The mysterious case of Harbingers timefigure

Interesting theory! My feeling is that it was too good to be true and that he'll get found out
in the Arc. Oh, hang on a minute! Its shaping up to be probably the worst Arc in years!
So perhaps he will win! Would love to see Snow Fairy take her chance myself.

Timeform overrating a wide margin winner? Has that ever happened before?

From the purple place yesterday:


BaronBigBucks     
   
    Posted Yesterday @ 23:28   


Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 20:43:23
Posts: 494, Visits: 454
   
After some considerable digging into the meeting on my return from work this evening, I can confirm (as long as all the factual evidence I have is pretty accurate) that
BIG H
is the real deal.

The ground at Ascot was fast imo and most defo firm ground. This means that the figure I have awarded Harbi is as low as I feel I can award him! Even so, the figure dwarfs anything that I have given any other Group 1 winner, to allow for the official 'Good, Good to Firm' in places would be farcical. BELIEVE what you saw with your own eyes! The other horses didn't run badly, they were just totally eclipsed by the most devestating performance that I have witnessed, and that includes the vanishing horse at Epsom. THE KING IS DEAD, LONG LIVE THE KING! A figure of 103+p confirms it for me and Sea The Stars wouldn't have been close enough to smell Harbi's flatulence in running! I must emphasise however, the figure is based on the cicumstances he faced at Ascot yesterday.

The fact he considered the ground FIRM tells you all you need to know about this gonzo.

Roger, what do you believe the going was at Ascot on Saturday?

< Somehow, Harbinger has been given a further 9lb putting him on 131. Its quite possible to argue reasonably for a figure 20lb lower > (Sandown)

Tell me Sandown, how can you possibly argue reasonably that Harbinger's figure could be 111? Given the horse won the KG by 11L and broke the track record in the process, do you not think 111 would not only be inaccurate, but also insulting to the run?!!

One of the most ridiculous comments I've ever read on the forum...and that's saying something!

the thing that puzzles me about the race is that how every runner except the winner struggled to pass a 250/1 pacemaker.

The times indicate the ground was Good.

Sandown
I don't know what scale the Post use for their figures but in your example of the difference between these 2 races you appear to be using around 7.5lbs per second, not everybody would use such a low rate.

Roger, if you believe the ground was no firmer than good, then how do you explain the track record, given that you don't believe it was an outstanding performance?

theres only been two Group 1 races run over 12f on Good or faster ground since the new track came into effect that Im aware of.

I noted when Bronze cannon recorded a fast time over 12f in 09 at the royal ascot meeting on the saturday that topspeed had given the round course as being 0.2s per furlong quicker than the straight track due to slowish times in the shorter races.

now they have given some high ratings for the both the 12f races on saturday compared to pretty ordinary ratings for those races run on the straight track. so why have they decided to give the same allowance this time and not last time?

Yes but you don't necessarily need lots of Group 1 races over a certain distance in order to establish accurate standards (especially for a top course like Ascot) and Saturday's time was well under standard.

also could the ground have been quickening up by quite a bit throughout the day. I notice the going stick readings for the round course went from 8.5 on the saturday to 9.3 on the sunday.

Thats why they should give a stick reading after the last Stevie

Looking back, the ground was good or firmer in 06, 08, 09 as well as this year. It was described as good to soft on the round course in 07 but was just the slow side of good using times as a guide.

the average Group1 is 3.5 seconds faster than standard anyway. Raceform had the KG 5.72 secs faster than their median time. I had it 5.10 secs faster. Ive just notided Raceform have changed his SF from a 122 to a 120. Theyve changed their going allowance in line to what I said. Good ground. They actually had the ground softer, at +0.08 secs/furlong but changed it to +0.03. I had it at +0.02 straight after the last race was run.

I can't really take Raceform's seriously anymore as weight is a non factor for them.

Also the idea of taking "median" times and using them as accurate standards is flawed.

maybe a few lite readings throughout the day zil.

getting back to comparing the yashrid race with the KG, how important is the time comparison between the 2?

If you transferred Yashrid's performance into the KG then he'd have probably been some way off the pace and stayed on to finish 4 lengths behind the pacemaker.

now people knock using horses like youmzain and daryakana to rate the race but seem happy to use a horse that ran in a race an hour later who would not have been in the race at any stage if he had run.

you dont agree with Raceform and Nick Mordin that taking a median time is more accurate than taking an average time? Or do you believe there's a more accurate way of establishing standard times?

the lay preacher, Confront is no bog standard pacemaker. Given his very best form fell short of being able to challenge the others, & the fact he was most unlikely to run nr to that level anyway over 12f, 250/1 represented his chance. Though his recent form hasn't been in keeping with his best form, his two previous runs at Ascot have resulted in an impressive 7f win on only his second ever run (RPR112), & a 1/2L second (RPR119) to Aqlaam this time last yr in the Summer Mile with Imbongi 1/2L 3rd and 5L back to Dream Eater. Confront has also won a 9f Newmarket h'cap off 105 (RPR 116). He is no mug whatsoever. Coming round the bend he was pushed along and all the horses behind were asked to quicken, with Cape Blanco 3 horses wide and others even wider. By the 2f pole Confront had been headed by CB and Harbinger and by the 1f pole he was last & weakening away, being btn over 11L by Cape Blanco in 2nd. It is no big surprise that his miler pace was enough to keep 12f horses at bay until 2.5 furlongs out, before his exertions told. He's one to keep an eye on tho if returning to Ascot again over a more suitable 8f trip, as the course seems to suit - he certainly won't be 250/1!!

Stevie Gerrard Joined: 06 Dec 01
Replies: 969 26 Jul 10 23:33   


I noted when Bronze cannon recorded a fast time over 12f in 09 at the royal ascot meeting on the saturday that topspeed had given the round course as being 0.2s per furlong quicker than the straight track due to slowish times in the shorter races.

now they have given some high ratings for the both the 12f races on saturday compared to pretty ordinary ratings for those races run on the straight track. so why have they decided to give the same allowance this time and not last time?

Stevie, yeah that was one of the few occasions in recent times where the round course was most definitely quicker than the straight. In my view to do the same for Saturday's card would be just sheer bloody mindedness of not wanting to believe Harbinger put up a very good performance. Even using the same allowance it still means that the KG opposition all ran below their best to some degree.

As pointed out by Figgis, an allowance of 7.58 lb/sec (41 lb/5.41 sec), as suggested by Sandown, would be well below what many people - including clearly Racing Post and Timeform - would use.

Roger De Bris Joined: 27 Dec 08
Replies: 945 26 Jul 10 23:59   


you dont agree with Raceform and Nick Mordin that taking a median time is more accurate than taking an average time? Or do you believe there's a more accurate way of establishing standard times?

Sometimes they might work and they can be used as a starting point but that's all. They need to be tweaked in line with what we know about the abilities of the horses, it's a tedious business.

Here is my opinion. 6 runner race. Harbinger runs the race of his life. Confront used as a pacemaker so no chance of staying or playing a part in final parts of race. Cape Blanco ran his race. Now that leaves 3 horses. I think it is quite possible that all three Workforce, Daryakana and Youmzain all performed well below their normal runs. I don't think any of them would have beaten Harbinger BUT... When there are only 5 horses seriously taking part in a group 1 it is open to this kind of thing happening. The Harbinger performance was amazing but because the three horses underperformed it looks too good to be true. It's a shame really as I think Harbinger would have got a lot more praise if he had been battled by 2 or 3 horses and gone on to win than just demolishing what in the end looked a poor field.

I think Harbinger is rated slightly too high. I think 128-129 would be fair

You could be right masterminded, im sure you can think of another horse that was slightly over rated for a wide margin victory [;)]

i dont think you are too far of the mark masterminded .
also cape blanco had quite a hard race in the irish derby and that may have been a below par showing from him.

OK a lot of replies from many respected judges and a few comments needed.

Figgis/Prufrock
The lbs per sec ratio I use is not fixed but is variable and is a function of the final time & going allowance used. Faster speed and it increases, slower speed and it decreases. Similarly with the ground. Put another way, the faster you travel the more weight does not behave as a straight line function.

Figgis
Re. your comment about RF and weight. Whilst I would agree with you about the necessity of using weight carried there is also virtue in assessing purely the speed element. The equation used is after all a function of speed x weight. Many's the time I have seen that a horse's apparent improvement can be put down to its ability to carry weight well rather than go faster. This helps explain those cases where horses raised in class, and apparently well in, run down the field when faced with faster pace.

Biggie77
I pointed out that the case could be argued for 111 not that it was my opinion. I am loathe to put single figure up most times because no figure is ever right - its impossible to know - what we are looking for is the degree of possible error in the figure and when everyone agrees on something it is important to question that view and for that you need to know what kind of range of error is possible. Most ridiculous comment? Possibly

stevie g

Races run by lower class horses are critical to race evaluation using times because they hold down the topside of other races run over the same C&D. For example, to get to 131 for Harbinger, they have had to raise Yashrid by 11lb plus raising 4 other horses ratings in a race which split times will show was unevenly paced and therefore unlikely to have led to a faster pace than the horses official rating would suggest. I believe that the RP worked down from the higher class race in this instance rather than from the lower class race in order to justify Harbingers rating.

I would agree sandown that the RP topspeed may have overrated both races, as neither race would have been run in ideal fractions to create the fastest time possible as Roger said on another thread the horses finished slowly in the KG.

So is the final time an accurate guide to how good the race was?

What we do know is that 6 horses contested the KG and it was a good enough test and 1 horse, Harbinger, came out well on top and whilst I don't think Youmzain ran anywhere near his arc form, I;m quite happy that Cape Blanco has run close to his irish derby run.

stevie G
I;m quite happy that Cape Blanco has run close to his irish derby run.

How do you know? What gives you confidence? The evidence put forward against is that he was emptying over the last 2f & when they do that they can be someway off their best.

I tend to agree with Sandown; Generally it easy to be confident of speed figures for races up to a mile. But it is hard to have much faith in figures for longer races, unless there are a large number of races run on the round course over long distances (so that you will get at least one true run race in which several horses ran to their level). Just 2 races (at the long distance) of 1m 4f is not enough to base such a high speed figure on.

Sandown Joined: 06 Dec 01
Replies: 269 27 Jul 10 10:03   


stevie g

Races run by lower class horses are critical to race evaluation using times because they hold down the topside of other races run over the same C&D. For example, to get to 131 for Harbinger, they have had to raise Yashrid by 11lb plus raising 4 other horses

That's just RP figures though, my own sit comfortably with Harbinger running a big figure and Yashrid running below his best due to the pace. Prufrock and Timeform also seem to be in agreement with this. I would say this is more of a reflection of RP figures than Harbinger's performance.

From the purple place

BaronBigBucks     
   
    Posted Today @ 11:28   


Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 11:59:06
Posts: 502, Visits: 462
   
Owing to doubts raised by others over my speed figure assessments for Ascot on Saturday, I decided to go back over that meet and a number of others to see if I had been doing it all wrong for the last 20 years. I think this was mainly prompted by my good friend Fastbearform from the blue forum telling me that Roger De Bris had called me a 'gonzo' for saying the ground must have been firm.

I can now confirm that despite Roger's concerns, that I am correct in my assessments and that he is a total 'Turpin'.

sandown, what I am saying is that they have all had to cope with demands of the race, CB may not have been finishing strongly but he is still holding the rest of the field at bay.

Harbinger has raced pretty close to CB throughout and he has pulled well clear. therefore I believe Harbinger is worthy of his 11 length victory.

After completing several number crunching excercises.The conclusion is the  KG  performance Top notch, Canisbay Bloodstock handicap performance  nothing to shout about.

figgis, empty.

without giving too much away, I'd be interested to read how you come to your conclusions and what sort of calculations you use and how they differ from the way the RP do it. thanks

Stevie


Time is used to come to the conclusion and for the sort of calculations i use go to S Rowlands blog, his time analysis stuff may be still there, if not i'm sure Simon will sort you out being a nice bloke n aall

Stevie, I'm not exactly sure how the RP do theirs these days but looking at the example given by Sandown of those two 12f races, the RP's difference between them is pretty similar to mine. I'd guess the problem is probably that the RP have underrated those handicappers previously?

thanks empty, yes I think I have seen a link earlier posted by mr rowlands. will have a look

Well if I'm a "Turnip", what does that make Raceform, the official BHA Form Book? They have it softer than I had at Ascot...and what about The Racing Post, Going: GOOD (~0.03 secs per furlong). Another Turnip no doubt. All 3 time agencies saying the ground is Good. Sure what would we know. The ground was FIRM, the vast majority of times on the day were all way faster than the Class Pars....

We may have different ways of calculating time ratings so there will be differences of opinion. But one thing that we can all agree on is that the 12f h/c run over the same trip on the same day is a key race. First youhave to decide how to deal with it i.e. is it likely to have been run to a time rating equal to its handicap mark? given that it was ruin at an even pace one must err on the side of caution with it.

That rating will have a bearing on how you treat the KG and is more reliable than making a subjective judgement on which horses within the KG may or may not have run to form although sectionals can give guidance.

On that basis I cannot agree with the RP Topspeed figure.

Many races are rated where the time rating is below the collateral form rating so there is nothing unusual in that. However, the greater the difference the more caution one needs to apply to the collateral figure.

When any race is won by as far as 11L there is usually a good reason for it. At any level it is important to consider other factors before and at G1 level it is very unusual. This again should lead to one being cautious.

As I've said previously, I consider it on time to be very similar to his Hardwicke run and for that reason talk of 142 is moonshine.

uneven not even pace

The problems with the main time agencies is that they are scared of looking like idiots, so they stick to the 'norm'.

The problem is this time, if the ground really was only good, then Harbinger has to be even better than the high 130's that most clock people are saying.

I'm obviously a big fan of Harbinger but I have to disagree with what he says there about STS simply because of the wfa scale, which becomes very favourable to precocious/above average 3yos. I've yet to see a 4yo or above that can run 12lbs better (in a truly run race) than the kind of mark STS (or other exceptional 3yos) ran to. Personally though I think it's still absurd that we have wfa in Group 1 races, meaning the best horse doesn't always win what is supposed to be a championship event. The sport would be enhanced if this archaic method of framing the best races was scrapped, but that's another argument [:x]

Sandown, he ran a huge figure in the Hardwicke though.

According to my crunching  Harbingers Hardwicke performance was nothing to shout about unlike his KG performance


If Hardwicke were a Top notcher, If Cape Blanco had put in a Top notcher,  Workforce wo not have been price he was.

Thats imho of course

Round course was significantly slower on Hardwicke day Empty.

For the ground to be FIRM, ~0.40 seconds per furlong or faster, the raw figures would have to be 16 points faster than the Class Pars. Which wasnt the case.

Roger, anybody using "median" times in place of standards for 4 years data at Ascot, apart from other errors, will end up with inaccurate yardstick times for the round course, as more often than not it has been slower.

Don't know whether it was or not Figgis as my analysis is of Hardwicke performance and not  interested in other days at Ascot mate.

Using median times as opposed to average times has been proven to be more accurate as written in "Mordin On Time".