Goodnight figgis,the eyes closing,will discuss tomorrow night(after work)

how many lengths would separate the different class's IYO lets say from class 6 to 5 ect (have you got a standard) this might sound like a stupid question.

understand, always check the results page and thats where will usually find lots of my notebooks, horses that im interested
in for future races, so sometimes when see a horse has won by 3 lengths, take this as a good sign. normally would count 3 lengths per class, basically thats 3 lengths can be equal to a horse moving up from class 6 to winning a class 5. not any real evidence to
support my theory. just something came up with myself. would be unable to do the speed figures, find it to be quiet daunting
from a beginners perspective, and seeing as dont normally watch racing, would be impossible. thanks for answer.

if Horse A travels the first 2 furlongs in 25 secs on one side of the track and Horse B travels the first 2 furlongs in 25.5 secs does that tell you Horse A is travelling faster or is in fact on faster ground?

Brig, as you say, if they are wide apart on ground with a bias, who knows the answer. But more normally, sectionals can tell you if they went fast or slow at the beginning... accelerated or decelerated at the finish.

They have debunked one of the biggest myths in racing that horses "quicken" at the finish. Sandown would know better and obviously have to account for the uphill nature of the final furlong at plenty of race tracks, but would estimate that 90%+ of winners (let alone the beaten rags) are slowing down in the final furlong, not "quickening" or accelerating.

Analysed correctly, sectionals (and correctly produced final time figures) can give you a vastly different understanding of two races full of 2yo newcomers at different tracks run on the same day.

Some may have thought Telescope produced a Group 1 winning timefigure when winning at Leicester by 24 lengths. It was actually no more than Group 3 level at best, but you could understand how easily it might be to be misled on "form". Or when another Stoute inmate, Radiator, won by 15 lengths at Lingfield last Sept with Cumani / Gosden / Hannon / Johnston fillies back in the places, the first reaction was she must be Group 1 class too (and made 11/10 fav next time against Miss France). The actual timefigure was nothing more than Listed / Grp 3 at best that day. I think both went short in future antepost markets including the Arc and 1000 Guineas when in fact they still had plenty to prove.

In contrast, when Kingman won by 7 lengths on debut, he produced a timefigure that showed he was already Group 1 class even though he had only run in a maiden against unproven or unknown opposition.

So timefigures can indeed sort the wheat from the chaff, which is sometimes just not possible with the naked eye.

Ped my point about the sectionals in the 2000 Gns was because there were no other races on that part of the course to compare them with.
You suggest it tells where the speed was used but it doesn't tell you how much speed only by comparison with other horses in the race so  no external comparison can support that.

Your point about horses running slower at the end of the race far from proven imo. The reasons being a) the horse may have already won the race by then and b) as herd animals horses often refuse to run away from the herd something relayed as looking around when in front and c) as you said lots of racecourses have uphill finishes. I think the point is far from proven.

And my point about Kingman is that had he a known stamina problem (something not as yet proven) then his defeat in the Guineas would immediately have been for that reason but as it is assumed he stays then the winner has improved when indeed he may not have actually improved at all.

It seems like you are biased by your pre-Guineas bet/view on Aus, Brigust. There will be improvement for Aus, because he's special, but none for WC. . As I said 3 weeks before the race when you wrote-off every other horse in the race other than Aus & Kingman, I can't take your opinion seriously. It is too entrenched and ravelled up with the AOB's quotes. Good luck with that project!!

GOING: GOOD TO FIRM (Good in places; Overall 7.9, Stands' side 7.9, Centre 8.0, Far Side 7.7). Weather conditions: light cloud, bright spells, dry.
STALLS: Centre

Brig, as you say, if they are wide apart on ground with a bias, who knows the answer. But more normally, sectionals can tell you if they went fast or slow at the beginning... accelerated or decelerated at the finish.

They have debunked one of the biggest myths in racing that horses "quicken" at the finish. Sandown would know better and obviously have to account for the uphill nature of the final furlong at plenty of race tracks, but would estimate that 90%+ of winners (let alone the beaten rags) are slowing down in the final furlong, not "quickening" or accelerating.



people should take note of this

never a truer word said and this is found more especially in races well run and horses are tiring late...when viewing this race imo the speed horses payed for the pace ie noozah and toormore...toormore who i believe should get a lot more credit than some are giving him for trying to lay up with a decent grade sprinter on the far side...yes he wasn't good enough as i thought but was just taken out of his comfort zone and payed for that late, he deserves extra credit and at least a chance in future...i now like him more than i did before he lined up in the race

i'm not sure of the bias but what i am sure of as they went a decent pace and toormore payed for the pace he was being forced to go by a decent sprinter on the far side...yes he is a sprinter but carried the speed for along time before his stamina gave way

american racing on dirt point to tiring race horses late in races as american racing is generally run at speed which leads to horses slowing rapidly late on...sometimes though decent times are produced thus leading to people knowing they are dealing with class

anyway pedro a very good point for people in regards horses tiring late and are not quickening and final times analysis...i like the american view on speed biases and certainly track biases in which we over here have to deal with everyday...

anyway pedro a point i understand and a very good point for those that didn't know already...i tip my hat

Thanks for that Pedro, lets see how that works out over the weeks ahead.

Fig it may seem absurd but breaking things down often leads to answers. It may be that the stamina horses ran as follows Night of Thunder benefited from a prep run, Australia didn't benefit, Kingston Hill didn't benefit and Toormore ran to form. You will put your spin on things Fig and mine may be different. Currently I think the race was sprint as opposed to stamina based and those having had a prep run benefited from it.

I therefore totally disagree with Harry's race description saying the speed horses paid the price when in actual fact the speed horses finished 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th and the stamina hoses finished 1st, 3rd and 7th.

You will put your spin on things Fig

I'm putting no spin on it at all, as I said I'm taking it at face value.

Sorry I misunderstood your 'speed' angle. And sorry to you Fig I didn't mean 'spin' in a derogatory way just something we all do about our opinion and how we present it.

you will always get sprint types in the guineas brigust as you know...but it doesn't mean the race was falsely run which for me this race was not...with the sprinter leading and toormore trying to keep pace with him, both sides had speed to run at and the race was well run, it just wasn't a great race class wise as i thought pre-race however i do believe it to be a competitive renewal but with the class thing in my head the right horses back this up in regards to the winning distances and the amount of middling 115 horses finishing close up

australia was hardly hitting the line running on late and fast to say the race was sprint, he was flattening out imo and was not beaten by the lack of pace in the race, as i think he isn't short of speed, in fact i have reservations about him above 1m2f as think he isn't short of pace...of course he should get it on breeding but his run style says he isn't slow but i think he ran to his potential in the race

I know sprinters run in the 2000 Gns but how many times are they so dominant in numbers at the finishing end?

in regards the numbers could we not put this down to no outstanding colts in the race(bar kingman) and the improved winner?? that is where i am at until they prove me otherwise anyway

fair point in regards dominance but kingman isn't really a sprinter ie 6 furlong horse and the others were proven at 7 furlongs as well so not really sprinters as such...but they could prove to be sprinters in time, certainly the spanish horse anyway but not enough to conclude it was a sprint type race just for me lacked the quality in regards group 1 horses and proven ones in regards form

I can't.

Toormore flopped.
War Command flopped.
Australia disappointing.

Poor race for all the hype beforehand.

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/racing/aidan-o-brien-believes-australia-to-be-the-best-epsom-derby-prospect-he-has-ever-had-1.1792536

War Command wearing blinkers next time.

With Australia and Kingston Hill dominating the Derby and The Grey Gatsby winning in France this looks like a very good Guineas.