One section of this site has particular emphasis on the importance of race times. I have to disagree with this as sectional times are important to tell you how the race was run, but overall time has no significance whatsoever. Horse races - even 1000 metre races have tactics employed by jockeys and no race is run flat out!
Thus, time for the race is no relection of the ability of the winner.
I do believe that the last 400m of a race can be significant but only when coupled in relation to the other sectional times.

Bill Collins, Damien Oliver, and Bart Cummings have all agreed on this in past.

After all it's not a greyhound race.

Anyone agree / disagree?

[ This Message was edited by: Equine Investor on 2002-06-11 20:06 ]

Inclined to agree, if the race is 1600m or more, but in the sprints, my attention is often focused on the last 600 and overall time. Especially if you can't draw a line through a particular horse to make a common comparison.

Placegetter

Have to agree with you EI - there are just too many factors that can influence the times - tactics, other runners, track condition (not all slow tracks are created equal!), etc. Saw the perfect example today (sorry - can't remember which race) when the winner was trapped in a pocket. When the jockey managed to get it out it easily out sprinted the other runners - no doubt the race time would have been quicker had that horse been able to get out earlier.

You're half right, half wrong.

For 1000-1500m races -overall time matters most.

For 1600m and beyond - final section matters most.

I have looked into this quite a bit. A fast final section means nothing in a sprint if they jog the first part, as most sprinters can run time in the final section. The best sprinters have also been able to run fast times - Hareeba, Schlachi (can't spell it), Our Maizcay etcc.... It doesn't matter what a horse runs in the final 400m if its 10 lengths behind at that mark!!

However in staying races - not many horses are able to sprint at the end regardless of early pace -therefore horses like Carnegie Express (who can sprint) can be very hard to beat in such races.

Sunline doesn't run fast overall times, but runs good sectionals in the middle of the race which gets other horses off the bit.

Have a look at the racingandsports website - they have compared M&P's Cox plate win with Sunline - M&P's performance was the most awesome performance I have ever seen - the sectionals thru the entire race were unbelievable.

You cannot compare rare times - adjustments have to be made for different tracks, track conditions, weight etcc.

Yes my point is it is really not a true indication of the horses ability to win next start as he may have won with his head on his chest and nursed to the line. OR been pushed along grinding home the last half of the race, been blocked for a run, checked hampered etc.

The last say 400m gives you an indication of how fit the horse is - nothing more.

Luther's Luck, Foxseal, Super Impose... all sprinted from the back of the field at the last 600 - 400m to the finish. Obviously their last sectional is going to be faster than a tear away such as Might and Power, but then it's apples and oranges.

And when it comes to times you cannot compare because there are soooo many other factors to consider.

1. Tempo of the race
2. Luck in running
3. Position (3 wide or on the rails)
4. Normal running position.
5. 1200m at Randwick is not equal to 1200m at Kembla Grange.(track bias and surface).

The list goes on...

You can compare times b/t different tracks, by using either the track record or avg times ran at different tracks.

I have track record times for almost every track in NSW, Vic and QLD.

I can compare Ipswich with Flemington if I want. The degree of error is est at about 0.2 secs or 1.25 lengths. Therefore I only consider a horse to have superior ratings if it is significantly faster - 3 lengths usually.

This 3 length buffer allows for margin of error as well as bad luck and natural improvement in a horse.

However, if a horse is say 1.5 lengths better than the rest, but is 30/1 - that's a great e/w bet. If it was an even money favourite I would avoid it.

If a horse is 6 lengths or more superior, I would accept odds-on, given a small field (less chance of bad luck) and no other negative factors. I have never seen one of these lose yet.

Just because you don't have the info to do such calculations doesn't mean its not possible.

I don't have a shuttle to fly to the moon, yet I don't say that it can't be done.

Your ignorance may be or not bliss.

With sprinters speed ratings can be quite useful, but they are not the be all and end all with selections due to numerous factors.

However, there have been occasions when I have identified horses at good odds which have superior ratings to others in a race - in these cases one has a significant betting advantage.

For example, I calculated Spinning Hill's speed ratings prior to the Lightning Stakes -those 14/1 odds were juicy considering she had the best speed ratings.

Rubitano also had good speed ratings prior to his group 1 win.

Surdurka is another.


With 1600m+ races, the best way to use speed ratings is weight the final section by 50% and the other part of the race by 50%.

Example
2000m race
time of 122 secs (adjusted for weights etc)
final 600m of 35 secs.

4/6 times 35 = 23.333 secs (400m)

122-35 = 87secs for first 1400m
400/1400 times 87 = 24.857

23.333 + 24.857 = 48.19
48.19/2 = 24.095 seconds

Therefore its weighted avg 400m sectional times are 24.095 secs.

Compare this with raw avg 122/5 = 24.4 seconds.

For 2000m races its much better to compare horses using the weighted avg time. The horse with the fastest time is the one to look at backing. If there are 2 or 3 horses around the same mark - look at odds and barrier.

You should also make adjustments for today's weight changes - if for instance one horse is 3kgs worse off than last time - you would then need to adjust sectional times for this.

For sprint races, just use the total time and adjust for weight, track condition etc..

The hardest variable to adjust for is track condition, as some slow track times are almost as fast as good track times, while other slow tracks are several secs slower.

Some people overcome this by ignoring times ran on any tracks rated worse than good. If a horse has had 10 or more starts - you can easily compare times from previous starts on good tracks.

ozeform has all starts for all Aussie horses - good for speed ratings.

The main drawback with speed ratings is it takes a fair bit of time to do them properly.


WHERE'S THERE'S SMOKE, THERE'S FIRE

I keep class & distance records and find when
a winner has returned a negative adjusted variant for time and last sectional combined then it's a key bet next start, given favourable conditions.

I'd say that times are one of the most over rated factors when it comes to assessing the chances of a horse in a race.

Too many horses run great times winning then run poorly at their subesequent starts. For example, who holds the Flemington track record for 1200m?....Iglesia. How has that gone since the record breaking effort? I wonder how many punters did their money on Iglesia following the Flemington win?

You want proof that times don't matter?

Get your form guide next weekend and look for the horse who ran either the fastest sectionals or overall time over the distance of that race. Go back several starts if you have to. Circle that horse together with any that have run a class/track/race record in their exposed form (Sportsman is pretty good for that). See how they go. Thousands of punters look for this every week - they lose.

Times do not fall within the top 6 factors to consider when analysing race form. (in my humble opinion)

Privateer

Privateer,

Iglesia struck a hard track and favourable conditions.

You have to look at avg times that a horse runs - if a horse has ran several times at a certain level - then you can put some weight into the times. One off times mean nothing.

Also, if a horse runs a very fast time - he was usually at its absolute peak and will no doubt drop several lengths next start.

The key is too find horses which are still improving or you expect to maintain a high level.

I would agree that times have limitations and flaws like every other system - but you can't dismiss them just like that.

You have to also consider how a good time was achieved - did the horse have a cosy run? Where they running fast times all day??

The best horses to look for are horses that raced on the speed, ran good time, while the other on-pace horses dropped away. Finnigan was a good example of this.

The easiest bets in the world are when you have one speed horse in a race, who can control the pace of the race - very hard to beat.

Examples:
Sunline in Doncaster, and 2 cox plates.
Lord Essex prior to this over 1500m when he beat Shogun Lodge.

When you find one good speed horse in a race of backmarkers - BET WITH YOUR EARS PINNED BACK.

Brumby, I agree entirely with the opening two sentences of your post. My long term analyses revealed exactly the same.

Incidentally, on my list of important selection criteria, "times" is at number 53, just after "Does the number of letters in a horses name correspond with its barrier number"

"Bet with your ears pinned back"? I must try that. 4 inch nail perhaps?

Privateer