- This topic has 42 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
- Total Posts 17716
I do my own figures using the comparison on the results page of the RP. I will then use my own class pars to give the times there value and this will be converted into a figure that I can use to represent the run. I can tell the ground conditions with impressive accuracy and you’d be suprised what your actually reading on the RP. Lets say Newmarket’s card by distance was;
6f
7f
10f
14f
6f
10f
8fWell we would split the round course up and the straight up so theres a more accurate result. Very profitable are speed figures and also if you want to judge the pace your self then get your self a stop watch and do it yourself furlong by furlong. You dont get nothing in this life without working for it.
I’d be interested to see what you (Or anyone else) made of the last race at Kempton today?
Ostensibly the fastest race of the day, I’d broadly agree with the RP analysis that it was a "fairly steady gallop", which must surely corrupt any resultant speed figures, or any attempt at pace analysis on the day without the use of proper sectionals?A sectional pace.
ASCOT 19th January 2008 1:45 Grade 1 Class 1 – Chase
17 Furlongs. 2m1F5-5-5-5 ( start line to finish line)
(Furlong 1-4 )1m 7s5-5-5 ( missing Furlong plus a bit ) 5-5-5-5-5( finish line to start line )
(Furlong 5-13)2m 0s5-5-5-5 ( start line to finish line )
(Furlong 14-17)1m 6.4sBacking two runners is the relentless pursuit of value. Backing each way is a shortcut to the poor house. Only 7% make a long term profit.
There is a very interesting chapter by James Willoughby in "the definitive guide to BETTING ON HORSES"(Racing Post/Raceform publications) that covers ‘pace’. It is well worth a read for anyone interested in analysing pace, even though it is fairly brief.
He suggests that races can be divided into three sections – a beginning, a middle and an end. From this, he argues that there are four basic shapes of the tempo of races.
Fast-fast-slow.
Fast -slow-fast.
Slow-slow-fast.
Slow-fast-slow.
From my own observations, this classification of pace is broadly true and could be used as a means of labelling races for pace purposes. Obviously, it is only a very broad measure, but it is more informative than the bare race time or a statement or comment that the pace was steady or slow.
A race can never be fast-fast-fast, steady-steady-steady, or slow-slow-slow, which tells us that all races are subject to variations in pace and this must be taken into account when assessing the form.I’d be interested to see what you (Or anyone else) made of the last race at Kempton today? Ostensibly the fastest race of the day
It does not look at all a fast time.
May have something to do with it, but the Racing Post standard times at Kempton used to be meaningless (and may still be as far as I know). They are based on a methodology that does not allow for uneven distribution of times. As a result, when many of the races at beyond a mile in the early days were steadily run (as could be told from sectionals) the standards at such distances became far too easy to achieve. After 15 months, nearly 80% of the RP fast times at the track came at greater than 1m when less than 30% of the races at the track had been run at such distances. I suggest people derive their own standard times and timefigures.
I will post some pace figures for yesterday at Kempton a bit later on, though the track is not the easiest at which to get handheld sectionals.
An extract as follows. Finishing speed is the speed for the final 3f as a % of overall speed. An optimal figure for 12f Kempton would be just over 101. The figures below show that the runners were finishing notably quickly compared to their overall time.
Name…………Sect pos…Sect time…Fin Speed
ARMURE…………….3…..35.38………108.17
INVENTOR (IRE)……2…..35.59………107.59
WALKING TALKING..4……35.46…….108.00
DETONATOR (IRE)…1……35.84……..106.93
HATTON FLIGHT……8……35.49………108.14
OLYMPIC CITY (BR..5……35.73………107.40
ART MAN……………. 6……35.82………107.30
BOZ……………………7…….35.81………107.34
ROYAL JET………….9…….35.64………107.87
PRIME NUMBER (IR…10….37.29……..104.22- Total Posts 17716
Thanks for that Pru; thought you might be the one to oblige.
As you infer, the standard time must be remarkably easy to achieve; only 8/100ths of a second slow for what looked a saunter.
Add another mine to the minefield of figuring out pace from RP results.
- Total Posts 17716
One thing it tells us is that ‘Mr Always Trying’ can’t have been too concerned with the result, as his joint fav, dropping back from his fast run win over 2f further, was mainly responsible for the lack of a proper test yesterday
Not pocket talk either, just an observation.Fast-fast-slow.
Fast -slow-fast.
Slow-slow-fast.
Slow-fast-slow.
From my own observations, this classification of pace is broadly true and could be used as a means of labelling races for pace purposes. Obviously, it is only a very broad measure, but it is more informative than the bare race time or a statement or comment that the pace was steady or slow.
A race can never be fast-fast-fast, steady-steady-steady, or slow-slow-slow, which tells us that all races are subject to variations in pace and this must be taken into account when assessing the form.I can see Artemis that the pace can not be slow-slow-slow. It has to quicken at some point. But why can’t it be fast-fast-fast? If the fractions are all the same (even pace), and the course record goes. Surely it has to be fast-fast-fast? (I realise pace is not about course records as such but you see what I mean). If all fractions are the same, can it be anything else?
The rest of your post I agree entirely, it could be done this way.
Mark
Value Is EverythingPru, out of interest, what would a fast finishing pace tell us about a horse race, for future reference? would it tell us the winner would probably stay further? Or just that it was a bad race as per sprint finish? I ask because i’m of the belief the winner is a good horse.
I am not Pru Marble but…
IMO,
A fast finish tells us nothing unless the rest of the race fractions, standard of horse, type of horse he is and type of horse his opponents are, is taken in to account.A horse coming from well back to win in a slowly run race is usually even better than the race suggests and could win again.
However, if he was running over a longer trip than he usually does (or bred for), and his opponents are stayers at the trip. He would be the obvious one with the best "turn of foot". So may not be as good as he looks.
I have not seen the particular race so can not comment on it.
Mark
Value Is EverythingPru’s example figures encapsulate how much the visual reporting of form can so easily not agree with the actuality. Too little attention is paid to good performances of runner-ups at the expense of random winners. [Racing Post almost correctly reported a meaningless – "fairly steadily run" – yet ignored the mere 0.08 seconds slower than RP standard final time].
For example:
1. Hatton City: Racing Post comments – staying on all too lateActually was 8th at 3f mark, was 0.11 seconds slower (not faster) over the finish than winner Armure ("nipped through, asserted in final 100y"). HC (2 months off, AW debut) finish speed ratio was indeed faster at finish – a whole 0.03 faster than Armure’s ratio of 108.17 – nowhere near enough to win from that position. All the runners actually "stayed" on after the steady early pace.
2. Olympic City: Racing Post comments – keen early stages, not convincing at trip, kept on same pace
Actually finished in a time a mere 0.35 seconds slower than Armure and at a relative speed of 107.40 which is faster than 101 par and faster than "keen" early stages. So no evidence to not convince at trip and finishing pace only a tiny bit less than the "nippy / assertive" winner Armure.
There is a good article here;
http://www.bookmakers1.com/paceanalysis.html
Which mentions amongst other things Willoughbys thoeries on pace.
Gingertipster,
As far as I know, horses cannot run flat out for more than about 2 furlongs without ‘blowing up’ or running out of available oxygen, so even a fast pace means horses are not running the whole race with the choke out. I can see your point, though, and would have to concede that many top sprints are characterised by horses running just within their physical limits for longer distances than 2 furlongs. The description, ‘fast, fast, fast’ almost applies here, but not quite because no horse could do it. Such races are usually fast,fast, slow when sectionals are examined, even though course records are broken.
Gingertipster,
As far as I know, horses cannot run flat out for more than about 2 furlongs without ‘blowing up’ or running out of available oxygen, so even a fast pace means horses are not running the whole race with the choke out. I can see your point, though, and would have to concede that many top sprints are characterised by horses running just within their physical limits for longer distances than 2 furlongs. The description, ‘fast, fast, fast’ almost applies here, but not quite because no horse could do it. Such races are usually fast,fast, slow when sectionals are examined, even though course records are broken.
Artemis,
Surely in this context that is not what "fast" means at all.
Apart from the final few yards, no horse goes flat out at any point in a race.(By that I mean as fast as he can at that point, even when the last quarter is slower than the other three, the only time it is going as fast as it could at any point is at the finish, as fast as his lungs will allow).
Anyway I digress,
Even a sprinter simply would not have anything left for the finish if he went flat out from the start.
The expression "fast" surely means a fast tempo compared to "average or ordinary", in the same way "slow" is slower than "average or ordinary".If Lewis Hamilton goes "fast" around a corner, he is not going flat out at top speed, just comparatively fast compared to the norm.
In this context "fast" would mean that part of the race was run faster than an average race of that standard, over that distance, on that ground, on that track. Not, they were going flat out at that part of the race.
Mark
Value Is EverythingGingertipster,
I think you are right here. I suppose fast in this context means relatively fast and it would be hard to argue that course records in sprint races could be broken if the pace was not relatively fast throughout. I was thinking of a descriptive device to describe the pace of races rather than the objectivity of sectional times.
I’m no expert on sectionals, although I would expect them to fit loosely into Willoughby’s four categories. Perhaps someone with more knowledge might verify(or refute) that in sprints, a sectional pattern of a very fast 2f, followed by another very fast 2f, can only be followed by a slower 2f, which might still be quick enough to break the track record. Does this make sense?
One of the problems is that the pace of a race is usually crudely described as being the pace of the leaders in that race, whereas each horse runs at a pace that may be too fast, too slow or just about perfect for it. This – what is "fast", "slow" or "perfect" – is a product of its individual ability besides anything else.
The way for a horse to get from a to b in the shortest possible time is for it to run in an efficient manner. It cannot do that (though it could conceivably break a course record in certain circumstances) by going significantly faster or slower than optimum for any length of time.
However, the leaders in the race could easily go too fast and yet the horse in question could still run its race in essentially optimum fashion for one of its ability.
Prufrock .. surely a horse running a race at a pace line in with it’s ability is it’s speed figure?
A pace figure would be more to do with where the horse was in the field at any specific point in the race in relation to the overall time and just another name for a sectional time.
Interested to hear you views!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.