Forum Replies Created
- Posts
BB
I understand why you need to know todays real distance, but are not your standards calculated from past races run over distances that also varied by up to a furlong or so. If you have a 2 mile standard that is calculated from past races where the distance may have been significantly more or less than 2 miles, then the standard time doesn’t actually relate to exactly 2 miles. You would have to know what distance each race you used to create the standards was run over I would have thought.
I’d like to suggest that all the sub forums are scrapped and everything is on one forum with key threads as stickies, say the next big race due or what have you. Just my opinion, i feel everything is too fragmented and it’s actually diluting interest.
Just a suggestion.
Doubly Clever has been given a hurdle handicap mark of 135, so he’ll certainly get into the Fred Winter if that’s the route they take. But if he proves capable of winning that, or any other handicap hurdle this season, off that mark, I’ll promise here and now to contribute a thousand pounds to the IJF.
I reckon 135 is at least a stone more than is justified by his form, and probaby more like a stone and a half too high. Mountainside being rated 129 is just as stupid and suggests the handicapper responsible for the juvenile hurdle division has totally lost the plot.
I agree Apracing.
Doubly Clever looks a similar horse to the older Sleeping City based on the times they ran to on the 22nd of August. Sleeping City was officially rated 105 there, adding the 19lb weight for age allowance would give Doubly Clever an official rating of 124. That would also depend greatly on whether both of the races were true pace races reflecting the real abilty levels.
Golden Horn won a Derby not by the narrow margin one would expect of a horse who just about gets the trip, but by 3 1/2L from a confirmed stayer who subsequently turned the Irish Derby into a 5L procession from the current favourite for the St Leger. He did so in a time 2.18s faster than standard, having pulled quite hard for the first two furlongs.
He won on Good to Soft on debut, after which William Buick stated that “he liked the ground, which was a bit dead”. That day he defeated Storm The Stars. I understand that connections of that horse were literally in a state of shock following the defeat and believed Golden Horn must be a bit special to have beaten their horse for whom they believed defeat was out of the question.
Golden Horn finished exactly the same distance in front of The Grey Gatsby last week as he had at Sandown, indicating that he had run right up to his Eclipse form.
Maybe Golden Horn simply isn’t as good as everyone thought, and maybe Arabian Queen’s success is being seriously underrated.
I think Golden Horn is suffering last race syndrome, his previous runs are then reviewed in a negative way to confirm that he has run to form at York, i don’t believe he has run to form there at all. I think only two horses ran to form at York, Arabian Queen & Dick Doughtywylie.
Looking at the latter’s form it seems clear that his very best form is that of a 110 horse, and that would be a best case scenario. He is 7yo having had 20 races with very little sign of further improvement for the last 10 runs. He isn’t suddenly a 115+ horse. Arabian Queen has beaten him by 8lbs and received the filly allowance of 3lb. That would suggest that Arabian Queen has at best shown herself to be a 115 horse at York. If Arabian Queen is a 120 type then Dick Doughtwylie is now a 115 horse which is highly unlikely.
Many races each day have horses that underperform compared to their true level, it also happens in Group races, they aren’t immune to having 75%+ of the field fail to show best.
there really isn’t all that much difference between proper good to firm and proper good to soft.
I would estimate about 20/25 lengths.
Walking across the track, I’ve seen Salisbury firmer.
I’d agree. The times yesterday indicated good/firm, whereas on the 23rd May and 9th June the times pointed to Firm ground. The course record being broken yesterday is a little misleading as not many 100+ horses will get the chance to run on fast ground over the 10f trip here.
Horse A puts up a speed rating of 55 in a Class 5 race, carrying 9-1 off an official mark of 72.
He then runs off the same 72 mark, yet because it is a better (Class 4) race it only carries 8-10. (5 lbs “less” than before).Horse B also has an official mark of 72 and puts up the same speed rating as horse A of 55, this time though in a Class 4 race, carrying 8-10.
He then meets horse A in that class 4 handicap again off an official mark of 72, again carrying 8-10 (no change in the actual weight carried).ie
Both horses have put up speed ratings of 55 while on official marks of 72.
They then meet in a race where both have unchanged official marks.
Why should Horse A’s speed rating be changed?
Why should Horse A be rated differently to horse B?You don’t need to worry about the official mark. Your speed figures should be brought to one weight when you create them, in this case 9.0 for all your figures.
In Ginger’s example horse A has a speed value of 55 when carrying 9.1, his 9.0 figure is 56. Horse B has a speed value of 55 when carrying 8.10, his 9.0 figure is therefore 51. If these horses meet at level weights horse A has a 5 point advantage over B.
You just need the speed figure set to a level of your choice when created, the official mark isn’t really needed, its just confusing the issue unnecessarily.
The BHA rating of 188 for Sprinter Sacre is based from other horses on the BHA scale though BB, so in that respect it can’t be pure fantasy.
Your National Hunt ratings seem to be about 25lb less than official ratings from what I can gather as a whole. Sorry if i’ve not read it correctly, but as your scale is lower then all horses will have lower figures wouldn’t they?
Sprinter Sacre’s BHA rating is 188 and the RPR is 190.
Racing post ratings
Can someone tell me how they come with these ratings? are they a book makers best friend? the Big green one uses them. Example:
LANAI
runs tomorrow
RR say:
81
OR:
67 ???
I think you will find they have made a mistake with the race, its a misprint. RPR ratings are on the same scale as the Official scale.
If you look at the 4.10 at Southwell tomorrow you can see clearly how they rate a race correctly.
In that race River Of Dreams has a RPR weight adjusted rating of 75. How did they get that figure? Straightforward to see really.
If you bring the individual horse form window up and look at the top right hand side there is a column headed BEST RPR, River of Dreams master RPR AW figure there shows as 74.
To bring that figure to the weight carried today you need to check what the Weight For Age weight is for a 3yo over 7f in the first half of February, that weight is 8-11. River Of Dreams is set to carry 8-10, so the horse is capable of being rated 75 as it carries 1lb less than weight For Age.
With an older horse its the same process, Street Force has a master RPR of 60 on the AW, the Weight For Age scale shows a mature horse over 7f in February should carry 10.0, as the horse only carries 9-13 its given a weight adjustment of +1lb, which is a final figure of 61.
That is how RPR ratings for today’s race are calculated when there isn’t a misprint.
Lania has an AW master rating of just 43 so its clear that the 81 is a misprint as she only carries the 6lb less than Weight For Age for a 3yo over 5f in February, which is 9-0, so there would be +6lb weight adjustment required, certainly not an addition of 38lbs. Mary Ann Bugg is also +6lb, the RPR master rating is 47 but shows as 59 when weight corrected. Soft Love has a master rating of 62 but is showing as 79 when weight corrected. The whole race is a bit of a cock-up.
It’s sacrilege, I know, but I’ve always enjoyed Mike Cattermole’s commentaries.
He has got a great voice and delivery, conveys great warmth and often touches of humour in his commentaries, often adds in little pieces of interesting extra information during them and does a good job in my opinion.
I would sooner listen to him any day of the week than a few of the others, including one or two of the more favoured ones.
He certainly shouldn’t be losing his job on the basis of what people who don’t know what a difficult job it is say are mistakes.
He lost his Channel 4 presenting job very unfairly. I would hate to see him given the chop as a racecourse commentator as well but I realise I am in a minority (again) on this.
I agree 100% completely with that.
I listen to plenty of commentators as I am sure everyone does here, they all make plenty of mistakes.
I’ll burst a bubble from the past as well, Peter O’Sulllivan made plenty. If you randomly pull some old videos from YouTube and listen his commentaries in full you will find lots of mistakes.
I think its a bit trendy to knock Mike Cattermole, I don’t know why, maybe its some kind of male jealousy I don’t know.
He has great style and the sort of relaxed presentation that sets him apart from the others.
No, I’m not Mike Cattermole and have never met him.
Just my opinion obviously.
So I was correct about the standards being wrong then BB, it wasn’t the distances being incorrect after all?
Google maps are a must really aren’t they with all these errors at courses?
Well, except for Haydock, which we must assume is a bit of a mystery to everyone in the industry after the weekend’s palaver.
For someone that has no interest in AW racing you seem to start a lot of threads about it Ricky? Is this something you do on other non racing forums about subjects you have absolutely no interest in?
If it is, maybe another form of interest would be recommended, because this one you have seems a waste of life to me?
Glad to be of assistance to you BB, any time you want a problem like this sussing out just shout up.
Problem solved.
Its physically impossible to be further than the distance measured on Google maps Steve. The start point can be located easily within about a 10ft/20ft area and once you have that it is easy to measure.
What is more likely to be correct? The distance, or what looks like a generically generated standard time with no basis on actual race times used. I know where my money would go.
The use of Google maps will always answer the question of false distances.
The comparison between the 2m hurdle track at Kempton and the Leopardstown 2m hurdle track is reflected as Leopardstown having the stiffer track, as you would expect :-
Kempton 2 mile Hurdle. 3:42
Leopardstown 2 mile hurdle 3:45So how the Racing Post can have the 3 mile chase track as 16 seconds faster at Leopardstown is quite odd imo. It does explain why no horse can get a speed figure above about 40 though over that distance.
You are correct Steve in your findings. The only problem with comparing them like that is its usually slower ground in Ireland, but even with that aside, its clear that it takes longer to cover Leopardstown 3m than 3m at Kempton. It should take longer, its a slightly stiffer track.
I found one Lexus since 1992 that was run on officially Good ground, its in your list above, when Synchronised won in 6m19.5. If you can assume that their Good ground is our Good to Soft and compare the King George times run on Good to Soft, even then the King George is run in a faster time generally. Bobs Worth ran faster but again the actual ground is a little unknown. Those are the two fastest Lexus times there as well.
What I have noticed looking at the Racing Post Standards is that the courses this side of the water seem to vary in line with stiffness of course, as you would expect, but the Irish ones seem to have a generic feel to them as though they have been created from a chart, not the actual races.
You get lots of courses with 3 miles with the same sort of standard time that Leopardstown has. Its only when you compare a completely flat track from this side of the water like Kempton to an Irish one like Leopardstown you see the glaring difference.
Leopardstown is slightly stiffer than Kempton, so its common sense that a standard time set there should be a slower time than Kempton..not the other way round to the tune of 16 seconds.
Which would mean last years Lexus was 37 seconds slower than a truly run race. I think that is unlikely.
Until someone can explain why two tracks, which may be similar in time taken to run, have a standard time that differs by 16 seconds and both distances measure correctly then it has to be an error with the standard time imo.
I’ll leave it the experts to work out i think.
