- This topic has 59 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 21 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
I was reading an article on a website last week suggesting Wolvehamptons Polytrack was harrowed deeper than Lingfields to keep the tracks individuality.
I just wondered if there was any truth in it or if it was common knowledge already?
I dont really follow the day to day AW but am interested in any track bias, because the few races I have seen at WH, the winners have come from well off the pace, but it could just be ive only watched the competitive races.
Any thoughts?
twinkle
<br>the Wolves Draw thread may help on P 5 of horse racing
and welcome to the TRF
I think you might be right, Twinkle Twinkle, and welcome to the forum by the way.:)
There is little difference between the secs/furlong of the new polytrack standard times and the comparable ones (slightly different distances allowing) on the fibresand. In other words, although I have little doubt that the new surface is a superior one, it slows horses down to a similar degree as fibresand at the same track did.
Incidentally, I have 38 of the winners of 194 races (19.6%) on the new surface at Wolverhampton in the lead 2f out, and the average distance behind the leader at that point for all races is 1.2 lengths. Don’t know whether that bears out your impression of its favouring horses from off the pace or not.
(Edited by Prufrock at 11:27 pm on Dec. 7, 2004)
That’s an interesting statistic Prufrock , although it would also be good to see where the winners were in relation to the leaders say 3f or 4f from home. That way we can see if they are coming from behind or sitting up with the pace.
Can’t do: only so many hours in the day!
Over the same period I have 12 of the 194 winners (6.2%) coming from 1 sec or more behind the pace (usually about 5.5 lengths) at the 2f marker.
I called the goings on 23 Oct and 30 Oct to 5 Nov inclusive "standard to slow" and the rest "standard". Bar that blip I reckon they’ve done a good job in keeping the surface pretty consistent.
Thanks Prufrock, thats great, I just dont have the time to do my own stats.
Do you think, if over time a definate bias emerged, trainers would take it into account or not. Or if they believed their horse was a trailblazer they would still want them duel for the lead.
I tend to think that stuff like track biases are overstated. In any given race you can either go too quickly or not quickly enough regardless of the "bias".
I prefer to view a race on its own, and judge the likelihood of the pace playing to certain horses’s strengths, or not. That said, jockeys are often guilty of taking a while to adjust to a sudden change in conditions and continue to ride a horse too forcefully or not forcefully enough for a fair while after this has become apparent.
Some horses do just seem to be best dominating their rivals and there may be little use in trying to ride them any other way. Obviously the conditions and the presence/absence of other such runners can alert you to whether these types are likely to thrive or not.
chart below shows approximately the winners running position for 5f-7f hcp’s
<br> 5f 6f 7f
made all 1 1
trk/chl ldrs 4 1 4
hld up 2 4 4
in/tw rr 1 2 1
I absolutely agree Prufrock, any bias a track may show is an overall %, and every race should be looked at individually, as to where the potential pace or lack of it may be.
How often though do you see a horse win its first race by making all (either in an uncompetitive maiden or when they are obviously well handicapped) and then in every race for the next two seasons tries to make all because he won his first race like that. When trying to make all at certain tracks like Newbury for example is very rarely achieved.
I know some horses dont show their form if not leading, just as some stop in front, but there must be a high percentage of horses whose racing style could be adjusted to suit the probable shape of the race.
Slightly off the thread but just wondered if you thought many tracks were using selective watering to negate any draw bias? The Sandown sprint course bias seemed all over the place last season, then I later find out thats what they were doing, do you think this will become popular with racecourses?
I think that a few courses are probably doing that (they don’t excatly make a song and dance about it, so it’s difficult to be sure). Most don’t need to, though, so there seems no need for it to become more widespread.
Incidentally, over the same period as the Wolverhampton figures given above, Lingfield’s polytrack has given us 16 winners out of 94 in front 2f out (17%) but only one that has come from 1 sec or more back (about 6 lengths) at that point. The average margin behind at this juncture is 1.78 lengths.
Thanks for the stats Pru, thats great and does appear to show a different bias between the two surfaces.
Would I be right in thinking WH has rather easier turns rather than LF which appears to have sharper turns?
If so, do you think this could mean horses arent having to slow down as much to negotiate the bends, meaning they can set a more even gallop, perhaps bringing more emphasis on stamina than at LF?
Yes, everything you say above is true in my view. In order for a horse to come from 5 or 6 lengths plus off the pace 2f out either the horse has to be a bit of a monster or the leaders need to have gone too fast. The latter happens at Wolverhampton sometimes but only once in a blue moon at Lingfield. This may have something to do with the jockeys having had longer to get to grips with the kinds of fractions to set at the latter course, I’m not sure.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.