- This topic has 139 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Reet
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 was only thinking the other day about all the pro’s that visit this forum and never contribute any information to us mortals, just throw us a couple of bones.
Dave Edwards in my eyes is the best in the business, and what always makes me smile, that there is nobody on this board who knows how he calculates his going allowances.
I can replicate his ratings to the pound, and my own ratings are based on his method, the only diffence is that I do not use WFA and I use my own lbs. per length calculations.
I have been keeping a running total of his going allowances and they can be viewed here (13,000+ races):
Excel.xls
Column F = Winning time
Column G: Winning time converted to secs
Column J = Time outside RP Standard
Column H = RP Standard for that distance
Column I = My own lbs. per length calculations
Column K = Dave Edwards Going allowancesAnother use for this list is that I can check my standard times list by filtering each course, race and distance + you could use it to make up your own standard times.
On going project…I’ve read almost every racing talking head "expert" on many boards, magazines, racing papers through the years, they all share a way with words but i’ve never known one yet to supply a winner.
Large ego’s but small betting banks.
- Total Posts 17716
Dave Edwards in my eyes is the best in the business, and what always makes me smile, that there is nobody on this board who knows how he calculates his going allowances.
I can replicate his ratings to the pound,BB,
You obviously put a lot of work into your figures, and generously share the resultant lists wih this board, so maybe you’re the one who could give an honest and unbiased answer to the following question:Just how accurate and reliable is Dave Edward’s going allowance for the 2 days of he Guinea’s meeting?
Clearly (imo) the overall times for Sunday were appreciably slower than Saturday’s; slow enough for DE to change his time-based ground description from g/s to soft (patently misleading – even though justified by his m.o.), yet only allow a marginal (0.10 secs) for the different g.a.
Not having a go at Dave Edwards specifically, you understand, as I’ve reached the conclusion that nobody really knows what the diffference was on the 2 days, or, precisely, what caused it.Clearly (imo)
the overall times for Sunday were appreciably slower than Saturday’s
; slow enough for DE to change his time-based ground description from g/s to soft (patently misleading – even though justified by his m.o.), yet only allow a marginal (0.10 secs) for the different g.a.
Not having a go at Dave Edwards specifically, you understand, as I’ve reached the conclusion thatnobody really knows what the diffference was on the 2 days, or, precisely, what caused it.
Given the high May sun and cool easterly breeze, It strikes me as highly unlikely the going was softer on Sunday, regardless of how much water they chucked on overnight
Prufrock has written in the past on these pages that the effect of wind speed and direction on race-time is over-rated or exaggerated by the layman. While I respect his opinion as it is derived no doubt from diligent numerical analysis, I as that layman still do believe wind direction is a factor important enough for all those such as Dave Edwards to consider
before
they chase their tails elucidating going allowances
I say this as a sometime and occasional cyclist. The energy my poor old legs have to expend and the strain on my ageing circulatory system when faced with a head, near-head or crosswind seems far greater than when riding in still conditions, and infinitely greater than when sailing along in a tailwind
Now I realise horses aren’t bicycles and conversion of energy into motion through muscle to legs may be more efficient than through sprocket, chain and wheel, but nevertheless the effect of wind on the time of a horse race must surely be a significant factor, if not crucial
Hence, perhaps the slower times on Sunday were down to nothing more than the documented stronger winds compared to Saturday, with the going being all but identical
Dave Edwards will probably have a cut off on his Going Allowance table where the "description" assigned to each range of going allowances changes….. and Newmarket last weekend (0.44 on Sat to 0.54 on Sun) probably crossed it.
A difference of 0.1 secs PER FURLONG, is significant in say a mile race, as much as 4 lengths.
As mentioned previously on here, Dave Edwards will know full well that the going was riding Good or faster.
But that the headwind ensured race times read more like good to soft or soft race times. The going allowance description assigned in the Racing Post and other publications is merely that automatically assigned by his computer to each range of going allowances referred to above.
Maybe Dave should consider some new descriptions to take into account wind factor, as this is clearly misleading to those who rely on going allowance descriptions instead of the official Clerk of the Course going descriptions?
As for wind being negligible to race times, well it’s pretty obvious to anyone, such as Drone when he/she is cycling, or to anyone who ever had to walk or run in a gale force wind, that wind speed makes a difference to how fast you can go and how much energy it takes to go a certain distance.
I think Nick Mordin in his book on compiling speed figures also suggested that wind speed was not relevant. Unless he is talking about very light wind, then this is clearly wrong.
- Total Posts 17716
Drone
Thanks for the dose of common sense; agree that the ground would hardly be slower on Sunday, given the weather and the identical going stick readings for both days.
While I concur with your point on Pru’s mathematical approach (iirc, Robert also intimated that wind-speed wasn’t much of a factor), I’d question any conclusion that flies in the face of those drawn by Isaac Newton.MV
According to the figures Robert gave, wind speed rose from from Saturday’s 16mph to Sunday’s 22; gusts rising similarly from 22 to 32. Both significant % increases, and bound (imo) to affect times more than any 0.1 per furlong.
Moot point whether the latter figure is computer generated or arbitrary, though I’d suspect that – like going allowances – they are whatever the collators prefer them to be.reet hard, you are absolutely correct in that the "going allowance" is whatever the collator chooses it to be. Which is why some may be better than others (or not!) at generating accurate speed figures.
If the wind seed varied from 16 on Sat to up to 32 Sun, agree you would expect that to make a difference.
I made it about 0.125 secs difference from Sat to Sun, a shade more than the 0.1 secs per furlong in the Racing Post.
Raceform had 0.15 secs per furlong quicker on Sat.This probably highlights that windspeed does indeed have an effect…. but not as much as we would expect even on half-ton of horseflesh…. which is what likes of Prufrock, Nick Mordin etc may be suggesting in the case of more typical lighter wind speeds or breezes.
Correct if I am wrong, but isn’t it the 110m hurdles where they prefer to have a very light wind speed AGAINST the runners in order to create optimum world record conditions?
Reet
Regarding Blue Bunting carrying the same weight on the same ground…Cant dispute that but I think you have to consider a lot more than simply the weight of the burden on each horses back. Timeform describe Frankel as a "big,strong colt", Blue Bunting as a "well made filly". Physically Frankels legs had to carry a heavier carcass up the Rowley Mile, he’s wider which makes him less wind resistant, he probably has larger feet and is thus more effected by surface friction and jockey-wise Queally rides taller in the saddle than the much more aerodynamic Dettori. So I think given the conditions over both days, Frankel probably had the larger burden despite the identical weights carried.
I’ve done my own checking on the wind by interpolating the windspeed and direction from RAF Mildenhall which lies 10 miles northeast of Newmarket and Cambridge Airport 7 miles to the west at 2:50pm on both days. These reported winds are reliable (they have legal implications in air incident/accident investigations) and there are no significant topographical features between them and Newmarket that would produce a microclimate effect on the Rowley Mile. I have Frankel running into a 19mph headwind, Blue Bunting into a 31mph headwind excluding gusts, whose measurement would be complete guesswork.
So its true on the face of it there is an anomaly on the time corrections, but (and its only a but) this could
possibly
be explained by the excellent aerodynamic cover provided by Dettori until inside the 3 furlong pole, thus conserving the horses energy, and without knowing Blue Buntings sectionals possibly allowing her to complete the final 2 furlongs faster than Frankel did the previous day. Its also possible given the generally strong Northerly winds in the days leading up to the Guineas meeting that watering had settled away from the near side rail and provided a slightly faster strip of ground on that part of the course. Frankel and Blue Bunting raced on completely separate sections of the racecourse, so again as with the weight issue drawing similar inferences from different circumstances may not be the best way forward. Dave Edwards, Dave Bellingham and Timeform all have a similar interpretation of the time adjustment and given the experience and amount of data they have in doing the job added to the dead straight nature of the racecourse, I’d say they cant all be wrong.
I’m definitely buying into Drone’s bicycle analogy. Newmarket must be the most wind effected racecourse in the country and its generally well known that leaders running into a strong headwind there find it difficult to get home. This is crucial when reviewing the events of Guineas weekend.
Over the distances of a mile or more the following horses led their races over the two days…
Kay Gee Bee
Monitor Closely
Discoteca
Darej
Chiberta King
Pachattack
Hooray
Cinta
Golden HindeSeven of them had won from the front before, so you cant say they raced from a position of tactical disadvantage….they were all mullered. The good old Newmarket headwind saw to that, the only horse to overcome it was Frankel, against Group horses in a classic. I think that’s absolutely crucial when you evaluate his performance on the day.
A 142 from a 3 year old on the last day of Spring feels too high and I wish they’d left it at 137 which in my opinion all the data backs up. The "bit for mum" added on was unnecessary given the unusual nature of how the race was run. Personally if he beats all the older top milers by half a length having seen off protracted challenges from the 2 pole in a fast time at Ascot, I’ll consider it a more meritorious performance despite the lower rating it will doubtless receive.
What a fascinating game…
Correct if I am wrong, but isn’t it the 110m hurdles where they prefer to have a very light wind speed AGAINST the runners in order to create optimum world record conditions?
Don’t know if that’s true, but if so it may be due to a slight headwind providing aerodynamic lift over the hurdles, in the same way that aircraft whenever possible take-off and land into the prevailing wind
A 142 from a 3 year old on the last day of Spring feels too high and I wish they’d left it at 137 which in my opinion all the data backs up. The "bit for mum" added on was unnecessary given the unusual nature of how the race was run. Personally if he beats all the older top milers by half a length having seen off protracted challenges from the 2 pole in a fast time at Ascot, I’ll consider it a more meritorious performance despite the lower rating it will doubtless receive.
What a fascinating game…
Personally,
If Timeform believe there is enough evidence to suggest Frankel is capable of running to 142 next time out; then I’d rather them give the horse 142. As it gives a more accurate rating to what the horse is capable of achieving next time out. The trouble with a 137+ or 137p is it could mean an extra 2, 4, 5 or 9 lbs added. I can work out my 100% book easier with a definate figure of 142.Value Is EverythingI can work out my 100% book easier with a definate figure of 142.
You can work out your 100% book with Frankels official rating of 130 just as easily Ginger,pure nonsense to suggest he could have won by 8 lengths and so award him a hypothetical rating of 142 for beating Dubawi Gold a very generous 6 lengths, something both Canford Cliffs and Dick Turpin can do with ease.
I can work out my 100% book easier with a definate figure of 142.
You can work out your 100% book with Frankels official rating of 130 just as easily Ginger,pure nonsense to suggest he could have won by 8 lengths and so award him a hypothetical rating of 142 for beating Dubawi Gold a very generous 6 lengths, something both Canford Cliffs and Dick Turpin can do with ease.
No I can’t Kingfisher. I trust Timeform infinitely more than the BHA handicapper. You can go back and see what I’ve written as explanations on this thread about why it is quite right to rate Frankel at 8 lengths, and why Dubawi Gold is flattered. (Won’t bore people to death again). It is you who is talking nonsense Kingfisher, as by working my 100% book on Frankel’s official 130 rating is seriously under-estimating his ability. So my price to beat for Frankel would be far too big and his rivals too short by using 130 as a guide.
Value Is Everythingby working my 100% book on Frankel’s official 130 rating is seriously under-estimating his ability. So my price to beat for Frankel would be far too big and his rivals too short by using 130 as a guide.
By working out your prices to 142 means you will have Frankel shorter than he should be and others bigger Ginger,i can see you offering 10/1
Dick Turpin
in a match at this rate!
- Total Posts 17716
Cav
Thanks for the detailed reply, and the research hours you must have spent to produce it. Your wind-speed figures actually make a better case than Robert’s for it being harder work on Sunday. Try as I might – on racing, quarter horse, trotting, cycling, athletics and sailing websites – I’ve yet to see where the wind doesn’t make an appreciable difference, so can’t easily accept that it wasn’t much of a factor.
Not so sure about the wind (side on from the front quarter) affecting front runners to a much greater degree than the others though? On the same day as Frankel’s win, the relatively modest (107 rated) Tangerine Trees led all the way to run a time (RP figures, w.f.a. adjusted) that would put him only a comparative 6l or so behind this perceived superstar.
All in all, I’ll dish the scientific approach, and stick with my instinct and what I’ve learned over the years – that unchallenged winners can set fast times, yet are almost always unable to replicate them when taken on, and the ‘Nijinskys’ of this world don’t dance every season, regardless of what the raters would have us believe.Thanks also Cavelino, very interesting, especially on the official wind speeds.
On the subject of aerodynamics, if you had asked me beforehand, I would have said that the heaver, bulkier, even wider, stronger looking horses had more chance of surviving the buffeting effects of a strong wind than say the slimmer, more lighter framed horses.
But can also follow your logic that the latter might be better suited aerodynamically to running in strong winds.
However, I got the impression for example in the 2yo race on the Sunday that the big, strong looking Commissar was flattered by the winning distance because he was exactly that. And all the others, who looked smaller, just couldn’t cope with the headwind and you could have knocked them over with a feather?
In cycling, do the bigger, heavier (and/or physically wider-bodied ) racers have an advantage/disadvantage due to having more "stability" on a bike into a headwind or when suffering from a crosswind?
I guess the same question of traffic on the road. You hear of lots of overturned lorries due to strong wind. Guess there is a point at which the weight of the vehicle is no longer a stability provider, but a hazard due to larger size or area of the vehicle becoming subject to wind?
Fair enough, reet. I’d be happy to discount Tangerine Trees on the grounds of it being a sprint, of the 10 leaders over a mile or more, nine of them collapsed, Frankel was the only exception and that combined with his opening 5 furlong fractions even when unadjusted combine to have made it a run deserving of the highest merit, imo. I’d only compare the effect of wind directly if both Frankel and Blue Bunting had run in an identical fashion on an identical part of the racetrack, which they didn’t. I’d be very interested to know what time Blue Bunting did the final 2 furlongs in, if it was faster (which I think it is) then that would be further proof she was raced in a more optimal fashion than Frankel, who bore the full brunt of a 19mph headwind for the entire race. Blue Bunting didn’t, she was only produced into that headwind inside the final 3 furlongs, a masterful ride by Dettori imo.
That said I’d also need to see Frankel win 2 or 3 more Group 1’s against top notch opposition before I’d be rating him better than the best horse I’ve ever seen, namely, Sea The Stars.
Roll on Royal Ascot.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.