- This topic has 56 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
I agree with your observations Steve,Spencer is the modern day Eddery.
Didnt they call him Pockets Eddery due to his tendency to find himself in one.
SHL
Ryan Moore, Richard Hughes, James Doyle and Joe Fanning. The first two are vying for champion jockey in 2013
Good news Hughes won.
2014 could go to the wire.Gaelic Warrior Gold Cup Winner 2026
Simon Rowlands take on the race based on sectional times analysis.
Simon Rowlands take on the race based on sectional times analysis.
Sectional timings are part of the picture but not all of it. From the figures we see that relatively they were slower in the last section but the runner up covered the distance faster than the winner. You then have to argue whether he could still have done so had he been closer to the pace earlier.
Is it acceptable and/or sensible to ride every horse the same and hope the pace falls right for you?
If owners and trainers are happy with his services I dare say Jamie Spencer will be unconcerned.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
How did we ever cope without sectionals?
I would be quite interested to know how often they are used to condemn jockeys rather than defend them. I suspect hardly ever.
Last night we had the typical media response with Chapman heaping quite ridiculous praise on a Spencer winner. This is the sort of thing that annoys punters just as much as the numerous bad rides which are left untouched. Last night the horse was allowed to race out wide in the early stages before rejoining the field. Initially, he looked beaten but stayed on best to lead close home. There was nothing to suggest for certain that Spencer’s track position had produced the win, in fact he might have won more easily had he raced with the field. The most important point was that he had won a race from the front.
Superb post, Kasparov; it must have taken some time to format and get right on the page – thanks.
The depth of analysis in that post is trying to quantify an art, and it makes as fair a job of it as you could ask imo.
Raceriding will never be a science. Even Lester couldn’t tell you what his ‘special ingredient’ was. I’ve yet to hear of an artiste who can define his or her talent.
Why do some horses react differently to different riders? Why does a jockey make a split-second decision at any point in a race, which later proves crucial?
Of course there are aspects of raceriding which depend on experience, balance, strength, courage, confidence, timing etc., and jockeys make mistakes every day. But top trainers know how good a jockey is. Spencer, Hughes, Moore, whoever, simply wouldn’t get the rides if they were as bad as some punters believe.
And, as Banjo Paterson knows, results colour everything:
There’s some that ride the Robbo style, and bump at every stride;
While others sit a long way back, to get a longer ride.
There’s some that ride like sailors do, with legs and arms, and teeth;
And some ride on the horse’s neck, and some ride underneath.But all the finest horsemen out — the men to Beat the Band —
You’ll find amongst the crowd that ride their races in the Stand.
They’ll say "He had the race in hand, and lost it in the straight."
They’ll show how Godby came too soon, and Barden came too late.They’ll say Chevalley lost his nerve, and Regan lost his head;
They’ll tell how one was "livened up" and something else was "dead" —
In fact, the race was never run on sea, or sky, or land,
But what you’d get it better done by riders in the Stand.The rule holds good in everything in life’s uncertain fight;
You’ll find the winner can’t go wrong, the loser can’t go right.
You ride a slashing race, and lose — by one and all you’re banned!
Ride like a bag of flour, and win — they’ll cheer you in the Stand.Simon Rowlands take on the race based on sectional times analysis.
Sectional timings are part of the picture but not all of it. From the figures we see that relatively they were slower in the last section but the runner up covered the distance faster than the winner. You then have to argue whether he could still have done so had he been closer to the pace earlier.
Is it acceptable and/or sensible to ride every horse the same and hope the pace falls right for you?
If owners and trainers are happy with his services I dare say Jamie Spencer will be unconcerned.
Steve,
The sectionals show that had "Frank" kept HK closer to the pace he’d have doneworse
, not better.
Value Is EverythingSimon Rowlands take on the race based on sectional times analysis.
Sectional timings are part of the picture but not all of it. From the figures we see that relatively they were slower in the last section but the runner up covered the distance faster than the winner. You then have to argue whether he could still have done so had he been closer to the pace earlier.
Is it acceptable and/or sensible to ride every horse the same and hope the pace falls right for you?
If owners and trainers are happy with his services I dare say Jamie Spencer will be unconcerned.
Steve,
The sectionals show that had "Frank" kept HK closer to the pace he’d have doneworse
, not better.
I read Simon’s analysis already Ginger but thanks for repeating it anyway
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Simon Rowlands take on the race based on sectional times analysis.
Sectional timings are part of the picture but not all of it. From the figures we see that relatively they were slower in the last section but the runner up covered the distance faster than the winner. You then have to argue whether he could still have done so had he been closer to the pace earlier.
Is it acceptable and/or sensible to ride every horse the same and hope the pace falls right for you?
If owners and trainers are happy with his services I dare say Jamie Spencer will be unconcerned.
Steve,
The sectionals show that had "Frank" kept HK closer to the pace he’d have doneworse
, not better.
Sorry, but that is not true. It is no more than an interpretation by someone who wants to stand out from the crowd. In this case I think the crowd are correct.
Steve,
The sectionals show that had "Frank" kept HK closer to the pace he’d have doneworse
, not better.
Sorry, but that is not true. It is no more than an interpretation by someone who wants to stand out from the crowd. In this case I think the crowd are correct.
Would Zoffany have won the 2011 St James’s Palace had Moore "kept
closer to the pace
" Stilvi? It’s the same principle. Was Zoffany "unlucky"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLmu_pHF0sA
Nothing to do with
"someone who wants to stand out from the crowd"
.
Value Is EverythingSteve,
The sectionals show that had "Frank" kept HK closer to the pace he’d have doneworse
, not better.
Sorry, but that is not true. It is no more than an interpretation by someone who wants to stand out from the crowd. In this case I think the crowd are correct.
Would Zoffany have won the 2011 St James’s Palace had Moore "kept
closer to the pace
" Stilvi? It’s the same principle.
You can’t seriously be putting that forward as a scientific comparison Ginger?
Moore didn’t have any option. Queally made a balls of it and nearly gave poor Sir Henry a Connery in the process. That was a case of a horse being over aggressively ridden and another horse making up ground while Queally was reaching for the oars on Frankel.
Your opinion is only a theory based on a principle. We would need to run the race differently, numerous times, before being near to proving beyond scientific doubt what the outcome would be if the identical circumstances were presented in front of is again.
That is not possible with horse racing and timings and sectionals will form part of the game that punters can give more or less credence to as they see appropriate.
The Fugue broke the track record last week? Is she the best horse that ever ran at that trip then? Baccarat clocked a faster time than Slade Power over same C+D, would he have won the Diamond Jubilee off the weight he carried in the Wokingham?
Graeme Cunningham explained that pace plays a part but if Slade Power had run off his Jubilee weight in the Wokingham could we absolutely guarantee he would have run faster than his Jubilee clocking, as he would have been needed to, to win the race?
I don’t think you can sum it up with one line based on a principle. If the game were a mere question of that, we’d all be millionaires (well apart from Paddy Power)
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
You can’t seriously be putting that forward as a scientific comparison Ginger?
Moore didn’t have any option. Queally made a balls of it and nearly gave poor Sir Henry a Connery in the process. That was a case of a horse being over aggressively ridden and another horse making up ground while Queally was reaching for the oars on Frankel.
Your opinion is only a theory based on a principle. We would need to run the race differently, numerous times, before being near to proving beyond scientific doubt what the outcome would be if the identical circumstances were presented in front of is again.
That is not possible with horse racing and timings and sectionals will form part of the game that punters can give more or less credence to as they see appropriate.
The Fugue broke the track record last week? Is she the best horse that ever ran at that trip then? Baccarat clocked a faster time than Slade Power over same C+D, would he have won the Diamond Jubilee off the weight he carried in the Wokingham?
Graeme Cunningham explained that pace plays a part but if Slade Power had run off his Jubilee weight in the Wokingham could we absolutely guarantee he would have run faster than his Jubilee clocking, as he would have been needed to, to win the race?
I don’t think you can sum it up with one line based on a principle. If the game were a mere question of that, we’d all be millionaires (well apart from Paddy Power)
Sectional times are a totally different scenario than only looking at over all times Steve. Quoting track records has nothing to do with it (other than track records needing fairly equal fractions).
It is the same principle because as in the 2011 St James’s Palace those who raced prominently in the Buckingham Palace went off too fast for their own good. Even those who chased the pace doing too much. It was only Frankel’s far superior ability that allowed him to hang on. Even Excelebration who raced mid div before going in pursuit too soon couldn’t hold the inferior Zoffany for second. Moore dropped Zoffany out and still last around the turn, a long way from the leader Frankel/Queally. But Moore was going the "best" pace because the others were going too fast. Making up ground hand over fist in the latter stages with Frankel out on his feet; line coming just in time for the great horse to hold on by a rapidly diminishing
3/4 length
.
Had Moore been
a length
closer rounding the turn would he have beaten Queally? No, because a major part of the reason why Zoffany finished second is
because
he was so far back in the early stages.
I gave this example because the pace involved is so pronounced/obvious that most punters can understand how pace affected the result.
In the Buckingham Palace Stakes it wasn’t as pronounced/obvious, but sectionals tell us the pace bias was there. Front runners went off too quickly for their own good. Horsted Keynes being at the back of the field was in an advantageous position in an overly-strongly run contest. Louis The Pius having raced in mid-field had an advantage over the prominently ridden runners, but a
disadvantage
over the hold up horses (including Horsted Keynes).
There is absolutely no "scientific doubt" that the quickest way to get from A to B
is
by going equal fractions.
ie If a horse goes too fast early it will get to the half way point quicker, but will lose far more time in the final part of the race than it gained from those quick early fractions.
Conversely, if running the first half slower than even time – it will have more energy to do the second half faster than even time. But it won’t make up all the time lost through slow early fractions.Value Is EverythingThere is absolutely no "scientific doubt" that the quickest way to get from A to B
is
by going equal fractions.
ie If a horse goes too fast early it will get to the half way point quicker, but will lose far more time in the final part of the race than it gained from those quick early fractions.
Conversely, if running the first half slower than even time – it will have more energy to do the second half faster than even time. But it won’t make up all the time lost through slow early fractions.Does that apply to 5-6f sprints though Ginge? There is no question a Group 1, 12f horse will laugh at a 0-85 handicapper over 11/2m but as the ‘Golden Jubilee’/’Wokingham’ times show year on year the Handicapppers are clocking faster times than their so called superior rivals or at least matching them.That is why we see Sprint handicappers like
Petong
,
Continent
,
Bahamian Pirate
,
Harmonic way
,
Frizzante
,
Regal Parade
etc making the transition.I see no purpose in sectionals over trips shorter than a mile.
There is absolutely no "scientific doubt" that the quickest way to get from A to B
is
by going equal fractions.
ie If a horse goes too fast early it will get to the half way point quicker, but will lose far more time in the final part of the race than it gained from those quick early fractions.
Conversely, if running the first half slower than even time – it will have more energy to do the second half faster than even time. But it won’t make up all the time lost through slow early fractions.Does that apply to 5-6f sprints though Ginge? There is no question a Group 1, 12f horse will laugh at a 0-85 handicapper over 11/2m but as the ‘Golden Jubilee’/’Wokingham’ times show year on year the Handicapppers are clocking faster times than their so called superior rivals or at least matching them.That is why we see Sprint handicappers like
Petong
,
Continent
,
Bahamian Pirate
,
Harmonic way
,
Frizzante
,
Regal Parade
etc making the transition.I see no purpose in sectionals over trips shorter than a mile.
"Even fractions" are imo just as important in sprints as they are at a mile or further Gord.
I think European sprinters aren’t as good as milers and middle-distance horses; which partly explains how it is easier for sprinting handicappers to progress to Group 1 company. Because milers are much better thought of when it comes to breeding. If a horse stays a mile well very few will go back in distance. You get the same thing happening with stayers. Group 1 middle-distance horses don’t race over further; so stayers don’t tend to be as good as the very best middle-distance horses.
We don’t realise so much when staying handicappers make the transition to Group 1 performers; because each pound carried is worth less distance with sprinters than stayers (it can be 4 lbs per length at 5f and less than 1 lb per length at 2m4f. ie An ex-handicapping stayer finishes 3 lengths behind in a staying Group 1 and we don’t think much of it; might even think it’s being "laughed at". Where as, an ex-handicapping sprinter finishes a length behind in a Group 1 and he’s "made the grade". Yet in
lbs
… being beaten 3 lengths at staying distances can be a similar beating as a length at sprints.
Big Handicaps are also invariably truly run and with 30+ horses in the field one or two are likely to put in perfect (or almost perfect) even fractions. At some point in a Group 1 sprint it is likely to have either a slow or overly strong fraction, where (because of fewer participants)
all
runners are likely to have run that slower or faster than ideal fraction… often resulting in faster times by handicappers.
Simon Rowlands’ excellent sectional times debrief explains how the pace in the Jubilee compared to the Wokingham made the difference in over all times.
https://www.timeform.com/Racing/Article … t_Day_Five
Value Is EverythingKingy / Ginge…anybody else who defines the game in numbers
Please understand , in Sprints weight means nothing , for pure sprinting 5f distances , over 35.40 years I have observed
Over other distances your number crunching may have some merit ….except when the horse turns up and is not in the mood
all this sectional times mallarkey is abs drivel , unless the horse in question is 100 per cent up for it on the day , gets the pace and ground he desires. /craves …otherwise its a load of bullocks
The game is about Horses ,,,not maths like the rowlands ./ willoughby mantra ….
I haveent mentioned the jockeys/ owners. trainers being complicit as well …but that’s a different story
Imo
Kingy / Ginge…anybody else who defines the game in numbers
Please understand , in Sprints weight means nothing , for pure sprinting 5f distances , over 35.40 years I have observed
Over other distances your number crunching may have some merit ….except when the horse turns up and is not in the mood
all this sectional times mallarkey is abs drivel , unless the horse in question is 100 per cent up for it on the day ,
gets the pace
and ground he desires. /craves …otherwise its a load of bullocks
The game is about Horses ,,,not maths like the rowlands ./ willoughby mantra ….
I haveent mentioned the jockeys/ owners. trainers being complicit as well …but that’s a different story
Imo
You’ve just disproved your own little theory Ricky.
Sectionals = "pace"
.
It’s just a more methodical way of looking at pace and doesn’t leap to conclusions. ie It can be easy to think something finishing fast is unlucky or that a front runner got an easy lead; but when looking at sectionals that is sometimes not the case.
Nobody is saying sectionals are the be all and end all anyway, it’s just one important aspect of form. All other aspects of form (including those you mention) are relevent too.You’ll get it Ricky, Gord won’t like being called a numbers man.
You keep "observing" the way you do Ricky, and there’ll be more profit to be had by the rest of us.
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.