Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chrome Prince
I know of many time raters that do well, especially using 200m sectionals of a race, measuring fastest time and acceleration.
|
I do it a bit differently because sectionals are still not available for all races, but I compared and it's not too different.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chrome Prince
I honestly think it's more suited to dirt tracks in the usa.
Turf courses, the pace is different and horses really aren't extended til much later.
|
Yes I think you are right about that, to have consistent speed rating one has to have consistent track conditions, and there is no way we can have that on turf. I do allow for track speed on different tracks and track conditions though.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chrome Prince
But if you found an edge, then you may be looking at times differently to traditional methods.
I do know that when Beyer came here, he couldn't get his successful time ratings strategy to work here.
|
I have a few books on speed including that of Beyer's and tried to follow them as close as I could.
Don't know about any edge though, I think it's nothing more than a temporary thing. I used it on short distances for years without great success.
True I did get some good priced winners but not enough to cover the losses.
Generally I found my top speed selection would take off as a rocket lead almost all the way and fade on the last hundred metres.
I only started to look at them again when, by accident, I left my rating programme sit on time rating and found good results on longer distances.
Maybe woof43 is right, and in longer races the jockey has better control on how the race is run and genuine speed becomes more prominent?
Time only will tell. (Ouch!)