- This topic has 55 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Its not possible to have horses run faster furlongs at longer distances.
The
Lexus
chase is a grade 1 race, they run faster.
I have noticed in previous posts that you like to have a pop at me.
Please, I do not need somebody telling me I don’t understand the subject of standard times.
My French contacts would not have ask me to compile the standard times for French racing if they didn’t think I knew what I was doing, I can honestly say that I am the only person to ever have done this.
If we use American racecourses as an example:
The horses travel on average
12.8s
in sprint races to cover a furlong, and in routes they take
13.2s
, that’s a difference of only
0.4s
.
As a rule of thumb, in flat races I use
13.0s
per furlong, and over the jumps I use
16.0s
.
Mike.
Where have i had a pop at you? I don’t understand that comment I’m sorry. I haven’t questioned anybody’s knowledge on anything that I am aware of. All I have done is checked the actual distance on Google Maps and found it to be correct, but spotted that the Racing Post Standards do not follow a logical path at this course.
Its obvious that they run faster in the Lexus, but I didn’t quote the Lexus time, I quoted the Racing Post standard times. All standard times should reflect a slowing per furlong as distance increases, unless there is a course variation to change that, the Leopardstown Racing Post Standards show they actually decrease, that is what is causing Dave Edwards to give small speed figures at 3 miles. Until the standards are modified, you will always get slow speed figures over the 3 miles there.
You use 16.0 seconds for every NH distance? In what way? Each distance increase will slow the per furlong time down, you can’t run as fast per furlong at 3 miles as you do at 2 miles, all standard times should reflect that I would have thought.
There is also the issue of the large difference between the 3m standard at Kempton and the 3m standard at Leopardstown.
The first question to ask would be which course is stiffer, imo I would say Leopardstown.
The fact that Leopardstown’s Racing Post Standard is 16 seconds faster than Kempton’s should ring alarm bells, something isn’t quite right there just in isolation to the fact that the per furlong times do not tally between the distances at Leopardstown. Even if the courses were similar that is a large difference, and it seems in reverse to the actual stiffness each course actually displays, surely Leopardstown standard times should be greater not less than Kempton’s.
A possible shortcut would be to take some existing standard times – however flaky – to identify consistent discrepancies and adjust accordingly, though you would still be taking some things on trust.
I fired up
SPSS
, and entered in every standard time for the English and Irish racecourses, and ask it to produce a universal set of standard times combining both the Flat and Jumps together.
https://web.cloud.virginmedia.com/?shar … 322bb911b2
Using my lbs per length formula of
0.58
for the leopardstown 3m chase, I compared it against the universal standards, it came out the same at
0.58
.
Mike.
I meant that if, say, Leopardstown 3m chases consistently produced timefigures which were different to what could be expected (bearing in mind that times are non-normally distributed and that the proportion of truly run races will vary under different circumstances) then the standard time used in the first place could be amended on the back of that knowledge.
The initial standard time does not even need to have been especially accurate, though the more accurate it is in the first place the fewer iterations should be necessary. It is a well-known scientific approach to tackling problems like this.
In among all this, it should never be forgotten that jumps distances are approximated to 110 yards in Britain (and that plenty of distances are suspect even allowing for this degree of tolerance), while the situation in Ireland could be even worse. Graded secs/furlong as a safety net will be compromised by any such inaccuracies.
As an e.g.an "about 16f" which is in fact 16.25f and run at 15 sec/f and an "about 17f" which is in fact 16.76f and run at 15.2 sec/f will come out as 15.23 sec/f and 14.99 sec/f respectively (i.e. the opposite to what might be expected) if the "about" distances are treated as if precise.
Prufrock
Would you expect the Leopardstown 3 mile standard to be less than the Kempton 3 mile standard by 16 seconds? Both distances look very similar using Google maps. Kempton maybe 30 feet more.
I would have thought Leopardstown was a stiffer track than Kempton.
No, I wouldn’t, if the two distances were in reality the same. Two main topographical features affect standard times: bends and undulations. There’s probably not a lot in it on the former, given that Kempton’s circuit is ~12.85f and Leopardstown’s is ~14.92f, but Leopardstown is slightly more undulating.
As it is, while I previously surveyed Kempton’s "3m" as correct, Leopardstown’s would appear to be over, in this instance at least. So that would be a further reason to expect Leopardstown to have a slower standard time than Kempton at this distance.
Unfortunately, a lot of standard times seem to have been calculated in the belief that historical distances were both accurate and precise. They should have been, but they weren’t/aren’t.
I’ve got Kempton as bang on 24.0f, assuming a run-up (to 1st fence) of 145 yd.
The BHA has promised a wholesale remeasurement of jumps tracks, which is something to look forward to in 2015.
Without wishing to get involved in the science of all of this and arguing the toss about who knows their stuff or doesn’t, can I just ask a simple question on behalf of the layman in the street.
The figure given for the standard time at 3m for Leopardstown is:-
Leopardstown 3m(C) 5m 42.0s
My question is:-
Has any horse ever completed the course in that time, or somewhere near to it?
Bobs Worth was the fastest of the last ten Lexus Chases and TBB says that Dave Edwards awarded him a speed rating of 24. According to The Racing Post website, Bobs Worth’s best Topspeed figure for his career is 164.
What time would Bobs Worth have had to clock in the Lexus to match his best ever speed figure and is it even remotely possible.
Pardon any ignorance on my part, as I have always said, I’m not a stopwatch man. Thank you.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Those are good and relevant questions.
I am not in a position, here and now, to answer the former. Bobs Worth would have to have run something like 2 furlongs quicker to have posted a 164 figure (all other inputs remaining the same), the precise amount depending on an individual’s time/pounds allowance under the prevailing conditions. That seems, erm, highly unlikely.
I certainly don’t see this as a "who knows their stuff" exercise: it appears to me that everyone on this thread does. But it is an illustration of the principle that, over and above a brain and some software, perhaps the most useful thing when dealing with stats/data is to possess a very large amount of scepticism.
I’m not sure why BB thinks i was having a pop, if anyone else can see that they are welcome to point it out.
I think the standard is out by quite a bit Steve. The one question you have to ask yourself is do you think Kempton is a stiffer track than Leopardstown? Given that Kempton is flat, Leopardstown has a slight uphill finish.
I can’t see it is, in fact the other way round if anything with the slight uphill climb. The Racing Post standard though is 16 seconds quicker for a stiffer track, which is why no horse can get near it in relation to other distances there. Even if both courses are of the same stiffness why is one standard 16 seconds faster for roughly the same distance.
The times at York, a flat track, are quicker than Newcastle or Haydock for instance, which could be a fair comparison between stiffness of these two tracks. If the Newcastle or Haydock standard for a set distance was quicker than a York distance you would know straight away there was a problem.
It would be unlikely any Lexus would be run near even a correct standard though as the going is usually slow anyway, the chance of getting near that standard quoted even on Good ground would be difficult.
@ stevecaution
With answer to your question, I just took a look at the going allowance of
-0.35s/f
Dave Edwards had for the
lexus
chase last year.
For
Bob’s worth
to have run to a speed figure of
164
in the
Lexus
last year, on going he assessed as
-0.35s/f
and carrying the weight of
11-10
and using a base rate of
137
, he would have had to run to a time
-1.5s
under the standard time of 5m 42.0s (
5m 40.5s
).
These figures will only apply to a correct race distance of
3m
Mike.
Which would mean last years Lexus was 37 seconds slower than a truly run race. I think that is unlikely.
Until someone can explain why two tracks, which may be similar in time taken to run, have a standard time that differs by 16 seconds and both distances measure correctly then it has to be an error with the standard time imo.
I’ll leave it the experts to work out i think.
Kempton, the Racing Post Standard Time there for 3 miles is 16 seconds slower than Leopardstown’s. I doubt very much that Kempton is 16 seconds stiffer than Leopardstown.
It’s impossible for Kempton to be 16 seconds stiffer than Leopardstown. If anything it’s the other way round if both tracks are actually 3 miles. I posted the Lexus winning times earlier and repeat them here for comparison with The King George times for the same years.
Lexus Times
2014 Road To Riches (Soft) 6.33.9
2013 Bobs Worth (Yielding To Soft) 6.17.1
2012 Tidal Bay (Soft) 6.27.6
2011 Synchronised (Good) 6.19.5
2010 Pandorama (Soft To Heavy) 6.30.0
2009 What A Friend (Yielding) 6.33.7
2008 Exotic Dancer (Yielding To Soft) 6.25.2
2007 Denman (Good) 6.30.5
2006 The Listener (Heavy) 6.43.0
2005 Beef Or Salmon (Yielding To Soft) 6.23.1
At Kempton we have Kauto providing half the data and then Long Run and Silviniaco Conti. In Kicking King’s 2005 win the race was run at Sandown and over 110y further
2014 Silviniaco Conti (Good To Soft) 6.08.2
2013 Silviniaco Conti (Soft) 6.10.9
2012 Long Run (Heavy) 6.28.5
2011 Kauto Star (Good To Soft) 6.05.0
2010 Long Run (Good To Soft) 6.03.0 (Run in January)
2009 Kauto Star (Good To Soft) 6.07.2
2008 Kauto Star (Good) 5.57.5
2007 Kauto Star (Good To Soft) 6.09.4
2006 Kauto Star (Good To Soft) 6.05.7
A comparison of the two list indicates that it’s just impossible that Kempton can be 16 seconds slower a track if both courses truly have a 3 mile distance.
If nothing else it demonstrates how little faith you can place in data and the recording thereof.
Can anyone seriously believe that Kauto Star ran a 3 mile race on an allegedly stiffer track in 5 minutes 57 and a half seconds,(2008 King George) whilst a year earlier old sparring partner Denman ran and won at the same distance, on the same given going (Good) (2007 Lexus on supposedly easier Leopardstown) but took 33 seconds longer to get the job done?
We need precise distances, accurate going reports and realistic Standard Times if we are to demystify the dark arts of timings for the casual punter.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Thanks to all so far for one of the most illuminating threads I’ve read, on any forum
You are correct Steve in your findings. The only problem with comparing them like that is its usually slower ground in Ireland, but even with that aside, its clear that it takes longer to cover Leopardstown 3m than 3m at Kempton. It should take longer, its a slightly stiffer track.
I found one Lexus since 1992 that was run on officially Good ground, its in your list above, when Synchronised won in 6m19.5. If you can assume that their Good ground is our Good to Soft and compare the King George times run on Good to Soft, even then the King George is run in a faster time generally. Bobs Worth ran faster but again the actual ground is a little unknown. Those are the two fastest Lexus times there as well.
What I have noticed looking at the Racing Post Standards is that the courses this side of the water seem to vary in line with stiffness of course, as you would expect, but the Irish ones seem to have a generic feel to them as though they have been created from a chart, not the actual races.
You get lots of courses with 3 miles with the same sort of standard time that Leopardstown has. Its only when you compare a completely flat track from this side of the water like Kempton to an Irish one like Leopardstown you see the glaring difference.
Leopardstown is slightly stiffer than Kempton, so its common sense that a standard time set there should be a slower time than Kempton..not the other way round to the tune of 16 seconds.
The comparison between the 2m hurdle track at Kempton and the Leopardstown 2m hurdle track is reflected as Leopardstown having the stiffer track, as you would expect :-
Kempton 2 mile Hurdle. 3:42
Leopardstown 2 mile hurdle 3:45So how the Racing Post can have the 3 mile chase track as 16 seconds faster at Leopardstown is quite odd imo. It does explain why no horse can get a speed figure above about 40 though over that distance.
@ stevecaution
With answer to your question, I just took a look at the going allowance of
-0.35s/f
Dave Edwards had for the
lexus
chase last year.
For
Bob’s worth
to have run to a speed figure of
164
in the
Lexus
last year, on going he assessed as
-0.35s/f
and carrying the weight of
11-10
and using a base rat
e of137
, he would have had to run to a time
-1.5s
under the standard time of 5m 42.0s (
5m 40.5s
).
These figures will only apply to a correct race distance of
3m
Mike.
Thank you for that Mike. It remains as to whether it was possible or not.
Does anyone know the track record for a three mile chase at Leopardstown?
I seem to recall some furore about Standard Times previously, where they were faster than the track record in some cases. That would surely be akin to Usain Bolt breaking the world 100m record and being told that the standard for the track was 9.25 seconds
I actually emailed Leopardstown racecourse and asked if they could provide the
actual
distance of The Lexus Chase, explaining that there was speculation that it might be more than three miles. I take my hat off for the quick response from them, particularly given the time of year. Sadly the reply I got was that "It is about 3 miles, according to the racecard for the meeting"
Nul points for accuracy there Leopardstown!
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.