- This topic has 158 replies, 30 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
Stav,
A very interesting and informative post. I’m not sure how your par times and going allowances are arrived at, but I suspect that it is these that are causing the difference between your ratings(and hence opinion of the worth of the form) and Topspeed’s and those who follow similar methods. I don’t actually do my own ratings except for the odd meeting to check that I’m roughly in agreement with the Racing Post for form and speed. It is very time consuming and once you have faith in the basic methods they use, you might as well let them do it. You are paying for it if you buy the paper every day.
Based on Saturday’s times, I thought the going was good, but no quicker than that. We have already discussed evidence for and against this and cannot agree, so we will have to leave it there. It shows that different methods can produce different results, which is a bit disconcerting for those of us who rely heavily on form being franked by good times and speed ratings. I can see from your spreadsheets that your work is meticulous and well researched, so it’s all a bit of a puzzle. Perhaps it might be fruitful to look at Royal Ascot when it arrives and compare ratings for the high quality racing. It probably won’t settle any disputes about the relative worth of different methods because after all, it’s only opinions, but it could be useful. Are you interested?
As regards Ouija Board, it’s very difficult for fillies/mares to compete with the colts on a regular basis. If we take 5 of the better fillies of recent years:
Alexander Goldrun<br>ran in 8 Gr1s against colts – 1 win and 2 places
Soviet Song<br>ran in 8 Gr1/2 against colts – 1 win and 3 places
Russian Rhythm<br>ran in 3 Gr1s against colts – 1 win and 1 place
Attraction<br>ran in 3 Group races against colts – 0 wins or places
Ouija Board<br>ran in 7 Gr1s against colts – 1 win and 3 places
In fairness to OB, her record is no worse or better than either SS or AG. Arguably we didn’t really get to see if RR could be the best of those lot. Maybe fillies need more than 5lb?
David,
I agree with to some extent. I just feel that RR and Six Perfections would be classier fillies than OB. I do believe that OB gets a lot of unnecessary hype, compared to hype around RR and SP.
JohnJ
Speed ratings aside, Sir Percy is a lucky horse in the sense that Horatio Nelson probably should have won the Dewhurst and in the Derby the only place SP won the race was on the line. A stride sooner or a stride later and he was beaten. Well done to Martin Dwyer for his perseverance and well done to the horse for his courage, but you could not be confident the result would be the same next time.
I agree with Gareth Flynn that 10f is going to be his best distance.
I still don’t agree that only one of the last 6 Derby meetings has been run on firmer going based on race times, but each to their own.
Sectional times are, in my opinion, best dealt with as %s of overall race times, which takes into account differences in weights, ages, abilities and goings other than in extreme instances.
As I have stated previously, they show that the pace of this year’s Derby was slightly on the steady side, no more than that. That is based on many races at the course in recent years, as well as Derbys, Oaks and Coronation Cups going back further. ÂÂÂ
Pru,
I use 3 other independent methods for confirming what the going will be as well as race times. The physical ground was a good-firm crust of topsoil with the chalk sodden below after 10 days previous rain. The horse’s two ton impact force on the turf deflects soil down to about 14 inches depth so anything a puny human sees, feels, pokes with a stick at the surface can be very misleading.
Stav using his standard times may quite correctly get a going allowance of say minus 0.10 and calls that good-firm. Someone else with a different ST set but same times and methods gets a GC of 0 and calls it Good.
The trick is to keep the same set and ensure that each race distance standard on the same course is in proportion "relatively". Other courses must have the same balance of times which must be relateable to the course in question and all other UK courses you might use that data on. This is what Raceform, Racing Post, N Mordin etc do not do.
If things are balanced than your 0 GC is, or can be, true zero on all courses. What many figures have is an apparent calculated zero ranging from a reality of -0.3 to +0.3 and are quite unware of that – just using the times of that day and coming out with zero.
Where SP is rated at 121 instead of about 107 because "it was the Derby" and he achieved 121 on a totally different course, going and distance is another source of huge errors. Hawk Wing in the Lockinge was another glaring example of why you have to do your own ratings to have any confidence in using the data in earnest.
On proportional sectional times or pace shape your advice is good as far as it goes and gives a clarifying picture to an otherwise confusing mass of data, but IMHO it is only a start. The Derby is stiff uphill, helter skelter downhill + bend, cambered straight. Those near the 8 yard far rail preserved strip are running on different going to those further out. So you really need gold standards for each sectional at Epsom to get a fuller "relative" picture that you could apply at another totally different course such as Ascot, York or Newmarket.
Once you have those standards you can then go on and estimate the variation in going around the course, which then changes your overall GC, which may change your Standard Times, ad-infinitum.
John jo
So you say that but somehow no one seems to be able to answer basic questions do they?
Including you seemingly….
The basic point always was that Sir P was being knocked by NM becuase he posted a bad time. Just like many a french group one winner and seb coe in competitive situations
Come on someone…answer the French group one question…do these races throw up unworthy or freak winnrs? im all ears…
The best you can say about a bad time is an open mind…stav more or less admitted that i suppose in his effervescent jolly way
A good speed rating indicates something opf course, but as weve seen , no one seems to be completely sure about the going at any one time, so there has to be some margin of disbelief
<br>
A basic fact about the derby going
we had a month of rain leading up to it….
Clearly it wasnt soft or even good maybe, but a fair guess that recent derbys have been run after much drier spells of weather
- Total Posts 17716
Quote: from clivex on 10:52 pm on June 10, 2006[br]Come on someone…answer the French group one question…do these races throw up unworthy or freak winnrs? im all ears…
The best you can say about a bad time is an open mind…stav more or less admitted that i suppose in his effervescent jolly way
A good speed rating indicates something opf course, but as weve seen , no one seems to be completely sure about the going at any one time, so there has to be some margin of disbelief<br>
Clivex<br> The truth is, that using s/f alone, no one knows if the form is sound or not until subsequent races have been run, which renders them useless as a definitive tool in any race where unexposed (timewise) horses are involved, ie, the great majority of better class races.<br> I used to do my own s/f, but abandoned them over a decade ago for a number of reasons apart from the above.<br>Going allowances, no matter how sophisticated the database, are, at best, a guess and can differ alarmingly, even amongst professional compilers.<br>Standard times again vary markedly from compiler to compiler, and often, even from the same source and over the same course. I recall, from years back, that Raceform’s standard time for 7f at York was way out of line with their other ST’s  from that track, an error they repeated over various c/d’s, and similarly with the RP’s figures at that time.<br> Standard times, by definition, also pay little respect to class, so there is often a situation where they are skewed by the lack of regular good class races over a particular c/d :York 5f, with only one high class race; Newbury 1m, with only the Lockinge above gp3, and; Redcar 6f, 2yo Trophy, are ones that immediately spring to mind.<br>Inconsistent ground is another factor. With the prevalence of selective watering, not only is it difficult to ascerain the overall going, it may well vary from section to section, and, far too often to make definitive judgements, from one side of the course to the other.<br> Far more damning, imo, than all the above, is that s/f, as such, take little or no account of the actual horses involved, so that major influences such as invidual class, fitness, going and distances preferences, are largely ignored, all of which have an impact on every single race run.<br>None of the above is to suggest that s/f’s aren’t useful, they are just not the holy grail so many consider them to be.
Far more damning, imo, than all the above, is that s/f, as such, take little or no account of the actual horses involved, so that major influences such as invidual class, fitness, going and distances preferences, are largely ignored, all of which have an impact on every single race run
Great post Reet hard. Pretty well articulated what i have long thought.
For me there will always be far more significant factors involved and the fact that no one has answered the French Group one question confirms what i needed to know :)
EC
You speed merchants are way too defensive. Still if you all waste so much time…
You still didnt answer my question about French racing. So slag off all you want, but keep avoiding the real question eh?
Of course not all French races are slow, but a lot are. we all know that. You choose to ignore the form of those races…fair enough
But have these races thrown up freakish or , in NM’s words "unworthy" winners. My guess is that they havent because quite simply good horses and often the best horse, will also win slowly run races. dismissing performances becuase of suppsedly "bad times" is a mistake
That being the case, the original point about slow races being nothing more than an " open mind" stands
<br>
Inconsistent ground is another factor. With the prevalence of selective watering, not only is it difficult to ascertain the overall going, it may well vary from section to section, and, far too often to make definitive judgements, from one side of the course to the other.
Interesting..you don’t seem to care what goes in the form book re ground..coz a pro put it there..most horse’s form has inconsistent going included..but all of a sudden when it comes to speed figures..ooh we have to be pinpoint accurate or I can’t find enough sticks to beat it with. Basically..the form book is ok with a million errors in it..you slavishly study form with all those errors without minding..but get all pinnickity about minor details when it comes to speed figure..you just like knocking speed compilers..which is handy as the two people on here who you like digging at both compile them…sad sad sad.
whos being childish now?
Going a "minor point" when you are delaing with a few seconds here and there? Sorry…no way
I used to do my own s/f, but abandoned them over a decade ago for a number of reasons apart from the above. <br>Going allowances, no matter how sophisticated the database, are, at best, a guess and can differ alarmingly, even amongst professional compilers.
So basically, you didn’t know what you were doing
Thats agreat post is it stav? Really answers the very valid point doesnt it?
EC can do better than that and needs to grow up FFS ;)
From watching alot of french group ones maybe? Christ, its hardly a secret is it
Even NM and EC,who dismiss this form, give this as a reason for doing so…
I watch racing rather than spreadsheets
There u go Reet…
U have been defeated by the well reasoned "fantastic" post that "you dont know what your talking about"
Notice how many questions are answered by that?
- Total Posts 17716
<br> School holidays again, is it? :biggrin:
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.