Horse Antepost
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
In compiling my speed ratings for the five days of Royal Ascot, separating the round course races from the straight course races, these are my going allowances for the five days in seconds per mile:-
Straight Course -5.2, -6.1, -5.6, -4.0, -5.6
Round Course -5.2, -6.1, -4.7, -6.3, -5.0
I made the allowances the same on the first two days for both the round and straight course, there were only 2 races on the Tuesday and 1 race on the Wednesday to use but had no reason to give differing allowances taking into account that the SJP was slow early on. The Thursday was slightly faster on the straight course than the round but vice versa on the Friday .... I don't know whether wind had a bearing on this but on the Saturday the goings reverted to similar readings as the Thursday. I wonder if any other speed figures people had similar findings
Straight Course -5.2, -6.1, -5.6, -4.0, -5.6
Round Course -5.2, -6.1, -4.7, -6.3, -5.0
I made the allowances the same on the first two days for both the round and straight course, there were only 2 races on the Tuesday and 1 race on the Wednesday to use but had no reason to give differing allowances taking into account that the SJP was slow early on. The Thursday was slightly faster on the straight course than the round but vice versa on the Friday .... I don't know whether wind had a bearing on this but on the Saturday the goings reverted to similar readings as the Thursday. I wonder if any other speed figures people had similar findings
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 45
|
By:
not wind, just read they put 4mm of water on straight course ( not round)between Thurs and Fri which would explain slightly slower straight course races on Friday compared to the other days
|
|
By:
Mine for what its worth
Straight -2.0 -2.8 -2.0 -0.9 -1.5 Round -2.0 -2.8 -1.2 -1.7 -1.5 Apart from working on a different scale they are similar apart from you have a quicker round course allowance for Friday and have the Straight course quicker yesterday. |
|
By:
Interesting to see another take on it China Castle, Fridays round course is the largest disparity between our ratings .... having looked at my ratings workings again I could at a push give the Queens Vase and KE VII the benefit of doubt as to both races being run above their class but it doesn't help that the Coronation was falsely run - I don't like going back and changing them too much though as I like to keep my analysis constant but maybe I could be a bit more flexible where 3yo's over longer distances in top races are concerned at this time of the year. Looking at Saturdays straight course races it all depends on whether you consider the Wokingham to be well above class and take the Di. Jub. as par for the class, the trouble is that the Wokingham explores the whole of the track with a lot more runners and therefore effectively has more stabs at the dartboard for even paced peformances, I've rated the Going allowance around 3½ lengths better than the Wokingham par and the DJ being 0.6 secs slower than a normal running.
|
|
By:
I'm absolutely positive conditions were quicker for the Wokingham than the DJ, the same as they were for the Windsor Castle compared to the King's Stand. I don't believe the differences can be justified by sectionals, that they either went too slow or too fast in the Gp1s. For those who might disagree that conditions were quicker, the only other explanation is that the Wokingham runners were better than the DJ runners, certainly not for me, and I'll look forward to taking on any of those horses if they're entered in Gp1s in future. I've also seen the view that Hootenanny would've gone close in the King's Stand even at level weights. While I'm sure he could at least go close in the Nunthorpe with the ridiculously generous wfa allowance, I'm simply not having that the Windsor Castle was as fast as the King's Stand unaided.
|
|
By:
how much do you think the ground quickened between 4.25 and 5.00 over the 5f on Saturday figgis?
|
|
By:
For Friday got the Queens Vase as average running , the King Edward VII was the quick time the other 2 slow especially the Coronation.
For Saturday got the DJ as almost a second slow and the Wokingham just above par , the Chesham spot on par. On Tuesday got the Windsor Castle as quick and Kings Stand as Slow , Coventry spot on par. On Wednesday got Jersey as quick and Hunt Cup as slow. Thursday had a lot of par times. Must admit there will be better SR experts as I don't use sectionals preferring to use my time on other factors. |
|
By:
Grendel, over the 6f it could easily quicken by around .10 sec per fur in that time on a hot day. If you look at times during hot summer meetings down the years there are a great many examples of faster times later on in the afternoon and horses getting overrated, or the earlier runners getting underrated. I'd say it was probable the ground had quickened but it could just as easily be due to wind difference, in my view it doesn't take strong winds to change an allowance by around 10lbs, just a small change in strength or direction will do it. Just my opinion, I'm hoping it's one most people don't share as like I say I look forward to opposing the Wokingham runners in the best class.
|
|
By:
Wasn't the ground slower on the far side so accounting for the Wokingham being slightly quicker ?
Glen Moss, first home on the far side, would have clocked about 0.5 sec slower than Slade Power which is about what you would expect. Professor being slightly faster than Due Diligence down the middle is surely because DD had nothing to race with and then got slightly hampered. |
|
By:
That was a possibility, but I still couldn't give Professor the same going allowance as the DJ.
|
|
By:
It's an interesting theory figgis, not sure I subscribe to it but I certainly wouldn't rubbish it ... but it strikes me that if, as you believe, ground can change so quickly to affect times then it would make doing speed ratings using the same going allowance for a whole card futile and I shouldn't be able to produce speed ratings that I can make good money from, which I do
|
|
By:
No, not futile at all, just that strictly adhering to one allowance every time when it goes against all your better judgement isn't always the way to go, imo. It's a judgement call and it's introducing an extra complication, which can mean an extra something to get wrong. But I'd argue the most basic way of doing something isn't always the most accurate if the person knows what they're doing. People can make their own judgements, if one allowance fits all, then either the DJ was run very inefficiently by all the runners, or the runners were all poor, or the Wokingham contained Gp1 class horses. My view is one allowance doesn't fit all in this instance, the Gp1 was up to the usual standard and so was the Wokingham.
|
|
By:
There are also comparisons that can be made with other races on the card that give strong indications to changes in allowances, it's not just a case of putting an allowance on a horse because of preconceived ideas.
|
|
By:
Could it be nothing to do with anything other than a slightly cooler time of the day to run the race, if you go out running at 2 o'clock it's harder work than going out for a run at 5 o'clock and you'd probably be able to run a mile faster later in the afternoon than closer to midday
|
|
By:
Grendel, what's your opinion on the slight difference between the King's Stand time and the Windsor Castle? Do you think Hootenanny could really have got to within 1 1/2 lengths of Sole Power off level weights? If anyone believes that they'd also have to believe Union Rose would've finished within 5 lengths off level weights, just not plausible in my view.
|
|
By:
The King's Stand was in between the Coventry and the Windsor Castle, I rated the going allowance using both these races with the King's Stand ending up being about 0.6s slower than a normal Group 1 sprint ... In my view the King's Stand was run a little bit too fast early and they slowed up front close home making Sole Power's finish look more impressive than he normally does
|
|
By:
Sole Power finished pretty quick, though, it wasn't a case of him slowing past horses going even slower.
|
|
By:
I didn't say Sole Power was slowing but the horses he passed definitely were so they didn't run to what they're capable of given more of an even pace
|
|
By:
I thought it seemed very fairly run, if they did go too fast then Stepper Point must've done exceptionally well as he was disputing it from the start.
|
|
By:
Interesting discussion as we can compare 2 races over the same trip both on Sat and Tues, where it appears as though in each case the lower class race compared very favourably with the higher class race each time which needs explaining.
You can, of course, try and explain it by saying that the ground must have speeded up/slowed down between races, or that the wind changed, but I don't think that you have to look much further than the effect that different pace profile has had on each of the races. In fact, I consider that these races can be used as good examples for the future, demonstrating the very large effect that pace has on final times. In Hootenay's case, the pace was as good as even pace throughout with my pace figures for the first 4f/last 2f split being 78/74. Sole Power on the other hand posted figures of 68/94. Baccarat posted 88/86 whilst Slade Power posted 96/65. The difference between the 2 Power horses can clearly be seen . Sole Power came late and fast after being held up whilst Slade Power showed very fast early speed and paid for it at the end just hanging on. Both can be rated much higher because of this uneven distribution of pace. |
|
By:
Meant 3f/2f split for the 5f race & 4f/2f split for the 6f races.
|
|
By:
It wasn't such a blistering early pace as the Palace House Figgis and Stepper Point finished 1l behind Sole Power in that race after disputing the lead so it's not like it's something unprecedented from him. You may be right about the ground quickening on late afternoon cards but I struggle to think of any reason why it would and remain sceptical but open to be proved wrong ... I don't think it is provable though (nor disprovable as befits most non-existant theories)
|
|
By:
Sandown, you're only providing an explanation for the winning horses, it doesn't explain the beaten horses in the King's Stand running poorly in comparison to the 2yos. I'll stick with my own explanation.
|
|
By:
Anyway, enough from me on this, I'll leave you to it
 |
|
By:
So what about the Coventry Figgis, the first five home ran faster than the second in the Windsor Castle ... that was the first of the sprints to be run ... your explanation contradicts this
|
|
By:
Grendel, not for me, I have it as the worst Coventry I can remember for many years, and that is just using the same allowance as for the King's Stand.
|
|
By:
As usual, Figgis, we'll agree to disagree. You can take a horse to water etc...
|
|
By:
It seems to me figgis that you have pre conceived bias ideas about what ratings you should be arriving at that fits with what you previously had them rated at and then you fiddle the going allowances to fit your back ratings ... I think you're in cloud cuckoo land if you think fast ground can quicken a further 0.8 secs per mile in half an hour
|
|
By:
Grendel, I've just said I used the same allowance as for the King's Stand, which is the same allowance I've used for all races on the straight except for the last race. If you think the Coventry was very good future events will show who was living in cloud cuckoo land
|
|
By:
To be honest, if people have the utmost confidence in their own methods then I don't see why they get so wound up about other people's methods, or even ask for advice. I'm more interested in putting forward opinions on horses and races and seeing other people's views and their reasons for arriving at those opinions, I'm not really bothered about arguing over other people's methods.
|
|
By:
I couldn't give a monkeys about your methods, just your assertion about the ground quickening in a short time ... that's all, as no matter what methods you use, the veracity of that theory impacts my methods but you seem to have gone all harbinger of superior wisdom on us
|
|
By:
Nope, I just gave my view on those races and asked for an explanation of the results of using one allowance, it wasn't me that said anyone was fiddling allowances and living in cloud cuckoo land
|
|
By:
what do you guys think about slade powers performance compared to last years winner lethal force? visually not as convincing.
do you think there is any chance will get the sprint double at newmarket, not sure myself this year, unlike last years winner. |
|
By:
I said on here after last year's DJ I thought Lethal Force would follow up in the July Cup, and he was a very generous price on the day. I'm not so sure about SP and wouldn't take a short price about him doing so. It's not that he hasn't the ability, he has, it's just I'm not too sure if he'll go on from Saturday's race. The second could improve again but also looked to have a hard race. It's not a race I'd take a strong view on at this stage, maybe on the day.
|
|
By:
for what it is worth i thought both grade 1 sprints looked pretty average renewals class wise - although slade power is starting to back up his promise, he for me is a better horse with cut... the race itself lacked any really decent sprinters and this is backed up by due dilligence and music master proximity although some would say they improved i didn't think so and just backed upped earlier promise...the times were quick all weak but this race was not really imo even allowing for the horses going far side
i would say slade power ran as well as he did in the july cup last year but no better, in fact i have cropped him a tad as really thought this wasn't a good race for the grade... sole power for me won a poorer renewal than he did the previous season but still continues in good heart on his favoured surface but with shea shea regressing now this race again lacked any real improvers and was just an average race on paper the worse race of the weak for me was the chesham...a glorified maiden imo i tend to agree with figgis in regards the coventry it really was a poor race which is a shame as that is 2 in 2 years although i do believe the winner will be a nice horse when he encounters ground with cut...the rest were an average bunch |
|
By:
anyone notice how much faster the times were on the unwatered ground on the wednesday compared with the other days??
|
|
By:
Yes, harry, Wednesday was definitely the quickest, although I see Raceform have Thursday the fastest on the straight, followed by Saturday, which is difficult to fathom.
|
|
By:
It's amazing the disparity between RP standards and raceform median times in relation to the 5f and 6f races at Ascot. RP have a 1 second faster standard than raceform over the 5f trip but 2.1 seconds faster over 6f, this equates to a 1.2 secs per mile differential in the relationship between each publications 5f and 6f races. I used to use racing post standards but have switched to raceform this season after over 20 years of using RP which means this year I will rating The Coventry higher than previous years in relation to the King's Stand if their standards were constant.
|
|
By:
In my view, median times are open to far more failings than standard times. I don't know what RP standards are like now but going off that information the RP version for those distances looks far more on the ball than Raceform.
|
|
By:
so you reckon I should revert to RP standards despite them being in 0.5 sec increments Fig?
|