- This topic has 48 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
Sanbuch, 2nd at Newmarket to Malt Or Mash off a strong pace, meets the winner again at Doncaster on more favourable terms and yet finishes further behind. An example, perhaps, of a beaten horse being towed along (in the Newmarket race) and being unable to translate that into a winning performance?
As both horses have come from behind in their last two races it can hardly be a case of one being "towed along".
The difference in weight from the Newmarket £9k race was only 2 pounds, but at N, MoM, a rapidly improving horse, came easily from 3 out to win with something in hand. Sandbuch struggled to get anywhere near to MoM at all stages of that finish in a true run race. It was clear that MoM had several pounds in hand over S.MoM was still carrying less weight at Doncaster (same distance and going), and the odds reflected that in a £46k race, 21 runner race, where the pace would again be strong. Why would S do any better?
Perhaps I’m not making myself clear but my perception is that there are numerous occasions where horses, who have posted their best speed rating when beaten, fail to go on and replicate that figure, or translate it into a winning effort, even when lowered in class.
Re. the Newmarket race, the comments for Malt Or Mash include ‘ridden 2 furlongs out’ & ‘stayed on well’ – hardly suggestive of a cosy win. From the point of conventional handicapping, Sanbuch was entitled to finish closer at Doncaster but was beaten a greater distance. Dealt with in isolation, the weight carried by Malt Or Mash at Doncaster, compared to that at Newmarket, is an irrelevance as, indeed, is the value of the race.
I’m having a look though the Topspeed calculations and I’m not too impressed to be honest. There are some key bits of the speed calculations missing unless anyone knows what they use for;
Horse length in full stride for, 2YO, 3YO & 4YO / M & F horses and body weight for the same.Perhaps I’m not making myself clear but my perception is that there are numerous occasions where horses, who have posted their best speed rating when beaten, fail to go on and replicate that figure, or translate it into a winning effort, even when lowered in class.
Re. the Newmarket race, the comments for Malt Or Mash include ‘ridden 2 furlongs out’ & ‘stayed on well’ – hardly suggestive of a cosy win. From the point of conventional handicapping, Sanbuch was entitled to finish closer at Doncaster but was beaten a greater distance. Dealt with in isolation, the weight carried by Malt Or Mash at Doncaster, compared to that at Newmarket, is an irrelevance as, indeed, is the value of the race.
You were putting forward an old theory now a perception of horses being towed along in certain races.
There are many reasons for horses not winning once good speed figures are established. Even modern Derby winners often fail to win again. Mostly it is a different pace scenario, fitness niggle, position in the form cycle or as the Doncaster example, beaten again by a far superior horse.It is more reliable to also watch the race or video and see whether the media opinions given concur. Others did, and Sandbuch was no longer favourite. No horse is ever "entitled to win or finish closer. "Conventional handicapping" proves its own failings every single day on the racecourse. No one takes machine like pounds and lengths difference predictions too seriously except the media, not even the BHB handicapper.
The improved race conditions were put forward by your justification argument – yes, 2 pounds carried is irrelevant if the horse body weight is 30-40 pounds less. "Conventional handicapping" ignores that vital point.
If you do not think race value effects the race planning and intentions of owners and trainers and the way races are run then you may be missing a vital clue.It is more reliable to also watch the race or video and see whether the media opinions given concur. Others did, and Sandbuch was no longer favourite. No horse is ever "entitled to win or finish closer. "Conventional handicapping" proves its own failings every single day on the racecourse. No one takes machine like pounds and lengths difference predictions too seriously except the media, not even the BHB handicapper.
The improved race conditions were put forward by your justification argument – yes, 2 pounds carried is irrelevant if the horse body weight is 30-40 pounds less. "Conventional handicapping" ignores that vital point.
If you do not think race value effects the race planning and intentions of owners and trainers and the way races are run then you may be missing a vital clue.With respect to my original intent of discussing the calculation and interpretation of speed figures, your particular points re. weight carried and value of the race remain irrelevant. At the end of the day, I’ll stick to my guns and say that an obsession with bare figures / ratings and the following of beaten horses, purely on the basis of their time performance, is the way to the poor house!
I find speed figs, from whatever source, to be almost useless. My only use for them is as a sort of…….nah………I’ve no use for them at all really
I’m having a look though the Topspeed calculations and I’m not too impressed to be honest. There are some key bits of the speed calculations missing unless anyone knows what they use for;
Horse length in full stride for, 2YO, 3YO & 4YO / M & F horses and body weight for the same.There were some clear flaws in the methodology when I last looked at it but that wasn’t one of them. A horse’s actual length does not matter, in this context at least, as margins in results are conversions of time lapses. A length in a result of a 2-y-o fillies’ race is the same as a length in a result in a 4-y-o colts’ race, i.e. a representation of the time lapse of approx 0.20 sec.
I’m not following your logic there Pru .. surely, if you want to convert these time lapses into lbs, then you have to know (or estimate) how long the horse is in relation to how long it takes it to cover the time lapse.
0.2 sec to cover 1 length for a 2YO filly cannot be the same for a 4YO colt because the 4YO colt will be longer, which doesn’t seem to make sense.
I’m also not following your logic. "How long it takes to cover the time lapse" is the time lapse itself, obviously.
0.2 sec clearly does not "equal" a length in most instances, whether you regard that length as an average length or one specific to the given horse itself. It’s usually nearer 0.17 sec, and it varies according to the speed at which the horses are travelling as well.
Whether we are trying to establish the physical version of a length as an average or as something specific to given horses in a given race seems to be where the confusion lies. But that is largely irrelevant anyway, as a length has not been a phsyical metric for a long time now.
Dave / Prufrock
The errors inherent in a set of speed ratings, however carefully they are calculated, suggest to me that any effort to factor in the precise size or weight of individual horses, if that’s what you wanted to do and if it were possible, would not be a worthwhile exercise. That’s not to denigrate speed ratings – as a devoted user I find that they provide key information about individual races and the subsequent potential of particular horses, just don’t expect them to provide a quick fix. For my own ratings, I have a datbase of results from 1995 for the major courses and 2003 for ‘secondary’ courses. For each individual race at each course over that period this contains, amongst other things, age of & weight carried by the winner, distance / time of race, conversion of race time, raceform form rating & a final corrected race time that takes these factors into account. For the Newmarket Rowley course alone this means, for example, that over 800 races have been entered into the database, manually, and analysed to produce a set of standard times for the course, which are then used ‘live’ to calculate the speed ratings. Beyond this, the ratings and races in question are analysed to (hopefully) identify future winners and then it’s back to updating the standards – all of which takes a considerable amount of time! What does make me laugh are those (not directed at you) who hide their ignorance behind idotic statements about the worth of speed ratings. However, I guess that does at least allow me to take advantage of the likes of Ouija Board at 14/1 for the Oaks on the back of my speed rating of 111 for her ‘Pretty Polly’ win (Topspeed figure 81).
You know the old saying "can’t see the wood for the trees:" ?
You guys must be losing a fair bit of foliage just now.I’m not going to say anymore on this subject because what little we have up our sleeves we need, imo.
Just so that there’s no confusion about the matter, I am well aware that horses cover different amounts of ground in a given time span when they are going different speeds (obviously), and that the poundage allowance you use for a unit of time should vary accordingly.
However, I am guided by the distance – yards, feet, whatever – that horses seem to cover not by that distance as measured by a "length" that varies according to circumstances and that can’t be ascertained with accuracy in individual instances in any case.
How long a horse "is" is of interest in certain contexts, not least when taking hand-held sectionals, but I would have thought that it is size and not length that is important when it comes to how to offset differentials in ability in horses, and we are nowhere near getting that information either.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.