Does Pace make the race ?

[karlskorner]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18337377/

[john del riccio]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18337377/

Absolutely. Handicappers that sweep pace under the rug typically sweep
lots of losing tickets under that same rug.

As for the Derby, its no different, the pace will matter.

John

[cj]

Before resolving this, there’s one truth all handicappers must accept first; that the final time of a race is a function of early pace. That and the notion that both the early fractions and finishing time are needed to measure velocity.

The above part is money in the bank.

[karlskorner]

I am delighted I posted something you agree with.

[Lefty]

Last race at CD Sun is a perfect example. Race had 4 E's I played the best closer and got a respectable $13.80 payoff.

[The Judge]

In most races and most race horses ,yes it does matter, but not always. Some horses are final time horses they run right around the same final time not matter what pace they face, other horses can face a very fast pace head to head and continue on. There are other horses (normally Grade 1 ) that can face a very fast pace on the lead in company or just off the lead and still win no matter what the pace is, I haven't seen many of these horses around lately.

I do believe that pace makes the race but I am always looking for a way around pace, speed or anything else that I think the majority might be using. Some of these type horses will be obvious to the public but not all especially the "final time horse' that always runs about the same final time. This horse can move up in class off a lost and win against the right group, and he will have a lower Beyer Number then the other contenders.

[Cratos]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18337377/

Pace makes a difference in any race whether the pace is fast, slow, or somewhere in between because pace determines how the race is run. Pricci’s statement: “Clearly, pace did not make the Blue Grass, it made only for the slow final time” is wrong because the slow pace set the running shape of the Bluegrass for a “calvary charge” at the end. If the Bluegrass had been run in a much faster pace earlier, the field would have been strung out more and probably only the true closers would have made a bid at the end.

It is not how fast or how slow the pace of a race is, it is the interrelationship of the running styles of the horses in the race that determines the running shape of the race.

[Tom]

I think the BlueGrass was defined by the slow pace. Nothing was tiring normally late - everyone was making late moves better than any they ever had. Street Sense would have picked upmany of thoe in a normal race - not that tday - they were all sprinting 3 furlongs and no one was tired.
The race is entirely not representative of anything other than how this bunch might do if they enter in the turf stake on Derby day.

[JustRalph]

That guy took two pages to tell me that Pace is important in the Ky Derby?

Wow! He is a genius...........you never would have thunk it!

[jumpers flat]

Are you serious?

The thing you miss is you're dealing with two brains.

The first brain wants to get the race over and done with but the second brain has other ideas....so the combo normally results in a "pineapple".

A bit like that $48 dollar winner the other day which allegedly won't run in the K Derby.

[Tom]

Pineapple? :confused:

[JPinMaryland]

an avocado made by committee.

[ranchwest]

an avocado made by committee.

This thread has sunk to guacamole.

[acorn54]

the pace scenario is important. the rub is we can't read into the jockey's minds what their strategy will be with their horse. heck my brother talked to the owner of ss belle after sunday's aqueduct race and was told arroyo was instructed to get the lead and settle down the horse. instead arroyo went to the front of a 7 furlong race and made 21 and change and 44 and change fractions.
acorn

[NYPlayer]

This thread has sunk to guacamole.

'Cause everyone knows "pace" doesn't make a difference. Is 45.2/1:11 better than 46/1:11? Six of one half dozen of the other. To win the Derby a horse has gotta run a big race overall.

[Robert Fischer]

Pace, running styles, pedigree (per distance & surface) are interrelated. Pace dictates the importance of the others to some extent.

[46zilzal]

Ask Bailey after the Pacific Classic. GO with Siphon and Cigar gets cooked, stay back and he is gone.

Pace makes every race.

[NYPlayer]

Ask Bailey after the Pacific Classic. GO with Siphon and Cigar gets cooked, stay back and he is gone.

Pace makes every race.

Cigar bounced. That race was towards the end of his career. He lost two other races in 96. Was pace responsible for the other losses?

There are some races where pace does make a difference, but only when there's been an extremely fast or slow race with a big difference in the early/late fractions - maybe about 3 or 4% of races overall. Everything else in between where the horses maybe are running a little faster than usual early or late doesn't make a diifference.

[JustRalph]

'Cause everyone knows "pace" doesn't make a difference. Is 45.2/1:11 better than 46/1:11? Six of one half dozen of the other. To win the Derby a horse has gotta run a big race overall.

Tell Balto Star and Keats that..............

Balto Star, and Keats lead the way. They set blistering fractions of 22.25, 44.86, and 1:09.25 before packing it in to finish 13th, 14th, and 16th.

[bobphilo]

Cigar bounced. That race was towards the end of his career. He lost two other races in 96. Was pace responsible for the other losses?

There are some races where pace does make a difference, but only when there's been an extremely fast or slow race with a big difference in the early/late fractions - maybe about 3 or 4% of races overall. Everything else in between where the horses maybe are running a little faster than usual early or late doesn't make a diifference.

Ah, the ubiquitous "bounce" theory raises its ugly head again. Horses can bounce, but only when it’s determined that the horse has actually regressed. When a horse burns himself out battling through a hot early pace, it’s no mysterious bounce that caused him to tire late, its good old-fashioned fatigue from inefficient expenditure of energy.



Bob

[Kelso]

Some horses are final time horses they run right around the same final time not matter what pace they face,


To me, this is the ideal way to train and run a racehorse. Develop a good feel for his optimal speed ... on whatever surface and at whatever distance ... and then look for the best-paying races that are likely to run slower in his absence.

If this is a grossly simplistic view (which I expect it is), why is it so? I know there are "need to lead" horses, but what about all the others? Why not tell the jocks to run them to their individual potentialities (I assume most have decent mental clocks for the appropriate splits) irrespective of the competition's tactics?

Let the others knock themselves out up front ... or eat your horse's kickback as the case might be ... and worry only that a competitor of similar final-time ability has also been placed in your race.

Thank you.

[The Judge]

A bounce has to be said "before" the horse bounce ! ' .Not after, after the race it's never a 'bounce" afther the race, the horse ran into trouble, the jockey miss rode the horse. This is so why did they make us bet before hand on the bounce . They just took your/owr money but they they took doen't exist?

If I say, a horse wiil bounce I back it with money. If I keep loosing I stop.

[bigmack]

Cigar bounced.

:lol::lol::lol:

[ranchwest]

To me, this is the ideal way to train and run a racehorse. Develop a good feel for his optimal speed ... on whatever surface and at whatever distance ... and then look for the best-paying races that are likely to run slower in his absence.

If this is a grossly simplistic view (which I expect it is), why is it so? I know there are "need to lead" horses, but what about all the others? Why not tell the jocks to run them to their individual potentialities (I assume most have decent mental clocks for the appropriate splits) irrespective of the competition's tactics?

Let the others knock themselves out up front ... or eat your horse's kickback as the case might be ... and worry only that a competitor of similar final-time ability has also been placed in your race.

Thank you.

Horses are pack animals. They know their place in the pack. Horses can be rated to an extent, but forcing a horse out of its pack position is usually counter-productive.

[john del riccio]

Cigar bounced. That race was towards the end of his career. He lost two other races in 96. Was pace responsible for the other losses?

There are some races where pace does make a difference, but only when there's been an extremely fast or slow race with a big difference in the early/late fractions - maybe about 3 or 4% of races overall. Everything else in between where the horses maybe are running a little faster than usual early or late doesn't make a diifference.

Why is it that when a horse runs an off race, he bounced. This is a convenient excuse that seems all encompassing. Pace was definitely why Cigar was beaten that day.

John

[robert99]

Horses are pack animals. They know their place in the pack. Horses can be rated to an extent, but forcing a horse out of its pack position is usually counter-productive.

In the wild, horses are herd / flight animals (dogs and hyenas etc are pack animals) but then they have a self organised social group with the weakest (mares and their foals) fleeing at the front of the herd, the males behind and the stallion keeping a watchful eye at some distance from the herd. How random horses from different barns / countries suddenly can organise themselves into a social order group on first meeting at the racetrack is beyond me.

[robert99]

To me, this is the ideal way to train and run a racehorse. Develop a good feel for his optimal speed ... on whatever surface and at whatever distance ... and then look for the best-paying races that are likely to run slower in his absence.

If this is a grossly simplistic view (which I expect it is), why is it so? I know there are "need to lead" horses, but what about all the others? Why not tell the jocks to run them to their individual potentialities (I assume most have decent mental clocks for the appropriate splits) irrespective of the competition's tactics?

Let the others knock themselves out up front ... or eat your horse's kickback as the case might be ... and worry only that a competitor of similar final-time ability has also been placed in your race.

Thank you.

I think that many trainers do have a buy the best you can and run with the worst policy, but practicality intervenes. Top horses on turf also have pace makers entered to make sure that the race pace is set to suit their horses. In reality, jockies cannot control pace as some non-riders presume and the pace makers often get ignored to an extent that some have even won the race. I suspect that trainers genreally do not have the depth of understanding of pace/ final time as an experienced pace handicapper would. They also don't often train at full pace or full distance so as not to leave the horse's best race on the training track. For dirt racing which is run flat out from the start, the horse's pace shape abilities control the pace and the jockies steer and keep them going. Turf and route racing is where these skills are more determinable.

[robert99]

There are some races where pace does make a difference, but only when there's been an extremely fast or slow race with a big difference in the early/late fractions - maybe about 3 or 4% of races overall. Everything else in between where the horses maybe are running a little faster than usual early or late doesn't make a diifference.


If pace shape is so important at the extremes it would be more logical to check if it mattered to the same or lesser extent between those extremes. As yet, I have not found a single race fast/slow/medium where the finishing order was not effected by the pace shape. A slowish early pace and more horses are in contention and bunching at the finish, a fastish early pace and either the front runners last or closers catch them. There is then a fine line between success and failure.

[ranchwest]

In the wild, horses are herd / flight animals (dogs and hyenas etc are pack animals) but then they have a self organised social group with the weakest (mares and their foals) fleeing at the front of the herd, the males behind and the stallion keeping a watchful eye at some distance from the herd. How random horses from different barns / countries suddenly can organise themselves into a social order group on first meeting at the racetrack is beyond me.

Thanks for pointing out my error regarding herd and pack. I knew the correct term, but it was very late at night.

[46zilzal]

Horses are pack animals. They know their place in the pack. Horses can be rated to an extent, but forcing a horse out of its pack position is usually counter-productive.

Exactly as is reviewed in the great book by Desmond Morris (The Naked Ape author) called Horse Watching.

[NYPlayer]

Why is it that when a horse runs an off race, he bounced. This is a convenient excuse that seems all encompassing. Pace was definitely why Cigar was beaten that day.

John

I think it's best to view an off race as a legitimate attempt by the horse to run as well as it can on that day, but if a horse is not able to perform at a level it's proven to be capable of, then there is no more natural explanation than to say it was not physically up to the task. Put the peak races, off races, and spacing of races together, and you have a trend for that horse that gives you indications as to what quality of effort might be expected from its next attempt.

I think Cigar's loss at Del Mar fits an overall pattern of a declining horse. He lost two other races in 96 and was then retired.

[bobphilo]

I think it's best to view an off race as a legitimate attempt by the horse to run as well as it can on that day, but if a horse is not able to perform at a level it's proven to be capable of, then there is no more natural explanation than to say it was not physically up to the task. Put the peak races, off races, and spacing of races together, and you have a trend for that horse that gives you indications as to what quality of effort might be expected from its next attempt.

I think Cigar's loss at Del Mar fits an overall pattern of a declining horse. He lost two other races in 96 and was then retired.

There's more to the notion of bouncing than that. It assumes that almost all the horse's poor performances are the result of over-exertion in the previous race, when a horse can run poorly for a number of reasons, with an unfavorable pace scenario often being the real cause. Bounce theorists are often too quick to believe that every good performance will cause a negative reaction in the next start. If one takes into account trip, pace and ground loss, there are far less variations in horse's performances for bounce theory to explain. Horses are not rubber balls that "bounce" predictably.
Horses performances do vary, but they don't fall into the assumed patterns that many people think they do. Assuming that horses fit into pre-ordained form patterns is like seeing shapes in cloud formations that are only in the eye of the beholder.

Bob

[Tom]

I don't think anyone is saying every bad race is a bounce. Bounce has certain criteria that must be met. Day to day racing is not part of it.

[bobphilo]

I don't think anyone is saying every bad race is a bounce. Bounce has certain criteria that must be met. Day to day racing is not part of it.

Just about every off effort after a good one is considered a bounce without first properly analyzing the off effort for things that happened in that race. This follows from assuming the that the horse's figure alone is the complete description of it's performance - with no regard to pace. For example, when Afleet Alex just got beat in the Derby after moving prematurely into the insane pace, all the bounce theorists declared it a “bounce” off his big Ark Derby win. Anyone bothering to do a proper pace analysis would have seen that seen that, under the circumstances, his Derby was an exceptional performance – not a bounce.

I’m not saying that horse’s never react from big efforts, but the dogmatic relief that almost all such horses are probable bounce candidates, combined with a lack of respect for the effects of pace, often leads to an incorrect evaluation of the horse’s performance.



Bob

[robert99]

I think it's best to view an off race as a legitimate attempt by the horse to run as well as it can on that day, but if a horse is not able to perform at a level it's proven to be capable of, then there is no more natural explanation than to say it was not physically up to the task. Put the peak races, off races, and spacing of races together, and you have a trend for that horse that gives you indications as to what quality of effort might be expected from its next attempt.


That's very much the way I see racing and why I developed EDB (energy demand balance) methods for improved analysis. Energy here is the true meaning of energy ie work done by horse against work demanded by race - not the "velocity" confusion with energy. Horses produce their energy at different rates as the race progresses - some start fast, others wind up more gradually to suit their own capabilities. Over a series of races of different pace / energy demands you can then actually see the EDB figures and trends that tell if the horse is improving, backing off or has a major energy production downturn leading to a so called "bounce" (if that it what it was).

[Tom]

Just about every off effort after a good one is considered a bounce.....

Bob

Who says that? I have never used that deinition, nor heard it expressed like that before. To me, a bounce ocurrs after a hard effort following a long layoff,
not race to race, although I agree a "performance set back" is common. HTR has a sheets style screen that does factor in pace (The good old D Figs) and you see the final fig with pace factored in. CJ's numbers do this also.

[JPinMaryland]

Tell Balto Star and Keats that..............

Balto Star, and Keats lead the way. They set blistering fractions of 22.25, 44.86, and 1:09.25 before packing it in to finish 13th, 14th, and 16th.

it must be bad when a horse takes up two finishing positions. :ThmbDown:

[bobphilo]

Who says that? I have never used that deinition, nor heard it expressed like that before. To me, a bounce ocurrs after a hard effort following a long layoff,
not race to race, although I agree a "performance set back" is common. HTR has a sheets style screen that does factor in pace (The good old D Figs) and you see the final fig with pace factored in. CJ's numbers do this also.

Tom, you have a more reasonable definition of the bounce, however the way the term originated and is classically defined and used mainly by sheet theorists is based almost solely on a big number followed by a worse number on the assumption that the latter was caused by the former, as well as the belief that these numbers sum up all there is to a horses performance. As John as pointed out, this is a lazy way to account for all off performances. Not that I’m saying that bounce or sheet theorists are lazy – just that I think there are certain errors in their beliefs about pace and other factors that cause them to attribute the “bounce” too often.

Accounting for pace is probably the best way to reveal that many so-called bounces are nothing of the kind, though there are other factors than pace that can cause a seemingly off performance that have nothing to do with a big effort in a previous race.

[Tom]

But also, horses are not machines and do not fire their best every race, for whatever reasons. Do you bowl a better series every week, or do you have peaks and valleys ( or don't you bowl at all?:rolleyes:)
After looking at sheet type patterns for years, I can "see" some kind of patterns sometime. MAybe the peak performance was a fluke, say in a series of Beyers like: 75, 77, 83 97, 76, 80,

Did the horse "bounce" off the 83, did he just react to the efforts, or was the 97 a freak, caused by something we don't know what as yet, and the 76 was just a return to normal?

I dunno. that's why they let us bet.

I do have a way of looking for peaks, though, that I learned from Gordon Pine, and have heard it bandied about on CJ's site, and that is what is the best number a horse has improved upon? I frequently see horses who have run, say an 83 last out, and have never improved off of an 80, and 82, and a 79 - everytime it ran those numbers, the next was a decline.
Ah, if only they ran the same race every time. ;)

[NYPlayer]

There's more to the notion of bouncing than that. It assumes that almost all the horse's poor performances are the result of over-exertion in the previous race...

The primary reason for poor performances is the horse's condition, and one of the primary impacting factors on condition is prior racing. The negative impact can be manifest after one good race or a series of good races. Some horses can run a few good numbers in succession before they regress, a very few like Cigar and Invasor can run several good numbers (assuming they get the right amount of time between races). Nevertheless, a regression inevitably occurs.

...a horse can run poorly for a number of reasons, with an unfavorable pace scenario often being the real cause. Bounce theorists are often too quick to believe that every good performance will cause a negative reaction in the next start. If one takes into account trip, pace and ground loss, there are far less variations in horse's performances for bounce theory to explain...

With the exception of ground loss, these factors are over-rated. The idea that a minor incidence of trouble having a significant impact is highly questionable. The litany of such: checking, bumping, running on the "wrong" lead, blocked (or appearing to be blocked), speed duel (even when the fractions are moderate or slow), and head to head pressure etc. are often cited as the "reason" a horse ran poorly. When one critically considers the actual impact of these on a performance, you have to conclude that the actual impact is minor.

Horses are not rubber balls that "bounce" predictably....
Yes they are, when you know what pattern to look for. But no one is 100% accurate in predicting bounces. It's more of a statistical phenomenon. I would watch Curlin closely tomorrow. I'd say there's about a 70% chance of bouncing.

Horses performances do vary, but they don't fall into the assumed patterns that many people think they do. Assuming that horses fit into pre-ordained form patterns is like seeing shapes in cloud formations that are only in the eye of the beholder.

No pattern is "pre-ordained". You've been reading too much of Andy Beyer.
There are times when when the chance of a bounce or improvement is so high, that only a regression or or better number seems realistic in that situation. Barbaro and last year's Preakness comes to mind. Going into it, it was a near certainty that he would not replicate his Derby performance.

[Pell Mell]

Who says that? I have never used that deinition, nor heard it expressed like that before. To me, a bounce ocurrs after a hard effort following a long layoff,
not race to race, although I agree a "performance set back" is common. HTR has a sheets style screen that does factor in pace (The good old D Figs) and you see the final fig with pace factored in. CJ's numbers do this also.

I agree with Tom concerning a hard race off a layoff but with a certain reservation. I never consider closing efforts as overtaxing.

As far as bouncing being related to pace, any race run on the lead and hard fought through the stretch is a taxing effort to me and usually signals a decline in the next race.

There are exceptions, IMHO, to what I would call the up-down effect rather than a bounce. Now matter how good it is, all races run by every horse is either better or worse than the previous race. What is important is the degree of difference. With some of the great ones there is very little difference in their good or bad races and even on an off day are still able to win. Another example, which I had mentioned on another thread, is with very old horses. Some of these oldtimers have reached a point in their lives where their racing condition remains very constant and being that very old horses are virtually "Claim Proof", they are able, on back class alone, to run very consistant speed numbers and run up long streaks of close finishes regardless of pace.

[Greyfox]

But also, horses are not machines and do not fire their best every race, for whatever reasons. Do you bowl a better series every week, or do you have peaks and valleys ( or don't you bowl at all?:rolleyes:)
After looking at sheet type patterns for years, I can "see" some kind of patterns sometime. MAybe the peak performance was a fluke, say in a series of Beyers like: 75, 77, 83 97, 76, 80,

Did the horse "bounce" off the 83, did he just react to the efforts, or was the 97 a freak, caused by something we don't know what as yet, and the 76 was just a return to normal?

I dunno. that's why they let us bet.

I do have a way of looking for peaks, though, that I learned from Gordon Pine, and have heard it bandied about on CJ's site, and that is what is the best number a horse has improved upon? I frequently see horses who have run, say an 83 last out, and have never improved off of an 80, and 82, and a 79 - everytime it ran those numbers, the next was a decline.
Ah, if only they ran the same race every time. ;)

Tom,
You're hitting home runs in this thread.
I'm going to copy some parts of it.
In handicapping, I think that we're on the same page.

[Greyfox]

Several excellent posts, even though I might not agree with you all the time on other ones. But lots I do.