calling the time boys

Anyone still confusing record times with 'time performances' after all that's been written and said on the subject only tells me they've failed to grasp the entire subject

Andrew, the rocket scientist, and I write literally, must be a mug who doesn't understand the physics of the speed.

out of interest and I guess some relevance, what is your vocation Figgis?

and of course its not just record times that indicate that "speed, times etc" is a mugs approach, it is the blindingly obvious false run 2000G this year that Howellsy used a basis to price up the irish equivalent at 4/7 the field.

end of thread

I'm not sure exactly what people who decry speed handicapping think it is? Or, more curiously, if they think they have a superior method to it, why would they care? From some of the comments I read it appears they think there's some kind of set formula that time analysts work to and they (should) all come up with the same results. When the reality is it is just a set of tools to use and like any form of handicapping the results depend on the interpretations of the user. This is no different than so called 'trip handicappers' coming up with different interpretations of a race result, some of them being rubbish.

At some stage everyone using any kind of handicapping method will come up with a garbage interpretation. I read Timeform have this year's Queen Anne as the fastest 'time performance' since Frankel. I have it the slowest. One of us has come up with garbage. There is also some kind of absurd criticism that if the horse put forward as running the fastest last time doesn't always run the fastest next time then the original analysis was wrong. This is just as stupid as expecting the best in any sporting event last time to automatically be the best in the next.

how would time figure analysis work in athletics? Mo not in the top 10 timewise yet he whips them every time.

Well, I imagine anyone with any ounce of sense would work on the knowledge that the races weren't all run as fast as they could have been from start to finish. Just as the people analysing long distance horse racing events do. However, I'll leave that to those interested in compiling speed figures for long distance athletes, if such people exist, I'll stick to what I know

Charlton, I remain very keen to hear a pre-race opinion from you. Any race, any time.

If you look at the 2,000 Guineas thread Charlton was adamant that Magna Grecia had fluked the Guineas by being on the golden highway and that he would get stuffed in the Irish Guineas.

he knows that only too well uncle

1515 Windsor junius brutus 9/1 365 likely to start shorter and likely to at least make the first 3 gl if you play

I'm happy to accept that Charlton opposed MG in the Irish 2000, but the nature of his involvement wasn't made clear. Was it a lay at 7-4? I'm also able to accept getting it wrong, and to congratulate other punters who read the race better than me. However, there are 3 points that need making. Firstly, I'm not a speed figures punter. I calculate speed figures, sure, but I'm aware of my limitations in doing so, and I very rarely, if ever, bet purely on the basis of a speed figure. Secondly, we still don't have conclusive proof that MG was flattered in the Guineas. Skardu was beaten further that day than in his 2 subsequent runs, for example, and the pair against whom MG ran have not raced since. However, we do know that in the Free Handicap Shine So Bright gave an 8lb+ beating to Space Traveller, who won the Jersey, so I suspect Balding's colt is a pretty classy horse who probably set strong fractions on the day but didn't see out the mile. Thirdly, I don't like Charlton's snide, superior, vindictive attitude. His aim appears not to discuss races in advance but to ridicule others on very limited evidence. Let's say I got the Irish Guineas wrong. I certainly lost money on it. That makes me a mug, someone who clearly has no grasp of the game. Reading between the lines, Charlton once had dreams of being a top athlete but fell short. No shame in that, but I'd rather you didn't take your frustration out on the rest of us.

Interesting shout at Windsor, Charlton.
Junius Brutus: ran well in Windsor Castle but best runs at 6f after, including a comfortable win at Ripon which showed he had tactical speed and which looked Listed class. I gave it a speed figure equating to a 99 rating, suggesting he was perhaps just shy of Listed class. However, he improved by 4 pounds on that on my figures when again showing good speed in a group 3 at Kempton where he comfortably beat the group 2 placed Konchek (regressive since). You'd have to argue he was well worth his 100 rating at the time. He has since been thrashed three times but his mark has decreased by only 3lbs. However, his last run was better than it looked, racing on arguably an unfavoured strip at Newbury and comfortably beating the quartet that tracked him. Looked as though a return to 5f might help, as he was up with the speed throughout and faded inside the last. It was also his first run at 3. He's not a big horse and might not have trained on, but his family offer some encouragement on that score.
Today's rivals:
More Than Likely looks outclassed and hasn't been winning races or going especially close. Has hung under pressure over 5f, and never won at trip.
Kinks hasn't won in 14 starts since last April and looks unlikely to have the speed to thrive over the sharp 5 on fast ground today.
Swiss Air is unexposed and could easily be better than her rating of 80, but she hasn't run since August, when she was similarly disadvantaged by the draw at Newbury and can be rated better than the bare form. Possibly a Listed class filly but hard to know what to expect today.
Amplify ran a cracker on debut over 5 last year and then was mystifyingly not tried over 5f again but was unhelpfully thrown into a group 2 next start. He finally got off the mark lto in a poor 6f maiden and has had a month off since which is hardly encouraging. Could be a pace rival to Junius Brutus.

Verdict: Junius Brutus may not have trained on but even on the strength of his Newbury run I'd expect him to beat Kinks and More than Likely in principle, and on the basis of his Newbury run, we could argue he's retained enough ability to be very competitive against the other pair in the lowest grade he's contested for more than a year. My worry would be a pace duel with Amplify, and that Swiss Air might pick up the pieces. I don't like laying lto winners but the bet might be to lay Amplify on the basis that there'll be a speed duel with JB which Amplify won't survive.
Let's see what the market does. If Amplify shortens to 6-4, I'll be tempted to lay.

Good call Charlton. JB was the value as you identified.

thx Howellsy. I'll tone down the attitude. swam as a kid. had absolutely no dreams of being good. stopped at 16. took it up again at 22 and was world ranked in my event at 26. so actually the opposite of what you thought. I went far further than I ever thought I would and happily gave up at 27 when I didn't improve from the season before.

So he was right then?

q

Charlton,

The opening line in your original post is untrue, you have misinterpreted my response to Mart (Burkey) and my words were never intended as you imply, even though i appreciate you may have posted in jest.

Mart has often posted that 8/10 races are won by the fastest horses, this is cobblers of course and i’ve mentioned this to him several times.

When he stated that XXXXXX had just broken the track record at Hamilton, i was almost expecting the next post to be along the lines of Group class next time out. Hence my response - and that tells you all you need to know about speed, times etc. A 5 year old sprinter rated 75 breaking the course record.

Race winning times are useful to know, but not the be all and end all anyway, sectionals provide a much better picture. A typical example of this was in the opening race at Newmarket on Saturday when Mart posted that Summer Romance was a good lay because the winning time LTO was slow, the latter part is true, but what he obviously didn’t know was that her last two furlong sectionals were very good. Slow winning time/fast sectionals. She won impressively by 6L on Saturday.

Apologies for my presumption Charlton. You obviously got to a high level. I never even made the school team - at anything.

lets start afresh Howellsy, it is me who should apologise, for as you pointed out, a bad attitude.

Andrew, it was partly in jest but I shouldn't have said it anyway.

Charlton,

No worries and thank you. Good luck.

Charlton2005
Date Joined: 25 Aug 05
Add contact | Send message
28 Jun 19 07:21
Joined: 25 Aug 05 | Topic/replies: 7,467 | Blogger: Charlton2005's blog
out of interest and I guess some relevance, what is your vocation Figgis?

ttt

i done a bit of work on times last season on the AW during dec/jan and lets just say i was very pleased with the results the strike rate for next time out winners was very high and the prices good too, all races were my own interpretation of what was a good race time-wise, some very interesting unexpected things
learned.