Originally Posted by woof43

Hi Oz
I'm not sure that you understood what I meant regarding "How long is a Race" think about it that when the winner crosses the finishline the race is over.

You really don't want to know what each runner took to run the allotted distance, you need to find out how far they ran in the winning time and this this is the 2nd step.

The first step is you need to change the measure of each race, a good starting point is to multiply the race distance by the Track record, I'm not going to disclose everything but that should get you thinking.

Then you will progress to "how far is a length" the answer to that is located in the above two steps.

Cheers

Originally Posted by OzPunter

Dear Woof43,

I have allocated many hours of grey matter processing time to the topic of sectional times and your clue is a gem in itself (I already knew that but had overlooked the importance) as is the gem I gleaned from a comment made by Osulldj when he reminded me that at the start if "leaders" are at wide barriers where there is a short run to the first turn they may be disadvantaged by not being able to get accross to the rails if reasonable "On Pace" runners are drawn inside them. "Back" runners and slow starters will not be disadvantaged in this way... OzPunter

Originally Posted by La Mer

However, Mordin also quite correctly states, "It has always been true that the higher the weight a horse is being set to carry in a handicap race, the more likely it is to win."

Originally Posted by La Mer

Ozpunter ... I would disagree with that quote of Woof43, "when the winner crosses the finish line the race is over". The race is only over for the winner and not necessarily for the placegetters.

In at least one race last Saturday, when the winner went over the line the horse that officially finished 3rd was actually in 2nd position with the horse that officially finished 2nd in 3rd position (not by much but it was certainly not in 2nd position at that stage of the race.

The scenario happens on a regular basis where one horse is slowing considerably and another running is finishing on strongly (or appearing to finish strongly).

The other factor which you might not have considered is the affect of weight on racetime.

Don Scott used as a standard the conversion of 1.5kgs (3lbs) to equalling one length, which in turn would equal 0.167 of a second. UK racing professional Nick Mordin believe that the adjustment should be variable dependent on the distance of the race.

I use a variable measurement in my own calculations, as follows:

=((B*2.75)+(W)*(D/2.75))

where B = Beaten Margin; W = Weight Carried; D = Distance of the race; 2.75 which equals one length in metres.

Care should be used when considering weight in this manner, as each horse as its upper and lower limits. That is, once a horse reaches a certain point, its weight carrying ability will be impaired and the more weight it carries above this weight the more the impairment. A good rule of thumb guide is to use the maximum weight a horse has carried to victory (or within one length in races of 1400m or less, two lengths in races at 2000m or less or three lengths in races above 2000m).

Probably more importantly, less weight will definitely not make a horse run faster, as horses have varying degrees of ability and each has its own maximum speed and while more weight will impair its ability to run at that maximum speed, less weight at the very best will only ever allow it to run up to its own maximum speed.

In one of his books, Mordin reveals the results of research he did into the effects of weight, the results of which clearly indicate that it is an overrated factor.

He disclosed four factors in regard to weight:
* Horses carrying a greater weight will be slowed down more than what less weight will speed a horse up;
* Once a horse has dropped down in weight to a certain point, then any further weight reduction will not make it run any faster than what it is capable of doing;
* Horses of a higher class generally weigh more then those of a lower class; and
* Weight affects lower class horses to a greater degree than those of a higher class.

Research carried out in the US would indicate that once the 'average' horse is weighted below 52kgs then additional weight off its back will be of little importance, while once a horse reaches 53.5kgs or more, weight will start to slow a horse down.

Mordin's research disclosed that weight required to slow a horse down by a length is dependent on the distance of the race according to the following scale:
* 1000m - 1.75kgs
* 1200m - 1.5kgs
* 1400m - 1.25kgs
* 1600m - 1kg
* 2000m - 0.8kg
* 2400m - 0.65kg
* 3200m - 0.5kg

However, Mordin also quite correctly states, "It has always been true that the higher the weight a horse is being set to carry in a handicap race, the more likely it is to win."

Another factor is one that Daniel O'Sullivan alluded to and that is the affact of wide running. Horses running wide will cover more ground, thus using more energy. However those running wide when the pace is 'on' will use a greater level of energy than those running wide when the pace is 'off' and wide running is only of real importance around the turns and no so much when running down the straight.

Originally Posted by jfc

Not quite correct.

It is in the handicapper's interest to err on the side of leniency when weighting better runners.

That can easily be seen where in handicaps TAB# n outperforms n+(1..23) in terms of fair share of wins.

However ability at the distance and fitness presumably are not factors in the handicapping equation.

After Makybe Diva's 2003 Melbourne Cup win, she resumed as a 59.5 kg topweight at 16/1 in an unsuitable 8 runner 1400m race, to finish 5th by 10 lengths.

Originally Posted by jfc

Can anyone point to official documentation that a length=2.75m?

Using a tape measure I concluded it was 3m.

However from this data it seems to be 2.5m for Race 1.

http://www.stc.com.au/racing/histor...05/r050502c.htm

http://www.stc.com.au/racing/Sectio...asp?date=050502

Feel free to dispute this.


Also, La Mer, thank you for your attempts to introduce some sanity on Friday night.

Originally Posted by La Mer

Ozpunter ... I would disagree with that quote of Woof43, "when the winner crosses the finish line the race is over". The race is only over for the winner and not necessarily for the placegetters.

In at least one race last Saturday, when the winner went over the line the horse that officially finished 3rd was actually in 2nd position with the horse that officially finished 2nd in 3rd position (not by much but it was certainly not in 2nd position at that stage of the race.

The scenario happens on a regular basis where one horse is slowing considerably and another running is finishing on strongly (or appearing to finish strongly).

The other factor which you might not have considered is the affect of weight on racetime.

Don Scott used as a standard the conversion of 1.5kgs (3lbs) to equalling one length, which in turn would equal 0.167 of a second. UK racing professional Nick Mordin believe that the adjustment should be variable dependent on the distance of the race.

I use a variable measurement in my own calculations, as follows:

=((B*2.75)+(W)*(D/2.75))

where B = Beaten Margin; W = Weight Carried; D = Distance of the race; 2.75 which equals one length in metres.

Care should be used when considering weight in this manner, as each horse as its upper and lower limits. That is, once a horse reaches a certain point, its weight carrying ability will be impaired and the more weight it carries above this weight the more the impairment. A good rule of thumb guide is to use the maximum weight a horse has carried to victory (or within one length in races of 1400m or less, two lengths in races at 2000m or less or three lengths in races above 2000m).

Probably more importantly, less weight will definitely not make a horse run faster, as horses have varying degrees of ability and each has its own maximum speed and while more weight will impair its ability to run at that maximum speed, less weight at the very best will only ever allow it to run up to its own maximum speed.

In one of his books, Mordin reveals the results of research he did into the effects of weight, the results of which clearly indicate that it is an overrated factor.

He disclosed four factors in regard to weight:
* Horses carrying a greater weight will be slowed down more than what less weight will speed a horse up;
* Once a horse has dropped down in weight to a certain point, then any further weight reduction will not make it run any faster than what it is capable of doing;
* Horses of a higher class generally weigh more then those of a lower class; and
* Weight affects lower class horses to a greater degree than those of a higher class.

Research carried out in the US would indicate that once the 'average' horse is weighted below 52kgs then additional weight off its back will be of little importance, while once a horse reaches 53.5kgs or more, weight will start to slow a horse down.

Mordin's research disclosed that weight required to slow a horse down by a length is dependent on the distance of the race according to the following scale:
* 1000m - 1.75kgs
* 1200m - 1.5kgs
* 1400m - 1.25kgs
* 1600m - 1kg
* 2000m - 0.8kg
* 2400m - 0.65kg
* 3200m - 0.5kg

However, Mordin also quite correctly states, "It has always been true that the higher the weight a horse is being set to carry in a handicap race, the more likely it is to win."

Another factor is one that Daniel O'Sullivan alluded to and that is the affact of wide running. Horses running wide will cover more ground, thus using more energy. However those running wide when the pace is 'on' will use a greater level of energy than those running wide when the pace is 'off' and wide running is only of real importance around the turns and no so much when running down the straight.

Originally Posted by OzPunter

Can I ask what it was you measured with your tape? Was it the markings on the rails near the finish line, or a horse, or a photo of the finish like those in your links above?

The humans allocating the results use the rail markings as a guide I'm sure, but as La Mer correctly points out, they don't always get it right

Originally Posted by jfc

Fed up with trying to find a proper definition for length I trespassed onto a racetrack and measured the markings on the finish line rails.

Ken Callender once waffled on about how meticulous the false rail track re-measurement is, so I figure that it's relatively easy to get the length markings right.

Given that the metric system is relatively recent, maybe that marking was really 10 feet instead of 3 metres (which is only 9.84 feet).