Dr Ron,

Contrary to initial impressions, my methods have an affinity for times. It's just that I despise both records and averages.

See the companion time thread for my justification. Also I recommend looking back through osulldj's posts for considered contributions about this stuff. New correspondent La Mer also clearly knows his stuff.

The original weight to distance relationship was 3lbs = 1length. That helps me to not mix up the new one of:

1.5Kg = 1 Length

But, apparently Beirne, AAP and others also use something like:

9Kg = 1 second

Allowing unifying relationships between weight, distance and time.

Leading to a handicapping method where two distinct sets of ratings, class and time are both expressed in kilograms. These ratings can be interchanged in desirable situations.

Consider a race of first starters - i.e. with no past history. But you do have time ratings which could be used as a class rating seed. As opposed to fossicking through a Scott book for a rating.


This is partly a lead up to responding to your 10 length question, which I'll try later.


_________________
jfc
~

[ This Message was edited by: jfc on 2003-06-19 10:14 ]

In Spring 1996 Lion Hunter won a Maiden by ~10 lengths at his first start. 0.20? seconds from the track record.

Some commercial packages concluded that all the other runners were at least 15Kg worse than Maiden Winners.

But more rational minds may have figured that Lion Hunter wasn't a typical Maiden, but the others were. So the 2nd place getter should be instead be rated as a typical Maiden winner.

So simply give that race a rating 15Kg higher than for a typical Maiden, and everything slots into place.

Apart from the nagging suspicion that the winner wasn't trying.

So when there are enough proven performances in a race, times may not be essential to assess a lopsided race.

Thanks for the replies.
Most interesting.