- This topic has 158 replies, 30 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Speak for yourself
No one has quite explained whether the habitually slowly run french group races should be ignored (as is suggested) or taken seriously?
Form is only proven by the susbequent exploits of the principles
there are the Blue Canaris of course, but interestingly quite a few french group winners seem to have done quite well at the hardly pedestrianly run breeders cup?
Dismissing slowly run form is up to you. I still put a great deal of value on tactical speed and given that because of speedier breeding many mile plus races will probably be run at slower paces, then an awful lot of form is going to be shredded i think
Clivex,
I wouldn’t dismiss slowly run form. It still has its basic worth for handicapping purposes using the conventions of what is generally called collateral form. It’s just that it is not franked by speed, even though it may be franked by the subsequent exploits of the horses in the race in question. A merely useful horse can win a top class race in such circumstances, which is, I suppose, Nick Mordins thesis on the Derby. At the other end of the scale, a plater might steal a modest handicap if they go too slow.
At a true pace, only top-class horses, rather than useful ones, can win top-class races and platers do not win even modest handicaps. The act of running a fast time proves the form.
We will always have to live with slowly run races, treating the form with much caution, but not dismissing it. Fortunately, the best races are usually fairly run, even in France these days.
I should add that I didn’t agree with Mordin’s Derby view – as I have stated earlier on the thread. I thought the race was run in a fair time, up to standard on the going, but not exceptional.<br>
(Edited by Artemis at 2:30 pm on June 19, 2006)
But what about a too fast run race?
Where they all go off like the clappers and some plodder stays on (happens a lot with placed horses in big races i sometimes feel..Terimon etc) or they all cut each otheers throats?
Probably get a good speed figure but rubbish form? ;)
Clivex,
Sorry, but this cannot happen. If they go too quickly early in the race(quite common), they will be going relatively slowly at the finish and cannot possibly produce a decent speed figure. It’s true that a ‘plodder’ might stay on to win such a race, but the time will be moderate. If it was, by some miracle, a fast time, the plodder would have proved that he/she was up to the standard of the race.
After reading this thread, would the following be a fair conclusion?
Winners of top French races in slow times cannot be discounted but also cannot be strongly fancied on the basis of their speed figure. The same applies to winners of all slowly run races.<br>Winners of any race posting a class-relative fast time can, regardless of whether the race was run to suit, be regarded a solid option to reproduce his/her running when racing in a similar grade in the future.
?
Ken 1,
Very broadly speaking, yes. Provided the conditions were similar and with all the usual caveats, I would expect a decent show. I would add that it would be difficult for a horse to record an exceptional speed figure if the race wasn’t run to suit. However, a horse could be denied a clear run and still record a decent figure relative to the race class, but I think if there was any false pace(too fast or too slow early or mid race) it virtually scuppers the chances of a high speed rating. I did a survey some time ago and found that only around 40% of flat races returned speed ratings commensurate with the class of race. The figure was even lower over the jumps.
Quote: from Artemis on 7:37 pm on June 19, 2006[br]Ken 1,
Very broadly speaking, yes. Provided the conditions were similar and with all the usual caveats, I would expect a decent show. I would add that it would be difficult for a horse to record an exceptional speed figure if the race wasn’t run to suit. However, a horse could be denied a clear run and still record a decent figure relative to the race class, but I think if there was any false pace(too fast or too slow early or mid race) it virtually scuppers the chances of a high speed rating. I did a survey some time ago and found that only around 40% of flat races returned speed ratings commensurate with the class of race. The figure was even lower over the jumps.<br>
It is an interesting phrase "race not run to suit". A losing jockey’s excuse which is challenged by why did you not then ride the horse at the pace that did suit? No answer.
My view is that a horse runs its own pace unless hard restrained. It does not matter what the rest do.
Any slowly run race is no more than an exercise gallop in my book and is totally ignored formwise, save alone that the horse may be fitter next time. Any winner of a slowly run race will invariably lose against the winner of a recent fast run race in similar conditions.
Your figures for true run race percentages are actually even worse because the going allowance to produce the traditional speed figures uses the fastest run races on the day. So usually at least one race per meeting qualifieds as fast but this is often not the reality.
If the pace is not fully testing for the whole race then the result is a lottery and the carried weight has not made its full effect felt. Collateral form uses weight carried and beaten lengths so almost by definition is very misleading for any future prediction.
Any winner of a slowly run race will invariably lose against the winner of a recent fast run race in similar conditions.
ill never back a french horse again then…
You don’t need to ask such questions. The answers are already there.
It is a simple job to record the time it took Sir Percy, and other runners in the Derby field, to run the early stages of the race and to compare that with past runnings of the race and past runnings of other races on the course.
The race was not truly run in the sense that it was likely to produce a 120+ timefigure but it was not slowly run either.
There really should be no argument about the facts and little about what they signify. What is left – what should primarily be left – is just semantics.
How can you possibly get reliable results by comparing a set of races which took place on different days (years apart, in the case of the Derby)? <br>
But that is what you are doing – that is what a lot of other people, including myself, are doing – with overall race times.
In much the same way that you figure that Sir Percy’s overall race time "should" have been 2 sec quicker (or whatever) for a horse of his class I reckon his time over the first approx 4f was within a couple of lengths of what it "should" have been.
No "I think it was run at a crawl" (Mordin). No "I think it was run at a strong pace" (Segal).
Standard sectional times are essentially little different to standard overall times. You adjust for ability, for weight carried, for the conditions, and you get a figure you expect the horse to record, which can be compared with the figure the horse actually did record.
There does not need to be any more guesswork in calculating sectional times than in overall times.
The main issue seems to be over how much slower than standard constitutes "slow".
The runners in the Derby lost the time mostly in the middle of the race. That is a fact.
Sir Percy – after winning his first 2 races he wins the Vintage Stakes and Dewhurst Stakes to finish as an unbeaten 2yo before coming second in the guineas and winning a big-field Derby with with some supposedly super-horses in it. He won the Derby regardless of how it was run and while people may say he would not have won it if the race had been run differently, this can only be speculative, subjective opinions on a hypothetical scenario that will never happen – because it won’t be run again. But no-one can say he wouldn’t win it again if it was run again, not that it will be, not that it matters because, Sir Percy won the Derby, what a great horse. End of. (mind you the other races that day were run slowly too – must’ve all been lucky that day)
I think we are going to have to get used to quite afew "poor time effort" winners in the future…
With breeding geared more and more to speed, the derby is now close to being a pure stayers race. The drop in pace mid-race will be a regular feature with stamina being preserved and the race being decided on a later turn of foot
So we are going to have lots of rubbish derby winners from now :)
just like all those rubbish french group one winners which never went on to do anything (except breeders cups):)
yep, racing is going to the dogs just like football – chelsea were freakishly lucky again this year benefitting from the appalling stewards decisions Arsenal got through the season and their early-mid season battle with the the two northern contenders who didn’t run the title race at a pace suited to Arsenal. These bad decisions and the poor stable form of the 2 northern teams meant that for the second year running a lucky team could usurp the country’s top 3 teams purely with some luck and a few hundred million dodgy quid.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.