- This topic has 158 replies, 30 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hi Stav,
Once again, some useful research to support your case. The FSL measure looks quite fair: if the distances are translated into lbs, they come out about the same figure.
I’m not really picking holes, but just a few points. I believe that the best handicap races on decent going are more likely to produce the ‘concertina’ type finishes because most of the runners are useful, fully fit and meeting their optimum conditions. If you take all handicaps on different types of going, which I presume your stats do, I would expect the relative numbers finishing within LPF to be slightly less.
I know you can get relatively fast races on slow ground and hence decent speed ratings, but I would suggest that such a scenario is quite rare except perhaps in sprints. I think jockeys are often reluctant to set a decent pace on slow ground in case their mounts run out of energy before the finishing dash. Indeed, this may be why the French, who generally experience softer ground than we do, habitually used to run ‘slow, slow, sprint’ type races. They can’t get away with this with plenty of foreign opposition. My point here is that slow races, mainly on slower ground are(as your stats show) likely to produce higher LPF figures. On really testing ground, you would expect the LPF figure to be quite low as the fields are often strung out.
I would re-iterate that my assertion was that the very best handicaps are likely(but not always) to be run at a fair clip and close in terms of LPF. I think your stats, although a small sample, show that this assertion may not be true for handicaps in general. As always, food for thought.
By the way, I agree with all you say about the limitations of speed figures or any other analytical tools we use in our attempts to grapple with racing form. I,ve said it before and don’t mind repeating that there is no formula waiting to be discovered as in maths or physics. We are dealing with trying to analyse and make sense of what are essentially chaotic events where there are virtually endless possibilities of what might happen during a race, although only a finite number of possible outcomes in terms of a winner. Guesswork is putting it mildly.
(Edited by Artemis at 11:56 am on June 12, 2006)
Remains to be seen whether or not the form will stand up, especially with Dragon Dancer so close to the front.
- Total Posts 17716
Artemis<br> I, too, believe that most of the better class handicaps are run at a true pace, and the principals often finish close together, if for no other reason than they are generally big fields with attractive purses for the placed horses.<br> A look at the most recent runnings of the top 10 flat handicaps supports this view.<br> The following sets out how close the first 10 home were to the winner, with the second column showing the RP s/f of the winner, and the class of the race using the OR of the top weight. Thus, the winners s/f, when close to the class ceiling of the race is assumed to represent a decent pace.<br> Others will  put their own interpretations on it, but the above has held true for at least the past 10 years, and will continue, imo, to do so.
CAMBRIDGESHIRE… 12L… 94/106
CESARAWITCH….12.5L….106/100
HUNT CUP….6.75L….113/113
JOHN SMITH’S (York)….11.5 L….101/104
WOKINGHAM ….12L ….116/110
NORTHUMBERLAND PLATE….9L….56/108
CHESTER CUP….6L….85/1O8
EBOR….8L…89/1O8
STEWARDS CUP….5L….104/103
AYR GOLD CUP…3L….94/10<br>
Quote: from stav on 9:53 am on June 13, 2006[br]
Who are we to believe here? They can’t both be right. Do we believe the TS figures, which have been arrived at by using much guesswork, std times which are probably flawed, and estimated GA (only 2 races on the AW that day, so just one other race to compare times too) – or do we believe the guy who wrote the analysis, who presumably thought the pace looked slow, just by watching the race?
Personally niether, but if i had to choose, it wouldn’t be the person stating it looked slow.
You may be able to judge a strong gallop from a slow one by watching, but how fast they are travelling cannot be determined, anyone who thinks they can tell by watching are deluding themselves
<br>There is only one way to tell how fast or not a race was run and that is by sectional times, and coverting that into miles per furlong or whatever measurement you want to use
(Edited by empty wallet at 10:18 am on June 13, 2006)
Sorry stav, i didn’t explain it well enough
<br>Of course the same problem of the G/A etc will remain, but you are able to interpret, guess, estimate better than any other method currently available
it’s just a shame the data needed is not available in this country
UN…
Was just about to post the same thing. The debate over the endless track variables and difficulty of quantifying the same illustrates why so many of us have little time for turf speed figures (except perhaps as a very rough guide) but the AW is a different matter of course
Clivex,
The reason you have such a damning view of speed figures is clearing because you have not got a rashers how they work! And who are the "us" that don’t understand them, did you do a poll in William Hills betting shop at your lunch break. I’ll admit that I do not understand speed figures – but I will not speak for the general masses and suggest who knows and doesn’t know whats what.
Your biggest beef seems to be the fact that people are knocking SP’s performance, and your right to counter that argument. However, the people who are suggesting that SP’s derby victory was average have put up evidence as to why they feel it was suspect. Your counter to that seems to be "well its not because I say its not" which is quite lame IMHO.
Perhaps when Sir Percy goes on to win a few more Group 1s you will be vindicated, however at this point I don’t see how you can.
JohnJ<br>
Ok Johnjo
Sp’s performance was better than some have credited because of the dreadful position he recovered from. EC’s point about the overhead view is very valid. Gives it a new perspective. Also (although i didnt really notice HK’s jink) when he started to make up that ground I had a very strong feeling i was going to collect. Some horses just seem to have extra desire about them which makes them fight all the way when asked to do so.<br>None of this is measured by the speed figures or really a straight reading of form. Thats why HOW a horse has run is such an important factor. <br>Also, despite robert99’s stupid comments, hes in great hands.
Is that enough? :)
And who are the "us" that don’t understand them, did you do a poll in William Hills betting shop at your lunch break.
Come off it. You know as well as i do that, rightly or wrongly, these ratings are very low profile with most punters.
<br>
Your biggest beef seems to be the fact that people are knocking SP’s performance, and your right to counter that argument.
Thats an excellent point, John. Mordin’s article was provocative, whingeing and snide. It certainly got my back up.
I suspect Clive and a few other quieter members of the group, are big fans of Sir Percy. Fans defend against objectivity sometimes. In fact, a lot of the time.
And fair play; the only true arbiter of an opinion in Horse Racing is your bank manager.
I know you shouldn’t really get passionate about horses – it affects the finances – but in Sir Percy’s case an exception is being made.
And as you say, The Eclipse and the Champion Stakes, (if not the Arc:biggrin: ) will tell us more about the true nature of the horse.
Fascinating debate, btw. Learning a lot. Carry on:biggrin:
Good post EC.. :)
But must remeber too that Nick Maudlin tipped
SEPTIMUS for the derby
Wheres the bloody speed in that? :o
To be fair, i think hes always worth reading, but does seem to be going off at some strange tangents at the moment.
You still need to guess the going allowance in order to adjust the times to compare with previous sectionals…
I think you’ll find that converting sectionals into %s of a horse’s overall race time (and projected overall race time) has validity other than in extreme circumstances and is therefore applicable between different types of goings.
Having shelled out money for his books, I read them from cover to cover, several times over.
The man is a charlatan, in my opinion. Anyone who follows his figures is asking for trouble.
I am never put off a horse by a slow time in isolation. If a race is slowly run, the winner must end up showing more speed than anything else in the race, as they are all geared up for a sprint finish.
A slow horse cannot win a fast run race.
Here is a strange thing, previous thread edited by Nick Mordin 9.32pm & then Stav 9.33pm ?
Can that be right ?
Quote: from Prufrock on 10:12 pm on June 13, 2006[br]
I think you’ll find that converting sectionals into %s of a horse’s overall race time (and projected overall race time) has validity other than in extreme circumstances and is therefore applicable between different types of goings.<br>
Are you saying there is no need to apply a G/A using sectionals converted in to %s or am i misunderstanding the above?
(Edited by empty wallet at 2:16 am on June 19, 2006)
don’t think anyone is suggesting one totally dismisses a horse simply because it has clocked a slow speed figure, Maurice – but surely completely ignoring the poor effort (timewise) is just as foolhardy?
Well considering Maudlin edited this, perhaps he would like to explain why he dismissed SP purely on the basis of a slow time. The original point of this thread
Love the "poor effort" bit. Lovely way of putting it.
Can just imagine Marcus saying after the derby, "we were happy to win this great prize but bitterly disappointed at the poor effort by the horse and jockey time wise"
<br>
I think most of us agree that a slowly run race is of little help in deciding the strength of the form in a race. The converse, that a strongly run race is very strong evidence(almost proof positive) of the form being well up to the standard of the race, is also hard to refute.
Where there is disagreement, it is almost always about the time of the race in relation to a standard or par time. If the Racing Post standard times are not reliable, as has been suggested, or individual(such as Nick Mordin’s) par times are not to be trusted, then the only course of action is to agree to disagree. These are fundamental yardsticks which should be addressed, perhaps on a new thread.
If we are able to achieve successful results using whichever standards we choose, then we are likely to stay with those standards until we are proved wrong. Because we are dealing with subjective opinions, often supported with evidence to back up those opinions, it makes for an interesting debate. I must admit, I have been swayed by the debate without really changing my stance. It makes you think, which keeps you on your toes.
Finally, there have been some posts which have enlivened this interesting debate and (sadly) many others which have contributed nothing at all. The only positive thing I can say about the latter collection of posts is that they have probably kept this thread alive beyond its natural lifespan.
(Edited by Artemis at 10:54 am on June 19, 2006)
- Total Posts 17716
The point is that merit of Sir Percy’s win is questioned, by some, because of lack of an outstanding s/f, despite clear indications that it had little effect on the result.<br> Where is the evidence of a slow pace? Had the race been run just 1 second faster, his s/f would have been amongst the best in recent years.<br>Where is the evidence that he wouldn’t have stayed, no horses finished better?<br>Where is the evidence that others were done for speed off a steady pace, none of the principals were running on to such an effect to suggest the result would have been any different at a slightly better pace?<br> The horse stayed; in a high class race, over a stiffish 12f, on good summer ground, and run at a proper racing pace, he was still going forward better than the others at the end of it, yet all this is ignored because of a slavish addiction to one facet which tells us neither one way or the other, his s/f.<br>I despair!<br>
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.