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?