|
I am dabbling in handicapping and am trying to relate courses by distance class etc. Can anyone help me with a formula for the best way to "average" times for races at a distance and track. The sample size varies greatly and I think mode is probably the way to go but need a formula to take care of skew. Mode=3(median)-2(mean) leaves a little to be desired.
Or am I completely on the wrong "track". Any advice greatly appreciated |
Both you and Dr Ron are on the wrong track.
I'll explain why later once I find some time to collect my thoughts. |
I have established class adjusted standard times for every Australian race track at every distance based on data going back to 1996.
The best approach I have found is to take a trimmed average...and then compare this against the median as a sanity check. Take the dataset for each distance, take the fastest and slowest 10% of records away and average the rest. Then compare this against the median. If they are close to each other this implies your data is normally distributed which in practical terms it should be if looking across a large enough sample size. Hope this helps. |
Thanks osuldj - just what I needed - someboby that has done it and data comes out ok
|
osulldj,
You method is flawed in that it doesn't cope with track conditions. So if route X has a significantly different proportion of runs on worse than good tracks than route Y, the resulting computed relationship will be wrong. Onto why average times don't work, apropos the track record thread. Typically averages will produce a significant number of situations where superior classes have INFERIOR standard times. That is the quintessence of "not working". I believe this is because (unlike the USA) horses are ridden so as to loaf as much as possible. i.e. too many slow paced races. Quote:
|
Hi jfc
[quote] On 2003-06-16 15:02, jfc wrote: osulldj, You method is flawed in that it doesn't cope with track conditions. So if route X has a significantly different proportion of runs on worse than good tracks than route Y, the resulting computed relationship will be wrong. ******* I understand your point. However, my method does cope with different track conditions. Only races conducted on a track declared as "good" are considered in determining the trimmed average. So many years of historical information ensures appropriate sample sizes, there are also other professional statistical tests to ensure the validity and reliability of the numbers. ******* Onto why average times don't work, apropos the track record thread. Typically averages will produce a significant number of situations where superior classes have INFERIOR standard times. That is the quintessence of "not working". I believe this is because (unlike the USA) horses are ridden so as to loaf as much as possible. i.e. too many slow paced races. ******* Again, I understand your point and it's a valid one....but not unsolvable. Every race in my database for the last 6 years has an associated class value....it far more accurately reflects the class of race than the description given by race clubs. Initially the averages are taken across all races so to provide the trimmed average time and average class value at that track. It's then done by class value range and what you find is a normal distribution of times. Within a given class there are times ranging from slow for that class to fast...this reflects your point about the influence of pace and also natural variability in ability...I can tell you that in nearly all cases, across a large enough sample the times are normally disbtributed. There are just as many races run at very fast pace which produce times that are rarely repeated as there are races at slow pace that don't provide and accurate indication of the fields ability. The times at the different class value range and some regression analysis across all tracks and distance provides an indication of a standard time at what I call zero class value. All tracks and distances therefore have a time that can be directly compared. The standard times at Port Macquarie I use will be much faster than the actual average time run there because the horses that run there are lower class animals. The standard represents a 0 class value race, well beyond the class of horse that races there. This enables me to compare directly figures at Rosehill to Wyong to Port Macquarie etc. If I run a quick query in my database related to my average speed numbers by some of the class groups I see the following: 2YO HCP Avg = 85 3YO HCP Avg = 95 3YO G1 Avg = 102 Class5 Hcp Avg = 93 Class6 Hcp Avg = 95 R1 HCP Avg = 94 R2 HCP Avg = 96 F&M HCP Avg = 96 F&M G1 Avg = 103 Open HCP Avg = 99 Open G1 HCP Avg = 105 These are not my numbers they are the actual averages for each class group from the last 2 years and they show as I would expect them to, reflecting the difference in class. Better horses run faster. My own approach also incorporates the influence of early speed on overall time which is very clear when understood. This largely overcomes the objection most have that you can't use speed because pace makes times so variable. I can honestly say that no expense has been spared in the investment in technology to produce and maintain my own data for every race at every track held around Australia every day. Does it all make me an automatic winner, of course not. It's one approach that provides information and tools other don't have and don't understand. It's my winning edge. The cost is and continues to be funded from punting winnings at >30% POT for the last 4 years. So jfc I take your points, they are very valid and someone looking to embark on the speed journey should take note of what you say for their own learning. However, your points are not unsolvable with the right data, technology and concepts. I have proven that, maybe not to you, but most importantly myself and a small group of professional colleagues who share the workload. So don't take offence if I say your assertion that 'it doesn't work' is plain not true :smile: |
osulldj,
I've just started on your earlier posts and internet site (which you've curiously omitted from your profile). That odyssey will probably take a while, but at first glance your ideas are close to my independent ones about the issues for advanced time and pace rating. Meanwhile, back to the point of contention. I claimed that "AVERAGE times don't work". NOT that "times don't work". Your process does much more than merely average times. Now, as briefly and simply as possible, here's a technique which does NOT use averages, but I believe is more precise. A mere 29 comparisons may not seem much, but it's nearly the best available for any track. This one is for same meeting 1200m races at Kembla between Maiden and Open handicaps. The median data is: 70.85 Maiden 69.63 Open Difference = 1.22 seconds Ratio = 1.017521 Call these Opens "standard" and convert these Maidens to "standard" by dividing by 1.017521. This now allows us a much improved 46 comparisons between Class 2 HCP and Standard. The median difference for Class 2 is 0.76 seconds slower than Standard. Continue in this way to build a precise class ladder. Then once the class factor has been removed select the time (say) 10% away from the fastest one to use as a standard 1200m time for Kembla Opens. In my reduced example above the times read: 68.18 Record (appears legitimate) 69.33 10% from record 70.31 Median 70.47 Average The reasoning behind all this is:
[*] Medians are better than averages for possibly crappy data [*] The 69.33 is less likely to have the 68.18 possible problems of errors, flukes, freak conditions, unrepeatability [*] But it's fast enough to suggest a decent track and a reasonable pace [*] The 70.31 Median is nearly 1 second away, and more than 2 outside the legit record. Suggesting they don't mind having a loaf there. But I want to measure how fast horses can run, not how well they loaf. [/list] _________________ jfc ~ [ This Message was edited by: jfc on 2003-06-17 14:05 ] [ This Message was edited by: jfc on 2003-06-17 14:06 ] |
Interesting discussion guys - and one that indicates that there are a number of roads to Damascus.
While not necessarily disagreeing with JFC, think that osulldj is closer to the the Holy Grail (if one exists, which probably doesn't). I'm not sure if I've fully understood what JFC wrote in his last post on this theme, but using his 1200m Kembla Grange examples and based on many hundereds of races over the last eight years or so, the following are my own standard times for this track (I should add that like osulldj, I also use the median time as a reality test): Good Track Conditions: Maidens: 71.24 (71.23) Class 1: 70.78 (70.70) Class 2: 70.83 (70.91) Class 6: 70.72 (70.81) Open: 70.02 (70.01) Median times in brackets The above type of skew in my experience is common - maidens return the worst averages with the class 1's to 6's being somewhat all over the show - track to track Australia wide. So while I accept some of what you've stated re the classes, I disagree with both of you in some aspects. JFC raised the very valid issue of different track conditions but this can be overcome to a degree by the establishment of a daily track variant. Even then, the times on the day will be affected by the classes of both the races and horses completing on any given day but these issues can be handled. Another issue raised by JFC was slowly run races, at least races where the early pace was slow. This too can be overcome by the establisment of both early and late standard sectional times - I use such a method to great success. As an example, while the overall standard time for Open Handicaps at Kembla Grange is 70.02s, a more accurate time for those that are run where the early pace is Ok is 69.81, over a length quicker. These more accurate standard times (which should be termed as benchmark times) can be assessed by only using races where the early pace is faster than the early sectional standard time, which in turn can be assessed in a similar manner to how osulldj works out his overall standard times. [ This Message was edited by: La Mer on 2003-06-17 23:48 ] [ This Message was edited by: La Mer on 2003-06-17 23:50 ] |
Hi La Mer,
You make good sense. * There is no such thing as a holy grail...but there is such a thing as tools and processes that provide information that isn't maintstream which used intelligently provides a winning advantage :smile: * A daily track variant does cater for differences in track conditions. * You said: ".....can be overcome by the establisment of both early and late standard sectional times - I use such a method to great success." Couldn't agree more and this is a feature of my information systems for every track in Australia that records sectional times. |
I appreciate these comments and the obvious time taken to make them, but feel compelled to clarify my position. I am well aware of factors such as as track variance, sectionals, early speed and endorse their proper use.
However I was trying to keep the discussion as simple as possible, partly for the benefit of Dr Ron and billivet who are just starting out on this exercise. Now, I have only one issue with osulldj and La Mer and perhaps the rest of humankind, namely: Typically it's wrong to make time comparisons from different meetings. And that's what averaging is, in a roundabout way. So averaging times is wrong. Official track readings are notoriously untrustworthy so there could be even 1 second's difference between two allegedly good tracks. Penetrometers also appear fishy, perhaps because those readings are performed many hours before the races start. Therefore I only make comparisons between races at the same meeting. So in the earlier Kembla example, there were 43 Opens and 167 Maidens available, but I was only prepared to compare the 29 matches on identical days. By contrast I assume osulldj would average the most middle of the road 35 Opens and 133 Maidens. --- La Mer's independent data is very useful. I note he calculates the difference between 1200m Maidens and Opens as 1.22 seconds. Precisely the same difference I found using my different techniques. However the Class versus Open differences are 0.81 versus 0.76. Or ~half a length. Not too bad considering timing to 100th's a second only started there in 1997. It's also fascinating that he finds that the superior Class 2's have inferior times to Class 1's. Confirming my earlier claim. But to my amazement I note that my technique finds Class 1 races are 0.88 inferior to Opens, hence 0.12 inferior to Class 2. Which is the way you'd want it to be. (Although untrimmed averages also get a 0.08 difference in the right direction). |
[quote]
On 2003-06-18 11:48, jfc wrote: Now, I have only one issue with osulldj and La Mer and perhaps the rest of humankind, namely: Typically it's wrong to make time comparisons from different meetings. And that's what averaging is, in a roundabout way. So averaging times is wrong. ********************************* La Mer: I agree in principle with what you've written, in particular taking a speed rating from one meeting and comparing it with a speed rating taken at another meeting. But that is not what is being discussed and IMO if you have sufficient data then by trimming the extremes then some conclusions can be drawn from what is left, i.e. the number of maiden races used in my example was 163 (excluding 21 2yo maidens which tend to run slower times) less ten percent at either end, so my standard times were based on 130 races, which ranged from 70.45s to 72.25s, a spread of 1.80s. Had all 163 races been used, then they would have ranged from 69.57s to 74.59s, a spread of 5.02s. Over 1200m then a spread of that nature immediately indicates that something in not quite right - either the slower times were run on tracks other than good (the most probable cause), or the timing device was incorrect, or the race was run over a longer distance than 1200m. Whatever, it really does not matter so long as such occurences are taken out of the equation - trimming does this - in fact I eliminated the 74.59s prior to the trimming, as the next slowest time was some 1.50 seconds faster. Having done that, then I am reasonably confident that a useable standard time has been obtained - remembering of course that this is not an exact science for reasons already mentioned. ************************************ JFC: Official track readings are notoriously untrustworthy so there could be even 1 second's difference between two allegedly good tracks. Penetrometers also appear fishy, perhaps because those readings are performed many hours before the races start. Therefore I only make comparisons between races at the same meeting. So in the earlier Kembla example, there were 43 Opens and 167 Maidens available, but I was only prepared to compare the 29 matches on identical days. ************************** La Mer: Agree totally re your track conditions/penetrometer comments. However, I admit to being a little confused by your comments "comparisions between races at the same meeting". Are you referring to 'same' day or 'identical' days, i.e. occurences where you consider the days to be identical, and if not then how can you have 29 'same' day occurences, unless of course you are referring to horses and not races? **************************** JFC: It's also fascinating that he finds that the superior Class 2's have inferior times to Class 1's. Confirming my earlier claim. ***************************** La Mer: I've also found some blurring of the times further up the class ladder with race types like Rs1mw, Rs2mw, and I expect the replacement races classes SC1mw and SC0mw races will show similar blurring - Open Handicaps and Listed races are similar as well. As mentioned, this has been a good disussion and my appreciation to both osulldj and JFC for participating - I trust that those that asked the original questions are getting something out of all of this. |
My use of "identical" (with a number of different meanings) was misleading. Sorry. I blame my blunder on the after effects of insomnia from this debate.
Let's try again. My data for 1200m races at Kembla has 29 days with both Maiden and Open handicaps. I used only those 29 comparisons to establish a relationship between the two classes. Others would have averaged all the 43 Opens and 167 Maidens present. But the more I think about this, the more comfortable I am that my method is more precise. For this exercise the 138 unmatched Maidens are rubbish. Why allow them to contaminate the calculations? Now even though either methods seems to work fine for Kembla, there are other situations where my method excels:
[*]75% of 2YO 1400m races occur in often rainy May, June, July. [*]Very little data is available for new (extra) tracks like Randwick and Sandown.[/list] These examples suggest that like for like comparisons (like mine) are far safer. _________________ jfc ~ [ This Message was edited by: jfc on 2003-06-19 08:37 ] |
Everyone can argue all day long about who's method is more precise....it's pure semantics! How do you measure precise? And who says which "excels"?...we can all point to apparent weaknesses in someone elses thinking and of course each individual is going to believe that their own approach is better than others. It's an argument no one will ever win!
After re reading all the posts...my thinking is that this shouldn't be a debate about "mine is better than yours"....it shoul be an exchange of thoughts and ideas without judgement of what someone else does. It should be purely in the interest of broadening our scope of thinking, if not, at least some enjoyment from discussion with like minded inividuals. Of course individuals will sit there believing theirs is best...but that should really be kept to one's self. While it is an extremely effective approach and one on which my income is based....i've got news for you all.....there is no such thing as "precise" when it comes to using speed data. The science and detail behind how one's numbers are calculated is such a minor part of making a consistent profit. (As long as it is a solid approach with obvious problems catered for). A frequent problem I see with many punters I talk to in my weekly activities is that they spend all their time focused on how to perfect some sort of measurement process...rather than spending their time on improving their ablity to make a profit...the two are entirely different. Making a profit is about how to APPLY in practice the information one has. That does and will always have far greater impact on success than continual efforts to perfect the process to produce that information. There are no fixed rules or magical formulas for applying information to make a profit. It's a skill you can only learn from experience. It's hard, that's why most prefer to stay in the realm of perfecting their information producing process and that's why most continue to lose at least a little. There are plenty of smart people out there with great formulas and measurement processes...but few of them can make a profit. They don't nearly have the same intelligence or skill in how to apply those wonderful measurements. To me, discussion on the application of speed information would be much more beneficial than a winless debate about which measurement process is better. To start, would anyone care to talk about how they approach a race using their information? |
osulldj,
You continue to raise many valid and pertinent points (so I believe) and do so in a clear and forthright manner. However I think the greatest piece of wisdom of all is present in you last post. Knowing how to apply the information you have to make a profit. This is IMO the hardest part of betting on race horses. Anybody with a reasonable level of intelligence can learn how to rate horses by any number of different methods to obtain reasonable results (It does take considerable effort). BUT it is in the betting that comes the profits (losses). I don't think this is something you can learn by reading about how to do it or by trawling over past results. You must do it to learn it. You must learn when to keep your money in your pocket and when to strike. This must come with experience because I don't have this yet but I keep trying to learn. I have only been doing this a couple of years but I am quickly coming to this conclusion. From personal experience I have had days when I have looked over my ratings and seen all these winners near the top and wondered how I managed to lose and other times hardly any winners near the top but I win overall. I guess the trick is to keep working at it and trying to learn as you go what works and what doesn't and try not to make the same mistake twice. I would be interested to know what others think regarding this. |
Thanks key,
You are right, you can't learn how to apply information to make a profit through reading books or articles or through buying special software....it takes practice. Some of the more practical abilities one needs to develop if they want to actually make money at the races are: * Understanding what your information and analysis tells you about a race. * Understanding what the market tells you about a race. * Being able to identify races which present a profitable window of opportunity. This is so much more than thinking you have value because you ratings say $3 and the horse is $4. * Having the smarts and discipline to play in those races which do offer that window and to leave the others * Working hard to get the best price and betting appropriate amounts * Riding out and dealing with the emotional highs and lows * Maintaining good records * Using post race review process across all aspects. Your analysis, your betting habits on the day, the conditions of various races, the performance of horse, what that all means for the future etc. etc. This is most important and something that 99% of punters are too lazy to do. This is where most of your practical learning takes place, as opposed to theoretical learning. I find many future winners and make a lot of money through these processes alone. I can say all these things but there is little you can learn without putting them into practice and most importantly, reflecting on your efforts and taking something away from each week to improve on next time. |
My rating (or comparison) method uses (nearly) like for like comparisons as much as possible. I'm more than happy for others to provide evidence that they've found something which supercedes that technique.
Meanwhile I'd like to explore other interesting issues mentioned here: "There are just as many races run at very fast pace which produce times that are rarely repeated as there are races at slow pace that don't provide and accurate indication of the fields ability." Given my suspicion that contesting a very fast race is a terrific way of never winning again, I'd infer that there are far more slow races than fast ones. And so maybe osulldj's assertion was uncharacteristically intemperate. But can anyone volunteer a percentage figure for such slow pace races which are useless for rating? I don't have one, but just ran this experiment to try and collect my thoughts. Consider 200 Rosehill 1200m races on officially GOOD tracks. For this exercise define Pace as Final 600 time/ First 600 time, so that relatively fast early sectionals get the highest figure. The fastest decile (here the 20th fastest sample) reads: 1.01 Pace Ratio 35.58 Final 600 35.08 1st 600 0.50 Final - 1st (Call this Diff) If anything with a Diff <= -0.50 (i.e. over 1 second worse) is considered unsatisfactory then the failure rate is 66.5%. And 29% for a pathetic over 2 seconds worse. However the 66.5% sample, might mean the least-slow horses spent 6 seconds taking 9 strides 1 metre shorter than I'd like them to. That feels like a lot of energy being saved, aka loafing. (Assuming ball park 18 meters/second, 12 meters/stride hence 3 strides/ 2 seconds). http://www.equimost.com/stride-ocala-march02.html |
Hi jfc,
Interesting point you make but when we talk about judging whether the pace is loafing or genuine, what do we measure it in reference to? I don't think it's as straight forward as measuring the difference between sections, or taking the 10th percentile difference or ratio as the standard representing good speed. The top 10% of any sample would most likely represent the extreme end of the scale and as such your ratio could in fact represent very fast early pace. My conceptual view is that there is an element of "saved early, used late" when it comes to pace. So they can go a little slow early but then ALL the energy saved can be used late to result in what is still a time that represents the ability of the field. That is still genuine speed. It doesn't mean that all horses are suited, but the speed is quick enough for horses to exert their maximum energy and run their best time. To me thats the definition of genuine speed. I believe that the trimmed average early pace for most tracks represents this level. From a practical point of view it certainly has done so effectively for a number of years. However, there is a fine line...if they go too slow early then it's impossible for all of that saved energy to be used late because a horse can only sprint at a maximum top speed. What happens here is that horses finish still with some top speed energy to expend. These are the instances where I would say the pace is loafing. In conceptual terms, my opinion is that loafing or slow pace is where the energy saved early cannot be completely used late, resulting is a slower time that characteristic of the runners ability. In practical terms the judgement when assessing form is as simple as that. I look at the early pace and what it implied about the time in the race, the horses who competed, which were best suited, not suited etc. You can't write a computer process or rules for that interpretation, it's part of the 'art' as opposed to science of form analysis. The 'art' is where the profit is to be made. The method you described makes me think that your approach is based on believing horses have to be going what we humans might call 3/4 pace for it to be considered genuine speed. Is that right? Talking about the difference in sections I can offer the following thoughts: Over 1200m, if the sections are anywhere close to level or even within half a second the horses would have used what I would say is a high amount of early energy. The reasons are: * The first 200m of any race is always the slowest because horses have to start and build up speed to the settling pace. This point alone means that the final 600m should always be quicker than the first 600m. * Secondly, at least half or more of the final 600m is always run up the straight while a good part of the first 600m can be run around bends. Horses are capable of travelling faster in a straight line than they are around a bend. These two points alone shift the balance towards my view that the first section will always be a fair bit slower than the final section. I also hold the view that anything close to level or even within 0.5 seconds means the field has overcome these two points therefore they must have used a lot of effort = fast pace. Perhaps the exception is Moonee Valley where it's a short straight and up hill run to the line. The last section is commonly much slower than the first and that doesn't necessarily mean the horses have gone fast early. Back to Rosehill, I believe your comparison to races run at that track attempts to overcome the points I make, but I think using the 20th time in a sample of 200 is towards the extreme end and would represent fast pace. jfc, you obviously are well versed when it comes to this sort of topic, so, with your view that most races are run at slow speed, which makes times ineffective, how do you apply speed type information and use your knowledge to advantage? |
A question for my learned time, speed, pace friends.
How do you deal with wet tracks. Do you not bet them or do you have a method for rating them. I personally use time only as a minor factor and only on good/dead tracks. This suits me as I rarely bet in the wet anyway. My time assessment is based on the horses ability to run fast over the distance and is a bonus factor in my ratings rather than the basis for the whole thing. I would be interested to here your thoughts. |
[quote]
On 2003-06-23 00:05, thekey wrote: How do you deal with wet tracks. Do you not bet them or do you have a method for rating them. I personally use time only as a minor factor and only on good/dead tracks. This suits me as I rarely bet in the wet anyway. My time assessment is based on the horses ability to run fast over the distance and is a bonus factor in my ratings rather than the basis for the whole thing. *************************** La Mer: Personally I never bet on slow or heavy tracks for reasons such as the ability of horses to handle the conditions ‘on the day’, unpredictable track biases and other reasons. This does not mean that performances can’t be compared and conclusions made, i.e. at the Rosehill 1200m there is a difference of approximately three seconds between a good and heavy track standard time. However, there are some inherent issues that require addressing with the creation of standard times for wet tracks, such as the relative lack of data available and the variance in the spread of racetimes (from which it can be concluded that some wet tracks are far worse than others even if the official track condition are the same). You mentioned that you use time only as a minor factor based on a horses ability to run fast over the distance, but IMO it goes beyond that – a horse not only has to have the inherent ability to run fast enough to win BUT also has to be in a position at the turn/400m to do so. Pace assessments will give you this added edge, time (speed) ratings won’t, but can assist in making the assessment more accurate. |
A slow time might be due to
- slow track - slow pace - fast pace but crappy runners so measuring pace accurately is challenging. But after that, the application of such measurements should be straightforward. You could start by contrasting the top-rated early speed selection versus the late speed one. Which pick has better win strike rates, and POTs. But I'm not convinced measuring is that easy, Consider the free data from http://www.sportscolour.com.au/ It shows that the standing start section loses ~3 seconds, so that it's best to discard that time. But for sprints it appears that: - The 1st "running" section is most often the fastest - Most runners then seem to run each section slower than the preceeding one. this is a different perspective to osulldj's one. And such figures seem to mock the concept of sustained pace. Consistently going slower hardly appears "sustained". Further ironies are that 3/4 pace (early) is actually faster than full pace (late). And why do jockeys take horses "off the bit" (i.e. stop restraining them) so they'll accelerate, when instead they only go slower? |
[quote]
And such figures seem to mock the concept of sustained pace. Consistently going slower hardly appears "sustained". ******************************* La Mer: You make some good points jfc, but just a few comments about sustained pace. Basically I agree with your observations about that the slower sectionals (other than the first as you mentioned) tend to come later in the race, with the last 200m sectional usually being the second slowest of any race. But in regard to ‘sustainability’ then it is all relative – relative to the amount of energy usage –so that if high amounts of energy is used early, i.e. the pace is on, then the amount of sustainability later in the race are relative to the level of the early pace and energy usage, so that if high amounts of energy is used early and a horse maintains a run, then its sustainability can be judged by the amount of slowing down it does in the latter parts of the race. As an example of what I mean, the following is an extract of an email I wrote to a few punting friends back on 14 Oct 2002 re Choisir: “After the running of the Caulfield Guineas on Saturday, all the talk/discussion has been about how Bel Esprit was probably a good thing beaten. Well, it didn't get the best of runs from the turn to half way down the straight and Oliver suffered what often occurs with get-back horses but IMHO it wasn't one of his best rides. But was it a good thing beaten?? Maybe, but I also think that there was another horse in that race that definitely was a good thing beaten - Choisir. I have little doubt that had Glen Boss ridden a more patient ride then neither the winner (Helenus) nor Bel Esprit would have got close and Choisir would have won by two to three lengths. These are the early sectionals that Choisir cut out: 9.67s (first 170m) then followed by 10.70s (suicidal so early in a race over 1600m); 11.57s; 11.91s. Credit to the horse that Choisir was still able to run the last 400m in two sub 12-second sectionals - 11.61s and 11.99s. Should have won - but when a horse cuts out a 10.70 second sectional over a mile, it makes the task not only hard but just about impossible. By comparison, (at the same meeting) given that Lonhro/Sunline ran within 1/5th of the track record in the Caulfield Stakes - Sunline ran the first 170m in 12.32s with her fastest 200m sectional being 11.35s (three lengths slower than Choisir's) and her's came much later in the race between the 1000m and the 800m marks with her last two 200m sectionals run in 11.65s and 12.15s, both slower than Choisir's last two respective 200m sectionals. Lonhro's fastest sectional was run in 11.34s, again half a second slower than the big colts. To get into spectrum just how fast a 200m sectional is, Spinning Hill who from dead set last in the 1000m race, ran a last 200m sectional 10.74s, a mere 4/100ths of a second faster than what Choisir did between the 1400m to 1200m mark. Outside of the shorter sprint races of 1200m/1000m, Choisir ran the fastest 200m sectional at the meeting and the only one (other than for Great Glen's in the same race over the same 200m sectional), under 11 seconds. When you consider that Saturday's Caulfield Guineas was the fastest ever run in its 100 year plus history and the time run was as a result of the early sectionals carved out by Choisir, it was it a good thing beaten and IMO is a future multiple Group 1 winner.” Chosir’s sectionals got slower later in the race, but also demonstrated sustainability by being able to run his last 400m in 23.6s, more so given his 10.70s early 200m sectional. So when the sectionals are observed, they also have to be interpreted and to merely state that the slower late times ‘mock the concept of sustained pace’ somewhat misses the point. [ This Message was edited by: La Mer on 2003-06-24 15:17 ] |
I concur totally La Mer. The assessment of sections and in particular how fast or slow they go late, must be made relative to the how fast or slow they went early. At the simplest level there is a clear relationship between the speed of the first section and speed of the last section, hence overall time. This is something that also changes over various distance ranges due to the balance of early & late distance. As an example, following is an extract of information from my own database. It shows the average first section at difference pace intervals according to my classificaions, and the corresponding average final section and overal time. The numbers are my rating numbers...the higher the faster. For races up to 1250m...within a defined class range (data over last 6 years).
|