speed speed speed

[46zilzal]

Years ago I was in a wagering contest with a friend and he beat me race after race. The wagers were not large, mostly the fun $1.00 type but he instilled an idea which, to this day, UNTIL POLY takes over, still wins over and over: the majority of the race occurs up to the 2nd call. If you are not close, odds are that you are just not going to have enough, the rider cannot gauge enough and there is traffic up ahead.

I have seen entire meets where any horse not projected in the top 5 by the second call win less than 10%.....Those are the meets I want to follow.

The front end continues to be the place to put your wagers. The Poly at Woodbine has not changed that either no matter what the company putting it in has promised.

More Precisionist's, Creme Fraiche, 49er, Lady's Secret Balto Star, Spend A Buck, Lure etc.

[bobphilo]

Right 46, speed is king in North American dirt races. As someone who believes in science, this has always mystified me since the laws of physics say that the most efficient way to run a race on any surface is at an even pace. I know the traditionalists will disagree with me, but I believe this has more to do with the way races are run than with the characteristics of the surface. Jockeys believe the idea of a dirt speed bias and ride accordingly. If a horse is far of the early pace, its not usually because he is a good horse being rated but because he is simply too slow to keep up. Slow horses win few races and so the belief in a speed bias becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Interestingly, one sees the same phenomena in reverse in European turf racing.

From a betting point of view, it matters little whether the cause is due to the surface or a result of strategy – in N. American dirt races, most winners come from near the lead.



Bob

[kenwoodallpromos]

If you are right (or if 46 is either!) a great deal of a horse's finish position depends of energy lost by competitors relative to your horse.
Are the best jockeys also the best at determining thiers and competitors' energy level?

[Overlay]

To me, it's not just a question of energy distribution, or the effects of a horse getting dirt thrown at it. Come-from-behind horses also have to depend more on luck because they seldom have a direct path to the lead, but have to negotiate their way through traffic, which consumes both more time and more energy than navigating a straight course, and which can even entirely block them in some cases. Front-runners are more in control of their own destiny in that respect.

[bobphilo]

Good points, both Ken and Overlay.

Kinetic energy is the energy created by a body in motion as well as the energy required to get and keep a body in motion.
Physics tells us that kinetic energy equals mass times velocity squared.
(KE = MV squared). That means if a horse runs any one segement too fast then he will be wasting energy, not just equal to the increase in velocity, but equal to the increase in velocity squared, or exponentially. This puts pace analysis on a firm scientific basis since pace tells us how efficiently energy is distributed throughout a race.
It's also true that using some of this energy used to gain position is often well worth it. The frontrunner can save valuable ground on the rail as well as avoiding traffic problems. Avoiding dirt in the face is a plus too.
A good jockey, therefore, has to consider the efficient distribution of energy with the advantage gained by a brief high use of this energy to gain or hold position - in a split second decision.

Bob

[Overlay]

A good jockey, therefore, has to consider the efficient distribution of energy with the advantage gained by a brief high use of this energy to gain or hold position - in a split second decision.

Having to make snap judgments like that is a major reason, in my view, for routinely including the jockey in the basic handicapping equation, rather than considering rider assignment as a peripheral "plus factor" or even viewing the jockey as just a passenger along for the ride (in the belief that "it's the horse that does the running.") The best jockeys may get more than their share of well-meant horses, but they earn that distinction by their ability and consistency.

[bobphilo]

I don’t want to depart from the topic of this thread but, yes, I agree that the jockey is an important part of the equation in a horse’s performance, but the most important factor by far is the ability of the horse itself. It’s true that it is the horse that “actually runs the race”. That does not mean the jockey is “just a passenger”, but the best rider in the world cannot win with a horse that lacks ability. The rider’s main role is to avoid mistakes that keep a horse from running to his ability, but the ability must first be there. That is not to underplay how difficult this can sometimes be as I myself stated when I referred to their difficult split-second decisions.



What many people fail to consider however, is that a horse’s performances, as indicated by his PP’s, already includes the contribution of his jockey, as well as the trainer and all the other connections. Unless there was a rider change to some one of significantly different ability from the last race, to then again add the jockey in evaluating the horse is to overestimate his/her influence. That is one reason why many big name riders are so often overbet and why, IMO, the jockey factor is more often over-rated than under-rated.



Bob

[46zilzal]

That is one reason why many big name riders are so often overbet and why, IMO, the jockey factor is more often over-rated than under-rated.

yes sir ee Horses do the running, the other is a passenger.

[Ron]

yes sir ee Horses do the running, the other is a passenger.

Eh....good horses get good jockeys.

[delayjf]

If a horse is far of the early pace, its not usually because he is a good horse being rated but because he is simply too slow to keep up. Slow horses win few races and so the belief in a speed bias becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Interestingly, one sees the same phenomena in reverse in European turf racing.

If what your say is true, then controlling for speed figures (a horses ability)- would not the race winners not show an equal proportion runners who were early, presser, and sustained. :confused:

[cj's dad]

Eh....good horses get good jockeys.

Only if they start winning !!;)

[DanG]

I’m sorry to take the “jockey” angle, but I can’t contribute anything constructive to the fact that speed is the dominate dirt attribute. There is little debate on that.

However,…

I’m always fascinated when many, many horseplayers claim that…




All jockeys are equal.
There only successful because they get good mounts.
Just something that I never understood…

George Carlin had a great bit and I’m paraphrasing…

“Somewhere there is the world’s worst doctor. By sheer process of elimination, somewhere, there has to be the world’s worst doctor. And do you want to know the scary part? Tomorrow… someone has an appointment with him.”

Are the top riders “price killers” absolutely. But, why on earth would jockey’s have the only profession on earth that does not have a best and worst?

BTW: I still occasionally have nightmares of Pat Days rides on Easy Goer. ;)

[john del riccio]

Good points, both Ken and Overlay.

Kinetic energy is the energy created by a body in motion as well as the energy required to get and keep a body in motion.
Physics tells us that kinetic energy equals mass times velocity squared.
(KE = MV squared). That means if a horse runs any one segement too fast then he will be wasting energy, not just equal to the increase in velocity, but equal to the increase in velocity squared, or exponentially. This puts pace analysis on a firm scientific basis since pace tells us how efficiently energy is distributed throughout a race.
It's also true that using some of this energy used to gain position is often well worth it. The frontrunner can save valuable ground on the rail as well as avoiding traffic problems. Avoiding dirt in the face is a plus too.
A good jockey, therefore, has to consider the efficient distribution of energy with the advantage gained by a brief high use of this energy to gain or hold position - in a split second decision.

Bob

I beleive there are several reasons why DIRT racing is conducive to early speed types. When horses are on the lead or close to it, they "tend to" save ground. They also don't run into the traffic problems that closers have to negotiate. Early speed types don't get dirt kicked in their faces; don't underestimate thi sfact because many horses simply don't put forth an effort
because getting hit with clods of dirt isn't without some degree of discomfort.
Many horses get brave on the lead but when they are eyeballed the wilt.
There are many "morning glories" that train like bears on their own but barely
back a sound in the afternoon. Running against the clock on your own is a whole different ballgame from the dynamics of a race.

JOhn

[bobphilo]

If what your say is true, then controlling for speed figures (a horses ability)- would not the race winners not show an equal proportion runners who were early, presser, and sustained. :confused:

Not really. Let me put it another way. Most dirt races, including many routes, are run as extended sprints. In a race run as a sprint, speed horses will win a disproportionate number of races because everyone is playing their game. Riding strategy is a huge contributor to the speed bias.



There is a good theory that says that this is why stamina breeding is no longer as important as it used to be in Derby winners. Again if a race is run like a sprint, even a route race, the speed has the advantage.

Bob

[cj]

However,…

I’m always fascinated when many, many horseplayers claim that…




All jockeys are equal.
There only successful because they get good mounts.
Just something that I never understood…

I don't know anyone that says jockeys don't have different levels of ability. However, the betting greatly overstates these differing levels in my opinion. Thus, I pretty much ignore it is a factor in my decisions.

Now, I do notice when a well known rider is doing particularly poorly, ala Mike Smith currently, and will avoid his horses, but that is about it.

[bobphilo]

If what your say is true, then controlling for speed figures (a horses ability)- would not the race winners not show an equal proportion runners who were early, presser, and sustained. :confused:

Not really. Let me put it another way. Most dirt races, including many routes, are run as extended sprints. In a race run as a sprint, speed horses will win a disproportionate number of races because everyone is playing their game. Riding strategy is a huge contributor to the speed bias. Plus the horse on the lead can save ground on the rail and avoid traffic problems.

There is a good theory that says that this is why stamina breeding is no longer as important as it used to be in Derby winners. Again if a race is run like a sprint, even a route race, the speed has the advantage.

There is also a theory that says that with breeding for speed, there are fewer true stayers in the Derby so speed horses often win by default. I think the truth lies in a combination of both theories.

Bob

[Kelso]

Most dirt races, including many routes, are run as extended sprints. In a race run as a sprint, speed horses will win a disproportionate number of races because everyone is playing their game.

<snip>

There is a good theory that says that this is why stamina breeding is no longer as important as it used to be in Derby winners. Again if a race is run like a sprint, even a route race, the speed has the advantage.

There is also a theory that says that with breeding for speed, there are fewer true stayers in the Derby so speed horses often win by default. I think the truth lies in a combination of both theories.
Bob


Bob,
What is the alterative to running a route as "an extended sprint?" What has changed such that horses with stamina are now less likely to overtake a (presumably) tiring sprinter after, say, 7f? I'm in no position to disagree with your point, but you seem to be saying that trainers/breeders have changed something(s) to enable sprinters to be, in fact, simultaneous routers.

I don't get it. Would you kindly elaborate?

Thank you.

[DanG]

I don't know anyone that says jockeys don't have different levels of ability. However, the betting greatly overstates these differing levels in my opinion.
CJ…
“I don't know anyone that says jockeys don't have different levels of ability.”

I’ve heard exactly that several times in my life.
“However, the betting greatly overstates these differing levels in my opinion.”

Very true.

[Overlay]

I always like to take advantage of situations where the public goes overboard on a horse because of the jockey. It usually means that one or more other horses with a solid chance will get overlooked. However, I think that there's something to be said for considering the ability of the jockey in evaluating a horse's prospects, as long as you give the factor its proper weight alongside other basic performance characteristics.

[DanG]

Along that train of thought…

Its also in “how” you evaluate riders. Straight %’s or standings are obviously value killers, where something like positional tendencies can be overlooked…

OK…I’m done with rider talk. Sorry about diverting the thread.

[bobphilo]

Bob,
What is the alterative to running a route as "an extended sprint?" What has changed such that horses with stamina are now less likely to overtake a (presumably) tiring sprinter after, say, 7f? I'm in no position to disagree with your point, but you seem to be saying that trainers/breeders have changed something(s) to enable sprinters to be, in fact, simultaneous routers.

I don't get it. Would you kindly elaborate?

Thank you.

Kelso,



The alternative to running a route as an extended sprint is to run it at a pace appropriate to the distance. This also includes training a horse to rate so this is possible. Horses with distance ability are less likely to be able to demonstrate it if they play the sprinter’s game. I guess what I’m trying to say is that if a natural router distributes his energy too unevenly and runs too close to a sprinter’s pace early, he won’t have enough left in the tank to overtake the speed. The sprinter will tire too but it won’t affect his performance as much as the router because he is better built to run at a fast pace more efficiently.



As far as the breeder’s role, with all the emphasis on speed in breeding, there are simply more speed type horses in most races and since there is a winner in every race and a scarcity in true routers, sprinters will often win route races by default. Sprint types are starting to outnumber the routers, even in some route races.



BTW, speaking of great routers, your name takes me back to my first day at the track as a kid when I had the honor of witnessing the great Kelso win his 5th consecutive Jockey Club Gold Cup when it was 2 miles.



Bob

[Kelso]

The alternative to running a route as an extended sprint is to run it at a pace appropriate to the distance. <snip> I guess what I’m trying to say is that if a natural router distributes his energy too unevenly and runs too close to a sprinter’s pace early, he won’t have enough left in the tank to overtake the speed. The sprinter will tire too but it won’t affect his performance as much as the router because he is better built to run at a fast pace more efficiently.



That clears it up for me. It makes sense that if both are topping out at the early calls, the speed horse will simply be in front of the router ... and stay there ... when both of them tire out. Thanks very much, Bob.






This also includes training a horse to rate so this is possible. Horses with distance ability are less likely to be able to demonstrate it if they play the sprinter’s game.



Bob,
I've seen the word "rate" often in this forum, but cannot pin down precisely what it means. This is the first time I've seen "demonstrate."

Does "rate" mean to run off of, but close to, the pace? And does "demonstrate" mean come-from-behind?

Thank you.






BTW, speaking of great routers, your name takes me back to my first day at the track as a kid when I had the honor of witnessing the great Kelso win his 5th consecutive Jockey Club Gold Cup when it was 2 miles.



Wow!! A great memory. I have a friend whose dad used to take her to Monmouth Park, (my erstwhile "home" track - although back then it seemed a thousand miles away from my home), and she saw Kelso win his first stakes race there. I envy both of you. I got to see him only on television.

(I noted in another thread a couple months ago that some of Kelso's Big A (or Belmont) track records still stand! He did Man o' War proud.)

[Overlay]

Bob,
I've seen the word "rate" often in this forum, but cannot pin down precisely what it means. This is the first time I've seen "demonstrate."

Does "rate" mean to run off of, but close to, the pace? And does "demonstrate" mean come-from-behind?

To me, "rate" refers to energy conservation, rather than strictly to running position. I construe it as getting a horse to run at a pace where it will have energy left either to withstand challenges in the late stages of the race (if it's running in front), or to overtake horses in front of it as those horses tire.

By "demonstrate", he's saying that a horse with a normal router running style (characterized by coming from behind in the later stages of the race) will not have the opportunity to use that style to full advantage if it tries to stay too close to a fast early pace, because it will have expended more effort than it normally does, and will thus not have sufficient energy to launch or sustain its usual late drive for the lead.

[bobphilo]

To me, "rate" refers to energy conservation, rather than strictly to running position. I construe it as getting a horse to run at a pace where it will have energy left either to withstand challenges in the late stages of the race (if it's running in front), or to overtake horses in front of it as those horses tire.

By "demonstrate", he's saying that a horse with a normal router running style (characterized by coming from behind in the later stages of the race) will not have the opportunity to use that style to full advantage if it tries to stay too close to a fast early pace, because it will have expended more effort than it normally does, and will thus not have sufficient energy to launch or sustain its usual late drive for the lead.

Thanks Overlay. I couldn't have put it any better.

Bob

[Kelso]

To me, "rate" refers to energy conservation, rather than strictly to running position. I construe it as getting a horse to run at a pace where it will have energy left either to withstand challenges in the late stages of the race (if it's running in front), or to overtake horses in front of it as those horses tire.

By "demonstrate", he's saying that a horse with a normal router running style (characterized by coming from behind in the later stages of the race) will not have the opportunity to use that style to full advantage if it tries to stay too close to a fast early pace, because it will have expended more effort than it normally does, and will thus not have sufficient energy to launch or sustain its usual late drive for the lead.


Thank you very much, Overlay (and Bob). Would not likely have picked up on my own the conservation aspect. Also makes clear the rate/demonstrate relationship.