- This topic has 71 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
In an attempt to move the, er-hem, debate on a bit, some people may be interested in learning that Timeform’s timefigure for Workforce (as opposed to the horse’s form rating, discussed already) is 134.
Prufrock, don’t you think that’s quite a suspiciously high figure for a race that wasn’t run optimally? It was noticeable that there were a number of horses pulling early and the pacemaker would’ve had to improve markedly, which personally I doubt. Also, regarding time analysis, don’t you think that on rare occasions the influence of conditions during a meeting can fluctuate, even over the same distance?
I would say it was run close to optimally. Just not, on the evidence of sectionals at the course over the decades, absolutely optimally for the winner to run as fast as he could. That is often the case with horses who are so much superior to their rivals.
Yes, I do think the influence of conditions can change, though not usually by much. We are always dealing with small samples where analysis of overall times is concerned. That is why times need to be anchored by something which is more measurable: that is, by form.
I do not think the timefigure is suspiciously high. I came up with something similar myself.
But my intention is not to attempt to justify a timefigure that someone else came up with. I merely posted it for information.
Perhaps everyone at Timeform House – the form guy, the time guy, the tea lady – has collectively taken leave of their senses.
Perhaps everyone at Timeform House – the form guy, the time guy, the tea lady – has collectively taken leave of their senses.
Well it has been known, Papal Bull springs to mind
Actually, I too came up with a huge figure when comparing the time with other races on the card. The figure was so big that I believe that this was an occasion where one race was influenced by conditions more than the other races, I have seen it happen before and it can affect figures by around 10lbs.I won’t pretend I can tell just by watching a race if it will produce a good time figure, however, it’s usually apparent when a race won’t produce an exceptionally high figure. It’s true that Workforce powered away towards the end of the race to win easily but Moore had to really get after the horse in order to catch up with the pacemaker, in my view that doesn’t have all the hallmarks of a horse that’s just run an outstanding time performance. Time will tell.
- Total Posts 17716
I’m with Figgis on this, and believe that the time was something of a fluke.
It’s clear – visually – that At First Sight had a fairly easy lead and there was no great pace on until he quickened on the downhill part of the course (about 7f out). He was still largely ignored, and most of the field were still on the bridle coming down into Tattenham Corner (about 4f out), which is when the race began in earnest. That the formerly modest AFS was able to retain 2nd place, with few of the field showing any sign of actually tiring, supports the view that the early fractions were hardly lung-bursting.
It’s difficult to establish proper sectionals – with changing camera angles and no clear halfway mark – but, as I posted elsewhere, my hand timings show that Workforce ran the first 9f at an average speed of a fraction over 13 secs.p.f., and the last 3f at 11.56 s.p.f., which would be an unusual burst of speed in a race run at an even pace overall.
Fwiw, my view is that the record time was facilitated by the whole field being given an easy time over the uphill part of the course, with all of the effort concentrated on the latter part of the downhill. I’d also suggest the ground was probably faster than the official g/f, not only because the Derby record was broken, but also the time achieved by the 82 rated Bertoliver in The Dash.Well it has been known, Papal Bull springs to mind
P Bull was one of the all-time greats.
Different P Bull, mind you
It’s difficult to establish proper sectionals – with changing camera angles and no clear halfway mark – but, as I posted elsewhere, my hand timings show that Workforce ran the first 9f at an average speed of a fraction over 13 secs.p.f., and the last 3f at 11.56 s.p.f., which would be an unusual burst of speed in a race run at an even pace overall.
Fwiw, my view is that the record time was facilitated by the whole field being given an easy time over the uphill part of the course, with all of the effort concentrated on the latter part of the downhill. I’d also suggest the ground was probably faster than the official g/f, not only because the Derby record was broken, but also the time achieved by the 82 rated Bertoliver in The Dash.I agree with you about the ground: just about "firm" in my view.
Obviously, Epsom is a course with severe undulations, so the question is how Saturday’s sectionals compare with other sectionals at the course. Did you come to any conclusions on this score?
Figgis, Reet Hard, Prufrock
Over a trip that’s largely downhill and with a cambered straight could you entertain the possibilty that the going was actually on the good side of GF rather than the firm side that your time/going analyses suggest?
Aren’t horses who are asked to give their all on declines more likely to return a quicker time on going with a degree of give than on a more jarring firmer surface?
The opposite would in all likelihood apply on the intial uphill section in that – time for time – a firm surface would require less energy expenditure than one with some cut
Might it be the case that the sectionals for the uphill and downhill sections report anomalous or seemingly out of kilter times if you assume that the ‘record time’ was largely, if not entirely, due to the surface being very fast?
I don’t know and I’m not trying to be a clever boy, as you three seem far more well-versed in elucidating going/time correlations than I, but I’ve long thought that the relationship between time and going isn’t as straightforwardly linear as some may believe particularly when course topography is considered, and Epsom is rather peculiar in that respect
134 is some timefigure: is it the highest since Oasis Dream’s 133 in the Nunthorpe?
Some first class posts on this thread and thanks to those I now have my interest in the 2010 Flat kindled.
Workforce’s season will be watched with interest
Drone, that’s an interesting question and one I can’t answer with absolute certainty. It’s possible that very firm ground won’t lead to very fast times because of horses not letting themselves down on it, generally though I think the firmer the going, the faster the times.
The possibility of there being different ground on different parts of the course exists, but analysis of the times over both days does not point to this.
I even had a time expert on another forum suggesting after the first day that the ground was
slower
for a mile and a half than at shorter.
The correlation between ground and times has relied upon subjective descriptions of the ground by clerks of the courses until recently. But every survey I have done (and I have done several) points to firmer ground resulting in faster times.
The relationship is not linear, and firm ground times are not massively faster than good to firm ground times. But they are faster, despite what some in the media continue to maintain.
Unfortunately, I gave up trying to correlate going stick readings with times when I discovered how haphazardly those readings were reported in the Press. Things may have improved on that score, I don’t know.
I even had a time expert on another forum suggesting after the first day that the ground was
slower
for a mile and a half than at shorter.
I kind of agree with that, my own interpretation of Friday’s times is that conditions were a bit quicker at 7f than the rest of the course, although that may be attributed to the wind.
Also, the two 7f races were at the end of the card on Friday, so it’s also possible that it was just a case of the ground drying out more by the time they were run, as I’m sure the ground dried out during the course of the afternoon on Saturday.
- Total Posts 17716
There is plenty evidence (proof if you like) that horses can attain faster times by being kept close to the lead under certain circumstances
Your comment above is now almost entirely correct Corm but it is not what we were discussing and certainly not a response to my exact comment and intent.
Let’s agree to misunderstand me.
- Total Posts 17716
As a person who only deals in time i’ll add my thoughts to the thread. The time a racehorse runs will never be a lie but it can be manipulated and influenced by external factors such as; wind, ground, stalls positioning, rail movement etc regardless its the most concrete method of assessing a horses ability but lets not forget that what we’re trying to do is find the most complete horse not the fastest horse of all time which is why at this moment Sea The Stars is still far in advance of Workforce. A final time isn’t just a case of being the fastest horse on the day it’s also mental toughness, class, acceleration and stamina. The first 2 furlongs normally account for slow times which is particually rife in 2 year old races but a horse will normally even this out throught out the race/
I’ve timed the pacemaker from start to the sandy path just before the 5f pole were there are claims of a steady start;
2010 88.39s
2009 93.88s
2008 91.28s
2007 88.67s
2006 90.16s
2005 89.21s
2004 –
2003 –
2002 –
2001 89.29sAvg 90.13s
Med 89.29sAt First Sight has gone 1.40s quicker than average and 0.90s quicker than the median.
I’ve used variance for the whole card on my figures throughout the 10 years of the Derby to calculate a median and average.
2010 3.68
2009 2.39
2008 2.32
2007 1.89
2006 2.61
2005 1.60
2004 2.96
2003 3.83
2002 -0.31
2001 3.42Avg 2.44
Med 2.50The ground at this years Derby was 1.24 quicker than the average and 1.18 quicker than the median. This is quite significant difference, 2.44 is on the quicker side of good to firm where as 3.68 is firm boarding hard! but its still not the fastest ground we’ve encounterd for the Derby as you can see in 2003 it was 3.83.
I’ve noted the actual variance of the Derby race it’s self which plays an important part in calculating the overal variance.
2010 5.48
2009 1.94
2008 2.23
2007 3.19
2006 2.88
2005 2.57
2004 3.89
2003 4.13
2002 0.07
2001 4.19Avg 3.06
Med 3.04Even just looking at this briefly you can see the strength of how strongly run the race was, this years Derby was 2.42 quicker than the average and 2.45 quicker than the median. If we look back at the 2003 race from the previous section we can see the overal ground was quicker but only rates as 4.13 compared to the 5.83 of 2010 and this is a strong indication of a solid pace or what looks like the ground drying up throughout the card.
Now the overal figures;
2010 106.44
2009 93.23
2008 95.37
2007 103.50
2006 97.50
2005 101.59
2004 101.32
2003 97.65
2002 98.09
2001 100.42Avg 99.51
Med 99.26Workforce is clearly the best Derby winner i’ve ever rated and theres nothing to suggest there’s anything false about the race, he’s 6.93 better than the average and 7.19 better than the median – just sheer class.
Well there is going to be doubters but what if we try watering down this rating to the averages to see where he fairs? of course we’re playing with nautre but just to theoritically see what he would have done for example;
He’s run 2.43 seconds above standard instead of 4.17 seconds taking away the 1.74 seconds faster his race was than average in first 7F.
Overal Ground – 3.45 (Firm)
Derby Ground – 4.32
Rating – 100.98It certianly brings him a lot closer to similar times in 2001 and 2003 but regardless he’s still 1.47 above the average rating.
Nevertheless Workforce’s Derby success shouldn’t be put into doubt because of how quick the ground was, it was a strong run race and he showed the class to travel well in midfield, he had the acceleration to move from midfield to the pacemakers heels and from 2f out it was the finest display of stamina i’ve ever seen, he’s a fantastic horse but if we want to compare him to the likes of Sea The Stars we’d have to see him in a race that didn’t play to his strengths i.e Juddmonte last year were he would have to show a rapid turn of foot.
Mr Wilson, I’m not doubting any aspect of Workforce’s success, it was clearly a decent performance. I agree with you that if times are compared to each other, as normal, then Workforce is the best Derby winner that I’ve seen also. However, it is this that I have big doubts about.
It is my contention that occasionally one race on a card is speeded up more than others by outside influences. This doesn’t happen every day but it’s occurred enough over the years for me to realise that it definitely happens. I think a lot of speed figure compilers either aren’t aware of it and give unrealistically high ratings, assume something is wrong with their standard times, or more often, downgrade the ratings of the other races to make things fit.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.