September 4, 2004 at 20:47 #4035BurroughhillParticipant
- Total Posts 1638
Is comparing race times useful in anything over a sprint? Once you go over about 6 furlongs, tactics come more into play and a race can be run at a slow or fast pace from the start, which will affect the times considerably I would have thought. It can’t give much of an indication of anything really I wouldn’t have thought.September 4, 2004 at 21:56 #93715Irish StampMember
- Total Posts 3181
EC, out of interest where would you have expected Forever Phoenix to have finished in the Sprint Cup?
I thought the Sprint Cup (not looked at times etc.) was a very good race, you had the vast majority of the leading sprinters involved, the winners of some of the biggest European sprints of the year in Frizzante, Somnus, Bahamian Pirate + a few placed horses eg. Patavellian, One Cool Cat and an unexposed sprint filly came and did them all fair and square.
The race shouldn’t be discredited due to an unexposed horse or a filly winning.
MartinSeptember 4, 2004 at 22:32 #93716thebairnMember
- Total Posts 72
I gave Goodbye Mr Bond a rating of 85 for his win on Friday, which on my scale equates to a solid 0-95 handicap winning time.
This was the fastest time of the day, by some way, but is on a par with what he has achieved in his previous couple of runs and I can see him winning again soon as long as the going is good or better.
I was actually more interested in the figure put up by Stephano in the last at Haydock today (85 coincidentally). This is exceptional for the grade, and he should follow up.
By the way, I have checked my Haydock standard times and I have the 6f time at 12.5 seconds more than the 5f time.September 4, 2004 at 23:58 #93717thebairnMember
- Total Posts 72
I didn’t spot anything untoward with the straight course times today. I gave Tante Rose 93 (previous wins 88 and 87)and Forever Phoenix 86 (86), both of which are very close to the sort of ratings I would expect to see on the going and for the class.
I’m going to double check my 10.5f standard time though (seems it may be a bit slack)!September 5, 2004 at 00:46 #93718AnonymousInactive
- Total Posts 17718
EC<br> Just a thought, and it may be total baloney as I no longer do my own speed figures, but could the Haydock 6f figures be skewed by having their one decent 6f race run on autumn ground.<br> That is, if the RP’s standard times are still compiled as they used to be?September 5, 2004 at 11:39 #93719Irish StampMember
- Total Posts 3181
Thanks for that EC.<br>The thing with the 6f races is it doesn’t take much for a horse to improve from handicaps to being superstar sprinter eg. Lochsong, Continent, Bahamian Pirate and to a lesser extent Danetime. When a horse wins a big 6f race eg. Ayr Gold Cup the next question out of an interviewers mouth is "July Cup next year?".<br>Whilst Tante Rose isn’t the same class as Dayjur, Mozart or Stravinsky she is one of the better runners about today and whilst this years group of sprinters are relatively unexposed and with only Somnus, The Tatling and The Trader running with anything like consistency in the bigger races they are some way better IMO than the handicappers and i would be very surprised to see a former handicapper of this year win the Diadem or L’Abbaye.
martinSeptember 5, 2004 at 12:19 #93720
The difference between a 5f standard time and a 6f standard time depends, along with other matters, on what level your standard times are pitched at.
For instance, if your 5f standard time is 58 sec, then a 12 sec difference between that and your 6f standard time is quite a different matter from a 12 sec difference if your 5f standard time is 65 sec.
13.7 sec difference between the standard times for the two distances at Haydock seems too much by the best part of a second, but I couldn’t comment for sure without knowing the actual standard times themselves.
As a matter of interest, if you take the view that the conditions on the straight course and the round course were different at Haydock on both days (and I think you are right to do so), how do you apply your going allowance?
It shouldn’t be assumed that all races started on the round course have the same going allowance throughout their length. For instance, more than half of a 8.14f race at Haydock is run on the straight course, but only about 5.5f of a 14f race there is.
The alternative as I see it is to assume that the going on the round courses and the straight courses are uniform throughout their length and to apply the respective going allowances according to the proportions of the races that are run on each. But this is, also, an assumption. <br> <br>As a result, I have slightly different going allowances for the races started on the round course.
I use a going allowance which is in effect the rating (on my scale) that a horse would have to run to carrying 10-0 or wfa equivalent to equal my standard time. Firm is up to 59; good to firm is 60 to 84; good is 85 to 113, and so on.
On the Friday I have the following figures:
Horse………………(Going allowance)/timefigure<br>Premier Fantasy…(101)/78<br>Solar Power……….(101/78<br>Saadigg…………….(86)/83<br>Goodbye Mr Bond..(86)/86<br>Sendintank…………(80)/63<br>Milk And Sultana….(82)/54
On the Saturday:
Forever Phoenix….(98)/106<br>Defining……………..(77)/77<br>Tante Rose…………(98)/115<br>Zohar………………..(98)/77<br>With Reason………(84)/83<br>Spaced……………..(84)/79<br>Stephano…………..(80)/76 Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â
I’d say Tante Rose’s time is no more than respectable: a good time for this sort of level would be 7 to 10 lb higher.
The best times relative to the horses’ abilities over the two days were by Saadigg, Goodbye Mr Bond, Forever Phoenix and Stephano.September 5, 2004 at 13:24 #93721
You are not wrong!
Some critics of time analysis would take these comments and some of the assumptions that have to be made as evidence that timefigures are "guesswork".
Well, in a way they are, but they are educated guesswork I reckon, and we are far better off using time analysis than not provided we are aware of its limitations.September 5, 2004 at 18:06 #93722
I’ve gone through Friday at Haydock, and have only rough SF’s at the moment due to Raceform Interactive not updating properley(doing my bloody head in). Anyway, I’m pretty much in agreement with Prufrock but, I’m reluctant to award different G.A’s to the round course that is of any great significance. Goodbye Mr Bond’s race they came from behind, I’m left with the feeling they cut each others throats a little, possibly to the extent of about 3 – 3.5 lengths. I’ve actually knocked off .65 secs per mile from that race, that still gives it a decent time for the grade considering they were pretty exposed. I also have Saadigg as producing a nippy time for the grade and with obviously more to come, is the one that would interest me from the day.
EC, What is the average OHR of the average class C? You said that you par to class C when formulating standards, yet you par to the OHR when compiling G.A’s.<br>I see that the class C range when taken at an average will put you about in the middle but, at what OHR. Might it be only 93, or 97 perhaps. Put another way, are there more 0-100’s than there are 0-90’s, and how many 95’s.September 5, 2004 at 18:25 #93723
Just forget my assumption on Haydock for a minute will you:biggrin: 4:30am here, and I’m looking at somthing else AGAIN!:biggrin:
OK, after a bit of messing about I’ve come up with the following, Ive turned them into a poundage format.
Premier Fantasy 84+<br>Solar Power 80<br>Saadigg 76+<br>Goodbye Mr Bond 85
(Edited by CPGagie at 8:22 pm on Sep. 5, 2004)September 5, 2004 at 19:38 #93724
Agree, much better to use 9 stone than 10. I didnt know you used 75, I thought you’d said class C. I didnt rate down, only up, upto GP1 and used each race class as an inferior guide so to speak. Seems sensible to rate down aswell I suppose. Any reason why you went with 75 and not 90 for instance?September 8, 2004 at 15:21 #93725
Beaten a length. Unlucky.
What do people make of the state of the going at Doncaster?
It has to be firmer than the "good" given officially, surely?September 9, 2004 at 08:07 #93726
My "man at the course" described the wind as "moderate" and almost exactly behind the runners (direction 200 degrees, when 180 is directly behind) and did not indicate that it varied markedly during proceedings. He also emphasised that there was a good covering of grass.
Whatever, the conditions yesterday resulted in very fast times, ones that would usually be commensurate with firm going, and while the wind was a factor it seemed not to be a huge factor.September 9, 2004 at 18:49 #93727
These times at Doncaster are almost freakishly fast.
I think today’s (Thursday’s) times suggest that the difference between the round course times and straight course times is largely down to the wind, which had less of an effect than on the first day (when the two races started on the round course seemed to be steadily-run in any case).
I must admit that I estimate the effect of the wind and then compare my findings with those of someone who accesses more information and goes into things more mathematically than I am prepared to do. As with apparently different going surfaces on one track, I apply my estimate of the effect of the wind according to how much of the race a horse has been running with/against/side-on to a wind. Has anyone got any suggestions of how to improve this approach?
Also, I wonder whether you should apply a "drying-out" factor during the course of a day’s racing. Most times it would make little or no difference, but when conditions are as hot and windy as this week at Doncaster then perhaps it is sensible. That said, it could be argued that conditions are already so firm that they are limited in how much they can dry out further.
I know that James Willoughby maintains that a going allowance based on the number-crunching of times is not necessarily the same as an accurate description of the going. He feels that the ground is not "firm", as in potentially jarring, at Doncaster this week for all that the times "suggest" very strongly that it is. Personally, I take the going allowance more as a stamina index which happens to correspond pretty closely, most of the time, with the state of the surface.
Although time analysis clearly can involve a good deal of interpretation, it is at least based on something tangible, and I find alternative approaches to assessing the state of the going (with the possible exception of the "going stick" ) unacceptably subjective.
I make the times of Caesar Beware, Librettist and Playful Act particularly encouraging compared to the horses’ abilities, and I would describe the going as "firm" on both days.<br>
(Edited by Prufrock at 8:45 pm on Sep. 9, 2004)September 10, 2004 at 13:50 #93728robert99Participant
- Total Posts 897
What do folks generally believe is the effect in seconds per furlong of a following or head wind, in effecting the race time of a horse?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.