, wind speed and direction can vary hugely from minute to minute, and I feel it would be difficult to place any reliance on speed figures for either day, unless someone had continuous accurate wind readings. I think that attributing all of Sunday’s difference to a stronger headwind would be difficult to prove.
The race time data I used was:
Type – Time – Std Time – Diff. – Dist. – Diff/F – Weight – Age
NmktR
30/04/11
Race 1 – C2H – 112.27 – 108.10 – 4.17 – 9 – 0.46 – 123 – 4
Race 2 – G2 – 153.70 – 148.50 – 5.20 – 12 – 0.43 – 123 – 4
Race 4 – G3 – 59.70 – 57.60 – 2.10 – 5 – 0.42 – 126 – 6NmktR
01/05/11
Race 1 – C2H – 156.46 – 148.50 – 7.96 – 12 – 0.66 – 136 – 5
Race 2 – G3 – 112.78 – 108.10 – 4.68 – 9 – 0.52 – 124 – 4
Race 4 – C2H – 73.83 – 70.00 – 3.83 – 6 – 0.64 – 127 – 4I’m sorry I haven’t figured out yet if the Forum does rows and columns.
Having just read the contributions to this thread I think the rating was a little high.But I could be wrong.(I was wrong about Dallas and I was wrong about the Twin Towers,I was wrong about buying Tsunami Insurance,I was wrong about saying I do, so I could be wrong on this.I wasn’t completely wrong about saying I do, it was when I said it that was wrong.However I won’t bore you with the details of the other times I was wrong).But this time definitely I could possibly be wrong.
DJ – many thanks. Looking forward to seeing the info.
Guys – have the debate but please respect other people’s right to put forward a different view, even if you disagree with it. Condescending posts which descend to criticism of the person rather than their argument don’t help keep these debates on a civil level.
GT –
Had Frankel been able to produce even fractions he would have produced a better time / performance (won by further).
Not guaranteed. Not guaranteed at all. Many of his rivals were discomfited by the early pace and would have run much better times themselves had Frankel not burnt them off. Had he run ‘even pace’ the complexion of the race would have been totally different.
Not Guaranteed, may be Corm. But on the balance of probability it must be at least 95% certain. Say there’s an athlete who is by far the best 800 metres runner in the World. In the Olympic Final he goes off at a tremendous pace, clear of the rest. The first 400 metres is run in a time that would see him go very close to winning the 400 metres Final. Going in to the last 300 metres he’s half the length of a straight clear. Yet tired badly with the margin back to the second reduced by over half by the line. Last three 100m split times being much slower than those that came before.
Truth is the winner went too fast in the first half of the race. In all probability, could have done a faster time had the earlier fractions been a bit slower.Your assertion that some of Frankel’s rivals would have run better races may or may not be true. (Most of the fancied runners reasons for a no show are, just as likely to be ground or fitness related, as pace). But even if one or two horses did run to a better form figure without the suicidal pace; it still means Frankel would’ve (almost without doubt) been capable of a better performance given the "better" (slower) early pace.
Lets say the pace was a bit slower. This enabled Pathfork to run to 119 and Roderic O’Connor 116. Native Khan 120 and Dubawi Gold ran to 117. With Frankel running to 142. When more horses run to a better rating, it does not neccessarily bring the "form" of the winner down.
Value Is EverythingIt’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.
Not axiomatic at all Reet.
When a horse goes out so fast that his own chance is disadvantaged.Three year olds and older horses can run to the same or different levels. It is surely possible to rate three year olds, without needing to wait until they meet their elders.
I’ve learnt quite a lot too Reet, a plethora of new words, and a biology lesson from Robert. Though how knowing about a little known small fish makes you understand racing more, is beyond me.
It was Robert’s comment about me not knowing much about "racing" I was refering to when mentioning the quiz. Nothing to do with pace.
Value Is EverythingHowever, it is only gentlemanly to offer the
slackjaws
at least one straw to clutch at. Of course they miss even that – so what is the point, when Betfair does user generated nonsense so much better?
Robert
Nothing "gentlemanly" just more condescending xxxx.
A lot more I could say, but don’t want this place to degenerate.
Value Is EverythingI believe that the result of a race can affect the horse psychologically.Do we take that into account when reading a race?
- Total Posts 17716
Ginger
It is axiomatic; any horse that makes its own pace has the luxury of the race being run at the speed that inconveniences it the least throughout the race – and when clear all the way, as Frankel was, does not have to alter that ideal pace to fight off challenges from other horses at any stage of the race. He was running on steam in the closing stages, but was so far clear that he never had to be asked a question. As Andrew Beyer once said, a change of pace for just half a furlong, which is impercetible even to sectional timing, can make a difference to the final result.
Your athletics analaogy is also wrong. David Bedford used to lead all the way, knocking 7.6 secs off the world 10,000 metres record in one race, as well as a breaking a number of others, but when it came to being challenged by the top men in his field, couldn’t run anywhere near those times, and invariably disappointed.Robert
Even we ‘forum numpties’ have to eat.
Rather than telling us how wrong we all are, maybe you should just point out why. Strange that in all the furore and disagreement about the race, one man should know all the answers?I believe that the result of a race can affect the horse psychologically.Do we take that into account when reading a race?
Interesting idea Andy but how would you go about taking something like that into account?
….. any horse that makes its own pace has the luxury of the race being run at the speed that inconveniences it the least throughout the race – and when clear all the way, as Frankel was, does not have to alter that ideal pace to fight off challenges from other horses at any stage of the race. He was running on steam in the closing stages, but was so far clear that he never had to be asked a question……
Your athletics analaogy is also wrong. David Bedford used to lead all the way, knocking 7.6 secs off the world 10,000 metres record in one race, as well as a breaking a number of others……1. Mark Johnston would agree with you about the luxury of making your own pace – but would be 100% against any of his jockeys going a faster pace than the horse can sustain for the
whole
race
2. you suggest Frankel did not alter his pace. Yet he was decelerating markedly in the final 3 furlongs and by your own description, "running on steam" ??
3. I assume by "running on steam", you are implying that he had nothing left? And that he never had to be asked a question?
Yet Tom Queally had to get very serious with Frankel in the final 3 furlongs and had to administer a number of backhanders to keep going?4. do you have any idea of the lap times recorded by Bedford when he broke the 10000m world record? Were they even or uneven?
Reet
I wouldn’t know how much to factor for the standing start, so I’ll stick to furlongs two to five which presumably saw the horse in full flight.
Robert99 seems to be implying that the Topspeed corrected fractions that Frankel ran in those four furlongs are impossible using Secretariat’s fractions in the Belmont as the benchmark.
You used the words "average speed" in your last post and they are the operative words. Averaged over 5 furlongs. Robert99 doesnt use the word "average", he states
"For Frankel to achieve those sectionals (which falsely imply 4 sub 11 second sectionals once the DE going allowance is added)"
Dave Edwards Sectionals furlongs 2 to 5
2 – 11.5 seconds
3 – 11.0 seconds
4 – 11.0 seconds
5 – 11.5 secondsThese corrected for by -0.44 seconds produce
2 – 11.06
3 – 10.56
4 – 10.56
5 – 11.06So furlongs two and five when corrected were not sub 11 seconds, true they average out at 10.81 seconds, but there is no implication at all, that the entire four sectionals were "sub 11 second" when interpreting Dave Edwards work.
I’m surprised that such basic mathematics have evaded our resident scientist and true to form when challenged on the few scraps he throws us "slackjaws" from time to time, he does a runner.
I’ll get back to your other points when I get a chance. Cheers.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.