Pace Analysis

[rrbauer]

Oh! Now there's a concept. WTF does it mean? Why doesn't Schwartz just fess up to what his agenda is here and then we can post accordingly. Go ahead Dave, take a shot and then we'll empty out the dirty-laundry basket.

[garyscpa]

I think he might mean the Randy Giles type of pace analysis.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Oh! Now there's a concept. WTF does it mean?

I've got no idea either.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

Well that's interesting as "Pace analysis" is a runaway early leader in the 1st choice poll

I will add I don't know what pace analysis is which must be why I have so many losing bets

[matthewsiv]

I am guessing that we are talking about the famous Match Up!

[jasperson]

Well that's interesting as "Pace analysis" is a runaway early leader in the 1st choice poll

I will add I don't know what pace analysis is which must be why I have so many losing bets
To me pace analysis is a nebulous thing. How do you know when you are doing it right and what numerical number can you but on it once you have done it? I wrote a program it do Brohamers pace calculations on bris data and I tried my best to select a race for each horse that closely represented his ability at that distance and class. Then I printed out the pace numbers and the speed rating of each race for each horse and speed rating out performed early pace rating sustained pace rating and average pace rating in predicting winners I even converted the data for each ep sp & ap into a ranking 1 for best 2 for 2nd best 3 for 3rd best 4 for front half of field and 5 for in the last half of the field and total these ranking for each horses and thought that might help with predicting winners better than speed with no such luck. I read Brohamers book along with the articles published by allways in support of they software and that didn't seem to help. I would venture to say I gave pace handicapping a more than a fair trial before I discarded it. As for speed I have a database with 10,000 races and speed alone predicts the winner 29% of the time. That includes maiden races turf races routes and sprints at many tracks so it is not specific to any track or distance. I look at speed first in my handicapping then running styles, early pace and then the other less important factors. To me pace analysis is vapor ware

[Greyfox]

To me pace analysis is a nebulous thing. How do you know when you are doing it right and what numerical number can you but on it once you have done it? I wrote a program it do Brohamers pace calculations on bris data and I tried my best to select a race for each horse that closely represented his ability at that distance and class. Then I printed out the pace numbers and the speed rating of each race for each horse and speed rating out performed early pace rating sustained pace rating and average pace rating in predicting winners I even converted the data for each ep sp & ap into a ranking 1 for best 2 for 2nd best 3 for 3rd best 4 for front half of field and 5 for in the last half of the field and total these ranking for each horses and thought that might help with predicting winners better than speed with no such luck. I read Brohamers book along with the articles published by allways in support of they software and that didn't seem to help. I would venture to say I gave pace handicapping a more than a fair trial before I discarded it. As for speed I have a database with 10,000 races and speed alone predicts the winner 29% of the time. That includes maiden races turf races routes and sprints at many tracks so it is not specific to any track or distance. I look at speed first in my handicapping then running styles, early pace and then the other less important factors. To me pace analysis is vapor ware


You're on the right course - don't quit.
You are keeping records of what wins and what doesn't.
The bottom line is you have to integrate Pace and Speed.
Brohamer is a great writer to start with.
Beyer gives you a great idea of staying power.
Put the ideas of those two together and Bingo.

[MONEY]

I just use names

Philly's 10th race today 01/10 was won by
#7. Big D
the second place horse was
#6. Bigstormrising
3rd place was
#10. Big Bully
and the super was completed by
#2. Country Showing,
The owner of Country Showing is listed as,
The Big Boy Stable.:D

money

[Greyfox]

I just use names

Philly's 10th race today 01/10 was won by
#7. Big D
the second place horse was
#6. Bigstormrising
3rd place was
#10. Big Bully
and the super was completed by
#2. Country Showing,
The owner of Country Showing is listed as,
The Big Boy Stable.:D

money

Brilliant. Never thought of that. What about seconds for exotics? :lol: :lol: :lol:

[raybo]

IMO, pace analysis includes: today's likely pace scenario combined with each horse's current pace capabilities and running style, all tempered by current form. Pace analysis is a multi-factor exercise. But, none of it means much without knowing each horse's current form.

[valueguy]

In my humble opinion ,pace is directly related to what you think is the track
bias for the distance and surface.Could be early, late or neutral.

[Dave Schwartz]

Oh! Now there's a concept. WTF does it mean? Why doesn't Schwartz just fess up to what his agenda is here and then we can post accordingly. Go ahead Dave, take a shot and then we'll empty out the dirty-laundry basket.

Are you asking what I think pace analysis is?

I thought I explained it pretty well, without writing a book about it. It means interpreting a model and asking how well each horse is suited for the current model.

As for my "agenda" - simply to see what the "public" thinks is most important-to-least-important.

The ultimate outcome is to build a weighting system.

[jasperson]

pAre you asking what I think pace analysis is?

I thought I explained it pretty well, without writing a book about it. It means interpreting a model and asking how well each horse is suited for the current model.

As for my "agenda" - simply to see what the "public" thinks is most important-to-least-important.

The ultimate outcome is to build a weighting system.
Since this is the paceadvantage forum isn't asking what is the first handicapping choice sort of like asking a democrat who is the better president Bill Clinton or George Bush?

[46zilzal]

Oh! Now there's a concept. WTF does it mean? Why doesn't Schwartz just fess up to what his agenda is here and then we can post accordingly. Go ahead Dave, take a shot and then we'll empty out the dirty-laundry basket.
There are a lot of us, totally unconnected to the fellow mentioned above, who have, do and will continue to use this very effective way of evaluating the outcome of horse races.

Pace is what makes a few able to stay up close and others able to move late. Pace is what makes the game go around on just about all surfaces upon which horses run.

[Jackal]

Pace analysis is important at many tracks. Sometimes horses you would never expect win wire to wire at a price. Even if the quickest horse doesn't go to the lead - likely it isn't expending as much energy to stalk the leaders.

Pace analysis also allows you to weed out "need the lead horses."

[fmolf]

I agree Jackal and just to expound on that a bit...pace analysis is the study of whether each individual horse and his running style will likely be able to run to his optimum abilities.Some scenarios:you would not want to bet a closer in a race where the favorite is the lone speed....You could thru pace analysis bet the speed horse you deduce could put away the other speed horses in a dual and win the race.(Speed of the speed horse).Only thru a thorough and careful analysis of a horses running style and what the likely rate of early speed will be in this race,will you be able to determine which horse will have enough left in the stretch.It's all in the pp's

[skate]

If you are using Speed, then you Are using Pace.

To say "use speed and not pace" would imply, except for resent changes in social life, it's like having a wedding without Bride/Groom.

Not to have notice about the value of pace, is wrong, but it might only involve a small % of your capping.
If you had a win % of 28% attributed to speed alone. pace might add 5 to 10%. for example.

Ok ok ok, if you cap by Post number, odds, jock, trainer, color etc. dont use pace.

But if you use the horse...

[46zilzal]

Speed: start to finish and it can vary wildly as you might see a turf sprinter and a dirt sprinter run the SAME final time but in wildly different energy distributions.

As was said long ago, it is not how fast they run, but how they run fast that is important.

[Cratos]

Oh! Now there's a concept. WTF does it mean? Why doesn't Schwartz just fess up to what his agenda is here and then we can post accordingly. Go ahead Dave, take a shot and then we'll empty out the dirty-laundry basket.

Pace simply stated is the “internal speed of the race” and is in my opinion the second most important factor in determining the outcome of a horse race; class is the most important.

To understand pace graphically, one can construct a simple X-Y graph with pace being the independent variable, X and final time being the dependent variable, Y.

What readily would be seen is that the faster the pace (internal speed of the race), the faster the final time.

However pace as the internal speed of the race is better understood when it is incrementally analyzed.

You can choose whatever increments you like, but the internal speed of each increment in the race will allow for a graph to be constructed of the shape of the race.

For example take 3 horses: A, B, and C with all having run 6 furlongs at the same track, on the same day, in the same class (but different races) and with same final times, but different incremental times.

Horse A: Qtr1 = .23, Qtr2 = .23, Qtr3 = .23 and final time = 1:09

Horse B: Qtr1 = .22, Qtr2 = .24, Qtr3 = .23 and final time = 1:09

Horse C: Qtr1 = .21.2, Qtr2 = .22.8, Qtr3 = .25 and final time = 1:09

What clearly can be seen from this simple example is that Horse A rated well over the distance with even energy distribution? Horse B might get in trouble, but was good enough to rebound for the final quarter. Horse C was the speedster type; his race is about catch me if you can.

From a pace analysis there isn’t any question that Horse A would probably be the toughest competitor and as the distance stretched out Horse B would become a more prominent competitor. Horse C appears to be an ardent front-runner.

[raybo]

Pace simply stated is the “internal speed of the race” and is in my opinion the second most important factor in determining the outcome of a horse race; class is the most important.

To understand pace graphically, one can construct a simple X-Y graph with pace being the independent variable, X and final time being the dependent variable, Y.

What readily would be seen is that the faster the pace (internal speed of the race), the faster the final time.

However pace as the internal speed of the race is better understood when it is incrementally analyzed.

You can choose whatever increments you like, but the internal speed of each increment in the race will allow for a graph to be constructed of the shape of the race.

For example take 3 horses: A, B, and C with all having run 6 furlongs at the same track, on the same day, in the same class (but different races) and with same final times, but different incremental times.

Horse A: Qtr1 = .23, Qtr2 = .23, Qtr3 = .23 and final time = 1:09

Horse B: Qtr1 = .22, Qtr2 = .24, Qtr3 = .23 and final time = 1:09

Horse C: Qtr1 = .21.2, Qtr2 = .22.8, Qtr3 = .25 and final time = 1:09

What clearly can be seen from this simple example is that Horse A rated well over the distance with even energy distribution? Horse B might get in trouble, but was good enough to rebound for the final quarter. Horse C was the speedster type; his race is about catch me if you can.

From a pace analysis there isn’t any question that Horse A would probably be the toughest competitor and as the distance stretched out Horse B would become a more prominent competitor. Horse C appears to be an ardent front-runner.

Wouldn't you think that the internal fractions and final time are most of what determines class?

[Cratos]

Wouldn't you think that the internal fractions and final time are most of what determines class?

If I understand you well, you are saying that higher the class, the better the final times with better internal speeds and I wholeheartedly agree.

This is why if you are a speed figure maker, you should incorporate the internal speed of the race into your figures.

[raybo]

If I understand you well, you are saying that higher the class, the better the final times with better internal speeds and I wholeheartedly agree.

This is why if you are a speed figure maker, you should incorporate the internal speed of the race into your figures.

Agreed!

[Jackal]

Computer generated speed figures put to much emphasis on conditions to be effective. Here is an example:

Rule won the Jean Lafitte at Delta Downs. He set a track record and got a 97 Beyer. He wins the G3 Delta Jackpot and gets a 100+ Beyer. How can a horse set a track record in an overnight handicap and not get a 100+ Beyer?

Ray Charles could see Rule likes the track and will be tough to beat under any circumstance, even in graded stakes company.

[illinoisbred]

Computer generated speed figures put to much emphasis on conditions to be effective. Here is an example:

Rule won the Jean Lafitte at Delta Downs. He set a track record and got a 97 Beyer. He wins the G3 Delta Jackpot and gets a 100+ Beyer. How can a horse set a track record in an overnight handicap and not get a 100+ Beyer?

Ray Charles could see Rule likes the track and will be tough to beat under any circumstance, even in graded stakes company.
It depends on that night's track speed. Obviously, Beyer and assoc. determined the night of the LaFitte was a faster surface and arrived at a variant to reflect that.

[cj]

If I understand you well, you are saying that higher the class, the better the final times with better internal speeds and I wholeheartedly agree.

This is why if you are a speed figure maker, you should incorporate the internal speed of the race into your figures.

I agree of course since that is exactly what I do.

One thing that I think a lot of people don't understand is while better horses run faster early and late, they also expend their energy more efficiently.

For example, a winning cheap claimer may run 46 and 1:12 for 6f. 67% of the race took only 64% of the time to finish (46 / 72). Lets assume on the same track better stakes horses are capable of running in 1:09. If you assumed the same proportion of pace to speed, you would guess the better horses would win with around a 44 flat half, but this is not what usually happens. The better horses ration speed better and would probably run at least a few fifths slower to the half, around 44 and 3.

This is at least part of the reason some over matched horses, while having no chance to win, can still impact the race.

[098poi]

One thing that I think a lot of people don't understand is while better horses run faster early and late, they also expend their energy more efficiently.


Excellent point. I have always thought that it's not as simple as the winner ran the fastest but that his speed was used the most efficiently! Just like in the three bears. This porridge is too hot, this one is too cold and this one is just right!

[gm10]

Pace simply stated is the “internal speed of the race” and is in my opinion the second most important factor in determining the outcome of a horse race; class is the most important.

To understand pace graphically, one can construct a simple X-Y graph with pace being the independent variable, X and final time being the dependent variable, Y.

What readily would be seen is that the faster the pace (internal speed of the race), the faster the final time.

However pace as the internal speed of the race is better understood when it is incrementally analyzed.

You can choose whatever increments you like, but the internal speed of each increment in the race will allow for a graph to be constructed of the shape of the race.

For example take 3 horses: A, B, and C with all having run 6 furlongs at the same track, on the same day, in the same class (but different races) and with same final times, but different incremental times.

Horse A: Qtr1 = .23, Qtr2 = .23, Qtr3 = .23 and final time = 1:09

Horse B: Qtr1 = .22, Qtr2 = .24, Qtr3 = .23 and final time = 1:09

Horse C: Qtr1 = .21.2, Qtr2 = .22.8, Qtr3 = .25 and final time = 1:09

What clearly can be seen from this simple example is that Horse A rated well over the distance with even energy distribution? Horse B might get in trouble, but was good enough to rebound for the final quarter. Horse C was the speedster type; his race is about catch me if you can.

From a pace analysis there isn’t any question that Horse A would probably be the toughest competitor and as the distance stretched out Horse B would become a more prominent competitor. Horse C appears to be an ardent front-runner.

It's a good explanation (imo anyway), but one thing that pace never accounts for as far as I know, is the internal pressures of the race. A horse running 23 seconds when it is 2l ahead of the rest, or running 23 seconds when there are two or three horses battling for the lead. They look the same afterwards (=23 seconds opening fraction), but they clearly aren't. Pace analysis is very tricky imo.

[46zilzal]

Better horses can contend throughout the contest.......

[rrbauer]

Are you asking what I think pace analysis is?

I thought I explained it pretty well, without writing a book about it. It means interpreting a model and asking how well each horse is suited for the current model.

As for my "agenda" - simply to see what the "public" thinks is most important-to-least-important.

The ultimate outcome is to build a weighting system.

Boy, it is clear to me why you have gotten out of the software business and have redeployed your energies to betting (according to you). ThoroBrain all over again. Problem is that all of the gobbledygook from your software promotions continues to resonate in these polls. Why don't you just go off and bet like you said you were going to do and stop cluttering up this site with these meaningless polls.

[bobphilo]

The bottom line is you have to integrate Pace and Speed.
Brohamer is a great writer to start with.
Beyer gives you a great idea of staying power.
Put the ideas of those two together and Bingo.

Exactly. Speed alone does pretty well as a stand alone factor but improves when one takes into account what kind of pace the horse set when earning the speed figure, and how it figures to do with todays pace scenario.

In other words, pace, like trips, works best as an adjunct or adjustment to speed. Every study I've seen shows that no one segment of a race alone is as predictive as the final speed figure. To use and judge pace alone as such is missing the point and unfair.

Bob

[wes]

http://home.att.net/~jimthehat/files/work.html


A web site of Jim where he explains a little about acceleration and deceleration.

wes

[bobphilo]

It's a good explanation (imo anyway), but one thing that pace never accounts for as far as I know, is the internal pressures of the race. A horse running 23 seconds when it is 2l ahead of the rest, or running 23 seconds when there are two or three horses battling for the lead. They look the same afterwards (=23 seconds opening fraction), but they clearly aren't. Pace analysis is very tricky imo.

I know that this may be a contrarian view but the mere fact that 2 horses happen to be running next to each, even when setting a pace well within their capabilities, are not necessarily "dueling". True, when 2 or more competitive early speed types are on the lead they are more likely to run faster than when unoppsed, but this will be reflected by the fast fractions. Horses apply "internal pressure" to their rivals by running fast.

There is no physiological reason why dueling should have any negative fatigue effect beyond the fast fractions it could generate. While, psychologically some horses may be intimidated by a challenge from another runner, this would be shown by that horse backing off from that challenge very quickly, and not battling on and then tiring in the late stages due to fatigue from "internal pressure" unless the pace was fast.

Bob

[098poi]

Boy, it is clear to me why you have gotten out of the software business and have redeployed your energies to betting (according to you). ThoroBrain all over again. Problem is that all of the gobbledygook from your software promotions continues to resonate in these polls. Why don't you just go off and bet like you said you were going to do and stop cluttering up this site with these meaningless polls.


I know Dave can defend himself but I take offense to this. Dave is a top notch guy and an asset to this site. Put him on your ignore list if you must!

[Show Me the Wire]

I know that this may be a contrarian view but the mere fact that 2 horses happen to be running next to each, even when setting a pace well within their capabilities, are not necessarily "dueling". True, when 2 or more competitive early speed types are on the lead they are more likely to run faster than when unoppsed, but this will be reflected by the fast fractions. Horses apply "internal pressure" to their rivals by running fast.

.................................................. ................................................

Bob

Well put :ThmbUp:

[Space Monkey]

I agree 098. There sure seems to be some hard feelings here on RR's part. IMO he started this thread with the intent on bashing DS. In my few encounters with DS, I found him to be a pretty good guy. Hes trying his best to beat this game like we all are and I find his ways in approaching it very interesting.

[skate]

I know Dave can defend himself but I take offense to this. Dave is a top notch guy and an asset to this site. Put him on your ignore list if you must!

Avsolutely, what...:eek:

[gm10]

I know that this may be a contrarian view but the mere fact that 2 horses happen to be running next to each, even when setting a pace well within their capabilities, are not necessarily "dueling". True, when 2 or more competitive early speed types are on the lead they are more likely to run faster than when unoppsed, but this will be reflected by the fast fractions. Horses apply "internal pressure" to their rivals by running fast.

There is no physiological reason why dueling should have any negative fatigue effect beyond the fast fractions it could generate. While, psychologically some horses may be intimidated by a challenge from another runner, this would be shown by that horse backing off from that challenge very quickly, and not battling on and then tiring in the late stages due to fatigue from "internal pressure" unless the pace was fast.

Bob

There's no way we can prove this, as the horses can't talk, but I think that in the case of such competitive animals looking each other in the eye while running near top speed, there has to be some sort of extra stress factor taken into account.

Anyway - I did some analysis on this once. Identical early fractions lead to slower final times when there was more than one horse trying to set the pace. Of course there are other factors, such as what class were you looking at, etc. But the results were at least indicative.

[bobphilo]

There's no way we can prove this, as the horses can't talk, but I think that in the case of such competitive animals looking each other in the eye while running near top speed, there has to be some sort of extra stress factor taken into account.

Anyway - I did some analysis on this once. Identical early fractions lead to slower final times when there was more than one horse trying to set the pace. Of course there are other factors, such as what class were you looking at, etc. But the results were at least indicative.

Ahh, the old “look’em in the eye” death ray effect. Seriously, there’s a problem with your analysis and your on to something when you say additional factors must be considered. Horses running identical fractions cannot be said to be earning identical pace figures, just as horses running identical final times cannot be said to be running identical speed figures. In a true pace analysis the early pace depends on the early fractions IN RELATION TO the final time. That’s the basis of pace analysis whether you are using Moss pace figures or the concept of “percent early energy” in Sartin/Brohamer. The examples you’re using in your study where the group of horses going for the early lead cause slower final times are examples of fast early pace RELATIVE TO final time. The relatively fast early fractions are causing the slower final time due to the well-understood tiring effects of these relatively fast early splits. No need to introduce some mysterious eye contact effect.

This does not indicate anything other than what I explained earlier. When there are 2 or more competitive types going for the lead the early pace will be often be fast, relative to the final time, and have a tiring effect. No other effect need be postulated.

Bob

[markgoldie]

I just now read the posts in this thread.

I'm not in the mood for argument, but a major misconception has gone unchallenged and another is active.

First, the unchallenged. Someone said that in thoroughbred racing faster paces invariably lead to faster final times and this is the reverse of not only the truth but the accepted concensus of all published literature on the subject. There are rare instances in which a "too slow" pace will lead to a slower final time simply because it is physically impossible to make up for the pace deficit created by the slow early fractions. But these cases are rare.

I believe this same poster listed three races all with the final time of 1:09, but with varying pace and I think declared the winner of the race with the middle mid fractions would defeat the other two in a three way race. However, all accepted literature and expertise would tell us the the horse with the fastest internal fractions would defeat the other two, all things being equal (those things being that the horses were all racing to maximum ability in the qualifying races and that they each returned in the identical form as the qualifying events, etc.). It is simply more difficult to post the 1:09 with the fastest quarter and half splits. This theory goes all the way back to Ainsle and Taulbot and has never been seriously challenged to my knowledge for a very good reason: it is correct.

The other active argument seems to be over whether two horses racing next to each other expend more energy than a horse racing alone on the front through identical fractions. The correct answer is that in virtually all cases, the horses racing next to each other will expend more energy through competetive nervousness. Granted, handicappers who have never raced a horse may not understand this phenomenon since it is bio-physical and not mathematical, but ask any trainer or jockey and they will confirm the effect. Relaxation of the animal is paramount to energy conservation when racing and it is a very, very rare animal who can relax with another horse directly next to him. Also, while this may only seem pertinent to speed types, even S types race worse if at the back of the pack two of them are racing directly next to each other.

[gm10]

Ahh, the old “look’em in the eye” death ray effect. Seriously, there’s a problem with your analysis and your on to something when you say additional factors must be considered. Horses running identical fractions cannot be said to be earning identical pace figures, just as horses running identical final times cannot be said to be running identical speed figures. In a true pace analysis the early pace depends on the early fractions IN RELATION TO the final time. That’s the basis of pace analysis whether you are using Moss pace figures or the concept of “percent early energy” in Sartin/Brohamer. The examples you’re using in your study where the group of horses going for the early lead cause slower final times are examples of fast early pace RELATIVE TO final time. The relatively fast early fractions are causing the slower final time due to the well-understood tiring effects of these relatively fast early splits. No need to introduce some mysterious eye contact effect.

I've read all the authors that you mention. Their explanations were stimulating, but ultimately, I was never 100% satisfied by them. Of course they are true to a certain extent. Yes, you can categorize certain performances as fast early leading to a slower final time. But it doesn't explain what the underlying reason is. Why does this happen?

Did the horses just simply use up too much energy? If so, what kind of energy? Is a physical effort just a function of calories being converted into forward movement? If so (which I doubt - what about the mental effects of competition), does having a horse next to a horse change the way the horse uses its muscles? Its body language changes, so maybe its muscles are in a slightly different state, which could have an effect on how well the muscles are working and how efficiently those calories are being employed.

Does having a horse next to them make the jockey more tense? Is a tense jockey the same 'dead weight' for the horse as a fully relaxed jockey whose posture is in harmony with the horse's movement?

There are many more questions, and they are valid questions which are not addressed by 'pace theory'. Therefore it can only be regarded as a very crude framework for describing these race dynamics.


This does not indicate anything other than what I explained earlier. When there are 2 or more competitive types going for the lead the early pace will be often be fast, relative to the final time, and have a tiring effect. No other effect need be postulated.

Bob

Sounds like you know it all, so please answer me this. What happens when a two horses up front set slow fractions. What does the proper application of Pace Theory predict in this case?

[cj]

Well said Bob.

One thing I have found is that percentage steadily changes as you move up the class ladder on dirt. MCL expend the most, then claimers, then MSW, then ALW horses. One interesting note was the stakes winners have to expend a little more early to win...the races are more competitive I guess.

Here are a few examples, listing the percentage of time the early pace takes at the various class levels for the winner:

DIS MCL CLM MSW ALW STK
6f 64.36 64.46 64.50 64.62 64.57
7f 54.77 54.96 55.13 55.33 55.19
8f 73.76 73.84 73.98 74.07 73.94
9f 65.62 65.66 66.06 66.11 65.97

[46zilzal]

http://home.att.net/~jimthehat/files/work.html


A web site of Jim where he explains a little about acceleration and deceleration.

wes
Find the third fraction velocity feet per second and divide it by th 2nd call velocity feet/sec and you have deceleration in many of the Sartin programs

[Cratos]

I just now read the posts in this thread.

I'm not in the mood for argument, but a major misconception has gone unchallenged and another is active.

First, the unchallenged. Someone said that in thoroughbred racing faster paces invariably lead to faster final times and this is the reverse of not only the truth but the accepted concensus of all published literature on the subject. There are rare instances in which a "too slow" pace will lead to a slower final time simply because it is physically impossible to make up for the pace deficit created by the slow early fractions. But these cases are rare.

I believe this same poster listed three races all with the final time of 1:09, but with varying pace and I think declared the winner of the race with the middle mid fractions would defeat the other two in a three way race. However, all accepted literature and expertise would tell us the the horse with the fastest internal fractions would defeat the other two, all things being equal (those things being that the horses were all racing to maximum ability in the qualifying races and that they each returned in the identical form as the qualifying events, etc.). It is simply more difficult to post the 1:09 with the fastest quarter and half splits. This theory goes all the way back to Ainsle and Taulbot and has never been seriously challenged to my knowledge for a very good reason: it is correct.

The other active argument seems to be over whether two horses racing next to each other expend more energy than a horse racing alone on the front through identical fractions. The correct answer is that in virtually all cases, the horses racing next to each other will expend more energy through competetive nervousness. Granted, handicappers who have never raced a horse may not understand this phenomenon since it is bio-physical and not mathematical, but ask any trainer or jockey and they will confirm the effect. Relaxation of the animal is paramount to energy conservation when racing and it is a very, very rare animal who can relax with another horse directly next to him. Also, while this may only seem pertinent to speed types, even S types race worse if at the back of the pack two of them are racing directly next to each other.

First of all, I am the poster who gave the example of the three horses and in that post I never said a faster pace would invariably lead to a faster final time, but to answer that hypothesis I will agree and say that the faster the pace, the faster the final time with rare exceptions

The reason for this has little to do with horseracing and a lot to do with physics.

A horse race is a finite interval of distance and given that speed is distance over time, the faster the horse travel, the quicker it will reach the end of its finite interval of distance.

For instance if a horse running the distance of 1 mile and travel the first 7/8th of the mile in 1:21, it could travel the last 1/8th in 14 seconds and achieve a final time of 1:35. On the other hand, the 7/8th could have been run in 1:24, but the final 1/8th would need 11 seconds to achieve the 1:35 final time. Therein lies the problem, the horse having expended “X” amount of energy would have to energize itself to run a very fast final 1/8th mile. It probably has been done, but very infrequently.

Also I think you should re-read my post (#12) in this thread because I never “declared the winner of the race with the middle mid fractions would defeat the other two in a three way race” (your words).
What I said and will repeat, was the following: “From a pace analysis there isn’t any question that Horse A would probably be the toughest competitor and as the distance stretched out Horse B would become a more prominent competitor. Horse C appears to be an ardent front-runner.”

[gm10]

Well said Bob.

One thing I have found is that percentage steadily changes as you move up the class ladder on dirt. MCL expend the most, then claimers, then MSW, then ALW horses. One interesting note was the stakes winners have to expend a little more early to win...the races are more competitive I guess.

Here are a few examples, listing the percentage of time the early pace takes at the various class levels for the winner:

DIS MCL CLM MSW ALW STK
6f 64.36 64.46 64.50 64.62 64.57
7f 54.77 54.96 55.13 55.33 55.19
8f 73.76 73.84 73.98 74.07 73.94
9f 65.62 65.66 66.06 66.11 65.97

I don't get it - what does that mean

[Show Me the Wire]

gm10:

The answer to your question is based in physics and biology. Cratos is correct regarding the physics. The horse race is a finite interval of distance. The best possible scenario is when the horse covers the finite interval of distance through evenly expending its energy.

Energy expenditure, the biology, generally impacts the ability of the horse to finish. While the horse is expending energy, it uses up the oxygen it its blood. The loss of oxygen starts the build-up of lactic acid. Lactic acid fatigues the muscles and causes the horse to slow down.

Nervousness can expend energy causing the horse to begin the fatigue process. Since every horse is physically and emotionally different oxygen loss can be due to many variables, such as lung or breathing limitations, energy used up by exertion, nervousness, etc.

Generally, speaking the more energy the horse uses to maintain the lead or postion early in the race, it will run slower in the later stages of the race and the less energy used early on, should translate to running faster at the end of the race.

An example of this is the Woodward. R.A. used more energy early to build up a big enough lead, to cover the finite interval of distance before any other horse could expend enough energy late, to cover the remaining finite interval of ground, prior to the wire.

Based on final time, speed figures, both Macho Again and R.A. covered the finite interval of distance in the same time. They both must be credited with the same speed figure. The only difference is that R.A. through her early quickness covered a little more ground early than Macho Again could cover in the late stage.

So final time wise they ran the same race, but R.A. ran a superior race, because she out ran the other horses early and forced them to use too much energy preventing them from staying with her and consumed enough ground to hold off a serious late charge. Macho Again came close to R.A. because his energy expenditure was almost exactly opposite of R.A.

So basically it comes down to lung capacity, the amount of oxygen available in the blood and the finite interval of ground.

[cj]

I don't get it - what does that mean

For example, at 6f maiden claimers take about 64.36% of the final time to get to the pace call. So, if the horses ran 1:11, you would multiply 71 by .6436 for an expected pace of about 45.70 at the 1/2 mile call. Each higher class level would take more time to get to the half call and finish faster.

The classier horses get, the more they seem to save energy for the finish. At every distance, it follows in order...MCL, CLM, MSW, ALW.

However, stakes for some reason don't continue the pattern. I think at the highest level, it is tougher and more competitive and you don't get as many easy pace winners.

[gm10]

gm10:

The answer to your question is based in physics and biology. Cratos is correct regarding the physics. The horse race is a finite interval of distance. The best possible scenario is when the horse covers the finite interval of distance through evenly expending its energy.

Energy expenditure, the biology, generally impacts the ability of the horse to finish. While the horse is expending energy, it uses up the oxygen it its blood. The loss of oxygen starts the build-up of lactic acid. Lactic acid fatigues the muscles and causes the horse to slow down.

I was thinking this but couldn't express it in English!!! (My mother tongue is Dutch.) People use the same terms to describe the performance of cyclists in the Tour De France mountain stages.

Nervousness can expend energy causing the horse to begin the fatigue process. Since every horse is physically and emotionally different oxygen loss can be due to many variables, such as lung or breathing limitations, energy used up by exertion, nervousness, etc.

Generally, speaking the more energy the horse uses to maintain the lead or postion early in the race, it will run slower in the later stages of the race and the less energy used early on, should translate to running faster at the end of the race.[quote]

Yes I used to think this too. But often, slow early times go hand in hand with slow late times and bad performances. Your claim does often (not always) apply to the winner ... but if he's the one we're trying to find :).

[quote]An example of this is the Woodward. R.A. used more energy early to build up a big enough lead, to cover the finite interval of distance before any other horse could expend enough energy late, to cover the remaining finite interval of ground, prior to the wire.

Based on final time, speed figures, both Macho Again and R.A. covered the finite interval of distance in the same time. They both must be credited with the same speed figure. The only difference is that R.A. through her early quickness covered a little more ground early than Macho Again could cover in the late stage.

So final time wise they ran the same race, but R.A. ran a superior race, because she out ran the other horses early and forced them to use too much energy preventing them from staying with her and consumed enough ground to hold off a serious late charge. Macho Again came close to R.A. because his energy expenditure was almost exactly opposite of R.A.


This I agree with. RA has a unique blend of being able to run early fast fractions AND compete with the strong closers afterwards - within G1 company. Speed figures do not adequately explain the difference between RA and MA's respective races.

One remark (you may or may not agree) ... if MA doesn't make his late run, RA wins in a slower time, and gets a different energy distribution. It was her class that determined her final energy distribution - not the other way around.


So basically it comes down to lung capacity, the amount of oxygen available in the blood and the finite interval of ground.

[Show Me the Wire]

.................................................. ........................
Yes I used to think this too. But often, slow early times go hand in hand with slow late times and bad performances. Your claim does often (not always) apply to the winner ... but if he's the one we're trying to find :)....................


I don't disagree with your obseravation. Slow horses run slow early and late. The worst performances are slow early, because the horses can't run early and do not possess enough stamina to finish, resulting in slow times from either the pace horses or the closers. As you said it is a function of class.

[markgoldie]

First of all, I am the poster who gave the example of the three horses and in that post I never said a faster pace would invariably lead to a faster final time, but to answer that hypothesis I will agree and say that the faster the pace, the faster the final time with rare exceptions

The reason for this has little to do with horseracing and a lot to do with physics.

A horse race is a finite interval of distance and given that speed is distance over time, the faster the horse travel, the quicker it will reach the end of its finite interval of distance.

For instance if a horse running the distance of 1 mile and travel the first 7/8th of the mile in 1:21, it could travel the last 1/8th in 14 seconds and achieve a final time of 1:35. On the other hand, the 7/8th could have been run in 1:24, but the final 1/8th would need 11 seconds to achieve the 1:35 final time. Therein lies the problem, the horse having expended “X” amount of energy would have to energize itself to run a very fast final 1/8th mile. It probably has been done, but very infrequently.

Also I think you should re-read my post (#12) in this thread because I never “declared the winner of the race with the middle mid fractions would defeat the other two in a three way race” (your words).
What I said and will repeat, was the following: “From a pace analysis there isn’t any question that Horse A would probably be the toughest competitor and as the distance stretched out Horse B would become a more prominent competitor. Horse C appears to be an ardent front-runner.”
Apologies for misquoting you relative to the three horses racing in 1:09. I read it quickly and assumed this was similar to many, many such comparisons I have seen in the past and it seemed to me that you were choosing a horse other than the fastest pace horse as a potential winner if the three met. Instead, you apparently were making no instructive point at all. The first horse is the "thoughest competitor" of the three, although I suppose you make no extrapolation from "toughest competitor" to the ability to beat the other two. Rather he is simply accorded this tiltle without reference to his ability to beat anyone. Horse B, if strectched out, would be a "more prominent competitor," again, whatever that means, and the third horse appears to be an ardent front runner. So I accept that what you were saying was either (a) non-instructive and obvious or (b) totally meaningless as to implication.

As far as the "physics" argument is concerned, we're dealing with the physio-biological capabilities of living animals and not mathematical constructs. And so if a horse were able to run six furlongs in 107.3, he would put himself into an excellent mathematical position to break the world record for two miles. Need I say more.

In almost all N.A. dirt racing, the winning par times at each point of call are already skewed toward an early distribution of energy and yet the winning impact values of horses with early speed remain dominant. If the "physics" argument were correct, the average paces should continue to get faster and faster since they would produce the better final times. But they don't because there is no slip-stream effect that benefits closers in t-bred racing (unlike harness racing and stock-car racing) and so the speed horses have to win races despite sub-optimum energy distributions. Therefore, as paces get faster, the increasing unfavorability of the energy distribution curve makes it impossible for the animals to post their optimum final-speed times, ie. the races get slower, not faster.

The argument that stalkers and closers win these fast-paced events in faster-than-normal times is wrong as pointed out by authors like Randy Giles. He notes that there exists a pace-speed "comfort zone" for all horses and that a faster-than-usual pace tends to take not only the front runner out of his pace comfort area, but all horses in the event. This is caused by jockies who are trying to win the race and unwittingly move their mounts out of their preferred pace (or optimum individual-energy distribution) in an attempt to "reel in" the breakaway leader or leaders. Since, as pointed out, there is no slip-stream effect worth mentioning, there is nothing at all about a fast pace raging far ahead of the laggards that will enable them to post faster-than-normal final times. In fact, the reverse is true.

This is why, physics notwithstanding, as paces get faster than par for the class and distance, the final times become slower, not faster. For top-flight thoroughbred handicappers, this is, as they say in the legal profession, stare decisis.

[Tom]

This is why, physics notwithstanding, as paces get faster than par for the class and distance, the final times become slower, not faster.

Pace of race or pace of winner?

[Tom]

The argument that stalkers and closers win these fast-paced events in faster-than-normal times is wrong as pointed out by authors like Randy Giles. He notes that there exists a pace-speed "comfort zone" for all horses and that a faster-than-usual pace tends to take not only the front runner out of his pace comfort area, but all horses in the event.

This I disagree with. I have posted results here recently that show a direct relationship of beaten lengths at the second call to the fastness of the pace. In fast paced races, more winners come from farther back. I'll see if I can find the thread, or repeat it. Unfortunatley, I lost a thumb drive with TONS of research on it. :mad::(

[Cratos]

Apologies for misquoting you relative to the three horses racing in 1:09. I read it quickly and assumed this was similar to many, many such comparisons I have seen in the past and it seemed to me that you were choosing a horse other than the fastest pace horse as a potential winner if the three met. Instead, you apparently were making no instructive point at all. The first horse is the "thoughest competitor" of the three, although I suppose you make no extrapolation from "toughest competitor" to the ability to beat the other two. Rather he is simply accorded this tiltle without reference to his ability to beat anyone. Horse B, if strectched out, would be a "more prominent competitor," again, whatever that means, and the third horse appears to be an ardent front runner. So I accept that what you were saying was either (a) non-instructive and obvious or (b) totally meaningless as to implication.

As far as the "physics" argument is concerned, we're dealing with the physio-biological capabilities of living animals and not mathematical constructs. And so if a horse were able to run six furlongs in 107.3, he would put himself into an excellent mathematical position to break the world record for two miles. Need I say more.

In almost all N.A. dirt racing, the winning par times at each point of call are already skewed toward an early distribution of energy and yet the winning impact values of horses with early speed remain dominant. If the "physics" argument were correct, the average paces should continue to get faster and faster since they would produce the better final times. But they don't because there is no slip-stream effect that benefits closers in t-bred racing (unlike harness racing and stock-car racing) and so the speed horses have to win races despite sub-optimum energy distributions. Therefore, as paces get faster, the increasing unfavorability of the energy distribution curve makes it impossible for the animals to post their optimum final-speed times, ie. the races get slower, not faster.

The argument that stalkers and closers win these fast-paced events in faster-than-normal times is wrong as pointed out by authors like Randy Giles. He notes that there exists a pace-speed "comfort zone" for all horses and that a faster-than-usual pace tends to take not only the front runner out of his pace comfort area, but all horses in the event. This is caused by jockies who are trying to win the race and unwittingly move their mounts out of their preferred pace (or optimum individual-energy distribution) in an attempt to "reel in" the breakaway leader or leaders. Since, as pointed out, there is no slip-stream effect worth mentioning, there is nothing at all about a fast pace raging far ahead of the laggards that will enable them to post faster-than-normal final times. In fact, the reverse is true.

This is why, physics notwithstanding, as paces get faster than par for the class and distance, the final times become slower, not faster. For top-flight thoroughbred handicappers, this is, as they say in the legal profession, stare decisis.

I will attempt to address two issues raised in your post.

First I wasn’t trying to predict a winner, but showing how different internal speed (pace) of a race can produce the same final times. What really is being illustrated is “style” with respect to pace and its affect on the final time of a horserace.

The second and more interesting point is your comment about lack or minimal effect of drag (the slipstream effect) in thoroughbred horseracing and you compare it to harness and car racing where such effect exists. I don’t want to go far a field, but the difference is in the way the thoroughbred race is run. Drafting or the slipstream effect is not typically done in thoroughbred racing, but with simulation it can easily be proven why in the thoroughbred race it has a minimal effect.

Furthermore the answer to your assertion “as paces get faster than par for the class and distance, the final times become slower, not faster.” Can be found in the explanation of “ability times.” The class par value with respect to distance is the average time a horse of that class will run for that distance or its average ability time. That time will fall into some ± sigma value.

Therefore when a horse runs faster than it class par value it is exceeding its average inherent ability time and that is not the same argument as faster pace (internal speed) yields faster final time; which it does. You are mixing apples and oranges

[gm10]

Apologies for misquoting you relative to the three horses racing in 1:09. I read it quickly and assumed this was similar to many, many such comparisons I have seen in the past and it seemed to me that you were choosing a horse other than the fastest pace horse as a potential winner if the three met. Instead, you apparently were making no instructive point at all. The first horse is the "thoughest competitor" of the three, although I suppose you make no extrapolation from "toughest competitor" to the ability to beat the other two. Rather he is simply accorded this tiltle without reference to his ability to beat anyone. Horse B, if strectched out, would be a "more prominent competitor," again, whatever that means, and the third horse appears to be an ardent front runner. So I accept that what you were saying was either (a) non-instructive and obvious or (b) totally meaningless as to implication.

As far as the "physics" argument is concerned, we're dealing with the physio-biological capabilities of living animals and not mathematical constructs. And so if a horse were able to run six furlongs in 107.3, he would put himself into an excellent mathematical position to break the world record for two miles. Need I say more.



In almost all N.A. dirt racing, the winning par times at each point of call are already skewed toward an early distribution of energy and yet the winning impact values of horses with early speed remain dominant.

What do you mean with winning impact values? Impact values as in actual wins over expected number of wins?

If the "physics" argument were correct, the average paces should continue to get faster and faster since they would produce the better final times. But they don't because there is no slip-stream effect that benefits closers in t-bred racing (unlike harness racing and stock-car racing) and so the speed horses have to win races despite sub-optimum energy distributions. Therefore, as paces get faster, the increasing unfavorability of the energy distribution curve makes it impossible for the animals to post their optimum final-speed times, ie. the races get slower, not faster.

The argument that stalkers and closers win these fast-paced events in faster-than-normal times is wrong as pointed out by authors like Randy Giles. He notes that there exists a pace-speed "comfort zone" for all horses and that a faster-than-usual pace tends to take not only the front runner out of his pace comfort area, but all horses in the event. This is caused by jockies who are trying to win the race and unwittingly move their mounts out of their preferred pace (or optimum individual-energy distribution) in an attempt to "reel in" the breakaway leader or leaders. Since, as pointed out, there is no slip-stream effect worth mentioning, there is nothing at all about a fast pace raging far ahead of the laggards that will enable them to post faster-than-normal final times. In fact, the reverse is true.

This is why, physics notwithstanding, as paces get faster than par for the class and distance, the final times become slower, not faster. For top-flight thoroughbred handicappers, this is, as they say in the legal profession, stare decisis.

I think you're right.

[gm10]

This I disagree with. I have posted results here recently that show a direct relationship of beaten lengths at the second call to the fastness of the pace. In fast paced races, more winners come from farther back. I'll see if I can find the thread, or repeat it. Unfortunatley, I lost a thumb drive with TONS of research on it. :mad::(

I agree with your statement, but I think the author was saying that it leads to slower final times - which is not the same.

[Cratos]

What do you mean with winning impact values? Impact values as in actual wins over expected number of wins?



I think you're right.

No, the author is wrong; the problem should be analyzed as a "relay race" and the answer will be evident.

[delayjf]

There is no physiological reason why dueling should have any negative fatigue effect beyond the fast fractions it could generate.

One possible explaination:

Back in my groom days at Ak-sar-ben, I would sometimes walk horses for other trainers to make a few extra buck. One of the trainers I walked for was none other than Jack VanBerg. I recall a conversation he was having with one of his owners about dueling horses. As he explained it, when horses pull up next to each other, they get competitive and get their adrenalin up. If you talk to Jockeys they will tell you that they can feel a horse tense up underneath them. This might account for the extra energy horses use during a duel.

As Beyer points out, this competition could manifest itself in a faster than normal 1/16 of a mile, and since we don't time races by 1/16ths the "duel within the duel" is missed or hidden in the 1/4 time. This would make sence when one considers how some horses alone on the lead get brave and run their best races.

[bobphilo]

Well said Bob.

One thing I have found is that percentage steadily changes as you move up the class ladder on dirt. MCL expend the most, then claimers, then MSW, then ALW horses. One interesting note was the stakes winners have to expend a little more early to win...the races are more competitive I guess.

Here are a few examples, listing the percentage of time the early pace takes at the various class levels for the winner:

DIS MCL CLM MSW ALW STK
6f 64.36 64.46 64.50 64.62 64.57
7f 54.77 54.96 55.13 55.33 55.19
8f 73.76 73.84 73.98 74.07 73.94
9f 65.62 65.66 66.06 66.11 65.97

Thanks CJ, I'm glad that you get my point. I've also noticed the same phenomena with regards to how early pace in relation to final time varies with class level. One possible explanation is that the jockeys don't fully take into account their cheaper mount's decreased energy level and go too fast early relative to their ability/energy levels. The high percentage of energy expended early in lower class races clearly shows a very inefficient use of their horse's energy supply.

Bob

[46zilzal]

The reason that some horses are of better quality or CLASS (a silly man made term) is EXACTLY what Cj describes: the ability to use their speed much later in to a contest AFTER contending the early pace pressure.

I set standard energy profiles at each distance each track, and for the most part, totally forget what "class" these numbers came from. In the better races these numbers are only a feeble guide since the better horses (class laughs at pace) can overcome them often. They are few and far between however so my numbers, on the whole, are safe.

[markgoldie]

I agree with your statement, but I think the author was saying that it leads to slower final times - which is not the same.
This is the correct answer to Tom's question. There is no doubt that when paces become too fast, that is, they significantly exceed the class par, that the winners of the race will tend to come from off the pace, simply because the detrimental effects of a very fast pace are experienced more by the horses that actually make that pace. Therefore, closing types will find themselves performing better but only in relative terms as signified by a better-than-normal finishing position. However, they will not necessarily perform better as to personal final times. In fact, as I mentioned, citing work of Giles, et.al., they will tend to perform worse as to personal final time unless the jockey is scrupulously able to keep the animal in his best pace comfort zone despite seeing that he is falling, what would appear to be, hoplessly far behind in the early and mid stages of the race.

But there is an additional effect here worth noting, which is that since races are won disproportionally by speed types (and that is what is meant by a high win impact value), that closers have low impact-value win numbers. This means that closing types, in general, post slower final times than the speed competitiors in a given race. Therefore when a closing type does win, he usually carries with him an inferior average ability time. Which means that unless he has somehow conjured up a superior personal effort, his final time will tend to be below the class par. Another way of putting this is that closers usually only win when the race is slowish, and one of the best ways for them to find a slowish race is when the pace has been too fast.

[markgoldie]

No, the author is wrong; the problem should be analyzed as a "relay race" and the answer will be evident.
My understanding of a "relay race" is one in which the running of the event is taken up by fresh runners, that is, those who have been resting and have not participated at all in any of the opening "legs" of the event.

Just how the application of these types of races is germane to any discussion of a thoroughbred racing event in which all participants are racing from the outset and without any fresh animals entering the fray at any point, is totally beyond me.

All participants in the thoroughbred race must either make the pace or chase it and the question at hand is just how chasing a very fast pace allows the chaser to post a faster-than-normal final time. The correct answer is: it doesn't.

[RichieP]

One possible explanation:

One of the trainers I walked for was none other than Jack VanBerg. I recall a conversation he was having with one of his owners about dueling horses. As he explained it, when horses pull up next to each other, they get competitive and get their adrenalin up. If you talk to Jockeys they will tell you that they can feel a horse tense up underneath them. This might account for the extra energy horses use during a duel.



"Hat" Bradshaw would definitely agree with Mr. Van Berg and the jockeys (yes the ones actually riding the horses and FEELING what is going on underneath them).

Same principals he applied to his girls track team when the second year he had them (same runners btw) he took them from last to the state championships in Ok. He trained his girls differently and put bodies on the opponents fastest runners deliberately to wear on their speed/psyche. This is why when he took them to the Nationals in California he had coaches from power schools like Usc and Cal tech coming over hawking him for his training techniques.

The "Fighters" especially the ones that are multi-call are very potent animals when properly evaluated and you can NOT put a number on that innate ability(same as you can't put a "number" on proven winners in other sports who might not have the giant numbers others have)

Of course Jim's beliefs are in the vast minority of players which according to his teachings is exactly as it should be

[bobphilo]

Sounds like you know it all, so please answer me this. What happens when a two horses up front set slow fractions. What does the proper application of Pace Theory predict in this case?

GM10, can we please dispense with the personal remarks. If anyone sounds like they know it all, it’s not me. I’m not the one going beyond what the science of exercise physiology has shown to be the cause of fatigue to add unproven esoteric extra theories for the effects of pace.

The way you phrase your question shows you have not understood what I am talking about when I say early pace. It’s not clear, but it appears that you are just looking at raw pace fractions, without regard to variant, class level or, especially final time of the race. Such use of the term is meaningless with regards to pace. As CJ’s study shows, we are talking about how fast the early fractions are IN RELATION TO the final time. This can be expressed as percentage of final time, as CJ does, or percentage of total energy in terms of FPS as in Sartin.

I don’t doubt that some competitive horses will release more adrenaline when challenged by other horses, but any physiology textbook will tell you that adrenaline increases strength, speed, energy and endurance. Nature did not create the adrenaline system to reduce an animal’s capacity. Horses are meant to run in company. Why do you think herds developed over millions of years of evolution? If running in company increased fatigue horses would have become extinct long ago. OK, Lets say that the adrenaline causes the horses to use up all this energy too soon and they go too fast early. Well the early fractions will reflect this.

Now in your example/question you talk about 2 horses setting “slow early fractions”. If the fractions are slow relative to the final time, then they are at an advantage relative to the closers. That does not always mean they will, just that their even energy expenditure will allow them to run their best race. If those fractions turn out be fast relative to their final times, that means that, barring injury, they ran too fast early relative to their final time ability and will not run their optimal race. They might still win but they’d have to be better than the closers to do so – advantage closers.

I’d be delighted to see any properly done study or exercise physiology book that shows that horses tire more quickly just because another horse runs next to them.

Bob

[46zilzal]

Just because two horses are next to one another does NOT indicate there is any of the decidedly anthropomorphic baloney that they are FIGHTING.

Some dig in and run a lot harder, MOST just continue to run like they would run in field trying to ge to the food tub.

Giving HUMAN attributes to horses is silly. They run based upon controlled, conditioned fear as all the recognized animal behaviorists will tell you.

[bobphilo]

This I agree with. RA has a unique blend of being able to run early fast fractions AND compete with the strong closers afterwards - within G1 company. Speed figures do not adequately explain the difference between RA and MA's respective races.

Partly true. Speed figures alone do not expalin why RA's performance was superior to MA's. However, Speed and Pace figures do. MA had the advantage of running a much more evenly paced race while RA ran a much faster pace figure on her way to her slightly faster speed figure. While the speed figures were close, Rachel's better pace figure, combined with her speed figure, adequately explains why her's was the better performance.

The fact that her early speed earned her a clear lead from the half mile on, (and therefore was not "dueling" for the lead), in no way diminishes her performance. If anything, it makes it all the more impressive.

Bob

[cj]

All participants in the thoroughbred race must either make the pace or chase it and the question at hand is just how chasing a very fast pace allows the chaser to post a faster-than-normal final time. The correct answer is: it doesn't.

Well, as always with racing, their is a gray area. What is normal?

It all depends how he has been accomplishing his "normal" time, doesn't it? Maybe the connections are foolishly keeping the horse too far back of slow or even average fractions. There really is no cut and dry answer. What a very fast pace does is provide a late runner a chance to run his very best final time, while he may never get that chance with a slow or even average pace.

[castaway01]

Just because two horses are next to one another does NOT indicate there is any of the decidedly anthropomorphic baloney that they are FIGHTING.

Some dig in and run a lot harder, MOST just continue to run like they would run in field trying to ge to the food tub.

Giving HUMAN attributes to horses is silly. They run based upon controlled, conditioned fear as all the recognized animal behaviorists will tell you.

Giving human attributes to horses IS silly, but so is thinking you know what is going on inside a horse's body or mind, which you seem to think you know. Why would horses not have some of the same reactions to intense competition that other animals and humans may have? Or perhaps the riders in a speed duel feel they must ask their horses to expend more effort during that duel, which would have the same effect of wearing the duelers down early? Or maybe if it's just a reaction to being in close quarters---an unconscious reaction by human and/or horse.

The point is, we don't know. And you don't know any more than anyone else does, unless you can interview the horse.

[Show Me the Wire]

Well, as always with racing, their is a gray area. What is normal?

It all depends how he has been accomplishing his "normal" time, doesn't it? Maybe the connections are foolishly keeping the horse too far back of slow or even average fractions. There really is no cut and dry answer. What a very fast pace does is provide a late runner a chance to run his very best final time, while he may never get that chance with a slow or even average pace.


And this is because the closer can run the complete finite interval of distance, in its optimum time before time normally runs out on him (slow or average pace) ;) Time does not run out, because the front-runner does not have enough energy to reach the end of the finite interval of distance before the closer's optimum use of energy.

[markgoldie]

Well, as always with racing, their is a gray area. What is normal?

It all depends how he has been accomplishing his "normal" time, doesn't it? Maybe the connections are foolishly keeping the horse too far back of slow or even average fractions. There really is no cut and dry answer. What a very fast pace does is provide a late runner a chance to run his very best final time, while he may never get that chance with a slow or even average pace.
We understand that any discussion of a generality will always be violated by the specific. If that means that you never wish to discuss generalities, then so be it. Don't. However, I would postulate that the number of jockies who become uncomfortable with the fact that their closing horse is closer than normal to the front due to a slowish pace are few.

[delayjf]

just how chasing a very fast pace allows the chaser to post a faster-than-normal final time. The correct answer is: it doesn't.

One answer might be that the faster pace coaxes a greater effort out of a horse, who might otherwise not run that hard.

Most Closers tend to leave some of their effort on the track, by that I mean they generally don't run as close to their full potiential as front runners or presses. Their ability to win is largely determined by the pace of the race and the timing of their move into that pace. Some horses run their pace no matter what and some like to be in a specific position off the lead. If the pace is faster and they establish their normal race position, the faster pace (assuming its within the ability of the horse) could trick them into putting out a greater effort than they normally would.

[cj]

We understand that any discussion of a generality will always be violated by the specific. If that means that you never wish to discuss generalities, then so be it. Don't. However, I would postulate that the number of jockies who become uncomfortable with the fact that their closing horse is closer than normal to the front due to a slowish pace are few.

I'm talking generalities.

If we were talking time trials, there would be an optimal pace to establish a best final time. As horses slowed from this, they would run slower final times, and if they sped up, they would also run slower final times. I think this is a point many people miss. Slow paces can cause times to slow as well as fast paces. There is exactly one pace that will result in the best performance for each individual horse. It isn't the same for these individuals.

Since we don't run time trials, you have a bunch of horses trying to run what is best for them, but usually those plans are altered by race dynamics, jockey tactics, traffic, etc. I would stick to my belief that fast paced races do in fact help most horses in most fields run faster than slow paced races. However, final time is not the goal. A good finishing position is the goal.

Think about this...why do track and field officials run rabbits in long distance races when they want a time record broken?

[gm10]

For example, at 6f maiden claimers take about 64.36% of the final time to get to the pace call. So, if the horses ran 1:11, you would multiply 71 by .6436 for an expected pace of about 45.70 at the 1/2 mile call. Each higher class level would take more time to get to the half call and finish faster.

The classier horses get, the more they seem to save energy for the finish. At every distance, it follows in order...MCL, CLM, MSW, ALW.

However, stakes for some reason don't continue the pattern. I think at the highest level, it is tougher and more competitive and you don't get as many easy pace winners.

I didn't get the link with the post you reacted to but at least it's interesting. I've thought about it today (a bit anyway) and I can't really see any flaws in the logic. Interesting results. It would be interesting to dig deeper into this ... for example use bands of class pars instead of the MC/MS/... categories.

[gm10]

This is the correct answer to Tom's question. There is no doubt that when paces become too fast, that is, they significantly exceed the class par, that the winners of the race will tend to come from off the pace, simply because the detrimental effects of a very fast pace are experienced more by the horses that actually make that pace. Therefore, closing types will find themselves performing better but only in relative terms as signified by a better-than-normal finishing position. However, they will not necessarily perform better as to personal final times. In fact, as I mentioned, citing work of Giles, et.al., they will tend to perform worse as to personal final time unless the jockey is scrupulously able to keep the animal in his best pace comfort zone despite seeing that he is falling, what would appear to be, hoplessly far behind in the early and mid stages of the race.

But there is an additional effect here worth noting, which is that since races are won disproportionally by speed types (and that is what is meant by a high win impact value), that closers have low impact-value win numbers. This means that closing types, in general, post slower final times than the speed competitiors in a given race. Therefore when a closing type does win, he usually carries with him an inferior average ability time. Which means that unless he has somehow conjured up a superior personal effort, his final time will tend to be below the class par. Another way of putting this is that closers usually only win when the race is slowish, and one of the best ways for them to find a slowish race is when the pace has been too fast.

Yes we agree.

[Show Me the Wire]

I'm talking generalities.

If we were talking time trials, there would be an optimal pace to establish a best final time. As horses slowed from this, they would run slower final times, and if they sped up, they would also run slower final times. I think this is a point many people miss. Slow paces can cause times to slow as well as fast paces. There is exactly one pace that will result in the best performance for each individual horse. It isn't the same for these individuals.

Since we don't run time trials, you have a bunch of horses trying to run what is best for them, but usually those plans are altered by race dynamics, jockey tactics, traffic, etc. I would stick to my belief that fast paced races do in fact help most horses in most fields run faster than slow paced races. However, final time is not the goal. A good finishing position is the goal.

Think about this...why do track and field officials run rabbits in long distance races when they want a time record broken?

Great explanation. I tend to agree most miss the point of optimum pace or energy distribution. Additionally, I think many do not understand the idea a slow pace, by fast horses, causes a slow final time, because once the time or the opportunity for velocity has expired, it is impossible to get time back (make-up for lost time) by traveling faster over the remaining distance. Once the time is gone it is gone, while the distance remains a fixed interval.

[gm10]

One possible explaination:

Back in my groom days at Ak-sar-ben, I would sometimes walk horses for other trainers to make a few extra buck. One of the trainers I walked for was none other than Jack VanBerg. I recall a conversation he was having with one of his owners about dueling horses. As he explained it, when horses pull up next to each other, they get competitive and get their adrenalin up. If you talk to Jockeys they will tell you that they can feel a horse tense up underneath them. This might account for the extra energy horses use during a duel.

As Beyer points out, this competition could manifest itself in a faster than normal 1/16 of a mile, and since we don't time races by 1/16ths the "duel within the duel" is missed or hidden in the 1/4 time. This would make sence when one considers how some horses alone on the lead get brave and run their best races.

I think that anyone who ever did any sports will agree with you. Competition gets the adrenaline pumping and changes your behaviour during the contest. Pace theory (in its current state) simply can't incorporate these things. There are certain aspects that it does mange to explain - but in my view, it is still half art/half science.

[gm10]

GM10, can we please dispense with the personal remarks. If anyone sounds like they know it all, it’s not me. I’m not the one going beyond what the science of exercise physiology has shown to be the cause of fatigue to add unproven esoteric extra theories for the effects of pace.

The way you phrase your question shows you have not understood what I am talking about when I say early pace. It’s not clear, but it appears that you are just looking at raw pace fractions, without regard to variant, class level or, especially final time of the race. Such use of the term is meaningless with regards to pace. As CJ’s study shows, we are talking about how fast the early fractions are IN RELATION TO the final time. This can be expressed as percentage of final time, as CJ does, or percentage of total energy in terms of FPS as in Sartin.

I don’t doubt that some competitive horses will release more adrenaline when challenged by other horses, but any physiology textbook will tell you that adrenaline increases strength, speed, energy and endurance. Nature did not create the adrenaline system to reduce an animal’s capacity. Horses are meant to run in company. Why do you think herds developed over millions of years of evolution? If running in company increased fatigue horses would have become extinct long ago. OK, Lets say that the adrenaline causes the horses to use up all this energy too soon and they go too fast early. Well the early fractions will reflect this.


Honestly, no offence intended, but you don't understand what I mean. You cannot express the effects of the first 4F of the race in a simple raw fraction. I agree, seeing it in conjunction with the final time/class/DTV is necessary, but it is not sufficient. You or me simply cannot explain what the effect is of doing battle for a fraction. Just assuming that a pace duel will lead to quicker fractions is not accurate. This will of course happen often enough, but it is not certain. And you are also ignoring the jockey. A relaxed jockey is just less dead weight than a tense jockey. There are enough studies on the web that explain that explain the effect of dead weight on the horse.


Now in your example/question you talk about 2 horses setting “slow early fractions”. If the fractions are slow relative to the final time, then they are at an advantage relative to the closers. That does not always mean they will, just that their even energy expenditure will allow them to run their best race. If those fractions turn out be fast relative to their final times, that means that, barring injury, they ran too fast early relative to their final time ability and will not run their optimal race. They might still win but they’d have to be better than the closers to do so – advantage closers.

I’d be delighted to see any properly done study or exercise physiology book that shows that horses tire more quickly just because another horse runs next to them.

Bob

OK - Bob we are getting somewhere. I will do this study for you. How do you want to postulate your hypothesis in actual racing terms?

[gm10]

I'm talking generalities.

If we were talking time trials, there would be an optimal pace to establish a best final time. As horses slowed from this, they would run slower final times, and if they sped up, they would also run slower final times. I think this is a point many people miss. Slow paces can cause times to slow as well as fast paces. There is exactly one pace that will result in the best performance for each individual horse. It isn't the same for these individuals.

Since we don't run time trials, you have a bunch of horses trying to run what is best for them, but usually those plans are altered by race dynamics, jockey tactics, traffic, etc. I would stick to my belief that fast paced races do in fact help most horses in most fields run faster than slow paced races. However, final time is not the goal. A good finishing position is the goal.

Think about this...why do track and field officials run rabbits in long distance races when they want a time record broken?

I can't disagree ... but aren't you admitting in a way that pace theory is especially great for post-analysis? Predicting what the dynamics will be today, and how each horse/jockey will react to those - how do we do that?

[Greyfox]

Predicting what the dynamics will be today, and how each horse/jockey will react to those - how do we do that?

Hopefully cj will fill you in.
But for today's dynamics, in my opinion, the best starting point is:
"Past performance is the best predictor of future performance."

[Cratos]

My understanding of a "relay race" is one in which the running of the event is taken up by fresh runners, that is, those who have been resting and have not participated at all in any of the opening "legs" of the event.

Just how the application of these types of races is germane to any discussion of a thoroughbred racing event in which all participants are racing from the outset and without any fresh animals entering the fray at any point, is totally beyond me.

All participants in the thoroughbred race must either make the pace or chase it and the question at hand is just how chasing a very fast pace allows the chaser to post a faster-than-normal final time. The correct answer is: it doesn't.

Just as you stated in post #69 of this thread: “We understand that any discussion of a generality will always be violated by the specific” I will explain my reason for using the “relay race” analogy.

Granted horses in a race are not entered during the running of the race, but a dynamic similar to a relay race does occur and it is not because of a pre-plan team race strategy as in the relay race. However it could be argued that coupling of entries in a horse race bring this concept closer to reality.

In a horse race the three attributes that come into play that determines the internal speed of the race over its finite interval distance is speed, stamina, and style. The interaction of these attributes within the racehorse is anybody’s guess, but the classier the horse, the propensity for it to be more proficient with these attributes is greater.

Therefore during the race there will be the horse that is typically classified as the “front-runner” and will set the early internal speed which is typically fast, but not always because of the finite interval distance of the race. At some point during the race and not always; the “presser” type picks of the chase and its internal race speed will typically be greater because its rate of energy (work) was slower earlier in the race and this might allow for a continuation of the internal race speed at rate faster than the now tiring “front-runner.” Next the horse which is labeled the “closer” comes into the fray and the latter part of the race’s internal speed is run faster than the upfront horses are running.

However what is explained above is more theoretical than actual because many times the internal race speed is determined by one horse or maybe several horses, but all of the time it is the integration of speed, stamina, and style that determines the internal speed of the race (pace); it doesn’t make any difference if it is in one horse or several horses it will occur in the race.

The final time of the horse race is just the sum of the parts or speaking mathematically, final time is a function of pace.

[cj]

I can't disagree ... but aren't you admitting in a way that pace theory is especially great for post-analysis? Predicting what the dynamics will be today, and how each horse/jockey will react to those - how do we do that?

I do agree with that. I rarely if ever base a bet on what I think might happen pace wise in a race. What I do is try to determine how well horses have run in the past given what I know about pace.

[bisket]

I do agree with that. I rarely if ever base a bet on what I think might happen pace wise in a race. What I do is try to determine how well horses have run in the past given what I know about pace.
if the odds are good enough you oughtta rethink that formula. some of the best longshot wagers can be made succesfully by trying to predict pace.

[cj]

if the odds are good enough you oughtta rethink that formula. some of the best longshot wagers can be made succesfully by trying to predict pace.

I actually have no reason to rethink anything currently. It doesn't mean I won't look to change if things go south.

[markgoldie]

I'm talking generalities.

If we were talking time trials, there would be an optimal pace to establish a best final time. As horses slowed from this, they would run slower final times, and if they sped up, they would also run slower final times. I think this is a point many people miss. Slow paces can cause times to slow as well as fast paces. There is exactly one pace that will result in the best performance for each individual horse. It isn't the same for these individuals.

Since we don't run time trials, you have a bunch of horses trying to run what is best for them, but usually those plans are altered by race dynamics, jockey tactics, traffic, etc. I would stick to my belief that fast paced races do in fact help most horses in most fields run faster than slow paced races. However, final time is not the goal. A good finishing position is the goal.

Think about this...why do track and field officials run rabbits in long distance races when they want a time record broken?

In American dirt horse racing, there exists a massive advantage for the animal that is able to secure the lead in the early stages of a race. This effect has been documented by Steve Klein and others and I don't think that it warrants much discussion or argument. It exists. And because it exists, it has had ramifications, one of which has been the relentless breeding for high-speed animals, and another, the general contesting of the front end by as many animals in the race that are so capable of contending.

While my purpose is not to get into the evolutionary history of the horse as a prey animal, or the current psychological make-up of the thoroughbred racehorse, or even the physical dynamics of racetrack surfaces, all of which may contribute to this phenomenon, I will say this:

It is clear that the "normal" energy distributions of nearly all non-grass T-bred racing are skewed to what is a clearly sub-optimum early pace. That is to say, under most conditions, due to competition for the front position, the leader will go sub-optimally fast in the early stages of the event. Again, we are talking generalities, so please don't point out specific cases in which this is not true.

Therefore, a strong majority of horses will post faster final times if they are allowed the unusual luxury of having the front in a slower-than- normal pace time. This will better conform to their optimal energy distribution. In other words, it is the exceedingly rare animal who is able to wrest the lead in a race but who cannot post his best final time for the event due to the fact that his jockey restrained him from going faster in the early stages such that he was unable to achieve an optimal energy distribution. Assuming we all watch races, rather than being just mental theorticians, tell me: how many times do you think you see this happening??

Answer: Never or nearly never. The only attempts at serious rating we see are by jockies on horses who are so gunned up that they fear the horse will be shortly stopping to a walk if they don't do something to slow him down a bit. And as far as witnessing jockies rating horses who are behind the pace such that they are possibly being restrained from reaching an optimal energy distribution on the fast side, well, let's not even dignify this proposition with an answer.

So the anology of a time trial, where going too fast or too slow will disallow the best final time, has no bearing on actual racing. In actual racing, virtually all the sub-optimum energy distribution is on the fast side.

The answer to your question on "rabbits" in human racing is simple: In human racing there is a clear and obvious slipstream effect. Why? Because humans can run directly behind each other and do so, particularly on the turns to save ground. Therefore, following a "rabbit" may enable the follower to go faster while acutally doing a bit less work. If you'll notice, the original institution of rabbits was in indoor racing where the tightness of the turns makes close-order racing a necessity. But thoroughbreds don't "line up" behind each other, so the analogy is flawed.

[Saratoga_Mike]

In American dirt horse racing, there exists a massive advantage for the animal that is able to secure the lead in the early stages of a race. This effect has been documented by Steve Klein and others and I don't think that it warrants much discussion or argument. It exists. And because it exists, it has had ramifications, one of which has been the relentless breeding for high-speed animals, and another, the general contesting of the front end by as many animals in the race that are so capable of contending.

While my purpose is not to get into the evolutionary history of the horse as a prey animal, or the current psychological make-up of the thoroughbred racehorse, or even the physical dynamics of racetrack surfaces, all of which may contribute to this phenomenon, I will say this:

It is clear that the "normal" energy distributions of nearly all non-grass T-bred racing are skewed to what is a clearly sub-optimum early pace. That is to say, under most conditions, due to competition for the front position, the leader will go sub-optimally fast in the early stages of the event. Again, we are talking generalities, so please don't point out specific cases in which this is not true.

Therefore, a strong majority of horses will post faster final times if they are allowed the unusual luxury of having the front in a slower-than- normal pace time. This will better conform to their optimal energy distribution. In other words, it is the exceedingly rare animal who is able to wrest the lead in a race but who cannot post his best final time for the event due to the fact that his jockey restrained him from going faster in the early stages such that he was unable to achieve an optimal energy distribution. Assuming we all watch races, rather than being just mental theorticians, tell me: how many times do you think you see this happening??

Answer: Never or nearly never. The only attempts at serious rating we see are by jockies on horses who are so gunned up that they fear the horse will be shortly stopping to a walk if they don't do something to slow him down a bit. And as far as witnessing jockies rating horses who are behind the pace such that they are possibly being restrained from reaching an optimal energy distribution on the fast side, well, let's not even dignify this proposition with an answer.

So the anology of a time trial, where going too fast or too slow will disallow the best final time, has no bearing on actual racing. In actual racing, virtually all the sub-optimum energy distribution is on the fast side.

The answer to your question on "rabbits" in human racing is simple: In human racing there is a clear and obvious slipstream effect. Why? Because humans can run directly behind each other and do so, particularly on the turns to save ground. Therefore, following a "rabbit" may enable the follower to go faster while acutally doing a bit less work. If you'll notice, the original institution of rabbits was in indoor racing where the tightness of the turns makes close-order racing a necessity. But thoroughbreds don't "line up" behind each other, so the analogy is flawed.

Mark, you should write a book on racing, and I say that with complete sincerity.

[cj]

Again, I'm not mentioning specifics to try to disprove generalities. I think what I say is general in nature.

I would say there are very few people that watch as many races as I do. I think where we have a disconnect is you are trying to apply your theories about front running horses to all horses in a race. It just doesn't work that way. It is painfully obvious that when the pace is fast, horses that are not part of the pace record their best times, figures, or however you want to measure it. Pace horses do not.

When the pace is slow, horses that are not part of the pace do not record their best figures, or time, whatever. Horse that are on the pace may, provided the pace is not too slow. This is racing 101 and I can't believe you don't get this.

I think we actually probably agree on most things but just aren't communicating well. That said, I think you are dead wrong about the reason for rabbits in track and field. They are there to set a fast pace so the finish time is fast, not to provide drafting. The rabbit usually runs far enough in front of the field that he isn't even a factor in that regard. He simply makes sure the contestants expend as much available energy as possible. Without it, the races become more tactical. Just like racing, time isn't a big deal most times...it is getting to the wire first.

I would also say the supposed speed advantage isn't all it is cracked up to be. The longer the races and better the horses, the less important early speed. Citing Steve Klein as proof isn't really going to boost your case much. His stuff is pretty flawed.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Again, I'm not mentioning specifics to try to disprove generalities. I think what I say is general in nature.

I would say there are very few people that watch as many races as I do. I think where we have a disconnect is you are trying to apply your theories about front running horses to all horses in a race. It just doesn't work that way. It is painfully obvious that when the pace is fast, horses that are not part of the pace record their best times, figures, or however you want to measure it. Pace horses do not.

When the pace is slow, horses that are not part of the pace do not record their best figures, or time, whatever. Horse that are on the pace may, provided the pace is not too slow. This is racing 101 and I can't believe you don't get this.

I think we actually probably agree on most things but just aren't communicating well. That said, I think you are dead wrong about the reason for rabbits in track and field. They are there to set a fast pace so the finish time is fast, not to provide drafting. The rabbit usually runs far enough in front of the field that he isn't even a factor in that regard. He simply makes sure the contestants expend as much available energy as possible. Without it, the races become more tactical. Just like racing, time isn't a big deal most times...it is getting to the wire first.

I would also say the supposed speed advantage isn't all it is cracked up to be. The longer the races and better the horses, the less important early speed. Citing Steve Klein as proof isn't really going to boost your case much. His stuff is pretty flawed.

What you're saying applies to harness racing, not t'bred racing. I'm sure I'm just confused. Could you please give an example or two with fractions? Thanks.

[cj]

What you're saying applies to harness racing, not t'bred racing. I'm sure I'm just confused. Could you please give an example or two with fractions? Thanks.

Seriously, fractions? Then there will be another ten page debate on what constitutes a fast pace. I deal with variant adjusted figures. I have quite a few loyal customers. If you choose to not trust my work, read no further.

A glaringly obvious example would be Monarchos winning the Derby. Clearly that was his best race final time wise (adjusted for variant or raw) and he did it with the benefit of a grueling pace.

I opened the archives on my site for the 2003 BC Classic. The winner, Pleasantly Perfect, showed 10 races in his PPs. Three times, the pace was 112 or above, the other seven showed all below 110. His three fastest speed figure races came in the the three races with a 112 or higher pace. The Classic that year featured the fastest pace he had seen, a 118, and he recorded his lifetime best speed figure of 115.

The next year he debuted facing a 109 pace and won, but with only a 107 figure. After his trip to Dubai (no fractions to gauge), he raced in the San Diego and faced a crawling 95 pace. He was beaten at 3 to 5 earning only a 101. In the Goodwood, his next engagement, he saw a 112 early pace and finished strong to win with a 111 final figure.

There are countless examples like this if you bother to do the research. Unlike harness racing, horses very rarely are able to change styles to adapt to the pace scenario for a particular race.

[gm10]

Hopefully cj will fill you in.
But for today's dynamics, in my opinion, the best starting point is:
"Past performance is the best predictor of future performance."

Yes - I agree. But how about predicting the future pace dynamics that will influence that future performance?

[gm10]

In American dirt horse racing, there exists a massive advantage for the animal that is able to secure the lead in the early stages of a race. This effect has been documented by Steve Klein and others and I don't think that it warrants much discussion or argument. It exists. And because it exists, it has had ramifications, one of which has been the relentless breeding for high-speed animals, and another, the general contesting of the front end by as many animals in the race that are so capable of contending.

While my purpose is not to get into the evolutionary history of the horse as a prey animal, or the current psychological make-up of the thoroughbred racehorse, or even the physical dynamics of racetrack surfaces, all of which may contribute to this phenomenon, I will say this:

It is clear that the "normal" energy distributions of nearly all non-grass T-bred racing are skewed to what is a clearly sub-optimum early pace. That is to say, under most conditions, due to competition for the front position, the leader will go sub-optimally fast in the early stages of the event. Again, we are talking generalities, so please don't point out specific cases in which this is not true.

Therefore, a strong majority of horses will post faster final times if they are allowed the unusual luxury of having the front in a slower-than- normal pace time. This will better conform to their optimal energy distribution. In other words, it is the exceedingly rare animal who is able to wrest the lead in a race but who cannot post his best final time for the event due to the fact that his jockey restrained him from going faster in the early stages such that he was unable to achieve an optimal energy distribution. Assuming we all watch races, rather than being just mental theorticians, tell me: how many times do you think you see this happening??

Answer: Never or nearly never. The only attempts at serious rating we see are by jockies on horses who are so gunned up that they fear the horse will be shortly stopping to a walk if they don't do something to slow him down a bit. And as far as witnessing jockies rating horses who are behind the pace such that they are possibly being restrained from reaching an optimal energy distribution on the fast side, well, let's not even dignify this proposition with an answer.

So the anology of a time trial, where going too fast or too slow will disallow the best final time, has no bearing on actual racing. In actual racing, virtually all the sub-optimum energy distribution is on the fast side.

The answer to your question on "rabbits" in human racing is simple: In human racing there is a clear and obvious slipstream effect. Why? Because humans can run directly behind each other and do so, particularly on the turns to save ground. Therefore, following a "rabbit" may enable the follower to go faster while acutally doing a bit less work. If you'll notice, the original institution of rabbits was in indoor racing where the tightness of the turns makes close-order racing a necessity. But thoroughbreds don't "line up" behind each other, so the analogy is flawed.

Nice work.

[delayjf]

Yes - I agree. But how about predicting the future pace dynamics that will influence that future performance?

You might be better served by looking a Randy Giles work. He claims that speed points are more predictive of race pace senario than pace figures.

[raybo]

You might be better served by looking a Randy Giles work. He claims that speed points are more predictive of race pace senario than pace figures.

Are you talking about early speed points, ala Quirin (0 thru 8)?

If so, I agree that combining early speed points and individual running styles helps in forecasting how the race will be run, who will be setting the pace, how many "races within races" there will be, who the contenders will be at the stretch call, and oftentimes, whether the best speed horses will still be there at the wire or if the best closer or 2 will have the upper hand at the finish.

[markgoldie]

Again, I'm not mentioning specifics to try to disprove generalities. I think what I say is general in nature.

I would say there are very few people that watch as many races as I do. I think where we have a disconnect is you are trying to apply your theories about front running horses to all horses in a race. It just doesn't work that way. It is painfully obvious that when the pace is fast, horses that are not part of the pace record their best times, figures, or however you want to measure it. Pace horses do not.

When the pace is slow, horses that are not part of the pace do not record their best figures, or time, whatever. Horse that are on the pace may, provided the pace is not too slow. This is racing 101 and I can't believe you don't get this.

I think we actually probably agree on most things but just aren't communicating well. That said, I think you are dead wrong about the reason for rabbits in track and field. They are there to set a fast pace so the finish time is fast, not to provide drafting. The rabbit usually runs far enough in front of the field that he isn't even a factor in that regard. He simply makes sure the contestants expend as much available energy as possible. Without it, the races become more tactical. Just like racing, time isn't a big deal most times...it is getting to the wire first.

I would also say the supposed speed advantage isn't all it is cracked up to be. The longer the races and better the horses, the less important early speed. Citing Steve Klein as proof isn't really going to boost your case much. His stuff is pretty flawed.
No, actually I believe we have a verifiable disagreement. Consider the following study: A large number of dirt races at mixed distances (although between 5f and 8f would seem to encompass most of dirt racing) for which we have accurate and long-term pace pars (E2, aka. P2 is best) and accurate final-time pars. This is the data base. The study is the effect of a faster-than-par pace call on the final time of the race.

You would believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, that as the pace par is surpassed (that is the paces get faster), the final time par would also be surpassed (that is they would get faster). I would believe the opposite, that is, that as the paces get faster, the final times get slower. Maybe we could get someone to do an accurate research on this.

As far as the human racing analogy, which I remind you, you brought up: the reason that human races tend to go slowly is because the runners understand the slip-stream effect that is present. Therefore, there is no competitive advantage to going a very fast pace, since it enables other trailing runners the advantage of slipstreaming. This is what causes the insertion of rabbits by the race organizers who feel that the fans are interested in seeing races in which a world record might be broken.

However, as you correctly point out, many of these rabbit-runners go far ahead of the field and therefore their insertion is only psychological in nature. What else could it possibly be? Certainly you don't believe that the human runners are actually chasing a man who is 50 yards ahead of them and who they know will shortly be exiting the course and not finishing the race. And what possible physical effect can a man running this far ahead actually have on the balance of the field? And so I believe that rabbit runners are a waste of time and energy, although their appearance has now become somewhat institutionalized.

But you brought this up, so I ask you. What exact point relevant to thoroughbred racing were you making again?? If it was that in human racing there tends to be a sub-optimum energy distribution due to slow pace, then I would agree (and my reason for this tendency is that the runners understand the slipstreaming effect in their sport). If it was that in human racing, faster paces tend to create faster finishing times, even if the energy distribution is sub-optimum on the fast side, again I would agree and again, the reason would be slipstreaming (although the winners of such races would overwhelmingly tend to be closers who had benefitted from the slipstream). But if your point is that this proves something about thoroughbred racing, here I would emphatically disagree, as mentioned above.

Since thoroughbreds do not line up behind each other, we can more or less look upon their races as a group of individual time trials taking place at the same time (notwithstanding the fact that there are some tactical maneuvers that occur and some interaction between the contestants due to their proximity at times). But there is extremely little "tag-teaming" effect (as mentioned by another poster) that can occur in racing where a slipstream is evident.

Now. The only question left is why there should exist (in a series of time trials) a competitive advantage to front runners? Put another way, why should time-trialing thoroughbreds show a consistent advantage to animals which exhibit an apparent sub-optimum energy disribution on the fast side?

Please believe me. I did NOT want to get into this, but I'm in this deep already, so what the heck?

The reason is that horses are prey animals and they have an ancient and historic flee mentality. The evoultionary history of the animal gives a competitive reproductive advantage to the animal who is able to run away the fastest. Furthermore, the advantage goes to those able to run fast for a relatively short period of time since the nature of the prevalent predator is for high speed and relatively low endurance. So, we inherit an animal that for eons has been running away as fast as as far as possible, but more fast than far. However, this is the psychological makeup. Now. Before I get jumped upon by the evolutionary biologist in our midst, let me acknowledge that there is a minor, and I emphasize minor attack mentality which occurs between males when they compete for sexual advantage relative to a harem of mares. But, I submit, this palls in comparison with the overwhelming survival mechanism that favors flight.

At any rate, the net result of this is that the modern thoroughbred is great at running away from his racing competition, but sorely lacks in the ability to attack the front runner. Now. Please don't give me any stories about all the fabulous come-from-behind stalwarts in the sport. For the most part, all they are is grinders who are able to maintain a steady pace, but who look like closing monsters only because the speed horses are stopping. For example, there are hundreds and hundreds of t-breds out there who can run a first quarter in, say, 22.1. You got any that can come a last quarter that fast?

So we have an animal who wants to get away (out front), who is racing against other animals who essentially only are trying to get away themselves. That is, they have no "chase-down" mentality.

I would venture to say that if we were racing cheetahs, for example, we'd find a far different type of energy distribution among the best of the breed. The best of these animals have been selected to close a gap and I don't think you'd see the front runners in these races being safe from the S types in the group.

But I'm running far afield here, although this does relate to the discussion at hand. While the successful t-bred energy distribution is sub-optimum on the speed side, I think in the vast majority of cases, the envelope has been pushed about as far as it practically can be. This means that additional early speed is counter-productive. And the closing types are not advantaged toward faster times because (a) there is no slipstream to help them and (b) they are not true "chasers" anyway. Rather, they are fleers who have been fleeing from the moment the gate opened, just a little slower than the pace-setting fleers.

[markgoldie]

Correction to last post. Meant to say that most dirt races are contested between 5 and 10 furlongs, not 8. Apologies.

[raybo]

I would believe the opposite, that is, that as the paces get faster, the final times get slower. Maybe we could get someone to do an accurate research on this.

As far as the human racing analogy, which I remind you, you brought up: the reason that human races tend to go slowly is because the runners understand the slip-stream effect that is present. Therefore, there is no competitive advantage to going a very fast pace, since it enables other trailing runners the advantage of slipstreaming. This is what causes the insertion of rabbits by the race organizers who feel that the fans are interested in seeing races in which a world record might be broken.



But you brought this up, so I ask you. What exact point relevant to thoroughbred racing were you making again?? If it was that in human racing there tends to be a sub-optimum energy distribution due to slow pace, then I would agree (and my reason for this tendency is that the runners understand the slipstreaming effect in their sport). If it was that in human racing, faster paces tend to create faster finishing times, even if the energy distribution is sub-optimum on the fast side, again I would agree and again, the reason would be slipstreaming (although the winners of such races would overwhelmingly tend to be closers who had benefitted from the slipstream). But if your point is that this proves something about thoroughbred racing, here I would emphatically disagree, as mentioned above.

Since thoroughbreds do not line up behind each other, we can more or less look upon their races as a group of individual time trials taking place at the same time (notwithstanding the fact that there are some tactical maneuvers that occur and some interaction between the contestants due to their proximity at times). But there is extremely little "tag-teaming" effect (as mentioned by another poster) that can occur in racing where a slipstream is evident.

Now. The only question left is why there should exist (in a series of time trials) a competitive advantage to front runners? Put another way, why should time-trialing thoroughbreds show a consistent advantage to animals which exhibit an apparent sub-optimum energy disribution on the fast side?

Please believe me. I did NOT want to get into this, but I'm in this deep already, so what the heck?

The reason is that horses are prey animals and they have an ancient and historic flee mentality. The evoultionary history of the animal gives a competitive reproductive advantage to the animal who is able to run away the fastest. Furthermore, the advantage goes to those able to run fast for a relatively short period of time since the nature of the prevalent predator is for high speed and relatively low endurance. So, we inherit an animal that for eons has been running away as fast as as far as possible, but more fast than far. However, this is the psychological makeup. Now. Before I get jumped upon by the evolutionary biologist in our midst, let me acknowledge that there is a minor, and I emphasize minor attack mentality which occurs between males when they compete for sexual advantage relative to a harem of mares. But, I submit, this palls in comparison with the overwhelming survival mechanism that favors flight.

At any rate, the net result of this is that the modern thoroughbred is great at running away from his racing competition, but sorely lacks in the ability to attack the front runner. Now. Please don't give me any stories about all the fabulous come-from-behind stalwarts in the sport. For the most part, all they are is grinders who are able to maintain a steady pace, but who look like closing monsters only because the speed horses are stopping. For example, there are hundreds and hundreds of t-breds out there who can run a first quarter in, say, 22.1. You got any that can come a last quarter that fast?

So we have an animal who wants to get away (out front), who is racing against other animals who essentially only are trying to get away themselves. That is, they have no "chase-down" mentality.

I would venture to say that if we were racing cheetahs, for example, we'd find a far different type of energy distribution among the best of the breed. The best of these animals have been selected to close a gap and I don't think you'd see the front runners in these races being safe from the S types in the group.

But I'm running far afield here, although this does relate to the discussion at hand. While the successful t-bred energy distribution is sub-optimum on the speed side, I think in the vast majority of cases, the envelope has been pushed about as far as it practically can be. This means that additional early speed is counter-productive. And the closing types are not advantaged toward faster times because (a) there is no slipstream to help them and (b) they are not true "chasers" anyway. Rather, they are fleers who have been fleeing from the moment the gate opened, just a little slower than the pace-setting fleers.

Minus any thorough computerized research, on my part, but, with 32 years of studying this game and having experienced thousands of races where the pace has a definite, direct effect on final times (don't use or care about speed figures), and the fact that I was an athlete, including track and field, for nearly 40 years, your statement, concerning pace, pace setters and the rest of the field, and herd mentality/survival instinct in horses, is my belief, and, that belief has served me well.

[markgoldie]

Minus any thorough computerized research, on my part, but, with 32 years of studying this game and having experienced thousands of races where the pace has a definite, direct effect on final times (don't use or care about speed figures), and the fact that I was an athlete, including track and field, for nearly 40 years, your statement, concerning pace, pace setters and the rest of the field, and herd mentality/survival instinct in horses, is my belief, and, that belief has served me well.
Had to laugh. A friend of mine read my post and just called me. He suggested that I use a new tag line: "There are no .5 impact values among S-type cheetahs!"

[Show Me the Wire]

Saratoga mike asked about some fractions and gm10 asked about using pace as a selection process. Throughout this good discussion it seems pace is being discussed in absolutes. Maybe discussing pace as equivalencies, gives a different perspective.

For example I train a horse, which when properly conditioned to his fittest can run a ¾ race in either 1:08 or a 1:09 depending on the pace. My trainee can run, a 46 second ½ mile and finish in 22 seconds, resulting in 1:08 final time on a neutral track. I also understand, my trainee can complete ¾ ‘in a 1:09 on the same neutral track, off a ½ mile pace of 45 seconds.

Both of these performances are the same. Neither one is superior to the other, just different distributions of the same available energy expended over a fixed interval of distance.

However, there is a limit to the conservation of early energy translating to faster final times. Rating the horse to run a 47 second ½ mile interval will not decrease final time to 1:07, but will increase it to 1:09, because there is not enough of the finite interval of distance left to expend the increase amount of saved energy. The horse at its best output can only run 11 seconds per furlong (2 x 11 = 22).

If the horse runs a 44 second ½ the resulting final time will be greater than 1:09, probably a 1:10 or higher, assuming all things equal.

So how do I use this information as a trainer? First, if I want to win, I enter my horse in a race (class level) where a winning final time is 1:09 with a ½ mile pace of the winner (not race) is around 45 seconds. Second, after determining my competition, I need to decide if my horse is the fastest at the total distance and the quickest in the early part of the race.

If my horse is the quickest i.e. no other horse can run early with my horse and no other horse can finish in 1:09, the easiest way to win the race is to allow my horse to take the lead and complete the race in a 1:09 .

If my horse isn’t the quickest, I need some other strategy to win the race. A couple of my options are my horse presses the quicker horse or sit back, if my horse can rate, and make a stronger late run.

If I press I hope the pace setter tires enough to allow my horse to win resulting in a slower final time off faster fractions. If I opt for a late run off a 46 second ½ mile I am hoping to catch a tiring front runner, which set a faster pace, while allowing my horse to run 1:08.

So as a handicapper, like a trainer, I need to determine which horses are well intended today and select the equivalent pace scenarios the well intended horses need to achieve to win.


The above illustrates the seeming paradox being discussed about final times and the effect of pace. A fast 1/2 mile fraction can lead to a slow final race time if the two best horses at the distance exert too much energy, i.e. the 1:10, while wining or can result in a fast final time i.e. the 1:08

Additionally, the finite interval of ground itself can cause a slow final time, if too much energy is conserved through out the early stages.

[Greyfox]

I've tried to post this twice now in response to MG's observations.
But each time it has come up blank.

I think that you know a lot about horse racing and horses. But not everything. Also, I don't want to get into lengthy debates. I think though that there are some things you should consider.

1. The last way I would look at a horse race is individual time trials.
If horses were cars, time trials would be great predictors. We wouldn't worry about pace. We'd simply worry about final times.
But horses are not cars. They have a herd instinct.
They have a tendency or disposition to position themselves within that herd as it runs.
That gives us an opportunity to roughly predict who will run to the front,
who will sit just behind, and who prefers to bring up the rear.

2. Todays track surface determines whether or not early runners can continue on. The race might be 6 furlongs long. The energy requirements can make it seem 5.5 furlongs or 7 furlongs.

3. The number of animals trying to set the pace determines whether or not early runners can continue on. A lone "rabbit" can steal a race. The lone speed horse at any track should always be evaluated carefully.

4. There is a slip stream effect that is to the advantage of those horses sitting behind the pace setters. On fair tracks, the Pressers are definitely at an advantage.

5. The muscle/physiology aerobic/anaerobic biological make up of each animal contributes highly to whether or not a horse will be a front runner. What you refer to as the "psychology" of the animal to flee may be true, but his biological make up will determine how fast he flees early and how much endurance he has late. I'd be more inclined to say that the psychology of steeds only comes into play when they meet their match on a track where both are optimally suited to go head and head down the stretch.


6. In wild herds, the fastest runners overall do not necessarily take the front of the pack. Typically that will be an alpha mare, with the alpha stallion towards the rear. So it is not quite true that those that can flee the fastest have a reproductive advantage. Those that can flee fast and far also have an advantage.

7. As cj has indicated elsewhere the most efficient runner is the one who wins today. I suggest that most efficient runner is likely on a track surface that optimally matches his/her preferences for position, his conditioning, his pace and endurance. On a different surface at the same distance that another runner might prevail.

8. The best predictor of what most horses are likely to do in facing today's races is usually past performance.

[gm10]

You might be better served by looking a Randy Giles work. He claims that speed points are more predictive of race pace senario than pace figures.

I use Quirin Speed Points which are very good - but they definitely are not in the same league as speed or class figures.

I find it even difficult to predict the pace that will be set in a race - let alone that I can predict the effect it will have on each horse. (I used linear regression on about 10 factors to predict the early fractions).

[markgoldie]

To Greyfox:

Briefly and without looking for a debate, I believe that viewing a horse race as an event with a herd-like pyscho-social dynamic is incorrect. This is a flee-only phenomenon, so induced by the training of human handlers. The alpha males who like to hang in the back of the pack don't last long as competitive racehorses.

[Greyfox]

To Greyfox:

Briefly and without looking for a debate, I believe that viewing a horse race as an event with a herd-like pyscho-social dynamic is incorrect. This is a flee-only phenomenon, so induced by the training of human handlers. The alpha males who like to hang in the back of the pack don't last long as competitive racehorses.

I think we agree to a point here.
They hang at the back in the wild.
Running against other males that won't necessarily be the case.
Alpha dominance can be expressed in other ways.
Of course while horses can naturally run, they have to learn to race.

[Greyfox]

I think we agree to a point here.
They hang at the back in the wild.
Running against other males that won't necessarily be the case.
Alpha dominance can be expressed in other ways.
Of course while horses can naturally run, they have to learn to race.

I should have also added that viewing a horse race like a herd event is more sensical than viewing it as an Indy race.

[gm10]

No, actually I believe we have a verifiable disagreement. Consider the following study: A large number of dirt races at mixed distances (although between 5f and 8f would seem to encompass most of dirt racing) for which we have accurate and long-term pace pars (E2, aka. P2 is best) and accurate final-time pars. This is the data base. The study is the effect of a faster-than-par pace call on the final time of the race.

You would believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, that as the pace par is surpassed (that is the paces get faster), the final time par would also be surpassed (that is they would get faster). I would believe the opposite, that is, that as the paces get faster, the final times get slower. Maybe we could get someone to do an accurate research on this.

As far as the human racing analogy, which I remind you, you brought up: the reason that human races tend to go slowly is because the runners understand the slip-stream effect that is present. Therefore, there is no competitive advantage to going a very fast pace, since it enables other trailing runners the advantage of slipstreaming. This is what causes the insertion of rabbits by the race organizers who feel that the fans are interested in seeing races in which a world record might be broken.

However, as you correctly point out, many of these rabbit-runners go far ahead of the field and therefore their insertion is only psychological in nature. What else could it possibly be? Certainly you don't believe that the human runners are actually chasing a man who is 50 yards ahead of them and who they know will shortly be exiting the course and not finishing the race. And what possible physical effect can a man running this far ahead actually have on the balance of the field? And so I believe that rabbit runners are a waste of time and energy, although their appearance has now become somewhat institutionalized.

But you brought this up, so I ask you. What exact point relevant to thoroughbred racing were you making again?? If it was that in human racing there tends to be a sub-optimum energy distribution due to slow pace, then I would agree (and my reason for this tendency is that the runners understand the slipstreaming effect in their sport). If it was that in human racing, faster paces tend to create faster finishing times, even if the energy distribution is sub-optimum on the fast side, again I would agree and again, the reason would be slipstreaming (although the winners of such races would overwhelmingly tend to be closers who had benefitted from the slipstream). But if your point is that this proves something about thoroughbred racing, here I would emphatically disagree, as mentioned above.

Since thoroughbreds do not line up behind each other, we can more or less look upon their races as a group of individual time trials taking place at the same time (notwithstanding the fact that there are some tactical maneuvers that occur and some interaction between the contestants due to their proximity at times). But there is extremely little "tag-teaming" effect (as mentioned by another poster) that can occur in racing where a slipstream is evident.

Now. The only question left is why there should exist (in a series of time trials) a competitive advantage to front runners? Put another way, why should time-trialing thoroughbreds show a consistent advantage to animals which exhibit an apparent sub-optimum energy disribution on the fast side?

Please believe me. I did NOT want to get into this, but I'm in this deep already, so what the heck?

The reason is that horses are prey animals and they have an ancient and historic flee mentality. The evoultionary history of the animal gives a competitive reproductive advantage to the animal who is able to run away the fastest. Furthermore, the advantage goes to those able to run fast for a relatively short period of time since the nature of the prevalent predator is for high speed and relatively low endurance. So, we inherit an animal that for eons has been running away as fast as as far as possible, but more fast than far. However, this is the psychological makeup. Now. Before I get jumped upon by the evolutionary biologist in our midst, let me acknowledge that there is a minor, and I emphasize minor attack mentality which occurs between males when they compete for sexual advantage relative to a harem of mares. But, I submit, this palls in comparison with the overwhelming survival mechanism that favors flight.

At any rate, the net result of this is that the modern thoroughbred is great at running away from his racing competition, but sorely lacks in the ability to attack the front runner. Now. Please don't give me any stories about all the fabulous come-from-behind stalwarts in the sport. For the most part, all they are is grinders who are able to maintain a steady pace, but who look like closing monsters only because the speed horses are stopping. For example, there are hundreds and hundreds of t-breds out there who can run a first quarter in, say, 22.1. You got any that can come a last quarter that fast?

So we have an animal who wants to get away (out front), who is racing against other animals who essentially only are trying to get away themselves. That is, they have no "chase-down" mentality.

I would venture to say that if we were racing cheetahs, for example, we'd find a far different type of energy distribution among the best of the breed. The best of these animals have been selected to close a gap and I don't think you'd see the front runners in these races being safe from the S types in the group.

But I'm running far afield here, although this does relate to the discussion at hand. While the successful t-bred energy distribution is sub-optimum on the speed side, I think in the vast majority of cases, the envelope has been pushed about as far as it practically can be. This means that additional early speed is counter-productive. And the closing types are not advantaged toward faster times because (a) there is no slipstream to help them and (b) they are not true "chasers" anyway. Rather, they are fleers who have been fleeing from the moment the gate opened, just a little slower than the pace-setting fleers.

There is nothing in here that I want to argue against - but there is one missing factor (imo anyway): the jockey. They may be pinheads at times, but they do actually sit on the horse, and influence how it runs. As a group, they must know what tactics in what race will maximize their chance of winning. We must give them that much credit.

A great example occurred at Oaktree last year year. The final times were all about 0.1 secs/furlong slower than in 2008. Big deal - so the track was slower this year. But hang on ... was it? Here is what I think. It was the jockey's who had learned that they shouldn't be so gung ho on getting the lead. They adapted their tactics to the circumstances.

Can I prove this? I think I can. It was only the first 4F that were slower - the rest of the fractions (across all distances) were identical! The track wasn't slower, the horses didn't suddenly exhibit different evolutionary traits ... it was the jockey's who were causing it. The jockey's had seen the BC in 2008, they had read the media coverage, they had changed their style and as a consequence changed how pace handicappers needed to interpret the data.

All of this is only to say that while I agree with your and and other's opinions, I don't see a coherent framework for 'pace analysis' just yet. It certainly works for certain purposes and in certain circumstances, but large parts of it still need to be filled in imo.

[Greyfox]

A psycho-social herd domiance stretch maneuver - savaging.


http://images.exclusivelyequine.com/products/big/P50-1531.JPG.

(I tried to get another picture without the ad and for whatever reason
when it wouldn't copy in over this one. Sorry PA. GF.)

[Cratos]

No, actually I believe we have a verifiable disagreement. Consider the following study: A large number of dirt races at mixed distances (although between 5f and 8f would seem to encompass most of dirt racing) for which we have accurate and long-term pace pars (E2, aka. P2 is best) and accurate final-time pars. This is the data base. The study is the effect of a faster-than-par pace call on the final time of the race.

You would believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, that as the pace par is surpassed (that is the paces get faster), the final time par would also be surpassed (that is they would get faster). I would believe the opposite, that is, that as the paces get faster, the final times get slower. Maybe we could get someone to do an accurate research on this.

I don’t know anything about your academic background, but your above assertion defies logic; let alone Newton’s law of motion.

The average pace of any race whether it is horse racing, human racing, or machine racing is the final time divided into the finite interval race distance in measurable increments. For instance miles/hour, feet/second, etc. This is physics 101.

But for you to say “as the paces get faster, the final times get slower” is a misunderstanding of force applied against mass over a fixed interval.

However if you are arguing that within a given class of horse racing , human racing, or machine racing that as the internal speed exceed the average speed of that class the final time will be slower is probably correct.

The reason for this is that there is potential energy and kinetic energy. Potential energy will differ from class to class and within class which says that its output, kinetic energy is class stratified and tend to be class optimized.

Succinctly speaking, the reason that a horse final time get slower when it runs at pace beyond its class average is that it is doesn’t have the potential energy to generate the kinetic energy.

A very easy and graphic way to see this is to plot the pace increments and final time for a given race distance for various horse classes ranging from the bottom-class horse to the high-class horse and you will clearly see a difference in the kinetic coefficient of friction, the friction that opposes the movement of the horse in motion

[markgoldie]

There is nothing in here that I want to argue against - but there is one missing factor (imo anyway): the jockey. They may be pinheads at times, but they do actually sit on the horse, and influence how it runs. As a group, they must know what tactics in what race will maximize their chance of winning. We must give them that much credit.

A great example occurred at Oaktree last year year. The final times were all about 0.1 secs/furlong slower than in 2008. Big deal - so the track was slower this year. But hang on ... was it? Here is what I think. It was the jockey's who had learned that they shouldn't be so gung ho on getting the lead. They adapted their tactics to the circumstances.

Can I prove this? I think I can. It was only the first 4F that were slower - the rest of the fractions (across all distances) were identical! The track wasn't slower, the horses didn't suddenly exhibit different evolutionary traits ... it was the jockey's who were causing it. The jockey's had seen the BC in 2008, they had read the media coverage, they had changed their style and as a consequence changed how pace handicappers needed to interpret the data.

All of this is only to say that while I agree with your and and other's opinions, I don't see a coherent framework for 'pace analysis' just yet. It certainly works for certain purposes and in certain circumstances, but large parts of it still need to be filled in imo.
I agree completely that what we've had here is mostly a theoretical back-and-forth without much in the way of practical application.

However, I use this mumbo-jumbo in a very practical way. When handicapping, I look at pace as a contributing factor to final speed performance (or fig). I will adjust the fig upward if the horse was in close attendance to a faster-than-normal pace. I will still adjust upward, though somewhat less even if the horse was in normal stalking distance of the fast pace, and (most controversally) I will even adjust a small amount upward if the horse was a far-back lagging S-type. This last adjustment is on the basis of my assumption that there was nothing at all about the faster pace that could have possibly induced a better personal fig for such a horse. Conversely, there was always a chance that the animal was moved prematurely out of his best personal energy distribution by the jockey, who saw his mount falling way too far behind. In the reverse case, where the pace was slower-than-normal, I will downgrade figs in a similar-but-reversed
fashion.

[Show Me the Wire]

Cratos:

Good post. However, for the simple people like myself, what I understood is the following:

markgoldie is framing the discussion within a given class as is cj. cj believes a faster pace resulting from competing against a better opponent causes the slower horses to run faster and earn better speed figures (more potential and kinetic energy), while markiegold takes the opposite view.

While, gm10 doesn't see any usefulness of pace handicapping relating to the selection process, but sees it as a viable historical tool.

And Greyfox doesn’t care for any of it

Guys please correct me if I misunderstood the critical points.

Me, I tried to discuss, the concept, that final time, and pace are a function of distance in a given class.

[46zilzal]

A psycho-social herd domiance stretch maneuver - savaging.



http://images.exclusivelyequine.com/products/big/P50-1531.JPG.

(I tried to get another picture without the ad and for whatever reason
when it wouldn't copy in over this one. Sorry PA. GF.)

here withou the ad
http://www.championsgallery.com/secretariat_shopping.htm

[46zilzal]

Horses run out of a conditioned FEAR response. It is as simple as that. There are no overlaid HUMAN aspects to what horses do, they JUST RUN.

[bisket]

this is true that the main ingredient of a fast finishing time is a fast pace. everyone has pars that they judge pace and final times on. now i want to first say i don't bet tracks i'm not familiar with so keep this in mind while reading this post. my par is 12 second furs. its very easy to look at times quickly in this manner. all speed handicappers are always all over the horse that runs a route and has a first 1/2 mile pace of 46-47, and finishes 1 1/16 mile or 1 1/8 mile in 141 or 147. you can see the saliva dripping from their mouth. ;) although they don't have a clue what to do with a horse that runs in a race that goes 48-49 and finishes 141 or 147. i say to you this animal is much better than the horse that won with the faster pace. why? a number of reasons. first and formost this runner can gallop and lay down a 46 second 1/2 at the END OF THE RACE. this animal not only has stamina, but also has the same speed as the other thats basically using its momentum to finish. this horse will be classified as a deep closer, but is he. the fact of the matter is he's NOT CAPTIVE TO ANY PACE WHATSOEVER. he can run his 46 second half whenever he dam well pleases, and when needed improve on it. the jock can run whatever race he wants. this type of animal comes along once every few years or so, and most speed handicappers think he's mr. ed. than scratch their head when he beats their speed horse that they've rated alongside secratariat. so whenever faced with this choice of the actual router (zenyatta or say summer bird) or the speed horse/ router (rachel or say kensia) i go with the horse that has the stamina and energy in the stretch: zenyatta. we've been rather fortunate because there has been several recently: curlin, street sense, invasor, rags to riches, and zenyatta.

[eddie10]

Sometimes the rabbit sets a slower than expeted early pace and hangs on to win.

[46zilzal]

This malarkey about HERD response just is NOT based on good science. It takes multile and repetitve intreactions OVER TIME, in a stable herd, to establish definite heriarchies. There is simply NO time, and with the distraction of the artificial environment ot of the race track, for her dominance to develop.

EVERY behavioral study I have ever read confirms this, from Desmond Morris (Horsewatching) ON. An interloper comes into a herd and it requires several days for the interactions to establish ANY heriarchy that is definite

[46zilzal]

Sometimes the rabbit sets a slower than expeted early pace and hangs on to win.
At some tracks, far more often than one thinks.

[bisket]

Sometimes the rabbit sets a slower than expeted early pace and hangs on to win.
generally this isn't the case. some think oh the rabbit went slow early so he'll be able to go faster late. this is the case to a degree, but usually can't recoup the extra time in the stretch to get that 141 or 147. see this is main difference. the rabbit needs his early pace to run the fast time. the real geniune router doesn't need any particular pace time to run that fast time. he's not captive to the herd whatsoever. he makes his own rules because he's the boss.

[markgoldie]

I don’t know anything about your academic background, but your above assertion defies logic; let alone Newton’s law of motion.

The average pace of any race whether it is horse racing, human racing, or machine racing is the final time divided into the finite interval race distance in measurable increments. For instance miles/hour, feet/second, etc. This is physics 101.

But for you to say “as the paces get faster, the final times get slower” is a misunderstanding of force applied against mass over a fixed interval.

However if you are arguing that within a given class of horse racing , human racing, or machine racing that as the internal speed exceed the average speed of that class the final time will be slower is probably correct.


Having a bit of a problem with this post. So which is it again? I'm a moron who knows nothing of which I speak, or am I probably correct??

[Show Me the Wire]

This malarkey about HERD response just is NOT based on good science. It takes multile and repetitve intreactions OVER TIME, in a stable herd, to establish definite heriarchies. There is simply NO time, and with the distraction of the artificial environment ot of the race track, for her dominance to develop.

EVERY behavioral study I have ever read confirms this, from Desmond Morris (Horsewatching) ON. An interloper comes into a herd and it requires several days for the interactions to establish ANY heriarchy that is definite


A bit off point, but that is why I would bet your money on "Payment Approved" and not mine.

[Greyfox]

This malarkey about HERD response just is NOT based on good science.

Poppycock. Watch any post parade and see if signs of dominance aren't being exhibited. Obviously, more stable hierarchies would be established over time.
Of course flight and fear are part of the package.
Even we as humans form impressions very very fast.
If a group of Hell's Angels who I've never seen before want to pass me on the road, I'm not going to try to beat them or blow my horn at them.

[Greyfox]

the real geniune router doesn't need any particular pace time to run that fast time. .

Yes there are exceptions to the herding instinct.
That exception is class and that is why the rule:
"Class laughs at Pace" has some validity.

[46zilzal]

I did a senior paper (on my way to my undergraduate degree in ZOOLOGY) on this very subject and got high marks and even told the instructors how to change the conditions of the experiment next time they tired it (as it bombed because of just the thing I mentioned :NOT ALLOWING THE MULTIPLE INTERACTIONS TO OCCUR in order to establish the dominance between individuals in a group)

People can anthrophomorsize their "gut reaction" fantasy world over top of the realities of zoological behaviorists all they want to but that never changes the.realities of what is required in establishing pecking orders in NATURAL environments.

With all the loud distractions, being under saddle and being directed by riders and out riders, NONE of the normal interactions can occur: there is NO TIME in this artificial arrangement.

[cj]

You would believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, that as the pace par is surpassed (that is the paces get faster), the final time par would also be surpassed (that is they would get faster). I would believe the opposite, that is, that as the paces get faster, the final times get slower. Maybe we could get someone to do an accurate research on this.



I also don't want to get into 10 paragraph posts, so I'll stick with this first one. I don't believe the opposite at all. It is clear to me I'm not making my point well.

What I believe is that for every different pace scenario, some horses will be helped, some hurt, and some run the same. A fast pace will help some horses run faster. I didn't say the final time of the race would be faster. If the race has quality closers, it will probably stay around par for the class. If it does not, the race time will dip below par. I think we agree on that. But again, some horses will run faster than if the pace was slow, or even normal. It doesn't mean they will suddenly run faster than par for the class.

[Show Me the Wire]

Zilly"

We had this discussion before, and I asked you about three scenarios. You never answered me. Do you remember them?

[Greyfox]

With all the loud distractions, being under saddle and being directed by riders and out riders, NONE of the normal interactions can occur: there is NO TIME in this artificial arrangement.

You underestimate the ability of a horse to form impressions.

[Show Me the Wire]

this is true that the main ingredient of a fast finishing time is a fast pace. everyone has pars that they judge pace and final times on. now i want to first say i don't bet tracks i'm not familiar with so keep this in mind while reading this post. my par is 12 second furs. its very easy to look at times quickly in this manner. all speed handicappers are always all over the horse that runs a route and has a first 1/2 mile pace of 46-47, and finishes 1 1/16 mile or 1 1/8 mile in 141 or 147. you can see the saliva dripping from their mouth. ;) although they don't have a clue what to do with a horse that runs in a race that goes 48-49 and finishes 141 or 147. i say to you this animal is much better than the horse that won with the faster pace. why? a number of reasons. first and formost this runner can gallop and lay down a 46 second 1/2 at the END OF THE RACE. this animal not only has stamina, but also has the same speed as the other thats basically using its momentum to finish. this horse will be classified as a deep closer, but is he. the fact of the matter is he's NOT CAPTIVE TO ANY PACE WHATSOEVER. he can run his 46 second half whenever he dam well pleases, and when needed improve on it. the jock can run whatever race he wants. this type of animal comes along once every few years or so, and most speed handicappers think he's mr. ed. than scratch their head when he beats their speed horse that they've rated alongside secratariat. so whenever faced with this choice of the actual router (zenyatta or say summer bird) or the speed horse/ router (rachel or say kensia) i go with the horse that has the stamina and energy in the stretch: zenyatta. we've been rather fortunate because there has been several recently: curlin, street sense, invasor, rags to riches, and zenyatta.


Your post is more along the lines of my thoughts. Good post.

[Greyfox]

Horses run out of a conditioned FEAR response. It is as simple as that. There are no overlaid HUMAN aspects to what horses do, they JUST RUN.

Of course there is an element of truth in what you say.
But once again, your suffering from hardening of the categories.
If they just run, it's as simple as that, perhaps we should do away with jockeys.
Put them in the gate, bring a wolf out, let them go.
Of course it might be hard to catch them afterwards.
In a horse race there are always overlaid human aspects of what horses do.
They run sure, but how they race has a very solid human component called jockeys and trainers and who they are racing against.

By the way, Fear is a primitive emotion. The response is instinctive not conditioned. The horse is born with this wiring.
Conditioning is a behaviorists term pertaining to new learning, not primitive responses.

Perhaps you'd care to cite where Morris would ever say that their response to fear is conditioned.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Seriously, fractions? Then there will be another ten page debate on what constitutes a fast pace. I deal with variant adjusted figures. I have quite a few loyal customers. If you choose to not trust my work, read no further.

A glaringly obvious example would be Monarchos winning the Derby. Clearly that was his best race final time wise (adjusted for variant or raw) and he did it with the benefit of a grueling pace.

I opened the archives on my site for the 2003 BC Classic. The winner, Pleasantly Perfect, showed 10 races in his PPs. Three times, the pace was 112 or above, the other seven showed all below 110. His three fastest speed figure races came in the the three races with a 112 or higher pace. The Classic that year featured the fastest pace he had seen, a 118, and he recorded his lifetime best speed figure of 115.

The next year he debuted facing a 109 pace and won, but with only a 107 figure. After his trip to Dubai (no fractions to gauge), he raced in the San Diego and faced a crawling 95 pace. He was beaten at 3 to 5 earning only a 101. In the Goodwood, his next engagement, he saw a 112 early pace and finished strong to win with a 111 final figure.

There are countless examples like this if you bother to do the research. Unlike harness racing, horses very rarely are able to change styles to adapt to the pace scenario for a particular race.

I've never questioned your work. I'm not even familar with it. Sorry.

[cj]

I've never questioned your work. I'm not even familar with it. Sorry.

I didn't say you did, was just pointing out that if you don't believe what I post about the numbers the rest would be worthless.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I didn't say you did, was just pointing out that if you don't believe what I post about the numbers the rest would be worthless.

I only look at pace figures for CT (yr-round) and Saratoga. I don't seriously bet any other tracks. I suspect you've study pace figures more than myself, as it appears you have some sort of business venture on that front.

I just want to put some numbers to what you were saying. So just to close the circle, let me ask you the following: Are you saying if a horse earns an 85 Beyer at 7 furlongs, his Beyer is most likely to be accompanied by a lower pace figure than when the same horse runs a 75 Beyer (assuming the horse's physical condition and form cycle is about the same)?

[Cratos]

Having a bit of a problem with this post. So which is it again? I'm a moron who knows nothing of which I speak, or am I probably correct??

If you are having a problem with what I posted please explain to me the problem, but I don’t know you personally to assess your intelligence as being moronic and even if I did I would never publicly admit that I believe such assessment. Also, if you read my posts on this forum you see that I don’t get into character assignation; I believe this forum is about agreeing or disagreeing on points of view about horserace handicapping and related issues.

To answer the second part of your question; no you are not correct with your assertion that “as the paces get faster, the final times get slower.”

However I vehemently support your right to believe that assertion and publicly publish it for anyone to read.

[Cratos]

Cratos:

Good post. However, for the simple people like myself, what I understood is the following:

markgoldie is framing the discussion within a given class as is cj. cj believes a faster pace resulting from competing against a better opponent causes the slower horses to run faster and earn better speed figures (more potential and kinetic energy), while markiegold takes the opposite view.

While, gm10 doesn't see any usefulness of pace handicapping relating to the selection process, but sees it as a viable historical tool.

And Greyfox doesn’t care for any of it

Guys please correct me if I misunderstood the critical points.

Me, I tried to discuss, the concept, that final time, and pace are a function of distance in a given class.

You are on the right track and there is a book written by William L. Scott on this subject that you might enjoy reading.

[raybo]

Me, I tried to discuss, the concept, that final time, and pace are a function of distance in a given class.

Or, maybe a function of "class" in a given class?

As has been stated before, class sets or overcomes the pace and continues on.

[Greyfox]

I didn't say you did, was just pointing out that if you don't believe what I post about the numbers the rest would be worthless.

Hold on cj, you have an excellent reputation and I don't doubt that your numbers are very good as well.
Having said that I'm not going to hang on every word you post and believe it.
Would you really want that from those of us who understand you to be very good?? I think you're being a little terse with Saratoga M and writing more than I've ever seen you post to MG. Just an observation.

[gm10]

I agree completely that what we've had here is mostly a theoretical back-and-forth without much in the way of practical application.

However, I use this mumbo-jumbo in a very practical way. When handicapping, I look at pace as a contributing factor to final speed performance (or fig). I will adjust the fig upward if the horse was in close attendance to a faster-than-normal pace. I will still adjust upward, though somewhat less even if the horse was in normal stalking distance of the fast pace, and (most controversally) I will even adjust a small amount upward if the horse was a far-back lagging S-type. This last adjustment is on the basis of my assumption that there was nothing at all about the faster pace that could have possibly induced a better personal fig for such a horse. Conversely, there was always a chance that the animal was moved prematurely out of his best personal energy distribution by the jockey, who saw his mount falling way too far behind. In the reverse case, where the pace was slower-than-normal, I will downgrade figs in a similar-but-reversed
fashion.

Have you verified whether these adjustments improve your strike rate?

[cj]

Hold on cj, you have an excellent reputation and I don't doubt that your numbers are very good as well.
Having said that I'm not going to hang on every word you post and believe it.
Would you really want that from those of us who understand you to be very good?? I think you're being a little terse with Saratoga M and writing more than I've ever seen you post to MG. Just an observation.

That wasn't the point at all. He asked for examples with fractions. I was pointing out that I don't use raw fractions and didn't want to get into that as a whole different topic, nothing more.

I probably was a little terse as you say. I thought his request was a bit much.

[gm10]

Cratos:

Good post. However, for the simple people like myself, what I understood is the following:

markgoldie is framing the discussion within a given class as is cj. cj believes a faster pace resulting from competing against a better opponent causes the slower horses to run faster and earn better speed figures (more potential and kinetic energy), while markiegold takes the opposite view.

While, gm10 doesn't see any usefulness of pace handicapping relating to the selection process, but sees it as a viable historical tool.

And Greyfox doesn’t care for any of it

Guys please correct me if I misunderstood the critical points.

Me, I tried to discuss, the concept, that final time, and pace are a function of distance in a given class.

I'm not saying that ... (like others) I adjust my (historical) PP figs for the pace of that race. That will automatically have an effect on the selection process in today's race. But I expect more from pace analysis.

At the moment, I take about 100 factors into account when calculating my own odds. Some factors are direct applications of 'pace' (quirin and klein speed points for example), others are indirect (pace-adjusted PP figs for example). However, they are all based on HISTORICAL pace data. I am not quantifying the likelihood of today's pace scenario and how it will affect each horse's performance. This is a very complex topic imo. We need to incorporate equine and human biology, psychology and physiology, physics and some ad-hoc data such as route-to-sprint, Lasix, etc.

[Greyfox]

At the moment, I take about 100 factors into account when calculating my own odds. .


Wow. 100 factors.
In my own program I usually use 5 and sometimes 8.
My program was developed on a simple spread sheet where the data is entered manually. I hope yours automatically parses the data for you as predictive value doesn't increase much beyond a certain point no matter what regression equation or algorithm you are using.

[gm10]

I don’t know anything about your academic background, but your above assertion defies logic; let alone Newton’s law of motion.

The average pace of any race whether it is horse racing, human racing, or machine racing is the final time divided into the finite interval race distance in measurable increments. For instance miles/hour, feet/second, etc. This is physics 101.

But for you to say “as the paces get faster, the final times get slower” is a misunderstanding of force applied against mass over a fixed interval.

However if you are arguing that within a given class of horse racing , human racing, or machine racing that as the internal speed exceed the average speed of that class the final time will be slower is probably correct.

The reason for this is that there is potential energy and kinetic energy. Potential energy will differ from class to class and within class which says that its output, kinetic energy is class stratified and tend to be class optimized.

Succinctly speaking, the reason that a horse final time get slower when it runs at pace beyond its class average is that it is doesn’t have the potential energy to generate the kinetic energy.

A very easy and graphic way to see this is to plot the pace increments and final time for a given race distance for various horse classes ranging from the bottom-class horse to the high-class horse and you will clearly see a difference in the kinetic coefficient of friction, the friction that opposes the movement of the horse in motion

I don't understand the last part. Isn't the kinetic friction coefficient only determined by the nature of the materials that are in contact? How can this depend on the class of a horse? It only depends on the hoof and the surface only, doesn't it?

[gm10]

Wow. 100 factors.
In my own program I usually use 5 and sometimes 8.
My program was developed on a simple spread sheet where the data is entered manually. I hope yours automatically parses the data for you as predictive value doesn't increase much beyond a certain point no matter what regression equation or algorithm you are using.

Yes it is automated and the predictive power of it could not never be achieved by any subset of 5 variables. I use a multinomial logit model (like Benter).

[gm10]

You would believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, that as the pace par is surpassed (that is the paces get faster), the final time par would also be surpassed (that is they would get faster). I would believe the opposite, that is, that as the paces get faster, the final times get slower. Maybe we could get someone to do an accurate research on this.



I am willing to give this one a go. Here are some PHA numbers for example, over 6F.

EARLY_PACE;AVG(FIRST_FRACT_TIME);AVG(WINNING_TIME) ;COUNT(*)
21.2;21.2516;70.6184;25
21.4;21.41377049;70.22639344;122
21.6;21.59776552;70.62663448;725
21.8;21.80271174;70.81067616;1405
22;21.99921062;71.18401422;2673
22.2;22.2014202;71.44349186;3070
22.4;22.38599519;71.70401856;2909
22.6;22.58521546;72.04823634;2251
22.8;22.7907055;72.4442904;1219
23;22.98580882;72.49977941;544
23.2;23.19211429;72.89525714;175
23.4;23.36700637;73.23248408;157
23.8;23.77761905;73.48;21



The quicker the pace, the quicker the final time - at this point anyway!!

[cj]

I think this is different from what Mark is talking about. You are looking at all races, so of course the quicker fractional times are coming from better races so the final times are quicker as well.

[bisket]

now heres an example of a runner coming from poly to dirt that i don't think moves forward. look at aiknite in the holly bull. whats different from his line and say zenyatta's. now granted your gonna automatically have much left to be desired comparing a 3 year old this time of year to a champion mare, but i think it may make the point i'm trying to make. aikenite has had the same pace scenerio's as zenyatta, but theres a big difference. yes his final times are about 1 second above 12 sec furs. well the reason is if you look at aikenites splits he's never run faster than 12 sec furs in any of his routes. on top of that even in his 7 fur race his splits are around 12 sec furs. this says to me aikenite runs very evenly without a turn of foot. this is the difference i'm trying to point out between a horse like zenyatta and other stamina types.

[markgoldie]

Have you verified whether these adjustments improve your strike rate?
I play complex gimmicks almost exclusively and with an eye toward eliminating favorites at least in the top-most positions, so my strike rate is dependant on many vairables besides just the accuracy of the handicapping. However, I am satisfied that the pace-adjustment formula I use gives me a better snapshot of the current ability-form of the animal than I would have without such adjustment. I also use a class adjustment to the earned fig (the measurement of strength for the class raced against is the Bris RR number). I have mentioned these things on the forum previously.

[Cratos]

I don't understand the last part. Isn't the kinetic friction coefficient only determined by the nature of the materials that are in contact? How can this depend on the class of a horse? It only depends on the hoof and the surface only, doesn't it?

The innate force of a horse to run is different by class of horse, hence the kinetic energy is different; same surface, similar hooves, but different forces

[46zilzal]

I am willing to give this one a go. Here are some PHA numbers for example, over 6F.

EARLY_PACE;AVG(FIRST_FRACT_TIME);AVG(WINNING_TIME) ;COUNT(*)
21.2;21.2516;70.6184;25
21.4;21.41377049;70.22639344;122
21.6;21.59776552;70.62663448;725
21.8;21.80271174;70.81067616;1405
22;21.99921062;71.18401422;2673
22.2;22.2014202;71.44349186;3070
22.4;22.38599519;71.70401856;2909
22.6;22.58521546;72.04823634;2251
22.8;22.7907055;72.4442904;1219
23;22.98580882;72.49977941;544
23.2;23.19211429;72.89525714;175
23.4;23.36700637;73.23248408;157
23.8;23.77761905;73.48;21



The quicker the pace, the quicker the final time - at this point anyway!!
Philly first fractions are NEVER, repeat NEVER, reproduced by horses once they ship to any other tracks. The timer has to be radically different.

[cj]

There is nothing wrong with the timer. You should know there are other things which could affect the fractional times.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I think the PHA timer is tripped a bit later and the track can play very fast, almost like the Meadowlands at times.

[gm10]

I think this is different from what Mark is talking about. You are looking at all races, so of course the quicker fractional times are coming from better races so the final times are quicker as well.

Yes - but we have been talking in terms of general horse population. Quicker pace -> slower or quicker final times?

But I did run the same for races within a certain class range earlier, and the results are the same. I'm only posting Philly because there is a lot of data for it. But the same trends emerge at BEL and SA (pro-ride).

EARLY PACE;AVG(FIRST_FRACT_TIME);AVG(WINNING_TIME);COUNT (*)
21.4;21.43;68.8;12
21.6;21.59682243;69.98831776;214
21.8;21.80393162;70.16592593;351
22;22.00238683;70.18738683;486
22.2;22.20531343;70.12680597;335
22.4;22.40637931;70.18458621;290
22.6;22.59091837;70.77102041;196
22.8;22.81228571;71.10695238;105
23;22.97306122;71.25204082;49

[gm10]

The innate force of a horse to run is different by class of horse, hence the kinetic energy is different; same surface, similar hooves, but different forces

It wasn't clear that you meant a force when you wrote friction coefficient.

So how would you formulate this force / kinetic energy?

[gm10]

I play complex gimmicks almost exclusively and with an eye toward eliminating favorites at least in the top-most positions, so my strike rate is dependant on many vairables besides just the accuracy of the handicapping. However, I am satisfied that the pace-adjustment formula I use gives me a better snapshot of the current ability-form of the animal than I would have without such adjustment. I also use a class adjustment to the earned fig (the measurement of strength for the class raced against is the Bris RR number). I have mentioned these things on the forum previously.

The only way you can be sure about the true impact of your adjustments is by evaluating their effect in isolation.

Any modifications I make are tested against two simple metrics: strike rate and ROI of my top selection. Although it is an ideal situation when both improve, I tend to focus more on the ROI side. For example, my weight adjustments have a slight negative effect on my strike rate, but they do improve my ROI quite a bit.

I agree on making class adjustments to your figs.

[Cratos]

It wasn't clear that you meant a force when you wrote friction coefficient.

So how would you formulate this force / kinetic energy?

What I was attempting to explain was why I don’t agree with the postulation that “as the paces get faster, the final times get slower.”

Therefore my understanding is that the horse’s kinetic energy is its work (force) acting on its body to change its direction and that (work) force produce motion which can impose a change of velocity on the horse. Then the KCOF is that work (force) exerted in a direction that opposes the motion of the horse.

Am I wrong?

[bisket]

where was aikenite at the end of the holy bull? in the back

[markgoldie]

Yes - but we have been talking in terms of general horse population. Quicker pace -> slower or quicker final times?

But I did run the same for races within a certain class range earlier, and the results are the same. I'm only posting Philly because there is a lot of data for it. But the same trends emerge at BEL and SA (pro-ride).

EARLY PACE;AVG(FIRST_FRACT_TIME);AVG(WINNING_TIME);COUNT (*)
21.4;21.43;68.8;12
21.6;21.59682243;69.98831776;214
21.8;21.80393162;70.16592593;351
22;22.00238683;70.18738683;486
22.2;22.20531343;70.12680597;335
22.4;22.40637931;70.18458621;290
22.6;22.59091837;70.77102041;196
22.8;22.81228571;71.10695238;105
23;22.97306122;71.25204082;49
CJ is correct. The proper study would look at par pace for each class and compare the discrepancies in class-par pace as to to final time pars. Even better would be average pace figs vs. average final figs for the class.

[citygoat]

just like driving to work.same car same distance but not always the same time to get there.

[Greyfox]

And Greyfox doesn’t care for any of it

Guys please correct me if I misunderstood the critical points.

.

If I gave the impression that I don't care for pace analysis that was wrong.
Most of my handicapping is based on pace and final time.


I just said horse's aren't Indy cars.
That's why I didn't buy into MG's analogy of a series of individual time trials,
running as if they were machines on a flee only phenomenon.
If they were we wouldn't need to worry about pace analysis.
I also don't buy into Zil's theory that horses have NO TIME to evaluate one another and form impressions.
When an individual horse has to expend more energy early than it is accustomed to that individual horse's final time will usually be slower.
I want to get a rough idea of who will set today's pace and who has a chance to overcome it. For me pace, pace pressure, shape of the race and today's track are key variables in my analyses.

[Cratos]

I want to get a rough idea of who will set today's pace and who has a chance to overcome it. For me pace, pace pressure, shape of the race and today's track are key variables in my analyses.

Well-spoken and I believe you will always have a very good grasp on understanding the internal speed (pace) of the race that you are/will be handicapping.

To me the most salient word in your post was “shape” because that is exactly what pace does in any horserace at any level; determines its shape.

[gm10]

What I was attempting to explain was why I don’t agree with the postulation that “as the paces get faster, the final times get slower.”

Therefore my understanding is that the horse’s kinetic energy is its work (force) acting on its body to change its direction and that (work) force produce motion which can impose a change of velocity on the horse. Then the KCOF is that work (force) exerted in a direction that opposes the motion of the horse.

Am I wrong?

I understand what you mean, I think it's just a matter of terminology. The coefficient is dimensionless, it only depends on the two materials that are rubbing against each other. For example, ice on steel has a low coefficient of friction, while rubber on pavement has a high coefficient of friction.

If I remember correctly, 'hoof + dirt' has a much higher friction coefficient than hoof on the synthetic, which (partially) explains why the synthetic final times are quicker than dirt times. Another reason for this is that the sheer impact is higher on dirt, which means that the hoofs slide a bit more on dirt, and horses need to spend more energy on balancing themselves than on synthetics. This last bit might actually explain why synthetic surfaces allow horses to come from the back. The closer's excess energy (excess is relative to the pace setter) can be more efficiently converted into propulsion than on the dirt. Ironically, synthetics are more about pure speed than dirt surfaces are. (I know many will disagree!)


P.S. In addition, we should not ignore the centripetal force. It gives the horses coming on the outside (=the closers) a substantial advantage. The higher the degree of banking, the bigger this advantage is.

[gm10]

CJ is correct. The proper study would look at par pace for each class and compare the discrepancies in class-par pace as to to final time pars. Even better would be average pace figs vs. average final figs for the class.

These were the numbers for a narrow range of class.

But let me know which track/surface/distance and class you want to investigate and it will post the data here.

[Relwob Owner]

Hey guys,

I have been handicapping for 20 plus years and this thread is proof that you never stop learning-thanks for all of the info. Also good to see people debating things in an intelligent manner without name calling, etc. :ThmbUp:

[Greyfox]

P.S. In addition, we should not ignore the centripetal force. It gives the horses coming on the outside (=the closers) a substantial advantage. The higher the degree of banking, the bigger this advantage is.

I see what you are saying about the banking as adding a tad.
However, they are not connected like skaters on a pond playing "crack the whip" sending the outside skater flying at high speed.
Centripetal force would only come into play on turns.
Outside horses on turns running at the same speed as inside horses are going to be losing ground. It seems to me that ground loss will be greater than whatever, if anything, that centripetal force can add.

[Greyfox]

I see what you are saying about the banking as adding a tad.
However, they are not connected like skaters on a pond playing "crack the whip" sending the outside skater flying at high speed.
Centripetal force would only come into play on turns.
Outside horses on turns running at the same speed as inside horses are going to be losing ground. It seems to me that ground loss will be greater than whatever, if anything, that centripetal force can add.

On the above post I should have said:
Outside horses on turns running at the same rate of speed as inside horses are going to be losing ground. (I didn't mean two horses going head and head on the turn giving the illusion that they are going the same rate of speed.)

[gm10]

I see what you are saying about the banking as adding a tad.
However, they are not connected like skaters on a pond playing "crack the whip" sending the outside skater flying at high speed.
Centripetal force would only come into play on turns.
Outside horses on turns running at the same speed as inside horses are going to be losing ground. It seems to me that ground loss will be greater than whatever, if anything, that centripetal force can add.

Wohow that isn't true. Centripetal force can give an advantage of more than 5 lengths. A horse who's coming 3 wide isn't even losing 3 lengths. I've posted the physics for this once, I think it's on one of Andy May's threads about how bad the synthetics are (yes there a lot of them, sorry I can't be more specific :D ).

(There is a race track in Malaysia which is banked to such a degree that closers always end up near the lead when the turn has been taken.)

[Greyfox]

Wohow that isn't true. Centripetal force can give an advantage of more than 5 lengths. A horse who's coming 3 wide isn't even losing 3 lengths. I've posted the physics for this once, I think it's on one of Andy May's threads about how bad the synthetics are (yes there a lot of them, sorry I can't be more specific :D ).

(There is a race track in Malaysia which is banked to such a degree that closers always end up near the lead when the turn has been taken.)

If true, why wouldn't the leader of the pack run wide around the turns?

[gm10]

If true, why wouldn't the leader of the pack run wide around the turns?

Because then he wouldn't be the leader of the pack?

[Greyfox]

Because then he wouldn't be the leader of the pack?

:confused: If that idea works for you, use it. I ain't buyin'. I don't buy the above answer either. Whatever, let's move on.

[Tom]

The number of horses who win after being 5 back at the second call should tell you something, GF. ;)

[Greyfox]

The number of horses who win after being 5 back at the second call should tell you something, GF. ;)

We agree.:)

[Cratos]

If true, why wouldn't the leader of the pack run wide around the turns?

Banking does help the outside horse, but not to the extent that it is X-lengths back the centripetal force would allow it to overcome its length deficit to the lead inside horse. To prove when those circumstances occur would take calculations and data that goes beyond the scope of this discussion.

However if I remember correctly, the following is what being inferred that while the outside horse run around the turn, the track exerts a centripetal force toward the center of the turn The smaller the velocity of the inside horse, the less centripetal force will be applied.

The force has the magnitude: F = m*v Squared/r

Where m is the the horse’s mass (weight), v is its velocity (speed) and r is the radius of the turn.

[Greyfox]

Banking does help the outside horse, but not to the extent that it is X-lengths back the centripetal force would allow it to overcome its length deficit to the lead inside horse. To prove when those circumstances occur would take calculations and data that goes beyond the scope of this discussion.

However if I remember correctly, the following is what being inferred that while the outside horse run around the turn, the track exerts a centripetal force toward the center of the turn The smaller the velocity of the inside horse, the less centripetal force will be applied.

The force has the magnitude:
Where m is the the horse’s mass (weight), v is its velocity (speed) and r is the radius of the turn.

Let's for the moment say that centripetal force, a factor I've never used, is in play.

gm10 stated:

"Wohow that isn't true. Centripetal force can give an advantage of more than 5 lengths."

1. Assuming both horses are roughly the same mass and running the same velocity, I don't see the above comment re: advantage of 5 lengths holding water.

2. I'm a bit uncertain about the formula that you've provided.
I know you know your math, but by the above formula Force decreases as the radius increases. F = m*v Squared/r

Okay...I've found the equation is okay it's at
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/cf.html


I'm going to have to check and see how cyclists use this concept.

[Cratos]

Let's for the moment say that centripetal force, a factor I've never used, is in play.

gm10 stated:

"Wohow that isn't true. Centripetal force can give an advantage of more than 5 lengths."

1. Assuming both horses are roughly the same mass and running the same velocity, I don't see the above comment re: advantage of 5 lengths holding water.

2. I'm a bit uncertain about the formula that you've provided.
I know you know your math, but by the above formula Force decreases as the radius increases. F = m*v Squared/r

Okay...I've found the equation is okay it's at
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/cf.html


I'm going to have to check and see how cyclists use this concept.

I am not subscribing to the 5 lengths because the length of the turn is different for most North American racetracks.

Also I am not saying that given any distance behind, the outside lagging horse could catch up and win because of the banking on the turn.

However I am saying that banking does help the outside horse and I do agree with you as the radius increases, the centripetal force lessen.

We can look at an example of a horse going 3 wide at Churchill Downs against the leader in the turn and see what it would have to do to pass the leader.

• Churhill Downs length around the turn is 1,292 feet
• Turn Radius is 411.25 feet
• Lead horse traveling at 11.23478 feet per one-fifth second or 23 seconds for the quarter
• To be equivalent at 3 wide in the turn, the outside horse should be traveling at 11.67338 feet per one-fifth second or 22.62 seconds for the quarter

What we see is that at Churchill Downs in a modest 23 seconds/quarter rate, the outside horse would have to run at an above average quarter rate just to be even.

Draw your own conclusions.

[Tom]

How do you factor the horse's form into this?
They are not machines and they do not just run like a car. They have preferences, in side, outside, in between, various jockey moves.
seems like a lot is left open to guess work, especially considering internal beaten lengths are at best a guess.

[Greyfox]

However I am saying that banking does help the outside horse and I do agree with you as the radius increases, the centripetal force lessen.

.

We agree. The equation shows that as the radius gets larger, the centripetal force decreases. Hence the outside horse is disadvantaged by centripetal force and ground loss.
So, not being a physicist I'm wondering if gm10 shouldn't be talking about either
angular momentum or gravity.

Tom - exactly. Horses aren't cars.

[Cratos]

How do you factor the horse's form into this?
They are not machines and they do not just run like a car. They have preferences, in side, outside, in between, various jockey moves.
seems like a lot is left open to guess work, especially considering internal beaten lengths are at best a guess.

Tom,

You are absolutely correct; horses are not machines and using a race car analogy is incorrect.

[gm10]

We agree. The equation shows that as the radius gets larger, the centripetal force decreases. Hence the outside horse is disadvantaged by centripetal force and ground loss.
So, not being a physicist I'm wondering if gm10 shouldn't be talking about either
angular momentum or gravity.

Tom - exactly. Horses aren't cars.

???
Absolutely not. The inside lane isn't banked!!! It's the outside lanes who have the advantage.

And so far we've also ignored the fact that the partial neutralization of the gravitational pull for the outside horse causes less stress on its bones. That was one of the selling points of the synthetic surfaces. You could bank them to a higher degree so that the physical pressures on the horses were decreased.

[raybo]

???
Absolutely not. The inside lane isn't banked!!! It's the outside lanes who have the advantage.

And so far we've also ignored the fact that the partial neutralization of the gravitational pull for the outside horse causes less stress on its bones. That was one of the selling points of the synthetic surfaces. You could bank them to a higher degree so that the physical pressures on the horses were decreased.

They're also running a longer distance than the inside horse. It's a wash as far as I can tell, that's why I have never paid any mind to trips, that is in regards to 3w, 4w, etc..

[gm10]

They're also running a longer distance than the inside horse. It's a wash as far as I can tell, that's why I have never paid any mind to trips, that is in regards to 3w, 4w, etc..

Yes they lose ground, but the banking angle will determine whether the net effect is positive or negative. If the turn was completely unbanked, the effect would equal the pure loss of ground.

[gm10]

Assuming no friction and a radius of 250 meters, these are the maximum speeds that a horse can achieve per degree of banking. Note that I am assuming no friction, so these are only estimates, the true limits will be higher.

4 degrees: max speed of 9.91 meter/second
5 degrees: max speed of 11.08 meter/second
6 degrees: max speed of 12.13 meter/second

(Zenyatta's Classic took on average about 16.66 meter/second so these maximum limits are relevant).

A horse has a higher maximum speed limit when it travels on a more steeply banked turn (i.e. horses on the outside). On the other hand, a horse is not a car - it can do some of the banking itself, although that will require extra legwork.

Assume that only 1F of the turn can be considered to be part of a circle. So during approx. 14 seconds the horse can go about 1 meter faster per degree of banking. This comes down to 14 meters per degree for one turn. This is about 5 lengths.

Of course this is a massive simplification of the problem. What is the exact difference in banking angle between the rail and a wide position? What is the exact friction coeffiicient of hoof + surface?

But it still shows what a difference in banked turns makes.

[cj]

There is simply no way that the extra banking provides enough of a boost to overcome the ground loss. It helps mitigate the loss sure, but there is simply no way it is an advantage.

[Tom]

(Zenyatta's Classic took on average about 16.66 meter/second so these maximum limits are relevant).

Zenyatta was on the rail until the stretch, so how could banking have helped her?

[Greyfox]

???
Absolutely not. The inside lane isn't banked!!! It's the outside lanes who have the advantage.



1. You were wrong about centripetal force. The larger the radius the lower the force.

2. You're wrong again about the inside lane. The inside lane is banked.
Under the rail is not banked. But where the horses run is banked.

Maybe you'd better check out this video of Zenyatta. Note the banking of the inside rail. Note where Zenyatta runs.

ud_XPH6Eix4

[bisket]

yes in the classic smith cut the curve very nicely. which is a good trick to help keep momentum. he cut the sharp part of the turn by running from the 4 path to the 1-2 path. which actually helped him take the turn faster than a horse runnning in the 1 or 2 path. i was impressed with this because i hadn't seen zenyatta do this before. she has fully developed racing wise. this manuever is usually reserved for the little suckers coming late. its quite a trick for a big horse like zenyatta. she than went through the stretch in the 1 path. this type of manuever is what makes trip handicapping a gamble in itself.

[bisket]

sheesh he did the opposite i was thinking of another race. he floated her outside on the sharpest part of the turn. then continued floating outside. these are the two tricks that jocks do. at the end of the turn if you cut it inside or float outwards it helps your horse continue momentum. when two horses are neck and neck in battle on the two inside paths and taking the turn; this is when they actually lose the greatest amount of time in the turn. the idea to help save as much time on the turn is if you can cut between paths at the end of the turn (the actual sharpest part) you can continue to accelerate through the turn. i hope i'm explaining myself clearly, but if you look at this (classic) race you'll see what i mean

[illinoisbred]

sheesh he did the opposite i was thinking of another race. he floated her outside on the sharpest part of the turn. then continued floating outside. these are the two tricks that jocks do. at the end of the turn if you cut it inside or float outwards it helps your horse continue momentum. when two horses are neck and neck in battle on the two inside paths and taking the turn; this is when they actually lose the greatest amount of time in the turn. the idea to help save as much time on the turn is if you can cut between paths at the end of the turn (the actual sharpest part) you can continue to accelerate through the turn. i hope i'm explaining myself clearly, but if you look at this (classic) race you'll see what i mean
I don't mean to be disagreeable here,but actually the end of the turn is the smoothest part. The horse exits the radius of the turn and enters a tangent line(the stretch).

[bisket]

next time driving your car and driving through a turn float outside to the next lane at the end, or cut to the inside lane when entering the turn. (make sure none else is there ;) ) you'll get an idea of what i'm talking about. you are actually making the turn more of a straight line

[Greyfox]

next time driving your car and driving through a turn float outside to the next lane at the end, or cut to the inside lane when entering the turn. (make sure none else is there ;) ) you'll get an idea of what i'm talking about. you are actually making the turn more of a straight line

On a long trip on an empty highway that saves on gas mileage anyways.:)

[bisket]

On a long trip on an empty highway that saves on gas mileage anyways.:)
:ThmbUp:
after further analysis i think smith did cut to an inside lane entering the turn in this race too. this is one thing that helps horses closing on the pace setters because they can change lanes alot easier. if your on the lead doing this you can end up fouling a runner and losing to disqualification.

[46zilzal]

I also don't buy into Zil's theory that horses have NO TIME to evaluate one another and form impressions.
.
yes all those peer reviewed studies are wrong because.like the rutabaga, your GUT reaction, and not reality, is otherwise

read about the natural evolution of the herd....it requires time.
àhttp://www.effem-equine.com/Waltham%20-%20Horse/behavioural_aspects/the_natural_horse.html

[46zilzal]

or a better study
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=GHKuEeqC4U0C&oi=fnd&pg=PA83&dq=%22Feh%22+%22Relationships+and+communication+in +socially+natural+...%22+&ots=b3Cv56VO3o&sig=xXnC9lY77MthivF8jAFfSF259w8#v=onepage&q=%22Feh%22%20%22Relationships%20and%20communicati on%20in%20socially%20natural%20...%22&f=false


This is without the distraction of a crowd, or being under saddle and bridle

[Tom]

yes all those peer reviewed studies are wrong because.like the rutabaga, your GUT reaction, and not reality, is otherwise

read about the natural evolution of the herd....it requires time.
àhttp://www.effem-equine.com/Waltham%20-%20Horse/behavioural_aspects/the_natural_horse.html

Perhaps you could point to the paragraph that supports your case?

[Show Me the Wire]

Perhaps you could point to the paragraph that supports your case?


"To live successfully as part of a herd, individuals in any herding species have developed a behavioural repertoire designed to reduce tension between individuals and increase cohesion between group members. This bias towards affiliative behaviour rather than aggressive behaviour is crucial if individuals are not going to spend valuable time and energy guarding resources and fighting. To this end, horses are very communicative animals with highly developed social skills and are motivated to cooperate rather than dominate"

[Bolding added for emphasis]

Maybe it is the above quote :bang: :bang: Zilly really doesn't read the articles he posts.

[46zilzal]

"To live successfully as part of a herd, individuals in any herding species have developed a behavioural repertoire designed to reduce tension between individuals and increase cohesion between group members. This bias towards affiliative behaviour rather than aggressive behaviour is crucial if individuals are not going to spend valuable time and energy guarding resources and fighting. To this end, horses are very communicative animals with highly developed social skills and are motivated to cooperate rather than dominate"

[Bolding added for emphasis]

.
That is in the wild natural setting..no blinkers, no rider, no crowd noise, no empty bladder, no bit in the mouth

http://www.returntofreedom.org/kids/behavior.html

requires multiple ongoing conditoning interactions without distraction

[Show Me the Wire]

That is in the wild natural setting..no blinkers, no rider, no crowd noise, no empty bladder, no bit in the mouth

http://www.returntofreedom.org/kids/behavior.html

requires multiple ongoing conditoning interactions without distraction

As Tom asked, where is the support for your postition? Please quote the specifics from the article. I know that is too much, for you to do. though :eek:

[Cratos]

Assuming no friction and a radius of 250 meters, these are the maximum speeds that a horse can achieve per degree of banking. Note that I am assuming no friction, so these are only estimates, the true limits will be higher.

4 degrees: max speed of 9.91 meter/second
5 degrees: max speed of 11.08 meter/second
6 degrees: max speed of 12.13 meter/second

(Zenyatta's Classic took on average about 16.66 meter/second so these maximum limits are relevant).

A horse has a higher maximum speed limit when it travels on a more steeply banked turn (i.e. horses on the outside). On the other hand, a horse is not a car - it can do some of the banking itself, although that will require extra legwork.

Assume that only 1F of the turn can be considered to be part of a circle. So during approx. 14 seconds the horse can go about 1 meter faster per degree of banking. This comes down to 14 meters per degree for one turn. This is about 5 lengths.

Of course this is a massive simplification of the problem. What is the exact difference in banking angle between the rail and a wide position? What is the exact friction coeffiicient of hoof + surface?

But it still shows what a difference in banked turns makes.

A racetrack with an inside radius of 250 meters is about 820 feet. Belmont being the largest dirt track in North America has an inside radius of about 650 feet and an outside radius of about 720 feet.

I am not being critical or sarcastic, but which racetracks are you getting your dimensions from or is this a hypothetical exercise to prove a point.

[Greyfox]

There is simply NO time, and with the distraction of the artificial environment ot of the race track, for her dominance to develop.



46Zil - you said the above.

I said that you under estimate the horse's ability to form impressions rapidly.

Now you've posted an article where in the author says:

"Being very good visual communicators, horses are quick to pick up body language. In the wild, ungulates are often to be found grazing in mixed species groups and, although the signals may vary between species, they quickly come to recognise each other's expressions of fear (Goodwin, 1999) (http://www.effem-equine.com/Waltham%20-%20Horse/behavioural_aspects/the_natural_horse.html#8)"

I suggest that you should read and comprehend what you post, as the author of the article points out that horses can quickly pick up body language.
If you haven't seen signs of dominance and submissiveness in postparades and paddocks, I'm shocked.
The 10 minutes in the Paddock and 10 minutes on the track is lots of time for these animals to evaluate one another. Lots of time.

[Show Me the Wire]

How do you factor the horse's form into this?
They are not machines and they do not just run like a car. They have preferences, in side, outside, in between, various jockey moves.
seems like a lot is left open to guess work, especially considering internal beaten lengths are at best a guess.

The horse's from is the most important. Earlier I qualified my remarks about the horse being "well intended" for today's race. The only pace lines that are relevant are the pace lines earned while the horse was well intended.

I touched upon this subject long ago, when I asked certain posters about programs automatically selecting pace lines. To my chagrin I did not receive any responses.

The same criticism applicable to daily variants computations is applicable to pace pars or pace figures. The par maker or pace maker can't objectively verify how much of the pace is due to the surface and how much is do to the quality of the horses.


The true pace of the race is the winner's pace, a non-contender or an ill-intentioned horse can run any pace, which may or may not affect the winner.

Horses are not cars, and should not be compared to cars or other machines. Mechanical items are well intended every time to perform to specifications, unless it is broken.

[gm10]

A racetrack with an inside radius of 250 meters is about 820 feet. Belmont being the largest dirt track in North America has an inside radius of about 650 feet and an outside radius of about 720 feet.

I am not being critical or sarcastic, but which racetracks are you getting your dimensions from or is this a hypothetical exercise to prove a point.

This is indeed a hypothetical exercise to prove a point.

I was taking 2 * 3.14 * 250 meters = 1570 meters = about 1 mile.
I know a race course not a circle, I was just making up a number that is not be idiotic.

The same conclusion holds, though (I checked with a radius of 200 meters = 656 feet). The horse on the inside needs to start leaning in at 1m/sec less than a horse who has the benefit of one degree of extra banking.

[gm10]

1. You were wrong about centripetal force. The larger the radius the lower the force.

2. You're wrong again about the inside lane. The inside lane is banked.
Under the rail is not banked. But where the horses run is banked.

Maybe you'd better check out this video of Zenyatta. Note the banking of the inside rail. Note where Zenyatta runs.

ud_XPH6Eix4

1) First of all, sorry I shouldn't have brought up the centripetal force. It is part of it, but you don't need to know about it to understand.

Secondly, you're focusing on the wrong thing. Yes the centripetal force is lower towards the outside, but that difference is negligible. Whether you radius is 200 meters or 201 meter, you're talking nearly identical forces.

The link that you provided contains another link http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/mechanics/carbank.html#c1. Click on that one. Have a look at the V_max equation. This is the part that matters. Make a little spreadsheet, and play with different values for Radius (200 vs 201 meters) and Angle (5 degrees vs 6 degrees) for example. You will see that the maximum attainable speed is much decreased if the banking is lower by one degree. The effect of an extra meter in radius doesn't matter on the other hand.

Now this has some interesting applications. What happens sometimes at very wet tracks? The outside banking doesn't hold and it all slides towards the rail. Result? All lanes are leveled, and the closers who try to go around have not got the advantage that they would normally have, leading to more wire-to-wire winners (there are others factors at play, of course, but hopefully you agree with me).

Or when do you see most breakdowns? Is it not at the rail in the turns? Why is this? Because the rail is less banked, and the horse has too much speed than is physically possible to keep it in circular motion. It would just go in a straight line if it didn't do some of the banking with its legs. Just like a car would not be able to take an unbanked turn at too high speed. Banking with the legs is not without risk. In fact if a horse has to lean more than 10 degrees relative to the track it's chance of injury is greatly increased. Underbanked curves have been shown to cause gait asymmetry, leading to abnormal stresses in fast moving horses. Their feet don't land flat in the ground any more.


2) I'm talking about the effects of banked turns in general here. There's no point focusing on one race where the difference in banking between rail and outside lanes is minimal (although there was a difference even at the BC - I was there, you could see it if you walked to one of the turns).

[Tom]

The outside banking doesn't hold and it all slides towards the rail. Result? All lanes are leveled, and the closers who try to go around have not got the advantage that they would normally have, leading to more wire-to-wire winners

What advantage? Closers seldom have an advantage.

[raybo]

Yes they lose ground, but the banking angle will determine whether the net effect is positive or negative. If the turn was completely unbanked, the effect would equal the pure loss of ground.

If there were no banking there would definitely be a negative effect, like someone said earlier, the horses aren't holding hands (hoofs) so there is no "pop-the-whip" event happening, the only advantage to running a larger radius is the ability to run slightly faster, "maybe", but I'm not sure that even comes into the picture, as the turns aren't hairpins and the horses aren't traveling at 120 MPH. If they ran on flat turns the outside lanes would run longer distances, and, have no "banking" to allow taking the turns at a noticeable increased speed over inside rivals. The lateral (centrifugal) force pushing them toward the outside, at higher speeds, would mean more energy requirements, and more "slippage", to fight that lateral force. negating any "advantage" they might otherwise gain.

[46zilzal]

[
Now you've posted an article where in the author says:

"Being very good visual communicators, horses are quick to pick up body language. n the wild, ungulates are often to be found grazing in mixed species groups and, although the signals may vary between species, they quickly come to recognise each other's expressions of fear (Goodwin, 1999) (http://www.effem-equine.com/Waltham%20-%20Horse/behavioural_aspects/the_natural_horse.html#8)"


Observations in the WILD. Yes, anytime I want to understand birds I watch the CAGED ones, Lions and Tigers do tell us so much about their natural state when they are observed in cages...Of course all of that pacing back and forth and repetitive activity (much akin to the rockers and cribbers back in the stall) are created out of the UNNATURAL environment they are forced into along with taking away their hunting instincts, normal mating interactions etc.

Confrontations repeatedly mark the dynamic building and re-creation of the multiple dominant/less dominant relationships (PLURAL) in herd hierarchy. These can only occur through the natural and REPEATED DAILY interactions of herd dynamics which can change with a new member entering, an injury or an older horse falling ill. Single interactions carry no long term dominance.

The BASIS of my senior paper on this subject, the reason it was accepted and I received a high mark was twofold in the discoveries I documented in several herd systems: There must be TIME to establish there interactions and they must occur in a situation closest to the wild, normal environment in which they live. Alter either variable and the whole thing falls off to nothing.

Take away their unfettered ability to confront one ANOTHER on their own volition, go through mock battles, mark territory, fight off predators as a group, move under the direction of a dominant mare to food sources, drive out young breeding males, reproduce etc ALL IN THE WILD or implement controlled Pavlovian conditioning superimposed upon them by human training and then you have nothing natural at all.

[raybo]

The horse's from is the most important. Earlier I qualified my remarks about the horse being "well intended" for today's race. The only pace lines that are relevant are the pace lines earned while the horse was well intended.

I touched upon this subject long ago, when I asked certain posters about programs automatically selecting pace lines. To my chagrin I did not receive any responses.

The same criticism applicable to daily variants computations is applicable to pace pars or pace figures. The par maker or pace maker can't objectively verify how much of the pace is due to the surface and how much is do to the quality of the horses.


The true pace of the race is the winner's pace, a non-contender or an ill-intentioned horse can run any pace, which may or may not affect the winner.

Horses are not cars, and should not be compared to cars or other machines. Mechanical items are well intended every time to perform to specifications, unless it is broken.

No disrespect meant, but ------

Selecting only pacelines where the horse was "well intentioned" assumes the horse is "well intentioned" today.

If you ignore the other pacelines, you're ignoring much of what paceline selection is about. Again, as I have mentioned many times in the past, being able to determine current form cycle is, IMO, the most important factor in handicapping. Without doing that first, nothing else you do after that will be accurate, including selecting pacelines that are meant to be representative, today. Too many handicappers "assume" every horse is ready and able to run today. They are, simply, wrong. The only races where you might get away with that kind of assumption are the superior classed, big money races, where most of the horses have been prepped specifically for these races, concerning conditioning.

Ignoring pacelines representing declining/below-par form, and only utilizing "good" pacelines, puts you with the average Joe, that being a losing player.

[Greyfox]

[QUOTE=46zilzal]Observations in the WILD. ...QUOTE]

I could care less how natural or unnatural an animal's environment is.
I'm interested in today's race, right here, at the track in front of me.
I see signs of dominance and submissiveness every time I watch a post parade.

[gm10]

What advantage? Closers seldom have an advantage.

Read the full post. They have the advantage of a steeper bank. I'm not saying it is enough to win the race, but if they don't have it, they are even less likely to win.

[gm10]

If there were no banking there would definitely be a negative effect, like someone said earlier, the horses aren't holding hands (hoofs) so there is no "pop-the-whip" event happening, the only advantage to running a larger radius is the ability to run slightly faster, "maybe", but I'm not sure that even comes into the picture, as the turns aren't hairpins and the horses aren't traveling at 120 MPH. If they ran on flat turns the outside lanes would run longer distances, and, have no "banking" to allow taking the turns at a noticeable increased speed over inside rivals. The lateral (centrifugal) force pushing them toward the outside, at higher speeds, would mean more energy requirements, and more "slippage", to fight that lateral force. negating any "advantage" they might otherwise gain.

They don't have to be travelling at 120mph, I showed that. The limit is more in the order of 50 km/h. This is pure physics. You can't go along this type of curve when you are travelling at the speed of a race horse. Either the turn is banked, or the horse leans in towards the track. If neither of the two occur, the horse runs into the parking lot. Simple fact.

[gm10]

Another potentially controversial statement: the faster a (flat) racetrack is, the safer it is. It means that the horse can reach its maximum potential with the minimum amount of pain.

Have a look at record speeds at different tracks in America. In my opinion you will see that tracks with the tightest turns have lower record speeds. The banking angle for such tracks needs to be in order of > 15 degrees in order to let horses run at their maximum speed. Such banking angles are impossible with current technologies, so the horses can't run that fast as they would be able to at say Woodbine or Belmont.

[Show Me the Wire]

No disrespect meant, but ------

Selecting only pacelines where the horse was "well intentioned" assumes the horse is "well intentioned" today.

If you ignore the other pacelines, you're ignoring much of what paceline selection is about. Again, as I have mentioned many times in the past, being able to determine current form cycle is, IMO, the most important factor in handicapping. Without doing that first, nothing else you do after that will be accurate, including selecting pacelines that are meant to be representative, today. Too many handicappers "assume" every horse is ready and able to run today. They are, simply, wrong. The only races where you might get away with that kind of assumption are the superior classed, big money races, where most of the horses have been prepped specifically for these races, concerning conditioning.

Ignoring pacelines representing declining/below-par form, and only utilizing "good" pacelines, puts you with the average Joe, that being a losing player.

No isnsult taken.

You are assuming too much. I am talking about selecting pace lines after determining the horse is well meant today. You bring up the issue I originally referred to. How does a program select the relevant pace lines?

I ended my post with the caveat about comparing horses to machines, because machines are always well meant, unless they are broken, which implies horse are not always well meant.

[classhandicapper]

I agree of course since that is exactly what I do.

One thing that I think a lot of people don't understand is while better horses run faster early and late, they also expend their energy more efficiently.

For example, a winning cheap claimer may run 46 and 1:12 for 6f. 67% of the race took only 64% of the time to finish (46 / 72). Lets assume on the same track better stakes horses are capable of running in 1:09. If you assumed the same proportion of pace to speed, you would guess the better horses would win with around a 44 flat half, but this is not what usually happens. The better horses ration speed better and would probably run at least a few fifths slower to the half, around 44 and 3.

This is at least part of the reason some over matched horses, while having no chance to win, can still impact the race.

CJ,

You know I love you, but sometimes you are too generous with your knowledge. :lol:

There are some logical extensions of that insight that explain a whole bunch of things that are not commonly understood. That in turns enables one to find some very profitable plays.

[classhandicapper]

I don't have much knowledge of banking, the dimensions of various tracks etc... I also have no knowledge of physics. So I find this conversation interesting. However, I'm not sure a knowledge of any of this adds any value to the handicapping process.

From my experience, given various daily path biases, track maintenance etc..., the best way to determine if ground loss matters and by how much is to observe the races daily and watch the race developments.

There are noticeable trends at various tracks that perhaps someone could explain better with a thorough understanding of banking etc... but as long as you know what's going on, that can be more important than what theoretically should be happening.

A good high profile example of that was Big Brown's Derby at CD.

Big Brown ran a powerful race in the Derby, but IMHO some people exaggerated the performance by adding back all the ground loss. If you watched all the races at CD that day, there was a lot of evidence that even though the rail wasn't dead, ground loss was not a length for length disadvantage. So BB was not nearly as good as the figures given to him by some figure makers. You see that at many tracks. The rail is not bad, but the outside paths are superior enough to sort of neutralize much of the ground loss. I don't think it is necessary (or maybe even possible) to isolate every individual thing that contributes to something like that. What is important is to know it.

[classhandicapper]

Apologies for misquoting you relative to the three horses racing in 1:09. I read it quickly and assumed this was similar to many, many such comparisons I have seen in the past and it seemed to me that you were choosing a horse other than the fastest pace horse as a potential winner if the three met. Instead, you apparently were making no instructive point at all. The first horse is the "thoughest competitor" of the three, although I suppose you make no extrapolation from "toughest competitor" to the ability to beat the other two. Rather he is simply accorded this tiltle without reference to his ability to beat anyone. Horse B, if strectched out, would be a "more prominent competitor," again, whatever that means, and the third horse appears to be an ardent front runner. So I accept that what you were saying was either (a) non-instructive and obvious or (b) totally meaningless as to implication.

As far as the "physics" argument is concerned, we're dealing with the physio-biological capabilities of living animals and not mathematical constructs. And so if a horse were able to run six furlongs in 107.3, he would put himself into an excellent mathematical position to break the world record for two miles. Need I say more.

In almost all N.A. dirt racing, the winning par times at each point of call are already skewed toward an early distribution of energy and yet the winning impact values of horses with early speed remain dominant. If the "physics" argument were correct, the average paces should continue to get faster and faster since they would produce the better final times. But they don't because there is no slip-stream effect that benefits closers in t-bred racing (unlike harness racing and stock-car racing) and so the speed horses have to win races despite sub-optimum energy distributions. Therefore, as paces get faster, the increasing unfavorability of the energy distribution curve makes it impossible for the animals to post their optimum final-speed times, ie. the races get slower, not faster.

The argument that stalkers and closers win these fast-paced events in faster-than-normal times is wrong as pointed out by authors like Randy Giles. He notes that there exists a pace-speed "comfort zone" for all horses and that a faster-than-usual pace tends to take not only the front runner out of his pace comfort area, but all horses in the event. This is caused by jockies who are trying to win the race and unwittingly move their mounts out of their preferred pace (or optimum individual-energy distribution) in an attempt to "reel in" the breakaway leader or leaders. Since, as pointed out, there is no slip-stream effect worth mentioning, there is nothing at all about a fast pace raging far ahead of the laggards that will enable them to post faster-than-normal final times. In fact, the reverse is true.

This is why, physics notwithstanding, as paces get faster than par for the class and distance, the final times become slower, not faster. For top-flight thoroughbred handicappers, this is, as they say in the legal profession, stare decisis.

I generally agree with the idea of a comfort zone, but I can't agree with this conclusion as universal.

Some of the biggest figures I have ever seen recorded by deep closers over 30 years have been in races where there was a really fast pace pace and the horse ran an all time top (which they did not duplicate). I don't recall seeing any of those kinds of tops by closers in slower paced affairs. So something about the fast pace helped them.

I think horses are unique with different quantities of various attributes like brilliance, acceleration, stamina etc... They benefit by different things.

I think some deep closers typically do not run efficient fractions for them early and cannot record their maximum final time. They drop back as a matter of running style. So even though some closers may get drawn out of their comfort zone by a very fast pace, others are getting drawn into a better set of fractions for them.

I also think later in the race the deepest closers are typically confronting stalkers and front runners that still have plenty in reserve to withstand their initial challenge. That forces a short burst/battle that at the margin absorbs excess energy. When all the horses in front of them are dead because of the super fast pace, the closer can move right past them in a more efficient manner and record a mildly faster time.

[classhandicapper]

I know that this may be a contrarian view but the mere fact that 2 horses happen to be running next to each, even when setting a pace well within their capabilities, are not necessarily "dueling". True, when 2 or more competitive early speed types are on the lead they are more likely to run faster than when unoppsed, but this will be reflected by the fast fractions. Horses apply "internal pressure" to their rivals by running fast.

There is no physiological reason why dueling should have any negative fatigue effect beyond the fast fractions it could generate. While, psychologically some horses may be intimidated by a challenge from another runner, this would be shown by that horse backing off from that challenge very quickly, and not battling on and then tiring in the late stages due to fatigue from "internal pressure" unless the pace was fast.

Bob

I think what is happening in some duels is something like this:

All 23s are not equal.

Two horses can run 11.3 and 11.2 for a 23

Two horses can run 11.1 and 11.4 for a 23

I think what happens in many duels is that just as fractions within a long race can vary, the fractions within the fractions can vary and at the margin alter the amount of energy used.

You can sometimes see bids for position between horses lasting less than 1/4 of a mile.

[Greyfox]

I don't have much knowledge of banking, the dimensions of various tracks etc... I also have no knowledge of physics. So I find this conversation interesting. However, I'm not sure a knowledge of any of this adds any value to the handicapping process.

From my experience, given various daily path biases, track maintenance etc..., the best way to determine if ground loss matters and by how much is to observe the races daily and watch the race developments.

.

Well said. :ThmbUp:

[Tom]

I think what is happening in some duels is something like this:

All 23s are not equal.

Two horses can run 11.3 and 11.2 for a 23

Two horses can run 11.1 and 11.4 for a 23

I think what happens in many duels is that just as fractions within a long race can vary, the fractions within the fractions can vary and at the margin alter the amount of energy used.

You can sometimes see bids for position between horses lasting less than 1/4 of a mile.

I believe a superior horse can "turn it on" for a few strides and make the lesser horse give up, then throttle back so that you might never see the quick burst in the fractions. A few strides is all it takes to show some they are out-classed.

[Cratos]

I don't have much knowledge of banking, the dimensions of various tracks etc... I also have no knowledge of physics. So I find this conversation interesting. However, I'm not sure a knowledge of any of this adds any value to the handicapping process.


I don’t want to get into the mathematics of the physics of the banking of a horserace track turn, but the banking of a horse racetrack turn is because of the increased risk of injury associated with turns and is attributable to centrifugal force. Centrifugal force creates an outward pull on the horse and tends to divert the animal from the track.

The magnitude of the centrifugal force and the difference in forces between the forelimbs is accentuated when speed is increased and the radius of corner is reduced. This force depends on the mass of the object, the speed of rotation, and the distance from the center. The more massive the object, the greater the force; the greater the speed of the object, the greater the force; and the greater the distance from the center, the greater the force

Another way of reducing this centrifugal force acting on the horse when it negotiates a turn is to increase the banking. The amount of banking required is dependent on the radii of the curve and the speed with which the horse enters the turn. When a horse enters and exits a corner it must readjust its balance, thereby increasing the force on its limbs

The banking of the turns of North American racetracks range from 3.5% to 6% and the average track width around the turn is about 70 feet.

[delayjf]

but the banking of a horse racetrack turn is because of the increased risk of injury associated with turns and is attributable to centrifugal force. Centrifugal force creates an outward pull on the horse and tends to divert the animal from the track.

Has anyone ever considered the effects on horses when they run on a banked stretch / back stretch as most are not level surfaces.

[Greyfox]

Has anyone ever considered the effects on horses when they run on a banked stretch / back stretch as most are not level surfaces.

On those tracks where the gradiant down the stretch and back stretch are slightly "banked" usually for drainage purposes, the outside horse is very slightly advantaged as it is running slightly downhill as it moves towards the rail.
But how much advantage do you get from two inches down hill from outside to inside? Barely none. So it never enters my thinking in working out calculations.

[Cratos]

On those tracks where the gradiant down the stretch and back stretch are slightly "banked" usually for drainage purposes, the outside horse is very slightly advantaged as it is running slightly downhill as it moves towards the rail.
But how much advantage do you get from two inches down hill from outside to inside? Barely none. So it never enters my thinking in working out calculations.

Added to what “Greyfox” has written is that in the straight away part of the racetrack, the horse is theoretically running perpendicular (90 degree) to the racing surface plane which is 180 degrees; yes there might be a minor curvature to the surface for drainage.

However in the turns, the horse is being pulled on an angle relative to the racing surface and for the reasons stated in my post, #209 banking is necessary.

[markgoldie]

I generally agree with the idea of a comfort zone, but I can't agree with this conclusion as universal.

Some of the biggest figures I have ever seen recorded by deep closers over 30 years have been in races where there was a really fast pace pace and the horse ran an all time top (which they did not duplicate). I don't recall seeing any of those kinds of tops by closers in slower paced affairs. So something about the fast pace helped them.

I think horses are unique with different quantities of various attributes like brilliance, acceleration, stamina etc... They benefit by different things.

I think some deep closers typically do not run efficient fractions for them early and cannot record their maximum final time. They drop back as a matter of running style. So even though some closers may get drawn out of their comfort zone by a very fast pace, others are getting drawn into a better set of fractions for them.

I also think later in the race the deepest closers are typically confronting stalkers and front runners that still have plenty in reserve to withstand their initial challenge. That forces a short burst/battle that at the margin absorbs excess energy. When all the horses in front of them are dead because of the super fast pace, the closer can move right past them in a more efficient manner and record a mildly faster time.

As I mentioned in other posts, any generalization can always be refuted by specific examples. Therefore, I would never have the audacity to claim that any generalization is " universal."

There are a couple of problems with your statement about the preferred running style of closers being normally sub-optimal on the slow side. In fact, there exists little "vying" for trailing positions. Therefore, closers enjoy a much greater ability than front runners to select their own best preferred pace from race to race.

Theoretically speaking, either jockies have an ability to influence this early pace of the closer or they don't. I think the best evidence would be that they most certainly do. But let's assume that they do not, for a second. This would mean that somehow the closing horse will drop the same amount of lengths behind the early pace in each of his races, because this is what you are essentially saying. In the slow-paced race, the animal will be disadvantaged to a best personal time due to a sub-optimally slow energy distribution. However, in the fast-paced race, the horse, by dropping his normal amount of lengths behind the pace, will achieve an optimal energy distribution and thus, run much closer to his personal best time. This, however, accords a great amount of judgement to the horse. Is he focused on the precise amount of distance he is behind the pace as he runs? In sprint races, is he even able to judge such distance since he is more or less directly behind the pace setters such that his distance judgement would be seriously impaired by lack of angle perspective? This scenario is doubtful to the point of being far fetched.

So, it's far more likely to imagine that jockies have an ability to affect the pace of a closing type. Here, it seems to me you are suggesting that the normally speed-crazed colony of North American jockies somehow are mis-rating closing types on the slow side on a consistent basis. That is, it only occurs to them to ask the horse to run a bit closer to the pace when they see that they are dropping far behind the fast early pace being set up front. This, then, forces the jockey to ask the closer to pick up his early pace such that he unwittingly moves the animal into an optimum energy-distribution profile. The closer runs his best effort. However, apparently, you further believe that this little "experiment" in asking the closer to run faster earlier is then totally lost on the jockey and trainer who in subsequent races allow the animal to dawdle behind slower pace scenarios such that he reverts to his sub-optimum energy distribution and reverts to posting worse final times (which I should point out is plainly evident in the form of Beyer or Bris fig numbers).

At any rate, if you believe all this is really going on, then fine. I just wanted to point out the implications of what you were stating. But consider also that the overwhelming majority of horses, particularly those that will not race on grass, are asked at the outset of their careers to run as fast and as close to the pace as they possibly can. Those that cannot will usually run a series of dismal "chasing" races in which they are asked to run early and cannot, thereby posting pathetic final figs. Normally, it is only after these terrible tries that a trainer capitulates to the idea that if the horse is to have any racing career at all, he will have to do it as a closer. The point here is that these closing types (which you suggest are running sub-optimally slow in the early going) have already been tested as to their ability to run faster earlier and have been found badly wanting.

As far as the rate of retreat of pace setters relative to closing types, this pre-supposes some kind of short term dueling that the closer is able to avoid, but frankly, I have never heard the voyage of closers described as as series of short term rivalries which must be confronted one by one. This, of course, will probably always wind up being a matter of opinion since controlled studies on such things are seemingly not possible. So we may cling to our own beliefs. As I stated before, my belief is that horses are fleers by nature and not chasers and that this explains the fact that nearly all winning pace profiles for races are fast early and slow late. So my belief is that in the main, closers are nothing more than slow-footed fleers who on occasion get to pass the faster-footed fleers who get tired.

[raybo]

IMO, there are 2 other scenarios for closers that are more likely than a specific number of lengths off the pace.

1. A closer is more comfortable running at a certain speed, regardless of how far ahead of them the pace setters are.

2. A closer is more comfortable running in a particular area of the pack (herd), some like it in the middle of the pack where he/she is less likely to be singled out by a predator. Some may like bringing up the rear, for what reason of preservation, I haven't a clue, as that position, in the wild, would put them at higher risk of being singled out by a predator.

I think that some closers are put in certain positions, relative to the pack, by the jockey, either, on his own, or under instructions from the trainer.

[46zilzal]

I think that some closers are put in certain positions, relative to the pack, by the jockey, either, on his own, or under instructions from the trainer.
No they aren't..... their energy distribution dictates it. The HORSE runs and the rider just steers. You try and change the style of a 1200 pound animal

[Show Me the Wire]

In the wild, in a fleeing situation, the dominate male stays in the back to prompt the pace. When the horses in the back are slowing too much, the dominant male nips the slowing horses to prompt the pace of the escape.

So we could theorize horse run behind for varying reasons. Some are just too slow to stay with the pack and others may be dominate and run behind to protect the pack?

[46zilzal]

In the wild, in a fleeing situation, the dominate male stays in the back to prompt the pace. When the horses in the back are slowing too much, the dominant male nips the slowing horses to prompt the pace of the escape.


Which has NOTHING to do with the artificial conditioned situation of a horse race

[Show Me the Wire]

Which has NOTHING to do with the artificial conditioned situation of a horse race


of course a horse loses all instincts (its nature) once the horse steps on the racing oval ;)

[cj]

No they aren't..... their energy distribution dictates it. The HORSE runs and the rider just steers. You try and change the style of a 1200 pound animal

Ridiculous. Anybody that has watched racing over the years knows a jockey can slow a horse down if they are really determined to do so. The effectiveness of such strategy is not always optimal, but jockeys certainly do more than steer.

How else could horses run faster at the end of a turf race than at the beginning?

[Tom]

So zilly, when a sprinter who normally runs sub 22 goes in a route, why does it slow down markedly? The horse has no idea how far it will run. Why does it not run as fast it is "hard wired" to run?

[46zilzal]

watch horses that have dumped their rider: they run with the pack except they usually run wide

[cj]

watch horses that have dumped their rider: they run with the pack except they usually run wide

First, this has nothing to do with a jockey being able to control a horse.

Second, there is no usually about it. Some run off and bolt, some run in front of the field and "win", some run in the pack. Sometimes they run wide, sometimes they scoot up the rail inside horses.

[Greyfox]

First, this has nothing to do with a jockey being able to control a horse.

Second, there is no usually about it. Some run off and bolt, some run in front of the field and "win", some run in the pack. Sometimes they run wide, sometimes they scoot up the rail inside horses.

Agreed. Some will even try to go back to the barn. But as most run with the pack, ahead or behind or in, they can really create a dangerous situation for the other riders and bugger up the dynamics of a race.

[raybo]

No they aren't..... their energy distribution dictates it. The HORSE runs and the rider just steers. You try and change the style of a 1200 pound animal

Riders just steer?

Dang, where did you hear that?

Where have you been watching races?

Oh, never mind, I don't know why I even pay attention to this guy, he's proven over and over he's beyond hope and totally lost.

[46zilzal]

Riders just steer?

Dang, where did you hear that?

Where have you been watching races?

Oh, never mind, I don't know why I even pay attention to this guy, he's proven over and over he's beyond hope and totally lost.
horses run, riders steer and trainers watch......Simple as that.


No rider can make a horse do what it could not do before,,,,,,Some like Ramon Dominguez of Laffit can or could have improved them but not that much.


Things change once one abandons the idea of just who's feet hit the ground during a race AND more importantly, you understand it is WAGERING that is the more important aspect of this game and get out the shotgun and hook it up to randomness.

[cj]

Keep talking in circles without answering the questions to ridiculous statement.

[46zilzal]

Keep talking in circles without answering the questions to ridiculous statement.
EVERYONE it seems, BUT ME, is allowed unique ways of understanding and prospering from this game.

I say TOUGH SHITZKY and will not change a thing.

[Greyfox]

No rider can make a horse do what it could not do before.

A rider can certainly prevent a horse from what it did before. He can rein it back. He can't make it go faster than what it naturally will.

Most horses have a preference for where they are in the pack.
Take them out of that comfort zone and heaven knows what will happen.
Top class horses may be the exceptions and can adapt to pack position changes well.

[cj]

EVERYONE it seems, BUT ME, is allowed unique ways of understanding and prospering from this game.

I say TOUGH SHITZKY and will not change a thing.

Unique is great. Just posting falsehoods is not.

[46zilzal]

Unique is great. Just posting falsehoods is not.
Dogamtists said the same thing to Dr. Barry Mrashall and countless others who looked at the same data and drew a different and breakthrough point of view.

There is no single road to the mountain top

[cj]

Dogamtists said the same thing to Dr. Barry Mrashall and countless others who looked at the same data and drew a different and breakthrough point of view.

There is no single road to the mountain top

There is not, but it doesn't change the fact that jockeys do more than steer horses.

[Show Me the Wire]

Dogamtists said the same thing to Dr. Barry Mrashall and countless others who looked at the same data and drew a different and breakthrough point of view.

There is no single road to the mountain top


:lol: :lol: :lol: comparing data to sensate beings. A bit too much even for you zilly

[CincyHorseplayer]

If you're promoting the "Wild Kingdom" theory ala SMTW or are promoting the theory that jockeys and trainers don't manipulate horses to run,good or bad ala Zilly,go watch dog races,quit clogging up threads,and leave us the hell alone so we can talk thoroghbreds,jeeeezzz!!:cool:

[46zilzal]

Pace analysis is simply evaluating the form cycle of each entrant and promoting the interactions of their various styles with their relative speed based upon what is normal for the track they are shipping TO. If there is a dominance, then you have figured out the way the race COULD run.

It is all about EXERTION not position

[raybo]

EVERYONE it seems, BUT ME, is allowed unique ways of understanding and prospering from this game.

I say TOUGH SHITZKY and will not change a thing.

Unique? How about WRONG?

[raybo]

Pace analysis is simply evaluating the form cycle of each entrant and promoting the interactions of their various styles with their relative speed based upon what is normal for the track they are shipping TO. If there is a dominance, then you have figured out the way the race COULD run.

It is all about EXERTION not position

You're just another of the 98% in this game. You'll never change.

[46zilzal]

You're just another of the 98% in this game. You'll never change.
Ah DOGMATIST'S love um all the time quoting "there is only ONE way to __________________" (fill in the blanks).

Battled the closed mind since early in school when I discovered and embraced a word I THOUGHT at one time was mine alone ICONOCLAST, or a newer one HETEROCLITE. I can honestly say it is a refreshing position to take the road less traveled.

Now dogmatists, with heavy blinkers on so that no differing idea could ever even be considered (even with tons of data directly opposing that condition, a situation I encounter with other Sartin methodologists all the time who never understand CHANGE) have no room even for the possibility, like my favorite MD in Australia, even with back up information, (kind of like clowns like Limbaugh) to give alternative ideas a chance.

So be it. My reality works just fine and since working AT the races for the past four years, it has only become more entrenched as a viable way, particularly in the stogy closed minded handicapping I see all the time to go for the difference that the parimutuel system was designed to award.

[Cratos]

In my earlier post, #209 I mistakenly wrote that the racetrack turns in North America are banked from 3.5% to 6%; it should have read from 3.5 degrees to 6 degrees. I apologize if I misled anyone; it wasn’t intentional.

[delayjf]

But how much advantage do you get from two inches down hill from outside to inside

I was thinking more along the lines of how might running on an uneven surface (stretch / back stretch) make a horse more suspectable to injury?

[cj's dad]

Once again with silly Zilly, it is all about him and not the topic !!

[Cratos]

I was thinking more along the lines of how might running on an uneven surface (stretch / back stretch) make a horse more suspectable to injury?

Running on a banked surface is not the same as running on an uneven or rough surface.

A banked surface can be completely flat or smooth if you wish, but the plane of that surface is tilted by “x” degrees to obtain its banking.

On the other hand a rough or uneven surface can be in a 180 degree plane, but across the plane there is unevenness which causes roughness. This might happen after rain and before the surface is even out by the track maintenance crew.

[raybo]

Ah DOGMATIST'S love um all the time quoting "there is only ONE way to __________________" (fill in the blanks).

Battled the closed mind since early in school when I discovered and embraced a word I THOUGHT at one time was mine alone ICONOCLAST, or a newer one HETEROCLITE. I can honestly say it is a refreshing position to take the road less traveled.

Now dogmatists, with heavy blinkers on so that no differing idea could ever even be considered (even with tons of data directly opposing that condition, a situation I encounter with other Sartin methodologists all the time who never understand CHANGE) have no room even for the possibility, like my favorite MD in Australia, even with back up information, (kind of like clowns like Limbaugh) to give alternative ideas a chance.

So be it. My reality works just fine and since working AT the races for the past four years, it has only become more entrenched as a viable way, particularly in the stogy closed minded handicapping I see all the time to go for the difference that the parimutuel system was designed to award.

I didn't say there aren't multiple ways to be successful at this game. I said you are wrong, period.

[Tom]

It is all about EXERTION not position

There is no single road to the mountain top

Ah DOGMATIST'S love um all the time quoting "there is only ONE way to __________________" (fill in the blanks).


0WhuikFY1Pg

[Show Me the Wire]

If you're promoting the "Wild Kingdom" theory ala SMTW or are promoting the theory that jockeys and trainers don't manipulate horses to run,good or bad ala Zilly,go watch dog races,quit clogging up threads,and leave us the hell alone so we can talk thoroghbreds,jeeeezzz!!:cool:

Your only post and it is about insulting others. A fine example of not clogging up threads and getting out of the way so others can talk horses :sleeping:

Your post ahould be a candidate for deletion, as its only effect is thread drift.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Your only post and it is about insulting others. A fine example of not clogging up threads and getting out of the way so others can talk horses :sleeping:

Your post ahould be a candidate for deletion, as its only effect is thread drift.


You mean you think because you make hundreds of posts weekly that makes for substance?To me it's just endless drivel.And 1 post or not that's all I need to express my opinion loud and clear.

Do you even like this game at all?Because I never see you talking about a race or handicapping or betting strategy or your home circuit is playing,etc etc etc...,or anything that might make one think you are a part of this game.Rachel vs Zenyatta,Synthetic vs Dirt.That is all I ever hear from you.And there is a big,bold,bad,fun world beyond that in this sport.

[PaceAdvantage]

Is it time to close this thread? Or can you two take your private conversation....oh, I don't know....PRIVATE?!?!?! :lol:

[Show Me the Wire]

Is it time to close this thread? Or can you two take your private conversation....oh, I don't know....PRIVATE?!?!?! :lol:


If you want to close it close it. CincyHorseplayer made his point that he can disrupt a thread he didn't participate in.

Hey PA, I know we have our differences over a certain horse, but I am not the only one that discussed the merits of 46's posts about herd behavior. Pretty poor moderating to allow CincyHorseplayer to single me out, especially since he never contributed anything substantial to this thread and then you asking me to refrain from responding publicly.

[Greyfox]

If you want to close it close it. CincyHorseplayer made his point that he can disrupt a thread he didn't participate in.

SMTW I'll second that.

We still have lots of ideas that could be looked at.
For example:

"Pace advantage. Yes"
But when do we go against that advantage? How much can we expect runners to improve?

eg. Race 6 Santa Anita Today
# 4 Folk Dancer
Calder Shipper
Previous pace overcome ( as 2 year old) 47.6
Previous Beyer set as 2 year old 31.
Freshened 7 months. Two works at Santa Anita, neither to write home about.

Running against other young gals who had previously set 63 and higher Beyers.

Won $ 41 and change.

I didn't have it. Handicapper Brian Mulligan said "this gal looks live."


Don't get hung up on that example. The Question is:
"When do we toss the advantage of Pace?"

[HUSKER55]

I don't suppose you have any idea what he based that statement on? Under the terms you listed I wouldn't have had it either.

You have asked the right question and I am curious to see some responses.

[raybo]

SMTW I'll second that.

We still have lots of ideas that could be looked at.
For example:

"Pace advantage. Yes"
But when do we go against that advantage? How much can we expect runners to improve?

eg. Race 6 Santa Anita Today
# 4 Folk Dancer
Calder Shipper
Previous pace overcome ( as 2 year old) 47.6
Previous Beyer set as 2 year old 31.
Freshened 7 months. Two works at Santa Anita, neither to write home about.

Running against other young gals who had previously set 63 and higher Beyers.

Won $ 41 and change.

I didn't have it. Handicapper Brian Mulligan said "this gal looks live."


Don't get hung up on that example. The Question is:
"When do we toss the advantage of Pace?"

Post the PPs for the horse?