- This topic has 30 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
We often read or hear something like, the form of so and so race is unreliable because it wasn’t run at a true pace. But what is a ‘true pace’ and why should it be particularly significant?
I suspect that what is often implied is an ‘even pace’, but that raises another equally troublesome question, which is, since very few races are run at an ‘even pace’ why should the form of even pace races be particularly significant for predicting the outcome of future races, given that almost all future races will in turn be run at an UNEVEN pace?
Anyone!
I think you are partially right.
In effect, the most efficient way for horses (or people) to run is to run at an even pace throughout. In reality, most ‘competitive’ horse races are won by the horses which are slowing down less (in real terms) at the end of the race.
I think the term ‘true pace’ usually signifies that they have gone at least a reasonable gallop from an early stage, as opposed to cantering for all but the final 3 furlongs and then sprinting like mad to the line.
Races run at a crawl early tend to generate slow overall times. They may also involve horses actually accelerating in the latter stages with the fastest furlong often being the last or second last. They can be won by horses which settle adequately but are better suited by shorter trips, and thus ‘stamina’ tends to be untested or unproven.
Most races on polytrack (particularly at Lingfield) tend to be relatively slowly run during the first half, and the surface/course combination suits ‘pouncers’ who can lay up without taking too much out of themselves and then produce a sustained burst of speed in the home straight. However, because of this, horses are sometimes able to win over trips at Lingfield that would be clearly beyond them on turf.
Pace is undoubtedly an interesting and useful angle, but until we have half-decent sectional timings available over here on a regular basis, there is no real substitute for actually watching lots of races, imho! (Something I just don’t get the time to do very often)
Jim,
You can define true pace as that achieving the best time the winner / leaders of the race in question are capable of, on the particular day and conditions.
Commentators cannot do this by "eye" it really needs calculation. They are often fooled by relative horse to horse speed rather than the actually important absolute speed. But if you do the calculations and timings yourself, you become skilled at correctly confirming pace by "eye".
An even pace, if it is a fast one, will a generally achieve the best overall race time. Many races are run at a reasonably even pace (allowing for bends, gradients) except at the start and finish. Often it is an even pace which is set too slow which is increasingly so in UK.
A fast overall time leads to reliable form as only the fittest survive it and weight carried and excess body weight becomes much more of a burden the faster the race is run.
In a slow race, a poor horse can easily finish close up to the leaders and so can one that is overburdened with weight. That makes a nonsense of any handicap ratings.
For future races, you have to estimate what the overall pace might be – who will make it and who will take it on and when. Despite what Phil Bull said, a horse winning a fast race is still at an advantage even in a slow race, over a slow race (fast finish) winner, particularly if it kicks on early enough.
JimF,
Two very good(and very important) answers for you. Some basic truths about pace.
Best thing I’ve read on this part of the forum for ages.
- Total Posts 17716
We often read or hear something like, the form of so and so race is unreliable because it wasn’t run at a true pace. But what is a ‘true pace’ and why should it be particularly significant?
Pace is significant in that a truly run race would normally be won by the best horse, whereas that often isn’t the case off a false pace.
An example that springs to mind would be Authorized’s two 10f runs.
In the Eclipse the pacemakers deliberately set a false pace which allowed the 3rd horse in the betting (Notnowcato) to steal a march on his two opponents, which they were unable to make up despite finishing full of running.
The opposite was the case in the Juddmonte where a fair pace was set from the start, and resulted in the race finishing in perfect betting order.Yes, Artemis, top quality responses from non vintage and robert99, thank you guys, I agree with almost everything that has been said.
A while back I did some research in biomechanics to try to answer the question of how best to apply a given amount of energy in order to complete a distance in the shortest possible time from a stationary start. The maths worked equally well for humans and horses, although the research concentrated on track running for humans!
The answer is slightly surprising, at least at first sight, it is that the maximum propulsive force (ie maximum energy) needs to be applied at the start, and that it should fall linearly as the race unfolds. This results in a speed profile in which the runner slows considerably towards the finish, pretty much what we find. The reason for this is the need to minimise the time spent at a very slow speed at the start, because this drags down the average speed. Hope that makes sense!
Of course, for a very long race, the start has less significance and the linear decay becomes much less acute, resulting in a mostly even pace speed profile, again what we would intuitively expect.
Not sure if this helps with ‘true pace’ though, hence my original question!
Quote – ‘since very few races are run at an ‘even pace’ ‘
Hi Jim – great contribution. However, is there evidence to support your statement (above)?
cormack15, Good question!
There are so many different ways to show the lack of even pace, here is one.
I have software that allows me to estimate the instantaneous speed (and many other parameters) from sectional data. The following table takes the ratio of the instantaneous speed of the race leader at various distances to the instantaneous speed of the race leader at exactly halfway, expressed as a percentage. The column headings are:
col1: distance in Furlongs
col2: leader speed at quarter distance divided by leader speed at halfway, expressed as an average %
col3: leader speed at three-quarters distance divided by leader speed at halfway, expressed as an average %
col4: leader speed at the full distance divided by leader speed at halfway, expressed as an average %
col5: Number of racescol1…col2….col3….col4….col5
…5…..104…….96……78…..173
…6…..102…….98……79…..323
…7…..103…..102……83…..383
…8…..105…..103……84…..338
.10…..101…..106……92…..223
.12…..102…..105……95…..156
.14…..104…..106……98……42
.16…….99…..104……98……82So, taking 5 furlongs as an example, the instantaneous speed of the leader is 4% (the 104) above the halfway speed at quarter distance, 4% (the 96) below the halfway speed at three-quarters distance, dropping to 78% of the halfway speed at the finish. Notice how the finishing speed (col4) increases (in percentage terms) with increasing race distance.
Hope this helps.
Very interesting analysis, Jim. I’ve never seen this type of analysis before but it seems to confirm that in most races horses are slowing down at the finish. So, horses described as ‘quickening’ are more often than not actually slowing down less than their opponents.
This is no surprise to those who follow sectional times or take an interest in speed ratings and pace analysis. James Willoughby(formerly Topspeed in the Racing Post) has often described how races unfold in terms of pace. It is an area of study that deserves more discussion on the forum even though it may be difficult to apply to the business of finding winners.
Yes, that’s right, very often the impressive ‘fast finisher’ is actually slowing, but at a lesser rate than those in front. I suspect that they are frequently overbet the next time they run because it sticks in peoples minds. Interesting!
Indeed, so often the horse described as having displayed a ‘turn of foot’ is actually doing no more than staying on at the same speed past slowing horses or even slowing down less quickly than the others.
It’s a relativistic problem: the deception caused by judging the velocity/acceleration of one moving body relative to that of another moving body. The eye/brain uses one as a ‘frame of reference’ to judge the other and is deceived into believing one is accelerating while the ‘reference’ remains constant, whereas the ‘reference’ is actually slowing.
The true situation can only be quantified using a clock to measure velocity/acceleration of the ‘moving body’ (horse) relative to a ‘body at rest’ (the race track)
Hence the value of ‘sectionals’
Could the introduction of sectionals provide a major opportunity for the savvy punter to gain an ‘edge’? Should I be dusting off the old Texas Instruments Scientific calculator I got for Xmas in 1979?
Spot on Drone. Yes, even when armed with knowledge (derived from sectional data) of what is really happening in a finish, the eye and brain can still play ‘tricks’. A few times I have looked at videos of finishes and tried to establish a reliable reference, for example, the pack, in an attempt to spot those that I know are quickening or slowing. But it is very, very difficult, even when you can replay the action again and again … I think it is nigh impossible (speaking for myself) to do it in real time at the racecourse. A sobering thought!
Should I be dusting off the old Texas Instruments Scientific calculator I got for Xmas in 1979?
… only if it is the programmable version and you still have the operating instructions!
Analysis of sectional times is the latest option available for helping to understand the dynamics of a race and I’m sure many people are already ‘on the case’.
This type of analysis is probably quite advanced in the United States where tracks have a more uniform configuration than over this side of the pond. Eventually, we might see the information supplied by Turftrax become more widely accessible once there is sufficient interest among punters. You can subscribe to it now, but until you know how to use it effectively and confidently, there’s not much point.
I know Mark Holder, the professional tipster, and also forum member Prufrock either use the Turftrax service or take their own sectional times.
I’m sure we will hear much more about it.
I’ve seen the ads for Holder’s service. I’ve always wondered how he can get accurate sectionals from the TV given the parallax?
Watching US racing with "live" onscreen sectionals can be educational. You can from observation try to figure out how fast they’ve went for the first 2 furlongs then see if you were right or wrong when the time comes up on screen. It helps to develop a more accurate feel for the pace of races here.
You can from observation try to figure out how fast they’ve went for the first 2 furlongs then see if you were right or wrong when the time comes up on screen. It helps to develop a more accurate feel for the pace of races here.
Interesting, have you had a lot of success doing that? I found the pace of the first few furlongs particularly difficult to estimate by ‘eye’ because of the initial acceleration and the frequent vying for position.
Perhaps the current vogue for sectional timing in this country, at least, represents an attempt to over-complicate the issue; assessing overall race times at some courses, Goodwood for example, is difficult enough on it’s own. Surely, an appraisal of the winning race time, alone, together with an estimate of the level to which the winner should be capable of performing, provides the bettor with sufficient information?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.