- This topic has 17 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Since I have been compiling speed figures, I just couldn’t get my head around the fact that the 1st race at yesterday’s meeting at Sedgefield the 3m3f9y(H), was actually run over a trip that was shorter by 295yds.
To Compile the speed figures for the meeting I had to adjust the following race times.
Race1 -259yds (add 17.27s)
Race2 -129yds (add 8.6s)
Race3 -220yds (add 14.67s)
Race4 +90yds (minus 6.0s)
Race5 -150yds (add 10.0s)
Race6 +71yds (minus 4.73s)Mike.
I can’t understand why the tracks can’t just measure their courses correctly a few days before each meeting. Before the entry stage they could say
race 1: approx 2 miles
Race 2: approx 3 miles 2 furlong
Race 3: approx 2 miles 4 furlongs
And so on.Then the day before the final declaration just measure each course exactly.
Race 1: 2 miles 142 yards
Race 2: 3 miles 1 furlong 80 yards
Race 3: 2 miles 4 furlongs 40 yards.Then we would have no confusion or mistakes. Advertising a race more than a furlong wrong is not good enough.
I may be crazy but I’m beginning to wonder how much the exact race distance matters!
When studying form for an upcoming race the exact distance with rail movements is now available but in the horses’ past form only the general distance is given. So, not having time to keep a record of the ultra exact distance every past race was run over, there is no point in me taking into account the exact distance for the upcoming race – I’m better off comparing like with like and just using the general distance.
This got me thinking. Hardly any races are run at a breakneck gallop from the off. For example, if a race is over 3m 1f 17y instead of 3m 1f 203y (at the same track) is it really going to make any difference to the outcome? The horses set off at varying yards behind the tape, probably run at the same pace pattern notwithstanding the yardage difference, and far short of top speed for a substantial but varying proportion of the race. I suppose sectional timing would be revealing but isn’t it more about each runner’s tactical speed at certain crucial moments? Along with a myriad of other factors such as luck in running, jockeyship, a slight error here or there, the exact degree of, say, good to soft on one day compared to good to soft on another, what side of the hay a horse got out of that morning, etc., etc…
There are too many overall factors to predict precisely (in terms of a numerical rating) how each horse will run and what will be the exact lengths between horses at the finish. It’s just something that’s impossible to quantify because of the variables. That doesn’t stop me/us trying but what we are doing is coming up with a general figure, an educated guess. Seen in that light how important really are the exact yardages? Aren’t they just one minor factor?
GM, it’s a huge issue for Mike (The Blues Brother) as he specialises in timing and speed ratings (something I too find very useful). If many more punters backed on times – if they were relied on as much as bare form – there would be a massive outcry about these differences.
I may be crazy but I’m beginning to wonder how much the exact race distance matters!
When studying form for an upcoming race the exact distance with rail movements is now available but in the horses’ past form only the general distance is given. So, not having time to keep a record of the ultra exact distance every past race was run over, there is no point in me taking into account the exact distance for the upcoming race – I’m better off comparing like with like and just using the general distance.
This got me thinking. Hardly any races are run at a breakneck gallop from the off. For example, if a race is over 3m 1f 17y instead of 3m 1f 203y (at the same track) is it really going to make any difference to the outcome? The horses set off at varying yards behind the tape, probably run at the same pace pattern notwithstanding the yardage difference, and far short of top speed for a substantial but varying proportion of the race. I suppose sectional timing would be revealing but isn’t it more about each runner’s tactical speed at certain crucial moments? Along with a myriad of other factors such as luck in running, jockeyship, a slight error here or there, the exact degree of, say, good to soft on one day compared to good to soft on another, what side of the hay a horse got out of that morning, etc., etc…
There are too many overall factors to predict precisely (in terms of a numerical rating) how each horse will run and what will be the exact lengths between horses at the finish. It’s just something that’s impossible to quantify because of the variables. That doesn’t stop me/us trying but what we are doing is coming up with a general figure, an educated guess. Seen in that light how important really are the exact yardages? Aren’t they just one minor factor?
Does it never occur to you that people who are concerned for correct race distances already know all the issues you have written, but still require them? Why do they require them? Does no lightbulb come on that indicates you might have completely missed the point? Uneducated people do not make educated guesses.
I may be crazy but I’m beginning to wonder how much the exact race distance matters!
When studying form for an upcoming race the exact distance with rail movements is now available but in the horses’ past form only the general distance is given. So, not having time to keep a record of the ultra exact distance every past race was run over, there is no point in me taking into account the exact distance for the upcoming race – I’m better off comparing like with like and just using the general distance.
This got me thinking. Hardly any races are run at a breakneck gallop from the off. For example, if a race is over 3m 1f 17y instead of 3m 1f 203y (at the same track) is it really going to make any difference to the outcome? The horses set off at varying yards behind the tape, probably run at the same pace pattern notwithstanding the yardage difference, and far short of top speed for a substantial but varying proportion of the race. I suppose sectional timing would be revealing but isn’t it more about each runner’s tactical speed at certain crucial moments? Along with a myriad of other factors such as luck in running, jockeyship, a slight error here or there, the exact degree of, say, good to soft on one day compared to good to soft on another, what side of the hay a horse got out of that morning, etc., etc…
There are too many overall factors to predict precisely (in terms of a numerical rating) how each horse will run and what will be the exact lengths between horses at the finish. It’s just something that’s impossible to quantify because of the variables. That doesn’t stop me/us trying but what we are doing is coming up with a general figure, an educated guess. Seen in that light how important really are the exact yardages? Aren’t they just one minor factor?
Does it never occur to you that people who are concerned for correct race distances already know all the issues you have written, but still require them? Why do they require them? Does no lightbulb come on that indicates you might have completely missed the point? Uneducated people do not make educated guesses.
Of course, as you and Joe have pointed out, correct distances are a big issue for those, like Mike, for whom the time/speed factor is a major component of their approach to form study and I respect those who take this approach, good luck to you. I was endeavouring to widen the discussion because, quite frankly, the only instances I use times in my study are when comparing two races at the same distance/discipline on the same card. So for me it is a minor factor and as Joe alludes to that may be the case for the vast majority (perhaps supported by the lack of contributors to this thread).
Looking at today’s meeting at Sedgefield the rail adjustments and corrected distances are an improvement from the last meeting.
Race 1 about 44 yards added (-2.93s)
Race 2 reduced about 35 yards (+2.33s)
Race 3 reduced about 49 yards (+3.27s)
Race 4 about 40 yards added (-2.67s)
Race 5 reduced about 43 yards (+2.87s)
Race 6 reduced about 59 yards (+3.93s)When I have made the necessary adjustments to the winning times, I can then calculate the going allowance, what you then hopefully end up with are speed figures that give you a true reflection of the pace of the race and the time/quality of the horses.
AW Championship 2017: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B3rVp0WNvwn8bVhZY0lWd2lxLWc
National Hunt 2016: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B3rVp0WNvwn8bllPSTFkSkJJcFE
Mike.
Are strong head/tail winds drag etc facted into these speed ratings?
No, that proviso would have to fall under the umbrella of the going allowance.
There are other factors to take into consideration, at Uttoxeter yesterday, I had the going allowance on the Hurdles course at -1.42s/f (heavy) and on the chase course -1.77s/f (heavy).
Mike.
Hi Mike,
I say this with greatest respect.
But are the figures from Musselburgh on 14-11-16 missing from your latest speedfigure spreadsheet?
Maybe I just can’t find them or have a hidden filter blocking them.
Thanks again for all your continued hard work.
Malcolm
Hi Mike,
To be more specific when I look for Royal Pearl and Becky The Thatcher ratings I cannot find them for 14-11-16?
Regards,
Malcol,
The other factor I’ve often wondered about is do you calculate your speed figures from the time the race starts or from the time the horses cross the start Line? Often the tape is released when the horses are 50/100 yards away, thus making the race longer by that distance, do you allow for this? And do you make any allowance for a race with a standing start v a race with a running start?
The other factor I’ve often wondered about is do you calculate your speed figures from the time the race starts or from the time the horses cross the start Line? Often the tape is released when the horses are 50/100 yards away, thus making the race longer by that distance, do you allow for this? And do you make any allowance for a race with a standing start v a race with a running start?
When the horses cross the line, which is what the Racing Post have been doing now for several years.
But are the figures from Musselburgh on 14-11-16 missing from your latest speedfigure spreadsheet?
I just took a look at the spreadsheet and the figures for Musselburgh on the 14.11.16 are there.
There were no figures for Becky The Thatchers race due to slow time of the race (slow by 57.00s) which was then adjusted to 50.73s after rail movements, I had going allowance on the day at 0.00s/f (good).
Just for the record Dave Edwards “Top Speed” didn’t have speed figures for the race.
Mike.
This file might be on some use to somebody, it has every meeting I have worked on going back to 2013, this includes the french races I worked on, UAE and more recently Hong Kong.
It is compressed in a RAR file (29MB), just right click and download, if you need a program to unpack the file use the free utility 7-zip.
Speed figures2: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B3rVp0WNvwn8Y3djZHNEaVVrVHc?usp=sharing
Column “H” is the going allowance and column “N” is hidden.
Mike.
Hi Mike,
Finding your speedfigure spreadsheets really informative for identifying patterns in the extent to which trainers improve the horse’s performance going into Cheltenham Festivals. Can I as a favour? Could I get access to 2015-16 Jump Season File for all jumps horses (not just winners)?
Any help with this would be greatly appreciated.
Malcolm
Could I get access to 2015-16 Jump Season File for all jumps horses (not just winners)?
Sorry Malcolm, there is no 2015-16 sheet, I only started to put this list together for a professional, when the new beta Racing Post website is up and running I very much doubt if it would be possible to re-produced the same format as the layout is totally different.
Mike.
AW Championship 2017: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B3rVp0WNvwn8bVhZY0lWd2lxLWc
National Hunt 2016: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B3rVp0WNvwn8bllPSTFkSkJJcFE
Standard times: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B3rVp0WNvwn8anUySlNvSjN1bXM
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.