- This topic has 9 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
Anyone any views on what the ground was last night or know of what railing out was done as the times look much quicker than the official good to soft.
On the same subject, are there any Irish speed figure compilers come up with a figure for Rainbow Crossing at Gowran on Sunday? The official time looks out by just the four seconds to me.
Anyone any views on what the ground was last night or know of what railing out was done as the times look much quicker than the official good to soft.
They interviewed Richard Hughes after his first race win. His comments were to say the ground was riding a little better than good to soft and also that the far rail had been moved inwards between 8 & 10 yards.
Tommo asked him if he would be going across to the far rail in any of his futre races. Hughes said no because the strip of ground that they usually race on when they go over was not available because the rail had been moved inwards. At first he said 10 yards, then changed it to 8.
Hope that helps.
Mike
Strangely, but not for the first time – this happens frequently – the going was completely different from how it will appear for evermore in the official form book. A quote from the RP analysis of the first race, which was for 2yos:
‘"There was a heavy shower at around 5pm, but it was only of short duration and course walkers reported the ground was on the fast side of good. That was confirmed when these two-year-olds beat the Racing Post standard by more than half a second but, astonishingly, the official going was changed after the race from plain "good", which wouldn’t have been too misleading, to "good to soft, good in places".
Astonishing, really. I dare say that about 10 per cent or more of going descriptions in the official form book are wrong.
We know that the most important factor in form study is the going, so if we can’t get the facts about it right, we are in trouble.
I’ve suggested before on the forum that reporting going descriptions during and after racing and in the form book should be taken away from the course officials and left to Timeform and the Racing Post.
Astonishing, really. I dare say that about 10 per cent or more of going descriptions in the official form book are wrong.
I compiled speed figures for a couple of seasons and I’d say the figure is nearer 30%.
More wide spread use of the going stick might standardise the situation a bit.
Meanwhile the going on the all weather is…..Standard. I’d be interested to see what variations there would be if the going stick were used on all-weather surfaces. When I went to Laurel Park in the U.S. there was a chart post giving the ‘depth’ of the track at various points on the circuit.
Rob[/b]
robnorth,
10% was probably a conservative estimate, I suspect it could be as high as you say.
The going stick is better than a walking stick, or listening to the diverse opinions of jockeys, but I firmly believe there is a much more reliable measure, the race times.
The actual race times will tell us the going, provided the distances are correct and allowances made for class, age, wind speed, drying out etc.
In fact, just the job for the experts at Timeform and the Racing Post.It could be expressed(as it is in the RP) in secs per furlong.When you were doing your speed ratings, I’d wager that once you had studied the times against the standards, you would be 95% certain of the going.
Interesting to note that the RP now provides going status according to race times on their Meeting Results page. They frequently vary from the "official" going to the extent that the official is "good to soft" whilst the race times suggests " good to firm". That’s not marginal – it’s totally misleading. Maybe the time has come to ignore the Official and follow the RP assessment that is based on facts over 6 or 7 races rather than some guy’s assessment based on jabbing a stick in the ground.
Maybe the time has come to ignore the Official and follow the RP assessment that is based on facts over 6 or 7 races rather than some guy’s assessment based on jabbing a stick in the ground.
That’s not much good when you’re trying to pick a winner on the day.
Even on good-to-firm ground, one wouldn’t expect every race to beat the standard time on a moderate looking card.
My feeling is that this was a combination of the ground not being as testing as officially given, and the race distances being short by maybe 20-30yds or so…
non vintage,
An incorrect distance would explain the unusually fast times, but this sort of thing is more likely to happen at places like Hereford on a busy day elsewhere and so escape notice. Rails sometimes get moved and this usually produces times slower than expected rather than faster times.
However, at places like Windsor, there is a large press contingent and any distance discrepancies would have been picked up by them…..I hope!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.