- This topic has 56 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
The best comparison for the effect of sectionals on the overall time of a race would be to look at how it affects human athletes in their battle to beat the clock.
100, 200 and 400 races I would classify as pretty much negligible in the reliance on individual sections. In the 400m some athletes go out harder than others and the UK athlete Christine Ohuruogu famously goes slowly for the first 200 and then runs the last 200 harder.
It is when we reach the 800m that we see a clear divide between two laps that constitute the race. In championship races this often becomes a tactical affair and the times can be well slower than the world record for the event and normally the person with the best finishing kick and who didn’t get too far detached will win. Seb Coe famously made a balls of it in the Moscow Olympics, where the supposedly slower 800m runner Steve Ovett got first run and the future Lord Coe had Jamie Spencer on his back.
World Record attempts usually occur away from the championships for the middle distance races and there is usually much financial incentive and expert pacemakers are employed. Ball park sectionals for a fast 800m would be 52 seconds per lap, yielding an overall time of 1 minute 44 seconds. The theory is that running equal sections is more conducive to achieving the faster overall time. If a runner set off on 50 seconds for the first 400m he would only have to cover the second 400 in 54 seconds but the thinking is, and is often borne out, that he has gone out of his comfort zone and used up too much energy in the first 400, meaning he is out on his feet in the closing stages of the race and losing his running action in the process, resulting in a poorer second lap than required. Equally if he were to conserve energy early and go 54 seconds for the first lap it does not equate that he can make up the lost 2 seconds on the second lap and come home in 50 seconds to clock the overall 1.44 time.
The fact that stands out as distance increases is the need to run at a different pace. At 400m Michael Johnson could run the race in 45 seconds without breaking sweat and in theory he would only need to run the second 400m in 59 seconds, a full 14 seconds slower, to be a top class 800m runner but the task would have been beyond him at what we would call a "suicidal pace" for the first lap.
That is the theory for human athletes but I am not sure we can apply it anywhere nearly as accurately or with the same certainty for horses, for several reasons. Horses are more of a mystery to us, you can’t debrief them the way you would an athlete. There are many more factors and uncertainties about a horse race and we are nowhere near having the same analytical tools available in the same mandatory use as we have in athletics.
I am in no way criticising the efforts made by sectional analysts in the sport of Horse Racing and all data should be considered where it is freely available. I believe it is early days for this analysis and am not sure how accurately we can actually apply it.
If Horsted Keynes had covered his first 2f half a second faster can we definitely say he would have covered the final 2f half a second less quickly, or worse, because of it?
I would say the sectional times are a guide and give food for thought about what may well of happened, but, as with many things, as the figures get less pronounced, it becomes harder to apply with absolute certainty.
That’s my 2p yankee’s worth on it anyway
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
The best comparison for the effect of sectionals on the overall time of a race would be to look at how it affects human athletes in their battle to beat the clock.
100, 200 and 400 races I would classify as pretty much negligible in the reliance on individual sections. In the 400m some athletes go out harder than others and the UK athlete Christine Ohuruogu famously goes slowly for the first 200 and then runs the last 200 harder.
Suspect you could be right about 100m and 200m Steve. Do human runners go the same pace for 100m as they do 200? The speed they go at 200m may well be a human’s maximum, so can’t go any faster at 100m (World Record for 200m is almost exactly double that of the 100m WR). However, I’d imagine it’s similar to a thoroughbred sprinter going 3 furlongs absolutely flat out. Most horses (think of Sole Power) are seldom going full pelt throughout a 5f race, if they did go as fast as possible they’d weaken in the final furlong or two.
At 400m Christine apparently goes off slower. But does that mean slower than "even pace"? Or does it mean slower than her rivals? Like many hold up fillies – her best chance of winning is when others go off too fast. The "best pace" is sometimes with the hold up horse/human if front runners go off too quick. It may look as though she is finishing very fast, but just as in a horse race it is probably more the others slowing down rather than Christine speeding up. I don’t know the sectionals of human races, but in the Final of many 400m Championship races – most that usually race at or near the front know they need to run faster than they’ve ever done before to win Gold. This encourages them to go off too fast; especially with a race run in lanes – unlike races over further those in front don’t know for certain how others are going and/or where they are.
Value Is EverythingSuspect you could be right about 100m and 200m Steve. Do human runners go the same pace for 100m as they do 200? The speed they go at 200m may well be a human’s maximum, so can’t go any faster at 100m (World Record for 200m is almost exactly double that of the 100m WR)
It’s misleading to compare the 100m times with those of the 200m as the first is from a standing start whereas the second 100m of the latter is from a flying start, so this second 100m tends to be faster than the first
Think I’m right in saying that Usain Bolt’s current records of 9.58 and 19.19 is the first time that the current record for the 100m is, when doubled, quicker than the current 200m record – 19.16 to 19.19, which is remarkable
Pietro Mennea’s 200m record of 19.72 set in 1979 is a split of 9.86 and this wasn’t broken in the 100m until 1994 by Leroy Burrell with 9.85
Likewise, when Michael Johnson broke Mennea’s record with 19.32 in 1996 this is a split of 9.66 and wasn’t broken in the 100m until Bolt in 2009 with his current record of 9.58
The actual split times for the above 200m races would be fascinating to know and is something I’ve never been able to find out
I would hazard a guess that both the 100m and 200m are essentially accelerate as fast as you can from the start and maintain flat out until the finish, so ‘pace’ is not a consideration
And I’d suggest these sprints are more comparable with Quarter-Horse races than our 5f ‘sprints’
Suspect you could be right about 100m and 200m Steve. Do human runners go the same pace for 100m as they do 200? The speed they go at 200m may well be a human’s maximum, so can’t go any faster at 100m (World Record for 200m is almost exactly double that of the 100m WR)
It’s misleading to compare the 100m times with those of the 200m as the first is from a standing start whereas the second 100m of the latter is from a flying start, so this second 100m tends to be faster than the first
Think I’m right in saying that Usain Bolt’s current records of 9.58 and 19.19 is the first time that the current record for the 100m is, when doubled, quicker than the current 200m record – 19.16 to 19.19, which is remarkable
Pietro Mennea’s 200m record of 19.72 set in 1979 is a split of 9.86 and this wasn’t broken in the 100m until 1994 by Leroy Burrell with 9.85
Likewise, when Michael Johnson broke Mennea’s record with 19.32 in 1996 this is a split of 9.66 and wasn’t broken in the 100m until Bolt in 2009 with his current record of 9.58
The actual split times for the above 200m races would be fascinating to know and is something I’ve never been able to find out
I would hazard a guess that both the 100m and 200m are essentially accelerate as fast as you can from the start and maintain flat out until the finish, so ‘pace’ is not a consideration
And I’d suggest these sprints are more comparable with Quarter-Horse races than our 5f ‘sprints’
It is almost as certain as Christmas that Michael Johnston clocked a very uneven split in his 200m world record times. Unusually for a 200m runner he wasn’t very good at 100m and he never broke 10 seconds for that distance in his career.
Mind you Johnston was a freakish sort of runner with a very unique upright stance and rapid stride pattern totally at odds with the gangling Usain Bolt, who probably covered far more ground per stride.
As my late Mother said about Michael Johnson:-
"That man runs as if he’s got a tattie stuck up his erse"
Eat that Steve Cram!
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Ginger , I could easily laugh at your reply
but on balance its not worth it
good luck though with your numbers …in fact I hope you clean up
best as always
As bad a Jockey Jamie Spencer makes himself look he’s not a patch on the weakest jockey in the weighing room,Richard Hughes.Its a fact he gets beaten on more horses that should have won than those who actually do.His Ride on
Tiggy Wiggy
gets the vote for worst of the week,his ride on
Fort Knox
……Beggars belief.You wont see him in the Godolphin silks again.
The ride Richard Hughes gave
Kool Kompany
in the ‘Coventry’ was eyecatching for all the wrong reasons and to see this fellow bounce back today certainly didn’t surprise me in the ‘Railway Stakes’ at the Curragh.Jamie Spencer will be kicking himself for lack of effort too today.He could have flown up to Newcastle with Squeaky to ride the Pitmens Derby winner.Maybe the lack of effort from the mighty…….Weak England team is rubbing off on Jockeys too!
The ride Richard Hughes gave
Kool Kompany
in the ‘Coventry’ was eyecatching for all the wrong reasons and to see this fellow bounce back today certainly didn’t surprise me in the ‘Railway Stakes’ at the Curragh.Jamie Spencer will be kicking himself for lack of effort too today.He could have flown up to Newcastle with Squeaky to ride the Pitmens Derby winner.Maybe the lack of effort from the mighty…….Weak England team is rubbing off on Jockeys too!
The three Coventry runners came in in totally the reverse order today than they did at Ascot. No wonder people prefer the machines.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Hindsight shows that Kool Kompany needs to be up with the pace and not given a waiting ride as he does not have a finishing burst. Think he will turn out decent but not a top notcher.
Quinta Verde at The Curragh today, the Right Honorable James Spencer Esquire in the saddle.
Race comments say:-
"towards rear, 10th halfway, ridden in 9th 1 1/2f out, headway into 4th 1f out, stayed on well final furlong, just failed"
Beaten a short head and a nose in third.
Maybe some
Sectional Perversity
was at work again there
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Sweet Jesus, how many times does it have to happen before a jockey gets the message?
Not having a great Ascot and several of my previous selections popping up unbacked. Then you get to your second biggest bet of the week at 8/1 and it flies through for second from the back.
Horsted Keynes was a strong fancy for me today and Jamie Spencer, yet again plants him in last place early in a huge field.
The race report reads:-
"held up in last place, ridden and headway entering final furlong, ran on strongly, not reach winner, to much to do"
Pure Tom Tit in the saddle again from the namesake of another clown:-
Steve, I find it interesting the number of times people complain about rides the horse actually produces his best ever run.
I’ve heard one or two others complain about the Horsted Keynes ride but not one has mentioned how unruly the horse was in the stalls. They had an isocam on him and I commented at the time to someone how difficult it can be at times for jockeys in the stalls.
Spencer did a great job to try and get the horse settled and produced him as well as could be expected but just wasn’t good enough.
Thought the jockey chamge to Crowley last week was puzzling, connections must agree with you
But to change from a jockey with experience of the horse and was aboard on his best ever run to a lesser one with no experience of the horse is a negative for me if I was looking to back it.I think this is a time that you can ignore the fact that the horse produced its best ever run, Yeats. It takes a real leap of imagination to suggest Jamie Spencer was responsible for an improvement in form.
Having his entire career geared towards that race and presumably being fitter than ever before is more likely, I think.
I think this is a time that you can ignore the fact that the horse produced its best ever run, Yeats. It takes a real leap of imagination to suggest Jamie Spencer was responsible for an improvement in form.
Having his entire career geared towards that race and presumably being fitter than ever before is more likely, I think.
No one is suggesting Spencer is entirely responsible for the improvement but he was a significant contributory factor imo. If indeed the horse’s career was geared towards a 29 runner 7f handicap at Royal Ascot as you suggest I think they were misguided especially to get it rated 100 prior to the race as plenty of others in the race would apparently be doing the same.
Anything can win races like that as his 8/1 price would suggest, he’s run a cracker in no small part thanks to his jockey.
Steve, I find it interesting the number of times people complain about rides the horse actually produces his best ever run.
I’ve heard one or two others complain about the Horsted Keynes ride but not one has mentioned how unruly the horse was in the stalls. They had an isocam on him and I commented at the time to someone how difficult it can be at times for jockeys in the stalls.
Spencer did a great job to try and get the horse settled and produced him as well as could be expected but just wasn’t good enough.
Thought the jockey chamge to Crowley last week was puzzling, connections must agree with you
But to change from a jockey with experience of the horse and was aboard on his best ever run to a lesser one with no experience of the horse is a negative for me if I was looking to back it.Horsted Keynes is a very lightly raced horse and is highly likely to still be improving. It would be little surprise that he were to have run his best race on his latest outing and it would be dubious to claim that the ride he was given had resulted in a career best for such an unexposed horse.
As I have said before, the pace in races does make the difference but tying it to exact margins is something I doubt to be possible given the nature of the horse as an athlete. We know that both horses were slowing down but Horsted Keynes covered the last two furlongs faster than the winner did. Had he been a little closer to the pace the theory is that he would have finished a little more slowly in the final two furlongs. The question is how MUCH more slowly?
We cannot predict with certainty the precise margins created by variance in pace. The sectionals give us a guide but I think we are a fair way away from them being the be all and end all of race analysis. These are horses we are dealing with here, not theoretical 1kg balls rolling in a Physics lab at standard temperature and pressure in a "frictionless" experiment.
Horsted Keynes has won well for Andrea Atzeni and William Buick, as well as Jamie Spencer and I think you would making a debatable assessment that the horse needs the latter jockey.
It’s a game of opinions of course and we invest our money based on how we see it. None of us are correct all the time and that is the ONLY certainty in this sport
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Interesting that you mention Atzeni. He (along with Moore, obviously) has been one of the jockeys of the season in my opinion.
Check his contrasting rides in the big races (both big field handicaps)on the last two Saturdays. First, at Haydock on De Rigueur when he came from stone last off a strong pace to win and then on Saturday at York where he had Farraaj close to the lead off a moderate pace to win another huge pot.
This young fella is a future champ with the right backing. Spencer is a clown.
OK his ‘head waiter’ routine might not always come off but I rarely see him in impossible positions behind a wall of horses. If JPS has his mount at the rear of the field, it seems to me he’s often on the outer and out of trouble.
Interesting that you mention Atzeni. He (along with Moore, obviously) has been one of the jockeys of the season in my opinion.
Check his contrasting rides in the big races (both big field handicaps)on the last two Saturdays. First, at Haydock on De Rigueur when he came from stone last off a strong pace to win and then on Saturday at York where he had Farraaj close to the lead off a moderate pace to win another huge pot.
This young fella is a future champ with the right backing. Spencer is a clown.
Spencer didn’t do too much wrong on Vancouverite but Atzeni once again shone on Amralah, getting an early lead, surrendering it and then kicking on again.
[quote="stevecaution")
Horsted Keynes is a very lightly raced horse and is highly likely to still be improving. It would be little surprise that he were to have run his best race on his latest outing and it would be dubious to claim that the ride he was given had resulted in a career best for such an unexposed horse.
Well that’s not something you could say for either of his last two abysmal efforts. The jockey change from his career best run has not led to the promised land as some thought but I suppose it’s harder to fault a jockey when the horse finishes well down the field rather than second.
I wonder if anyone has revised their opinion and realised what a good ride Spencer actually gave the horse at Royal Ascot
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.