Stating the obvious

[Great Communicator]

I'm not what you would call a sophisticated handicapper. I don't study a race to analyze the pace sitution or energy distribution. I now have found a forum where people do these things and understand quite a bit about these subjects.

So I want to possibly look into these subjects deeper, and need to start somewhere. So I will start with the following two examples, and then make a few obvious observations about pace and/or energy distribution.

The only concern from this point on is WIN only.

First example. I am going to run in a 400 meter race, with 7 opponents. All the opponents are 4th grade boys. I, a male adult, with my longer legs, more muscular body, and larger capacity lungs, am an overwhelming favorite to win. Whether one of the 4th graders bursts out at the start and shakes loose for awhile, whether there's a speed duel between a couple of the boys, whether I am involved in this speed duel or not, whether I try to win this race wire-to-wire, whether I want to jog slowly for the first part of the race and then come on strong at the finish - it is all IRRELEVANT. My overwhelming physical advantages, my superior class, if you will, virtualy guarantees me victory, barring a pulled muscle or other freak incident. I run the race in one minute 19 seconds, and win by 25 meters.

In the second example, I am going to be running in a 400 meter race, with 7 opponents, all of who are U.S. olympic team 400 meter hopefuls. The situation is now reversed from the first example. I now have the shortest legs, the least muscular body and the smallest lung capacity. I am hopelessly overwhelmed by the superiority of my opponets. A speed duel or loose leader sitution that may occur in the race will have no impact on my ability to win this race. The race is run, I run a personal best of one minute 5 seconds, and finish 65 meters behind the 7th place finisher.


Obvious statement #1: If the capabilities of the best runner in a race far exceeds the capabilities of the next best runner(s) in that race, the issues of pace and/or energy distribution within a race are IRRELEVANT,

i.e. Class is what really makes the race. Pace makes the race or energy distribution makes the race are subservient to class makes the race.

Obvious statement #2: As the capabilities of the best runner in the field approach those of the next best runner(s) in the field, there comes a point where issues of pace/energy distibution become viable factors in analysis of the outcome of the race, i.e. it is not a waste of time to analyze these subjects, as it would be if one runner were completely superior to others in the field. [Determination of this point (best runner close enough to next best runner to warrant further analysis) is unknown to me.]

Obvious statement #3: As the abilities of the best runner in the field approach the abilities of the next best runner(s) in the field, pace/energy distribution become more of an issue in race analysis. These issues become maximally important when the abilities of all runners are equal.

Obvious statement # 4: Since many people here use pace analysis or energy distribution analysis in their handicapping, I must come to the conclusion that the class division of horse racing is tight enough, so that handicappers are confident enough, that the competitiors are equal enough in abilities, to beleieve that pace analysis or energy distribution analysis is not a waste of time. i.e. class may make the race, but the competitiors in horse races you see at the track are close enough in abilities to make pace makes the race, or energy distribution makes the race, viable analysis tools.


Is this an adequate starting point?

[Norm]

The debate between Class and Speed/Pace handicappers will rage on forever. We disagree, after all, that's why we bet on horse races. If we all agreed, there would be nothing to bet on !

The difference is really a matter of sequence, which factor has priority. Speed /Pace handicappers do not ignore class, they place it low on the priority list. Class handicappers do not ignore speed, they just use it to validate a class selection for current fitness.

The premises of a Class handicapper are : (1) A horse identifies his class by winning money. (2) Every horse will win the biggest purse that he is capable of. (3) No horse will run faster than he needs to in order to win. (4) A Class horse will always win an eyeball-to-eyeball contest; it's not the fastest horse but rather the meanest horse that wins. (5) Horses run faster as they move down the class scale competing against horse they are less afraid of.

There is more to it than that, but these items give you a general idea as to how Class handicappers see the world .:)

[stuball]

The majority of races run are not extreme scenerios such
as those you stated....competitors are more evenly matched
and the more evenly matched---the more important the pace factor is. Class is hard to define..and can be clouded by
form cycles...trainer intent...race tactics...track conditions...

Stuball :jump:

[shanta]

GC

Make the distance of the track race 600 meters. Instead of 4th graders insert high school runners on a track team. You keep your adult,athletic body ok?

Now when the race starts one of the boys sprints out very fast for 200 meters. You run with him at his speed. At 200 m he drops out leaving you all alone with the lead. You still think you will win the 600m easily?

:)

[cj's dad]

The debate between Class and Speed/Pace handicappers will rage on forever. We disagree, after all, that's why we bet on horse races. If we all agreed, there would be nothing to bet on !

The difference is really a matter of sequence, which factor has priority. Speed /Pace handicappers do not ignore class, they place it low on the priority list. Class handicappers do not ignore speed, they just use it to validate a class selection for current fitness.

The premises of a Class handicapper are : (1) A horse identifies his class by winning money. (2) Every horse will win the biggest purse that he is capable of. (3) No horse will run faster than he needs to in order to win. (4) A Class horse will always win an eyeball-to-eyeball contest; it's not the fastest horse but rather the meanest horse that wins. (5) Horses run faster as they move down the class scale competing against horse they are less afraid of.

There is more to it than that, but these items give you a general idea as to how Class handicappers see the world .:)

When CJ's figs are not available to me, I go back to my original method which is the following: look at every entries 2 best races and see at what level they were run and what distance. If the distance is the same or within 1 furlong I use it and then compare it to todays purse level. If today's level is the same or lower, I use the horse with the best races regardless of splits or final time. I guess this makes me a class h'capper?!? Or a bad one!!:)

[boomman]

Great communicator wrote:Obvious statement # 4: Since many people here use pace analysis or energy distribution analysis in their handicapping, I must come to the conclusion that the class division of horse racing is tight enough, so that handicappers are confident enough, that the competitiors are equal enough in abilities, to believe that pace analysis or energy distribution analysis is not a waste of time. i.e. class may make the race, but the competitiors in horse races you see at the track are close enough in abilities to make pace makes the race, or energy distribution makes the race, viable analysis tools.


Is this an adequate starting point?

GC: The conditions of racing are such that horses that compete against each other are fairly equal in ability I would say about 95% of the time. Occasionally you'll have a huge class dropper or a Graded Stakes horse that towers over the field in terms of ability, but that is much more the exception rather than the rule. So now that your handicapping of the race has indeed verified that the runners in a particular race are fairly equal class wise, that's when the pace of the race and the energy distribution come into play in a big way. I think most of us agree that most thoroughbreds can only expend maximum energy for 3/8 of a mile, so obviously the pace of the race determines when that energy will be expended. I agree with a poster on pace from last week who correctly stated that the opening 1/4 was the most important fraction on dirt/synthetic sprints while the opening 1/4 and 1/2 play strongly into the outcome of the race on dirt/synthetic routes. Turf races can vary greatly from course to course, but I have found all that I need to do to use the same basic principle is to determine the "core" pace as how it applies to that turf course. In other words, does early speed collapse in 46 and change, or (ala the Fairgrounds or Arlington) does early speed collapse in 48 and change in routes? I know there are folks on here that disagree with the importance of pace, but I can't imagine handicapping a race and determining possible winners without that being a HUGE part of the equation. It at least has been for me for over 30 years........;)

Boomer

[Norm]

When CJ's figs are not available to me, I go back to my original method which is the following: look at every entries 2 best races and see at what level they were run and what distance. If the distance is the same or within 1 furlong I use it and then compare it to todays purse level. If today's level is the same or lower, I use the horse with the best races regardless of splits or final time. I guess this makes me a class h'capper?!? Or a bad one!!:)

You sound like a pretty good Class handicapper to me ! It's all about money. :)

[firstofftheclaim]

Pace makes the race. Class can kiss my ass.

[cj's dad]

Pace makes the race. Class can kiss my ass.

So, if Housebuster(pure frontrunner, G1 winner) were put into an Optional Claiming race @ 25K with all speed freaks save one and that one is a closer but is a 5 yr. old who has never won above this level, you would discount Housebuster's class and play the closer because of pace?

I'm not jerking your chain, just trying to determine how serious some are regarding pace.

[46zilzal]

So, if Housebuster(pure frontrunner, G1 winner) were put into an Optional Claiming race @ 25K with all speed freaks save one and that one is a closer but is a 5 yr. old who has never won above this level, you would discount Housebuster's class and play the closer because of pace?

The closer would never catch him because of PACE. Housebuster would move out so far in front in would be over, like most sprints, at the 2nd call.

HOWEVER, if all signs of that monster said damaged goods, G1 to claimer, I would back off.

[cj's dad]

HOWEVER, if all signs of that monster said damaged goods, G1 to claimer, I would back off.

My scenario was purely hypothetical !

[46zilzal]

My scenario was purely hypothetical !
Theoretical proposals are suggested all the time to make a point. It is a good platform for discussion, always has been.

[Greyfox]

Obvious statement #1: If the capabilities of the best runner in a race far exceeds the capabilities of the next best runner(s) in that race, the issues of pace and/or energy distribution within a race are IRRELEVANT,

i.e. Class is what really makes the race. Pace makes the race or energy distribution makes the race are subservient to class makes the race.



In horse racing the operative word is If.
In "Obvious Statement # 1 that word is huge.

Below are the Beyers and Class for the 5 entrants in last Saturday's Santa Monica Grade 1 race at Santa Anita
Beyer ,Class, Win Odds
2 Society Hostess 97, G3, 9-1
3 Silky Smooth 93 ,89K Handicap, 13-1
4 Overly Tempting 94, Alw 58,070, 9/2
5 Hystericalady 104 ,G1 ,1/5
6 Intangaroo 86, Alw 53200 , 26-1

So who won?
Hint: The lowest Beyer and Class rated runner in the field.
Why? Pace, Recency, Conditioning, shape of race, surface and distance made the race.

I suggest that you throw out Obvious Statement # 1.

[Dave Schwartz]

GreatComm,

You have made exceptionally good points with your opening statement, even though the examples were extreme.

CJ's point about you versus high schoolers is well-stated, too, but for the most part, what I heard you say was that pace only matters in a race that is not totally lopsided.

I tend to agree with you. Of course, it is the relative rare scenario where pace doesn't matter at all.

I recall such a race from a couple of decades ago - when Winning Colors (female Derby winner) was entered in a non-winner Allowance race (maybe NW4?) at Saratoga. Her worst speed rating was 12 points better than the best speed rating of any other horse in the race. Pace truly does not matter providing she is in form. She was and won by about 12 lengths.


But moving on to more realistic scenarios, I think it is safe to say that pace always has some impact. Now, whether or not it can be overcome by another junior version of Winning Colors is another issue. Logically, we would call this "running against the bias," and, if successful, we'd call that "overcoming the bias."


All in all, I would say that you have located the true problem with the true, died-in-the-wool, pace handicapping approach: it tends to be one-dimensional. Pace, like many other methodologies, works except when it doesn't. I like to think it works more often than other one-dimensional approaches, but becomes much stronger if one can add the missing dimensions.



Recently I have made discoveries in my own handicapping research that just amaze me. So much so that an example is in order.

First, I have always given the Sartin Methodology (and Howard in particular) full credit for helping me to become a winning player. Howard's methodology pointed me to understand that the idea of a one-size-fits-all approach to pace was all wrong; that track-surface-distance was the key.

However, I am now rethinking this a bit with my latest research.

I have recently discovered that filtering races based upon distance but not being track specific works well (even better) if one adds a few other dimensions to the filtering, specifically, pace shape of race, size of the racing oval, and length of the stretch.

In other words, it is more powerful to compare races based upon number of E, EP and P horses at this distance nationally than it is to consider just the races at this distance at this track.

My actual filtering process includes:

Surface
Distance
Specific pace shape of race
Same track oval size
Same approx. stretch length (in feet)
Similar track condition
Same age of horses (young horses just run to the front anyway)
Same approx. field size


In other words, I have found that being more specific in the filtering (as outlined above) is stronger than using less filtering but only using today's track. Applying the above filter to just today's track will usually find such a small number of races as to be totally unuseable.



Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[The Bit]

Interesting discussion. I have always believed in pace handicapping but wouldn't consider it a specialty of mine. I do look at how the race shapes up and try to see who will benefit from the likely shape of the pace/race to see if I can uncover an overlay etc. However I don't go into the mathematics of it.

Class has always been tough for me to really use as a handicapping angle because I think class changes with current form and soundness. I guess you could also claim that pace goes hand in hand with current form? Regardless, one thing I will say is it is easier to make cases for overlays if you take class into serious account when handicapping, so I guesss if you know how to analyze it correctly it is profitable for you.

[Light]

Is this an adequate starting point?

I wouldn't compare humans to horses. They have 4 legs,you have 2. They have a 120 lb jockey on their back as they run,you dont. They are told when,where and how to run by the jock during the race,you aren't.Their speed ,stamina and distance ability is greater than humans.Their physiology and psychology is different than humans.There are many more upsets in horseracing as opposed to human racing cause horses cant talk. Also, horses don't run for the money,humans do. You're comparing apples to oranges.

[cj]

The biggest flaw that I see with the original post is this. Rarely are horse races run that are completely lopsided like in your scenarios. The races, for the most part, are somewhat competitive and pace can and usually does have an influence on the result.

[cj]

GreatComm,

...I have recently discovered that filtering races based upon distance but not being track specific works well (even better) if one adds a few other dimensions to the filtering, specifically, pace shape of race, size of the racing oval, and length of the stretch.

In other words, it is more powerful to compare races based upon number of E, EP and P horses at this distance nationally than it is to consider just the races at this distance at this track.

...

In other words, I have found that being more specific in the filtering (as outlined above) is stronger than using less filtering but only using today's track. Applying the above filter to just today's track will usually find such a small number of races as to be totally unuseable.



Regards,
Dave Schwartz


Dave,

In a strange coincedence, I've been studying almost exactly the same thing. I combine pace and speed figures to produce and overall rating. I've been using pretty much the same formula regardless of track or distance. I tinkered around using varying percentages of pace thinking I could customize the formula by track. What I found, however, was it is a much better thing to do by DISTANCE and SURFACE, which if I am reading right is pretty much what you have found as well.

[shanta]

I wouldn't compare humans to horses. They have 4 legs,you have 2. They have a 120 lb jockey on their back as they run,you dont. They are told when,where and how to run by the jock during the race,you aren't.Their speed ,stamina and distance ability is greater than humans.Their physiology and psychology is different than humans.There are many more upsets in horseracing as opposed to human racing cause horses cant talk. Also, horses don't run for the money,humans do. You're comparing apples to oranges.

Respectfully disagree. Both humans and horses will go into oxygen debt when pushed beyond their limits. So the effect of "pace" takes it's toll on both species.

The "Hat" is a member of the Oklahoma track and field hall of fame. Got this honor by leading his high school track team to the state championship for many years winning each time they got there. When he got an invite to some big meet in Socal the much more famous coaches there kept approaching him asking what his teaching methods were.Hat's girl went on to defeat the national champion in one heat amazing everyone watching.

When he was told by Howard that " you should be good at this capping stuff Jimmy.It's like a track meet" the light bulb went on in his head. He then started applying the principals he taught track with to horse racing and became a living legend in the game.

One of his training "secrets" was to cycle his girls between short and long runs and to constantly put them in oxygen debt at lengthening intervals during practices. he'd say that they would come back to him completely shot and gasping for air. They had gone out "too fast" and paid the price for it.

Then when raceday would come he would take them aside and give them specific race strategies where they would "pace themselves" or hold back til certain points in the race before pouncing.

He would "Matchup" his girls against the competition they were facing that day. When he looks at a horse race he "Matches up" the horses against the competiton they face today.

That's apples to apples

[njcurveball]

When he looks at a horse race he "Matches up" the horses against the competiton they face today.



Very well said! :ThmbUp:

[cj's dad]

This approach is very similar if not identical to the one that Michael Dickinson employs.

[njcurveball]

This approach is very similar if not identical to the one that Michael Dickinson employs.

SO he is matching up his wax track to the horses in todays races now? :jump:

[cj's dad]

M.D. continually runs them at longer distances to improve lung capacity, strengthen leg muscles, and keep weight down. He does not baby his animals.

[njcurveball]

M.D. continually runs them at longer distances to improve lung capacity, strengthen leg muscles, and keep weight down. He does not baby his animals.

You may have missed this, he is not training any more

On November 13, 2007, Michael Dickinson announced that he will not apply for a trainer's license in 2008 in order to devote his time to his business of synthetic racetrack surfacing known as Tapeta Footings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapeta_Footings)

[Dave Schwartz]

CJ,

In a strange coincedence, I've been studying almost exactly the same thing. I combine pace and speed figures to produce and overall rating. I've been using pretty much the same formula regardless of track or distance. I tinkered around using varying percentages of pace thinking I could customize the formula by track. What I found, however, was it is a much better thing to do by DISTANCE and SURFACE, which if I am reading right is pretty much what you have found as well.


Cool!

Check out the oval size (which determines one-turn/two-turns) and length of stretch.

Just what you would think... longer stretch run means more closers.



Dave

[cj's dad]

You may have missed this, he is not training any more

On November 13, 2007, Michael Dickinson announced that he will not apply for a trainer's license in 2008 in order to devote his time to his business of synthetic racetrack surfacing known as Tapeta Footings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapeta_Footings)

Obviously I did as I go into hibernation after the BC (just now emerging)- Let me restate that this WAS the method used by MD and IF I owned horses, I would look for a trainer whose methodology was similar to Michael's.

I firmly believe that you cannot sharpen a horses speed UNTIL he has developed stamina above that of his competition, and since there is no way to know what that level will be, one must continue to train, and train some more To do this he must work longer and longer distances, so that when a cut back occurs, his stamina is not a liability but is in fact an asset. I've never understood the theory of workouts at 4 and 5furlongs and then an entry into a 6f. race. How can the animal be properly conditioned?

[46zilzal]

Check out the oval size (which determines one-turn/two-turns) and length of stretch.

Just what you would think... longer stretch run means more closers.


Exactly the case and the Fair Grounds in a good example.

[cj]

...IF I owned horses, I would look for a trainer whose methodology was similar to Michael's.

If you went with a trainer like him, you'd be lucky to see your horse race more than twice a year.

[TEJAS KIDD]

In horse racing the operative word is If.
In "Obvious Statement # 1 that word is huge.

Below are the Beyers and Class for the 5 entrants in last Saturday's Santa Monica Grade 1 race at Santa Anita
Beyer ,Class, Win Odds
2 Society Hostess 97, G3, 9-1
3 Silky Smooth 93 ,89K Handicap, 13-1
4 Overly Tempting 94, Alw 58,070, 9/2
5 Hystericalady 104 ,G1 ,1/5
6 Intangaroo 86, Alw 53200 , 26-1

So who won?
Hint: The lowest Beyer and Class rated runner in the field.
Why? Pace, Recency, Conditioning, shape of race, surface and distance made the race.

I suggest that you throw out Obvious Statement # 1.

And the fact that the runner up and the tiring leader clobbered into each other inside the 1/16th pole helped.

[Kelso]

look at every entries 2 best races and see at what level they were run and what distance.



CJs Dad,
Do you determine "best" by speed rating or by finishes?

Thank you.

[46zilzal]

And the fact that the runner up and the tiring leader clobbered into each other inside the 1/16th pole helped.
If that were the case how does one rectify the pace evaluation which puts them right there?
gm Horse Jockey Win Place Show
6 Intangaroo Alonso Quinonez 55.80 13.20 32.00
2 Society Hostess Jose Valdivia, Jr. 5.20 18.20
4 Overly Tempting David Romero Flores 16.80

Using best dirt lines....

[cj]

If that were the case how does one rectify the pace evaluation which puts them right there?
gm Horse Jockey Win Place Show
6 Intangaroo Alonso Quinonez 55.80 13.20 32.00
2 Society Hostess Jose Valdivia, Jr. 5.20 18.20
4 Overly Tempting David Romero Flores 16.80

Using best dirt lines....

This doesn't change anything that actually happened in the race. The winner greatly benifitted by the two horses slamming together. It doesn't mean the horse didn't "figure" on paper, but sometimes the horse that figured gets lucky and wins even when not the best.

I'm not sure how prerace analysis can change the influence of a event that occurred during the race.

Karl would be proud of your post.

[Great Communicator]

Wow some great responses here. I am definitely NOT trying to preach anything here, just looking for some guidance.

Basically the first 3 "obvious' points I was trying to make was that at the far, far extremes (even further than your example Greyfox) pace and energy distribution were of minimal consequence. However, these factors could, and probably would increase in importance as all the participants in a given race were closer and closer in ability (and form and condition etc. and all that goes with "ability").

The 4th "obvious" point I was trying to get at was that those who do use these methods, must need to believe that most races are close enough to equality to bother with these methods.

From what I'm gathering here, most people seem to believe that in most horse races, the participants are close enough in ability to warrant pace and or energy distribution analysis. The closest I saw to a specific number was given by boomman's post as follows

....GC: The conditions of racing are such that horses that compete against each other are fairly equal in ability I would say about 95% of the time. Occasionally you'll have a huge class dropper or a Graded Stakes horse that towers over the field in terms of ability, but that is much more the exception rather than the rule. So now that your handicapping of the race has indeed verified that the runners in a particular race are fairly equal class wise, that's when the pace of the race and the energy distribution come into play in a big way......


Is this a generally accepted number, that in 95% of races the participants are close enough in ability to make pace analysis or energy distribution analysis a worthy persuit?

( I don't mean to make this a referendum on what you wrote boomman, you were just the only one who wrote down a specific number).

[46zilzal]

Is this a generally accepted number, that in 95% of races the participants are close enough in ability to make pace analysis or energy distribution analysis a worthy persuit?


Depends..Today at Oaklawn energy distribution is making killing on the front end. You have to take what the track is giving you. Beyond a single day it would be hard to make a percentage.
If that bias persists, then the #8, Garden Gloves will have a very good shot in the feature at Oaklawn today.

[TEJAS KIDD]

Why doesnt pace matter in quarterhorse races?
Because horses are gaining speed as they cross the wire. (unless their going 870 yards or maybe even 550)

In thoroughbred racing, as a race gets longer and a horses ability to run at its top speed begin to weaken, that's when pace becomes a factor. We don't have to worry too much about pace in a 3 furlong sprint, because horses can run at top speed for about that long, but as soon as they start running passed that distance, that's when pace becomes more important.

Superior animals sometimes get beat because the pace is too slow. When the pace gets too slow and the field stacks up, it really gives horses that would generally have no chance, A CHANCE. And the same could go for races where the pace is too fast (would more likely depend on the mentality of the superior horse and/or jockey)
Races where the pace is too slow--- gives more horses the oppurtunity to beat the superior animal.
Race where the pace is too fast---gives the superior animal a better chance to get beat.

[46zilzal]

Races where the pace is too slow--- gives more horses the oppurtunity to beat the superior animal.
Race where the pace is too fast---gives the superior animal a better chance to get beat.
In general that is right on.

[Light]

Is this a generally accepted number, that in 95% of races the participants are close enough in ability to make pace analysis or energy distribution analysis a worthy persuit?


Well,when you use your hard earned dollars to bet on horseracing,you pretty much dont even need to ask that question.

[Dave Schwartz]

The 4th "obvious" point I was trying to get at was that those who do use these methods, must need to believe that most races are close enough to equality to bother with these methods.


GreatComm,

First, everything is as perceived. Who says that what we think we see is real?

I mean, a horse wins at 3/5 and I might say, "He won because he was much the best" (which translates to having that big class edge). Someone else might say that he had the best "EP" and that is what wins.

Now, I might be stating the obvious (pun intended) but generally, the shorter the price, the greater the liklihood that many different disciplines/approaches would be able to claim him as the victor because of their approach.

Personally, I think you stated the problem well to begin with. How often does a horse win no matter what the pace scenario? Who really knows, but a best guess would probably coincide with how often odds-on horses win. (That trtanslats into about 10% of all races.)

Now, I am not saying that all odds-on horses win because they are "much the best." I am saying that the number is probably similar. Many of those odds-on winners are not much the best and some horses at 3/1 are.

And how does one qualify to be called a "much the best" horse? I'd say that he has a distinct advantage in enough different approaches... he has the biggest recent speed ratings by a solid margin, he also has the largest past-speed ratings. He probably shows a significant edge in class, and, possibly figures to have one of the faster stretch runs ("SR" in my technology, perhaps F3 in someone else's) as well as a competitive pace. In addition to all this, he should be on the upside of his form cycle (however, you choose to determine that).

In other words, he fits on just about everything.

And, even though he appears to be the Mr. Everything in this race, he might still not get there for some other, and possibly unknown reason. Perhaps Sligg can chime in here about his "true favorites." They certainly seem to be winning without the benefit of pace analysis, which would indicate that pace is a non-seqitar to them.


IMHO, pace is just another tool in the handicapping arsenal. While it is probably the strongest tool, it is still just a tool.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[cj's dad]

If you went with a trainer like him, you'd be lucky to see your horse race more than twice a year.

I'd take my chances. DO the name Da Hoss ring a bell ???

[cj's dad]

CJs Dad,
Do you determine "best" by speed rating or by finishes?

Thank you.

Best finish at a race close to today's conditions, i.e. purse,distance, surface, etc.... with the lone exception being a long lay-off if on the main track.

I have been sucessful using this approach.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

If a 4th grade boy running against 4th graders always runs 400m in appx. 1:00 and he is racing a classy older adult who is racing against olympic runners while running 1:05 all the time.............

I know who I'm betting on and it's not the big guy.

[asH]

All things are relative )Einstein(



Time is relative to the speed at which you move. The beginning of a race is relative to its end, a handicappers ability is relative to his interpretation of what he sees, which is also a level of awareness. All relative actions are proportional to each other (you know, opposite and equal reaction..2nd law) and can be measured providing you know what to measure and when. A fast horse could linearly regress (energy distribution) through a race symmetrically distributing its energy, providing his jockey balances the energy proportionally from the start of the race to the end (pace) at a exacting intensity . Pace is relative to energy distribution, energy distribution is relative to pace… at a relative point symmetry is

[Great Communicator]

lol insidethepylons, I was totally making up those numbers off the top of my head, I figured someone would call me out on it.


ASH, everything may be relative, but in my example of me running against 4th graders, I was stating an absolute, that I would beat these kids, end of story. Pace and energy will have zero impact on my race vs. 4th graders. This is my starting point, albeit an extreme one. I move towards relativity as my running abilities approach equality to my competitors. This is my contention.


Dave Schwartz, thanks for your thoughtful comments in this thread.

GreatComm,

....Personally, I think you stated the problem well to begin with. How often does a horse win no matter what the pace scenario? Who really knows, but a best guess would probably coincide with how often odds-on horses win. (That trtanslats into about 10% of all races.).....


At the extremes (super horse situation), this horse will win no matter the pace scenario (Secretariat vs. Belmont field).

My logic leads me to believe (with no research at all, mind you), that as the best horse gets closer to its competion (not a super horse any more, now merely a great horse) pace and energy can become factors that may affect the outcome of a race (wheras they did not under the super horse situation).

If the best horse in the race is merely a very good horse (not a super horse, nor a great horse), pace and energy become even more important.

As I keep moving towards the case where the best horse in the race is only as good as the other horses, pace and energy issues will be at their maximum.

In other words, my logic leads me to believe that these issues vary in significance from race to race depending on the quality of the best horse in the field, perhaps on a scale from 1 to 10 in importance (1 in the super horse situation, 10 when all horses are equal).

This to me seems obvious, but I wanted to make sure I was on the same page as others here. I'm not so sure I am, however.

[asH]

I'm saying the same thing.