Yes Manikato Superfine was disadvantaged at its last start despite winning at Kembla , also look at its previous 2 starts before that run and it will paint an interesting picture , all the previous 3 runs of Superfine were all at a disadvantage i.e the pace of the race.The distance was also at a disadvantage each start:
1200m race was disadvantaged by speed and distance but finished on well.
1300m race finished very well for 4th even though both disadvantaged by pace and distance.
Then it went to Kembla at a more suitable distance of 1600m , slightly easier class and even though still disadvantaged by pace won well.
Then was at 1800m , harder class but this time in form , right distance and the speed of the race was at a ADVANTAGE and of course it won again.

Thanks for your thoughts Testarossa.
What did you think of Octessa prior to the race. Its win last start was impressive??
Or did you consider its performance was exaggerated by the speed of the race?

Hi Testa,

I enjoyed your post. As someone who have been through all there is about times and pace (and now after a few years of reasearch has settled on a winning approach, more to do with pace), i think I can add something to the discussion.

It sounds like the reading and method you are employing is based on American works more specifically Brohammer who talks about leaders, pressers, closers etc as well as energy distribution etc. Your percentages of 49.5, 50.5 etc are basic energy distribution patterns.

Take it from me when I say that these approaches are not valid or reliable in Australian conditions. There are a whole bunch of reasons ranging from the vastly different shapes and profiles of our tracks (they are all similar in the states, a basic oval shape), the fact they race on dirt and we race on turf, which goes along with the fact that the requirements for success are much different. Dirt racing is about sheer speed, hence the importance they place on early speed. Turf racing is about being able to go along at a moderate pace and produce a kick at the end. Even these authors openly admit that there methods are nowhere near as effective on Turf as dirt.

The other point is that you assertions about a 49.5% last section indicating the pace was fast is not quiet right as it doesn't take into account the standard for that track. Someone else raised the point about Mooney Valley and Canterbury, your figures will alway show above 50% early indicating the pace was fast but thats not the case, its simply to do with the track profile that means last sections will never be as quick as some of the others. MV for example only has a 187m straight so horses can't run as quick around a bend as they often become a little unbalanced. Along with that there is actually a 5m rise from the start to finsih of the straight hence horses are always running slightly up hill.

I also believe you are making an error in methodology by taking 400m sections and deriving them back to 600m times in the way you are. In more than 90% of races the last 200m of the race is always the slowest (excluding the first 200m where horses start from the barrier). It is actually a bit of an illusion that it looks like horses are gaining speed and storming home. What is actually happening is that all the horses are slowing, some are slowing much less than others which means they make alot of ground. The fastest section is most often from the 600m to the 200m mark, it is that part that makes a really quick last 600m. So you see the last (slowest) 200m is actually 50% of a 400m sectional and you are extracting that to 600m which makes it 50% of your final 600m time. This slowest section should only make up 33% of the final 600m the other 67% is the faster 600-200m time. That being the case your method will always severley underestimate the actual final 600m time.

If you want confirmation about my assertion of the slowest part being the last 200m etc. do some research with the individual sectional times Sportscolour provide on their site for free.

In principle what you are trying to do is fantastic and will prove a winning strategy if you can get it right, the trouble is that at this stage your methods are not correct. I am satisfied now that after working through this for five years or so and with the help of some sophisticated programming I have an approach that has delivered profit for the past 2 years. The only reason I say this is not to gloat but to highlight that pace is the most unexploited concept in all of race and if you can find out a way to firstly accurately measure it and then use it with other sensible form analysis techniques then you are well on your way to a winning advantage.

So my final advice would be to definitely stick with what you are trying to do in principle about understanding pace and the relative performance of horses given the pace, but ditch American based methods and complicated maths about energy patterns, %'s etc. Its really not as hard or as complicated as they make out.

Best of luck with your endeavours, I love to see other people interested in this topic.

I hope you have found my points useful.

Manikato

Octessa was not in my top 4 ratings so i did not even consider it.
My top 4 in that race were Senor Skase , Superfine , Barker Boy and Monte Drift.
The reason Octessa was not rated higher was because of its class ratings , it's last start was in a 3yo Fillies 0ly midweek race which i rate at 46 , the race on the weekend was a saturday 3yo Open which i rate at 57.

Osulldj ,

Thanks for your very insightful comments , they made very interesting reading indeed.

First of all i had no idea this sort of thing was based from America or anywhere for that fact , i just happened to create this a couple of years ago , knowing that pace as you said is very underrated and having a keen eye for mathematical things i went about forming it.

Secondly the only time i convert the last 400m into 600m is at the Sunshine Coast because thay don't have a last 600m sectional.

Thirdly , i understand what your getting at about different sort of tracks play differently then others but i am pretty confident after studying each track that i have every track worked out with regards to early pace and the end of a race.

Thank you very much for the points raised and best of luck to you.

Osulldj,

What does your name mean?

Your comments were very interesting. I have read that most Americans who use these types of ratings have had great success on dirt, but have struggled badly on turf.

In Australia, a lot of races tend to be slowly run. Only when you get top notch speed horses, are they truly run. That's why leaders tend to dominate the winners circle.

According to one American I have read, he says horses that run fairly even times - around 50% for both sections tend to do well on turf. Do you agree with this or not????
Your opinion would be much appreciated!

I believe that a lot of Sunline's success is due to her running strong sectionals thru the middle of the race from the 1000m to 200m. Most horses can't keep up with her, however horses like Northerly can match her during these sections and finish stronger.

That being the case, if you looked at what horses can achieve in the 1000m to 200m mark you would be able to identify the winning chances. Does anyone know where this type of info can be obtained? Clockers would have this type of data wouldn't they?

Testarossa,

Laguna Lake also ran a good race last start considering it was a run on type of horse. Was favourite but its previous start was very good under the circumtances.

Manikato ,

Funnily enough Laguna Lake was my selection in the race , but didn't back due to its short price.

In Sydney on Sat i had 4 winners from 7 races:
Pompeii , Laguna Lake , Skiddaw and of course Superfine.