Two comments i found interesting today.

What Steve Dennis knows about racing could be written on the back of a postage stamp.

I couldn't comment on Steve Dennis FB, but coming from people who write and talk  about horse racing they are interesting comments i think and thought they may make an interesting topic for discussion.

never heard so much rubbish, as horses run a certain distance in a certain time , so how can it mean nothing, its all the other factors that  need be added to it that matter though,but to say it means nothing is  simply crazy.

I think Workforce's performance in the KG, tells you all you need to about the importance of times...

i dont agree, i think workpieces form in kg proved that the derby took alot out of him, and running so fast as a three year old can finish you

Please explain your comment S&C.

he dosnt need to wxsplane, its cklear what he means, but if you go by times workforce should have been about 5 lengths behind harbingetr in kg

I think he does, hence my reply.

Just stimulating some debate

i just answered it for you, he is saying workforce didnt run to his time, but racing is not that simple

BTW guys, can we try to not turn thread into another KG thread.

I really interested in what people think about the comments in OP

look , his opinion is nonsense full stop , im trying to tell you that,if you run a race the first thing to wonder about is the ground, if it is fast times matter alot,the slower the ground gets the less it matters, as now the horses will all struggle , so its more about getting home, and acting on the ground which is mainly breeding,

Isn't the time a horse runs too dependent on ground conditions and the pace the race is run at?

Look, i want S&C to explain his comments OK.

...very difficult to interpret therefore what relevance the time is as an indication of merit therefore?

As already stated I would put no store in anything Dennis says. He seems to fancy himself as a comedian. He doesn't have to try hard.
I'm no great follower of times but they do give a guide. Poor horses don't run fast times.
I'm surprised Selby said it as his expertise is supposed to be US racing where they put great store on times both in races and in training. Perhaps he just wanted to get the wisecrack in.

S&C


What is Pace??

I was a tad surprised by Selby's comment too FB.

Fast pace = they're not messin about

Slow pace = they are messin about

Pace = rate of movement.


Race of movement can be measured by TIME as it is in US and other countries via Fractional time.

Race = Rate.

Sectional timing not readily accessible in UK racing? Also less relevant due to multitude of track layouts imo.

Fractional times added together = Final time

So, Final Time is the Pace from Point A to point B.

Can't argue with that logic....

I know

The problem with times is they're often difficult to interpret, but that's also one of the strengths of using them.
The subject of the draw bores me, so unsurprisingly I know very little about it, apart from the obvious biases. However, that doesn't mean I'd be foolish enough to dismiss it as irrelevant.

In what way are times difficult to interepret Figgis??

There is a slight truth about what Dennis says in that a horse can run in a slowly run race, come home in a slow final fraction, and just do enough to win. Example, Sea The Stars Derby win. Now if you didnt know about the Guineas win and his brilliance, youd look at the numbers and laugh, and say, is this the worst Derby winner of all-time? The thing I've found is that a lot of horses will only do enough to win, and if the pace is slow it's not their fault. Example number two High Resolutions two wins before last nights win. Until they race in a fast-run race you never know.

When that slow horse has to run fast against others, what do you think may happen to it??

Empty
Accurate standards to begin with. It's not as simple as just taking a bunch of times and averaging them or working out the median. Using accurate scales for converting seconds into pounds is also essential. It's important to be able to judge when a slow time is due to the pace of the race. The whole process hinges on being able to work out accurate allowances/variants. Again, this isn't as simple as adding all the race times up and getting an average. It's also not always as straight forward as using one allowance for the straight and one for the round course. It's also necessary to review past figures/allowances in light of recent results and not being afraid to admit when you got it wrong and making alterations.

Thanks Figgis


I just wasn't sure what you meant by your comment.


I think what you talking about is probably a topic all on it's own,

every horse is different, each one has a breaking point on different ground, different distances, different pace. The beauty of the game is predicting all this before it happens.

Phil Bull summed it up.

The time a horse can post tells you how bad it isn't not necessarily how good it is.

Usain Bolt. The fastest man who has ever lived. But it means nothing because the time he records in a race has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on his ability?

Times can be greatly affected in racing and this has to be taken in consideration but no horse in history has ever got around Epsom in the time Workforce did. To simply discard it would be beyond ignorant.

correct d.f.

Interesting comment from Bull


So did he think time could tell you a horses ability

dont some very average horses hold quite a few course records?

peter something...did'nt he hold 3 track sprint records recently..

But it means nothing because the time he records in a race has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on his ability?


But if he didn't run fast he would not be the fastest man who ever lived, so therefore TIME does have bearing on ability.

Masterminded
For me, there was an obvious problem in believing that Worforce's time (after allowing for conditions) was outstanding. Yes he finished clear but why did it take him so long to catch up with At First Sight? Moore really had to get to work. AFS hadn't looked particularly good before the Derby and he hasn't since. I couldn't agree with the Shergar comparisons made at the time. If Workforce had really run an exceptional time, then, against that type of field, he would've been cantering on the heels of those in front, just like Shergar was, or a bit like Harbinger in the KG.

Guys, if i may can i respectfully request we try to steer clear of specific races as i think these races have been done to death already and it is your thoughts on the comments in OP i'm interested in.

I think it's stupid to ignore times. You have to consider other factors but the horse that gets around fastest wins. It's just a fact there's no way you can argue about it.

the horse that gets around fastest wins.

So times do  have a bearing on ability and time does not only mean something when your serving it.

yes

If there are none believers out there, turn on ATR stateside and watch Time (Pace, rate of movement or whatever you want to call it)) have an impact on which horses win, finish 2nd,  3rd or last.

I think that Newton and Einstein both had something to say on the subject and it wasn't that time doesn't matter!

I did have a time for Trappe Shot, but of the rest,  the horse with the best TIME has just beaten those with inferior times

Time = Ability and it means a hell of a lot imho.

For me, the great mystery of horse racing is the relationship between speed and class. A horse's speed capability is highly sensitive to the horses it is running against. There is no such thing, in my opinion, as a meaningful 'handicap mark' or 'speed figure' for a horse in isolation. It all depends on the class of race. A horse rated 90 can win a 0-90 handicap much easier than he can win a 0-110. In the former race he might run a speed fig of 90. In the latter he would struggle to run to that figure. If allowed to run in a 0-80, he might run a speed figure of 100. I believe speed figures are a crucial skill to be able to create and / or to interpret. Phil Bull made 4 million quid in the 40s and 50s based on speed figures. That's evidence in itself that time matters. If it didn't, he'd have been a school teacher all his life.

A horse's speed capability is highly sensitive to the horses it is running against


An excellent comment Howellsy imho.

I personally think that times are most use when looking at form of 2yo's to assess the real value of a performance when there is little else to go on. The trouble with times is that courses so frequently water, change the running rails and therefore the exact distance of races - this makes comparisions fraught with damnger. The more helpful thing for race analysis would be split times, so you can really find out what had happened in a race. The split times for the King George would be very interesting this year, especially as some seem to think that Hrabinger only won as he did because some of the others sat a length or two closer to a fast pace.

I think time figures have a substantial part to play, but as they are quantitative, they must be compared to other figures to enable an accurate assessment.
A careful comparison of Derby day would have shown the Workforce time in its true light.
The Epsom Derby distance standard time is 155.5 seconds. Workforce’s time was 151.33, increasing to 152.89 for the going allowance of -0.13 secs. per furlong. This meant he took 98.32% of the standard time to win the race.
In the race before “The Dash”, Bertoliver an 83 rated sprinter won the race in 54.22 seconds; this was increased to 54.47 seconds after a going allowance of -.05 secs. per furlong. The standard time is 55.4 seconds. This meant he also took 98.32% of the standard time to win his race.
Was he compared to Workforce? I admit he was carrying 8 lbs less!
In a way Steve Dennis is correct, alone, the time a horse takes to win a race has no bearing, it must be compared to other known facts.

Probably the biggest heap of 5hit qoute fro Dennis, i have heard in a very long time.

Times are not are not as relevant as in something like athletics where the track is not really a variable and the distances measured properly. In horse racing the stalls and rails are moved about willy-nilly. Athletics would throw up some very strange times if they ran on grass and horse racing officials put in charge of the tracks.

bet slower horse every time ,  i'll  bet faster one


You'll be on Super Saver, First Dude, Mastercraftsman, Condiut, Twice over etc, i'll be on  Lookin at Lucky, Sea the Strs, Zenyatta

Tell that to Baddeley, the Brit 1500m favourite for gold. He could run the time that won the race in his sleep, but ended up finishing 6th, due to a slowly run race and poor tactics on his part. Even on a perfect surface, there are variables.

AS stated earlier, if your a non believer watch ATR Stateside.

Yes but in athletics the surface itself is not a variable or at least a tiny one. In horse racing the surface is a massive variable.

AT

Just trying to help, if you don't want to listen then thats up to you.

You can throw out 3/4 field on TIME alone.

If athletes ran on turf racecourses world records would be meaningless. Distances declared for races on UK racecourse are arbitrary - stalls are moved around, rails shifted, furlong poles littered like confetti. It's anyone guess what the real distance covered in say a "mile" race is - probably a margin of 50 yards either way in reailty.

I will repeat just for you AT as you don't seem to be listening. You can throw out 3/4 field on TIME alone

Las night in Haskell Time merchants had winner and  Exacta.

Zenyatta, Rip were the FASTEST horses in the Breders Cup Classicste, Zarkava, STS were FASTEST horse in ARC.


Got it??

New Approch, Sea the Stars, Authorized were  the FASTEST horses in the Derby.


Got it???

Having just read the Dennis blog, I kind of agree with what he's saying. Bare times alone tell us nothing about horses abilities (apart from the fact they act on fast ground), neither do course records.

US racing times are measured properly, tracks are flat and turn the same way and the surfaces more uniform.

In the UK the whole set-up of racing is so amateurish it beggars belief. Ok ff say a time is very slow (5+ seconds) on good ground then the form should be queastioned but if your making decisions based on a couple of seconds either way on races of a mile plus you're deluding yourself.

Yer Time merchants are deluding themselves alright


TIME + Abilty

TIME = Ability, ability = CLASS

A_T Joined: 27 Jan 06
Replies: 760 02 Aug 10 15:33   


US racing times are measured properly, tracks are flat and turn the same way and the surfaces more uniform

A_T, in the US the clock doesn't kick in when the starting gate opens and the run up to the beam varies at different tracks. The surface can change to a significant degree, just as it does here on all weather surfaces. Some of the more popular ways the Americans analyse times is also questionable.

Some races clock starts when gate opens, some have run up

US tracks are not ALL the same, Aqueduct INNER and Outer are totally different, Belmont is totally different to Gulstream and Hawthorne


The differences are taken into account by TIME/PACE handicappers.

Bare times alone tell us nothing about horses abilities


This is not correct.

How can a bare time tell us anything, without adjustments made for outside influences? And even then those adjustments depend on the ability of the person making them.

What does a bare time tell us?

Brigadier Gerard's King George win was relatively slow he must have been useless.

empty Joined: 14 Oct 04
Replies: 1706 02 Aug 10 15:55   


The differences are taken into account by TIME/PACE handicappers.

I believe Ragozin has always took weight into account, as have others like Fotias. However the more popular methods espoused by Beyer and Brohamer would have us believe that weight makes no difference, or that it's unquantifiable, many of us beg to differ.

If you want to disagree thats fine, but i do speak from experience of using these methodology's


Euqinine


Horse A 22 -46 - 70
Horse B 22.5 47. 71.5


What are the bare times telling you??

Sorry i'll do that again


22 - 46 - 70  1-1 1-1 1-1
22.5 - 47 - 71.5   1-1 1-1 1-1


What are the bare times telling you??

Empty,

I don't know if your above is for me.

Assuming it is they are telling me nothing as I have no idea what each means.

They tell me nothing without more evidence. Horse B may have been running on a track that was .25 sec per fur slower than horse A, then there's the weights carried and running style/jockey tactics.

If you can not see that one performance is better than other i give up.

So you're saying track conformation doesn't matter?

I am sorry but I have never seen time measured as "22 - 46 - 70  1-1 1-1 1-1".
What is this in seconds?
If you are including other factors, and the -46-70 etc. are other data then it is not a bare time.

where did i say that  Figgis


Gave you a simple demo. OPEM  YOUR EYES AND MIND.

Empty, simple being the operative word.

You can EASILY SEE that one performance is far superior to the other.

You can use Bare times to throw out runners, you can use bare times to find TRUE contenders


It's not rocket science.

good discussion but i personally never put alot of emphasis on times!!

i mean i think when a horse runs a fast time in says that the horse has put up a decent performance but the fastest time doesnt = the fastest horse as there are so many contributing factors i.e pace and ground conditions and that is the main reason i dont place as much emphasis on times but i do think they have a part to play and are  or course of some relevance to the race but i presonally think it just tells u how the race was run and under what conditions but thats just me!!

i dont agree with steves total disregard of them at all as that was an amazing performance from wf(even tho ive been against him ever since the run with the silly sts comparisons) but it was visually v impressive and i still think he could be a very good horse!he'll be a better 4 yr old like many of stoutes if he returns as a 4 yr old that is!

id be willing to give him another chance anyway on softer ground conditions!

Good fred imo.

empty, I'm interested in how you use bare times. Bare times can only take you so far, eg. I was doing my figures for last Wednesday's Redcar meeting earlier (been busy, I'm a bit behind! ) Bare times would suggest Rasselas ran considerably faster than Mr Chocolate Drop over the mile. But only after I considered the other races on the sprint course could I really get a decent handle on just how well Rasselas had run relative to the other races on the sprint course.

You can glean information from bare times but surely this will be limited?

You need the Fr1+ Fr2 + Fr3 info  Ricky as in the simple example i posted earlier.


Fractions/ Position.

Horse  A

23 - 46 -70  1-1 1-1 1-1

Horse B

22 - 45 - 70  1-1 1-1 1-1


One performance  superior to the other

Willo was doing some decent stuff on hadlyis blog on this topic, but people would sooner slag him rather than gain some education.

In his book Modern Pace Handicapping, Brohamer converts raw to Feet Per second, but  Match Up methodology is the same.

empty

I do take your points on time, having been an anorak in the past (not saying you are btw). Steve Dennis has said that time has no bearing on a horses ability, which as a sweeping statement is daft.

But your example above goes some way to validate his opinion, doesn't it? You have two events with the same "final" time but you claim one performance is superior to the other.

I am not trying to say black is white but you seem to have argued that time is of the essence and then produce an example which agrees with Dennis.

As you say, statement is daft

Put horse A aganst B, and he's around 5L down at Fr1 and Fr2


He now has to catch Horse B in Fr3

He can't, unless he either grows a pair of wings or  something happens to B like a breakdown, jock falls off or some other daft thing.



TIME telling you the ABILITY of each horse.

That is the Match Up

But empty, the final time tells you they are the same, only by comparing the pace can you discern any difference. And only if you have the time (in the UK that is) or the whole info would you know this.

So he's right??!!??

Horse A is an Early horse, Same Horse B


Horse A has to run quicker Early to stay with B, this will cost him in Fr3 as he decelerate quicker than previously



Horse B travels at same speed as A, horse B is conserving Energy that is used to see off A in Fr3


Watch KG (or any race) and watch Harbinger see off others -  similar effect taking place to the  above simplified examples.

the time a horse records in a race has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on its ability


Is he right on this - NO


Time = ability, ability = Class


Slow horses do not win the Top races, they win races that are being run today.

The same time in example shows the limitations of overall time analysis.

Quality Road, Zenyatta, Rachel Alexabdra, Harbinger, Sea The Stars have one thing in common.


They ALL recorded FAST times.

This is what the Top horse do, some do it and never repeat,  some like those above do it over and over again


Cream rising to the Top.

Anyway i hope you have enjoyed my rants


For a better education than i could ever give, but a copy of Modern Pace Handicapping and a Stopwatch


Good luck.