Energy Distribution and the speed figure

[Cratos]

This is the speed curve for the average horse (1,084 Lbs, toting 120 Lbs) running in North America on dirt without respect to class, gender, or racetrack.

Also this is looking at all races on dirt regardless where they were run and in what class that they were run and you find the following speed “bumps” along a logarithmic curve which is downward sloping. The times are in miles per hour

Qtr Mile Half Mile 3/4 Mile 1 Mile
40.7218 38.3585 36.9762 35.9955

The horse will start with about 90,492 J of potential energy and will end the 1 mile distance with about 70,705 J of potential energy; an expenditure of about 21.9%.

Essentially using final times of a race to calculate speed figures is very weak and attempting to project times along a logarithmic curve is not easy.

[cj]

Well by all means show us how to do it using that stuff.

[Freightliner]

This is the speed curve for the average horse (1,084 Lbs, toting 120 Lbs) running in North America on dirt without respect to class, gender, or racetrack.

Also this is looking at all races on dirt regardless where they were run and in what class that they were run and you find the following speed “bumps” along a logarithmic curve which is downward sloping. The times are in miles per hour

Qtr Mile Half Mile 3/4 Mile 1 Mile
40.7218 38.3585 36.9762 35.9955

The horse will start with about 90,492 J of potential energy and will end the 1 mile distance with about 70,705 J of potential energy; an expenditure of about 21.9%.

Essentially using final times of a race to calculate speed figures is very weak and attempting to project times along a logarithmic curve is not easy.
Nice work.
This data is interesting, and it does confirm what I have always believed-horses get slower as the race progresses.
What may be more useful is the leader's MPH.

[Dave Schwartz]

This data is interesting, and it does confirm what I have always believed-horses get slower as the race progresses.

I am not poking fun at you here, but really - doesn't everyone know this?

[Grits]

I am not poking fun at you here, but really - doesn't everyone know this?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Dave . . . presentation is everything, you know this.

Now, if Cratos will break down the entire 20 horse field for next Saturday, writing a paragraph on each entry using his energy distribution scale, estimations and factors, along with his wagers PRIOR to post, I'll feel more comfortable with his presentation. (Thanking Cratos in advance.)

[Cratos]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Dave . . . presentation is everything, you know this.

Now, if Cratos will break down the entire 20 horse field for next Saturday, writing a paragraph on each entry using his energy distribution scale, estimations and factors, along with his wagers PRIOR to post, I'll feel more comfortable with his presentation. (Thanking Cratos in advance.)

If I have the time I might just do that. However my wager will not be reveal, but I will reveal the horse I think should win before the race and I will be at the Derby for the 34th consecutive year to cheer my choice on.

[Cratos]

Well by all means show us how to do it using that stuff.

What stuff? What is being said is that the running curve conducted by the thoroughbred during a race is logarithmic and you can’t use just speed to estimate or assess its performance. Stamina and strength are equal components in assessing a horse’s performance.

Therefore if you calculate a logarithmic thoroughbred running curve by integrating speed, stamina, and strength you will obtain the optimum curve for the thoroughbred and if you do that for each horse in a given race it will become very clear who are the real contenders (and typically there are only two), but many times they are the prohibitive favorites and you will have to be patience until you find choices in the 67% subset.

[Dan Montilion]

Most of my horses go in reverse in the stretch.

[cj]

What stuff? What is being said is that the running curve conducted by the thoroughbred during a race is logarithmic and you can’t use just speed to estimate or assess its performance. Stamina and strength are equal components in assessing a horse’s performance.

Therefore if you calculate a logarithmic thoroughbred running curve by integrating speed, stamina, and strength you will obtain the optimum curve for the thoroughbred and if you do that for each horse in a given race it will become very clear who are the real contenders (and typically there are only two), but many times they are the prohibitive favorites and you will have to be patience until you find choices in the 67% subset.

I know, that is how I judge races. Show us an example of how you compare a real race to that curve to determine how a horse ran.

[Grits]

If I have the time I might just do that. However my wager will not be reveal, but I will reveal the horse I think should win before the race and I will be at the Derby for the 34th consecutive year to cheer my choice on.

That would be good, Cratos, because what you do--is Greek to me--and I can handicap fine. Don't care how much you wager . . . could care less. Your paragraphs and your technique, though, would be interesting to view.

What I hope you won't do--is come in and post that you successfully had, along with your winner--the exacta, the tri, the super, rolling pic 3 & 4--all after your return flight home. Don't do this, OK? It wouldn't be cool.

[Cratos]

That would be good, Cratos, because what you do--is Greek to me--and I can handicap fine. Don't care how much you wager . . . could care less. Your paragraphs and your technique, though, would be interesting to view.

What I hope you won't do--is come in and post that you successfully had, along with your winner--the exacta, the tri, the super, rolling pic 3 & 4--all after your return flight home. Don't do this, OK? It wouldn't be cool.

If you have followed my posts since I have been on this forum I have never involved myself in exotic wagering and I don’t post a winner after the race. The task to complete all of this by Friday, May 6 is large, but can be done with a diligent effort.

[Cratos]

I know, that is how I judge races. Show us an example of how you compare a real race to that curve to determine how a horse ran.

I not sure what you are saying when you say a "real race" because I don't know of any other type races. I have my calculations from last year's Saratoga meet and I will publish one of those and possibly you will have handicapped the same race.

[Grits]

If you have followed my posts since I have been on this forum I have never involved myself in exotic wagering and I don’t post a winner after the race. The task to complete all of this by Friday, May 6 is large, but can be done with a diligent effort.

I'm one who simply uses Bris full pps, the race summary, and pace/performance figures in addition. Lengthy race replays--wish I was good at reviewing, but I'm not.

You'll be good to go, I'm sure. Much good luck. ;) And, of course, its the Derby, the race that is like no other. Enjoy your time at Churchill!

[cj]

I not sure what you are saying when you say a "real race" because I don't know of any other type races. I have my calculations from last year's Saratoga meet and I will publish one of those and possibly you will have handicapped the same race.

That is all I'm saying...take the results of a race, compare it to your curve, and give us a few conclusions about the race. I am not arguing for a second that the curve doesn't have value. It certainly does. I will say the curve can and does differ from track to track, often by a lot.

[Capper Al]

This is the speed curve for the average horse (1,084 Lbs, toting 120 Lbs) running in North America on dirt without respect to class, gender, or racetrack.

Also this is looking at all races on dirt regardless where they were run and in what class that they were run and you find the following speed “bumps” along a logarithmic curve which is downward sloping. The times are in miles per hour

Qtr Mile Half Mile 3/4 Mile 1 Mile
40.7218 38.3585 36.9762 35.9955

The horse will start with about 90,492 J of potential energy and will end the 1 mile distance with about 70,705 J of potential energy; an expenditure of about 21.9%.

Essentially using final times of a race to calculate speed figures is very weak and attempting to project times along a logarithmic curve is not easy.

Cratos,

Thanks for the info. It's nice to see this in MPH. As far as handicapping value, I'm missing the point.

[fmolf]

do you include a variant in your calculations for each tracks curve, or are all tracks whether western, eastern, , poly or dirt, sand based clay based, rubber/plastic based all measured against the same scale? Are their different scales for 3 yr olds? I think using just one scale is not the most accurate way to go.especially with 2yr olds who run as fast as they can for as long as they can till they are taught to rate. I do not see where the extra work that goes into this method canbe any more accurate than careful analysis of pace and speed figs in conjunction with running style analysis.....What you are proposing seems to me to be a more confusing version of Sartin's (fps )method of measuring energy expenditure and early/late pace.....just my opinion...if it works for you continue to use it....I am between two horses in the derby...mucho mach man...and twice the appeal..hard to not bet Borel..

[pandy]

Nice work.
This data is interesting, and it does confirm what I have always believed-horses get slower as the race progresses.
What may be more useful is the leader's MPH.

This is exactly why Zenyatta was one of the all time greats. It's much tougher to run fast late than early, especially as the distances increase. If you look at the top 25 horses of all time, almost every one of them were horses that could finish fast at 9 furlongs or longer, with a few exceptions like Seattle Slew and Ruffian who simply didn't have to because they ran their competition into the ground and coasted home. Most horses, even stakes horses, are slowing down in the final quarter.

[cj]

This is exactly why Zenyatta was one of the all time greats. It's much tougher to run fast late than early, especially as the distances increase.

He made his for dirt courses, not synthetic.

[Greyfox]

This is the speed curve for the average horse (1,084 Lbs, toting 120 Lbs) running in North America on dirt without respect to class, gender, or racetrack.

Also this is looking at all races on dirt regardless where they were run and in what class that they were run and you find the following speed “bumps” along a logarithmic curve which is downward sloping. The times are in miles per hour

Qtr Mile Half Mile 3/4 Mile 1 Mile
40.7218 38.3585 36.9762 35.9955

The horse will start with about 90,492 J of potential energy and will end the 1 mile distance with about 70,705 J of potential energy; an expenditure of about 21.9%.

Essentially using final times of a race to calculate speed figures is very weak and attempting to project times along a logarithmic curve is not easy.

Actually what you've referred to as "times" above are rates are in miles per hour.
Whether or not your using joules, ergs, or percentage of potential energy left, or what ever:
How do you calculate any of the figures you have presented with out employing TIME??

Also you said:

"The horse will start with about 90,492 J of potential energy and will end the 1 mile distance with about 70,705 J of potential energy; an expenditure of about 21.9%."

Are you telling us that a horse still has about 78 % of Potential Energy left when it crosses the finish line?? I don't follow that.
It ain't Potential anything once Lactic acid kicks in hard.

[pandy]

He made his for dirt courses, not synthetic.


It doesn't matter, if it did, Zenyatta would not have been able to overcome being far back behind slow paces, the other horses would have been able to accelerate too. If you look at the two Breeders Cup Classics that were run on a synthetic track at Santa Anita, horses were slowing down in the final quarter just like they do on dirt. When Zeynatta won the classic at Santa Anita, she was flying in the final quarter compared to the other horses.

His numbers are interesting but not surprising. This is why class rules in route races, the top class horses don't slow down as much as the others. In rare cases where a horse is a superhorse, they're actually able to accelerate late even in long races. Secretariat's Derby and Belmont for instance. Zenyatta did this in most of her races which is why she was so tough to defeat. When you are the only horse accelerating late while everyone else is slow down, you win.

[cj]

It doesn't matter, if it did, Zenyatta would not have been able to overcome being far back behind slow paces, the other horses would have been able to accelerate too. If you look at the two Breeders Cup Classics that were run on a synthetic track at Santa Anita, horses were slowing down in the final quarter just like they do on dirt. When Zeynatta won the classic at Santa Anita, she was flying in the final quarter compared to the other horses.

His numbers are interesting but not surprising. This is why class rules in route races, the top class horses don't slow down as much as the others. In rare cases where a horse is a superhorse, they're actually able to accelerate late even in long races. Secretariat's Derby and Belmont for instance. Zenyatta did this in most of her races which is why she was so tough to defeat. When you are the only horse accelerating late while everyone else is slow down, you win.

Surface matters A LOT when you talk about energy distribution. The Classic was proof that it matters A LOT. Pace is pretty irrelevant in synthetic routes. Even with a brutal pace on dirt, she didn't get it done.

[pandy]

The pace was not brutal for a Breeders Cup Classic that was a very strong field of established, seasoned, multiple GR1 winners. They went :47.14, to the half. A Brutal pace for 10 furlongs at Churchill would be more like Seattle Slew's Derby, :45.4 to the half for lightly raced three year olds.

[cj]

The pace was not brutal for a Breeders Cup Classic that was a very strong field of established, seasoned, multiple GR1 winners. They went :47.14, to the half. A Brutal pace for 10 furlongs at Churchill would be more like Seattle Slew's Derby, :45.4 to the half for lightly raced three year olds.

A matter of opinion I guess. There were no Slew's in that field. It was brutal for those that were in it. I don't care much if Affirmed or Secretariat could handle it. It is 2010.

[Robert Fischer]

I thought Zenyatta ran a little bit better than Blame in the classic, but winning the race has to count for a whole lot. It's not performance, it's about getting to the finish line first. Zenyatta didn't run up to her legendary status that some had projected, but she ran a dam good G1 race. She belongs "in the conversation" of recent horses like Curlin and Bernardini.

[pandy]

I only brought up Zenyatta because her performances relate well to energy distribution. In route races, especially 9 furlongs or more, almost all horses, even top horses, decelerate in the final half and especially the final quarter. Zenyatta didn't and that's exactly why great horses win most of their races.

[cj]

I only brought up Zenyatta because her performances relate well to energy distribution. In route races, especially 9 furlongs or more, almost all horses, even top horses, decelerate in the final half and especially the final quarter. Zenyatta didn't and that's exactly why great horses win most of their races.

You keep saying that, but at the top levels of racing on turf and to a lesser extent synthetics it just isn't true.

[pandy]

Sure it is. First of all, races like the Breeders Cup Classic that have been run on synthetic tracks are nothing like turf marathons.

But even in a slow paced long turf race at a mile and a half, a great horse will still finish faster than the others. It's all relative. The pace is inconsequential. If the pace is fast, most horses will decelerate and the great horse will pass them and win. If the pace is slow such as in a turf marathon, there may be several horses that actually accelerate or run faster late than they did early but the great horse will still run the fastest and win. The bottom line is, great horses finish faster regardless of pace or surface. And that's why there are so few great horses because a lot of horses can run fast early, but very few can run fast late.

[RXB]

This is why class rules in route races, the top class horses don't slow down as much as the others. In rare cases where a horse is a superhorse, they're actually able to accelerate late even in long races. Secretariat's Derby and Belmont for instance.

Secretariat's first 6f in the Belmont: 1:09 4/5
Secretariat's last 6f in the Belmont: 1:14 1/5

[pandy]

Secretariat's first 6f in the Belmont: 1:09 4/5
Secretariat's last 6f in the Belmont: 1:14 1/5

Interesting numbers, but again it's all relative and the great horses finish better regardless of pace, time, surface. I've always thought that Seattle Slew and Ruffian were two of the top 5 horses I've ever seen but they didn't come home fast, however, they did come home well relative to the wicked pace they set, which is why they were near unbeatable. The same case as Secretariat's Belmont. 1:14.5 may seem slow but at a mile and a half coming off a 1:09.4 it isn't.

When handicapping sprints, there are horses that are very fast early but slow late, then there are horses that are fast early and okay late. The fast early okay late horses are usually the best bets. I've been posting the Ability X ratings on my site and studying them, the Simple Pick is such a horse, fast early but can finish well enough against the pace of the race. These are the best bets, especially in sprints.

[thaskalos]

Sure it is. First of all, races like the Breeders Cup Classic that have been run on synthetic tracks are nothing like turf marathons.

But even in a slow paced long turf race at a mile and a half, a great horse will still finish faster than the others. It's all relative. The pace is inconsequential. If the pace is fast, most horses will decelerate and the great horse will pass them and win. If the pace is slow such as in a turf marathon, there may be several horses that actually accelerate or run faster late than they did early but the great horse will still run the fastest and win. The bottom line is, great horses finish faster regardless of pace or surface. And that's why there are so few great horses because a lot of horses can run fast early, but very few can run fast late.
Pandy...eventhough I share your enthusiasm regarding Zenyatta's greatness, I have to disagree with your assertion that "greatness" is associated with finishing fastest in the late portion of the race.

If that were true...wouldn't deep stretch runners have a better winning percentage in this country than they currently do? After all...NOBODY closes faster than THEM...

[pandy]

It's true that deep closers often run out of ground because they move too late, but my point was that all of the great horses are great because they finish fast against the pace of the race. And of course most of these top class horses are sustained types who are close enough when they hit the stretch, they have strong turn times, too. My Kick Rating that I created measures late speed from the 4f point, so in a mile its the last half, in a 10 furlong race, the last 6 furlongs, etc, so turn time is factored in. A closer that can't make up ground on the turn is vulnerable and that's why I'm not as interested in final quarters. Zenyatta has the best Kick Ratings of any horse that has raced since I started using the rating about 15 years ago.

[RXB]

1:14.5 may seem slow but at a mile and a half coming off a 1:09.4 it isn't.


True, but you used this race as an example where a horse was able to "accelerate late" when in fact he was decelerating considerably. Just trying to help keep the facts in order.

[Fastracehorse]

It's true that deep closers often run out of ground because they move too late, but my point was that all of the great horses are great because they finish fast against the pace of the race. And of course most of these top class horses are sustained types who are close enough when they hit the stretch, they have strong turn times, too. My Kick Rating that I created measures late speed from the 4f point, so in a mile its the last half, in a 10 furlong race, the last 6 furlongs, etc, so turn time is factored in. A closer that can't make up ground on the turn is vulnerable and that's why I'm not as interested in final quarters. Zenyatta has the best Kick Ratings of any horse that has raced since I started using the rating about 15 years ago.

......in your late kick rating right?

Do you like Nehro's 'Kick Rating'? How about Dialed IN's?


fffastt

[pandy]

I post the Kick Ratings on other stuff on my website each year but I have to wait for either Bris or Trackmaster's pp file after the entries are drawn. The Kick ratings have done extremely well in the Derby over the years.

[gm10]

I post the Kick Ratings on other stuff on my website each year but I have to wait for either Bris or Trackmaster's pp file after the entries are drawn. The Kick ratings have done extremely well in the Derby over the years.

What is the URL for your website?

[pandy]

By the way, the Derby stuff I post is on the free picks page, should be up Friday by the latest. www.handicappingwinners.com

[Cratos]

Actually what you've referred to as "times" above are rates are in miles per hour.
Whether or not your using joules, ergs, or percentage of potential energy left, or what ever:
How do you calculate any of the figures you have presented with out employing TIME??

Also you said:

"The horse will start with about 90,492 J of potential energy and will end the 1 mile distance with about 70,705 J of potential energy; an expenditure of about 21.9%."

Are you telling us that a horse still has about 78 % of Potential Energy left when it crosses the finish line?? I don't follow that.
It ain't Potential anything once Lactic acid kicks in hard.

You are correct, I made a typographical error in using the word “times” as oppose to “rate” or I could have said “speed.”

Energy expenditures goes from potential at rest to kinetic in motion and back to potential at rest. A horse in the gate is essentially at rest (yes, there is some energy being expended, but it is minimal) and when the horse is running (in motion) it expends its kinetic energy.

Whether you believe the horse in my example expended about 22% of its potential energy can easily be calculated which I will leave for you to prove to yourself.

[Cratos]

do you include a variant in your calculations for each tracks curve, or are all tracks whether western, eastern, , poly or dirt, sand based clay based, rubber/plastic based all measured against the same scale? Are their different scales for 3 yr olds? I think using just one scale is not the most accurate way to go.especially with 2yr olds who run as fast as they can for as long as they can till they are taught to rate. I do not see where the extra work that goes into this method canbe any more accurate than careful analysis of pace and speed figs in conjunction with running style analysis.....What you are proposing seems to me to be a more confusing version of Sartin's (fps )method of measuring energy expenditure and early/late pace.....just my opinion...if it works for you continue to use it....I am between two horses in the derby...mucho mach man...and twice the appeal..hard to not bet Borel..

I have an engineering software package which I have used to develop the 2D layouts (I am moving to 3D layouts with 4 ½ - 6 degree banks on the turns) of the 82 North American racetracks as published in the DRF. The dimensions for the tracks were gathered from various sources such as track maintenance supervisors, the American Racing Manual, the Internet, and Google Earth on the Internet to get their correct geographical orientation for environmental factors.

Yes, I use a variant which is called the Surface Speed Resistant Variant (SSRV) which includes environmental conditions and it is calculated with a sigma and a variance.

My methodology is not Sartin based and if you do not see the usefulness it is probably because you have not seen the entire model. I don’t know where you are with the application of math, physics, and statistics; but I can assure you the proper application and understanding of those disciplines will yield excellent results

[Cratos]

It doesn't matter, if it did, Zenyatta would not have been able to overcome being far back behind slow paces, the other horses would have been able to accelerate too. If you look at the two Breeders Cup Classics that were run on a synthetic track at Santa Anita, horses were slowing down in the final quarter just like they do on dirt. When Zeynatta won the classic at Santa Anita, she was flying in the final quarter compared to the other horses.

His numbers are interesting but not surprising. This is why class rules in route races, the top class horses don't slow down as much as the others. In rare cases where a horse is a superhorse, they're actually able to accelerate late even in long races. Secretariat's Derby and Belmont for instance. Zenyatta did this in most of her races which is why she was so tough to defeat. When you are the only horse accelerating late while everyone else is slow down, you win.

She ran the fastest last quarter in the history of the BC Classic. I believe if magically she could have been ridden by the great Willie Shoemaker and trained by Frank Whitely and run primarily at Belmont we would have seen a horse second only to Secretariat (but this is just me daydreaming)

[gm10]

Cratos, I think there is a lot of value in your approach. Theoretically, it is very seductive as the logarithmic curve you describe is also the one that fits the biological truths about aerobic and anaerobic energy expenditure.

However, my nagging concern is, how is it possible to fit this curve for individual horses? Surely you need a substantial amount of races over different distances for a horse, for before you can accurate estimate its curve, even if the curve is only governed by one or two parameters?

[gm10]

Cratos, I think there is a lot of value in your approach. Theoretically, it is very seductive as the logarithmic curve you describe is also the one that fits the biological truths about aerobic and anaerobic energy expenditure.

However, my nagging concern is, how is it possible to fit this curve for individual horses? Surely you need a substantial amount of races over different distances for a horse, for before you can accurate estimate its curve, even if the curve is only governed by one or two parameters?

Sorry that last line should read

'Surely you need a substantial amount of races over different distances for a particular horse, before you can accurately estimate its curve, even if that curve is only governed by one or two parameters?'

(I was in the middle of a conversation with my mother-in-law when I posted the original message ;) )

[Fastracehorse]

I have an engineering software package which I have used to develop the 2D layouts (I am moving to 3D layouts with 4 ½ - 6 degree banks on the turns) of the 82 North American racetracks as published in the DRF. The dimensions for the tracks were gathered from various sources such as track maintenance supervisors, the American Racing Manual, the Internet, and Google Earth on the Internet to get their correct geographical orientation for environmental factors.

Yes, I use a variant which is called the Surface Speed Resistant Variant (SSRV) which includes environmental conditions and it is calculated with a sigma and a variance.

My methodology is not Sartin based and if you do not see the usefulness it is probably because you have not seen the entire model. I don’t know where you are with the application of math, physics, and statistics; but I can assure you the proper application and understanding of those disciplines will yield excellent results


.........for physics than you do horses. You need to take a Vertebrate Biology course :jump: :jump:

fffastt

BTW,

your model would look impressive represented

[Cratos]

.........for physics than you do horses. You need to take a Vertebrate Biology course :jump: :jump:

fffastt

BTW,

your model would look impressive represented

Fast, I believe that you should go with what you know. In reading many posts over the years that I have been a member of this forum I have read posts by posters who describe themselves as pedigree handicappers, speed handicappers, class handicappers, etc. Although I don't subscribe to their methodology I believe they go with what they know.

[Cratos]

Sorry that last line should read

'Surely you need a substantial amount of races over different distances for a particular horse, before you can accurately estimate its curve, even if that curve is only governed by one or two parameters?'

(I was in the middle of a conversation with my mother-in-law when I posted the original message ;) )

GM!0, if you read and study Phil Bull’s handicapping methodology you will quickly realize that horses have “class boundaries” that is almost never violated. If a horse moves up in “class” and wins it doesn’t necessary mean that the horse has achieve that class; it would have to win consistently at that level to achieve that status.

Therefore you can establish a curve for a horse on a sparse amount of data and monitor its performance going forward to see if it stays within the boundaries of the curve. Also you can build confidence intervals around the curve.

What got me going on this idea was the late Ray Taulbot notion that almost any horse would run 6f in 1:13 and change. In my calculations I found that assertion to be at 1:13.11851 for 6f.

[pandy]

She ran the fastest last quarter in the history of the BC Classic. I believe if magically she could have been ridden by the great Willie Shoemaker and trained by Frank Whitely and run primarily at Belmont we would have seen a horse second only to Secretariat (but this is just me daydreaming)

Since I created the Kick Rating around 15 years ago, Zenyatta has several Kick Ratings that are substantially higher than any horse during that period. 115 is huge, she ran some in the high 120's including a 128. There's no question in my mind that she was the fastest finisher I've ever seen, and quite possibly the fastest ever because I'm not sure if it's possible to finish faster. I seriously doubt we'll ever see another horse that can finish that fast. Some people say she was slow, but energy expenditure proves that it's much tougher to run fast late than early, and the longer the distance, the tougher it gets, which is why she is actually one of the fastest horses ever to step foot on a racetrack. Running a fast last quarter at a mile and a quarter is ten times tougher and more impressive than running a fast quarter in the first 4 furlongs.

[RXB]

She ran the fastest last quarter in the history of the BC Classic. I believe if magically she could have been ridden by the great Willie Shoemaker and trained by Frank Whitely and run primarily at Belmont we would have seen a horse second only to Secretariat (but this is just me daydreaming)

Hands up, please, anyone else who thinks that Zenyatta would've outran Seattle Slew, Affirmed, Spectacular Bid-- even if Frank Whiteley was training instead of that unsuccessful bum named John Shirreffs.

I don't know what is the point of logarithmic curves, etc., if it leads one to an affirmative answer to the above.

[PaceAdvantage]

Since I created the Kick Rating around 15 years ago, Zenyatta has several Kick Ratings that are substantially higher than any horse during that period. 115 is huge, she ran some in the high 120's including a 128. There's no question in my mind that she was the fastest finisher I've ever seen, and quite possibly the fastest ever because I'm not sure if it's possible to finish faster. I seriously doubt we'll ever see another horse that can finish that fast. Some people say she was slow, but energy expenditure proves that it's much tougher to run fast late than early, and the longer the distance, the tougher it gets, which is why she is actually one of the fastest horses ever to step foot on a racetrack. Running a fast last quarter at a mile and a quarter is ten times tougher and more impressive than running a fast quarter in the first 4 furlongs.When you take into consideration how SLOW Zenyatta was in the beginning of a race, is it any wonder that she HAD TO RUN fast late if she was ever going to WIN?

Her impressive late numbers are a product of her running style more than anything else.

If Secretariat had run that slow early AND STILL MANAGED TO WIN, his Kick rating would have been astronomical. Same goes for any Grade 1 winning horse who happens to be handicapped with that running style (yes, I said handicapped).

How many GRADE 1 SUPERSTARS have employed such a running style? I mean, look at her last race...look at how SLOW she was going early...there hasn't been a Grade 1 Horse of the Year-caliber horse with that kind of running style in the last 15 years...that's for sure.

[Stillriledup]

When you take into consideration how SLOW Zenyatta was in the beginning of a race, is it any wonder that she HAD TO RUN fast late if she was ever going to WIN?

Her impressive late numbers are a product of her running style more than anything else.

If Secretariat had run that slow early AND STILL MANAGED TO WIN, his Kick rating would have been astronomical. Same goes for any Grade 1 winning horse who happens to be handicapped with that running style (yes, I said handicapped).

How many GRADE 1 SUPERSTARS have employed such a running style? I mean, look at her last race...look at how SLOW she was going early...there hasn't been a Grade 1 Horse of the Year-caliber horse with that kind of running style in the last 15 years...that's for sure.

Her impressive late numbers are also a product of how great she is. You can take really good top class horses and put them behind those slow paces and they still wouldnt come home as fast. There's only so fast you can run. Look at the 2007 Bluegrass where a top class horse named Street Sense was outkicked by a horse not too many people have heard of. There's only so fast a horse can run, regardless of how slow the pace happens to be.

So, i believe it was part style and part greatness.

[pandy]

Her impressive late numbers are also a product of how great she is. You can take really good top class horses and put them behind those slow paces and they still wouldnt come home as fast. There's only so fast you can run. Look at the 2007 Bluegrass where a top class horse named Street Sense was outkicked by a horse not too many people have heard of. There's only so fast a horse can run, regardless of how slow the pace happens to be.

So, i believe it was part style and part greatness.

Secretariat would have been fast enough to make up a big deficit like that but the bottom line is, few if any horses were fast enough to make up the ground.

[PaceAdvantage]

Few if any top class horses employed her running style. That was my main point. She was a byproduct of her running style, as would any other top class horse who ran so slowly early in the race.

[cj]

Few if any top class horses employed her running style. That was my main point. She was a byproduct of her running style, as would any other top class horse who ran so slowly early in the race.

And also a byproduct of the surface. We saw what happens to that style on dirt. With a great setup, she still lost...and Blame was no Seattle Slew.

[RXB]

True, although it should be remembered that Blame had an even more favourable pace setup. And if the early fractions had been average, the frontrunners still wouldn't have been there anyway as they just weren't good enough. The first two finishers were clearly the two best horses; it wasn't like they just got fortunate with the pace.

[cj]

True, although it should be remembered that Blame had an even more favourable pace setup. And if the early fractions had been average, the frontrunners still wouldn't have been there anyway as they just weren't good enough. The first two finishers were clearly the two best horses; it wasn't like they just got fortunate with the pace.

Blame had a better setup because he could actually run a little early if he needed to do so.

I'm still curious how Cratos uses this curve. Maybe he could use the recently run Westchester Mile to show us conclusions he drew from the race by how it compared to his curve.

[classhandicapper]

I am not arguing for a second that the curve doesn't have value. It certainly does. I will say the curve can and does differ from track to track, often by a lot.

I think it also varies by horse. I think we agree that the relationship between pace and final time is pretty close to linear when the pace is mildly faster than average, but at the extremes it breaks down.

For arguments sake let's just assume that Seattle Slew and Spectacular Bid were approximately equal over 9F if allowed to run at their own pace.

IMO Seattle Slew had WAY more natural short term speed than Bid.

So IMHO if they went out really fast together in a duel, at some point those very fast fractions would start approaching Bid's "all out speed" while SS might still be running well within himself.

IMHO, the closer a horse is to "all out" the more extreme the energy burn. So IMO Seattle Slew would get the best of the duel and put SB away.

[classhandicapper]

I only brought up Zenyatta because her performances relate well to energy distribution. In route races, especially 9 furlongs or more, almost all horses, even top horses, decelerate in the final half and especially the final quarter. Zenyatta didn't and that's exactly why great horses win most of their races.

Zenyatta also accelerated in the last quarter of last year's Classic relative to the prior quarter. I thought that was kind of mind boggling all by itself because you virtually never see that at 10F on dirt.

IMO, the thing that really established Zenyatta's greatness was that she could make a ridiculously powerful middle move to get into contention and then still finish like a freight train. Then she would go out well after the finish and demonstrate significant reserves of stamina despite two powerful moves.

In her very slow paced raced races (which was practically every race in the last 2 years), when she faced other quality horses they could not match her middle move even when she was much wider than they were. If they tried, they could not finish late because they were used up by the top of the stretch.

People seem to understand that paces are slower/finishes faster on synthetic and that speed is not much of an advantage without realizing how tough it is for a horse to makes that spectacular wide middle move in a slow paced race and still finish well. She was often picking it up at the exact point the race was getting fast and she was losing lengths wide.

The thing that beat her in the Classic and that made many of the other races tougher than they should have been were her very slow first quarters. Invariably, as a 5 and 6 year old she ran some extremely slow first quarters (though kickback and other issues may have been a incremental contributing factor in the Classic).

Those ridiculously slow first quarters did virtually nothing to help her save more energy than if she had run a second faster. They just put her further behind and made it that much tougher to get back into contention.

IMO had she run more evenly from the gate to the finish (like she did on several occasions at 4), her greatness would have been much easier to recognize and she would have beaten Blame for fun in the Classic. IMO she was a better horse than Blame on dirt and incomparable on synthetic so far.

I don't quite understand why she was more sluggish early at 5-6, but IMO it cost her a perfect record and an easy win in the Classic.

IMHO, if she hadn't been so ridiculously slow out of the gate (excluding potential kickback and not being used to the surface issues) in the Classic that Smith had to use her just to prevent her from becoming disconnected and run her usual very slow first quarter, she would have won for fun.

[classhandicapper]

Few if any top class horses employed her running style. That was my main point. She was a byproduct of her running style, as would any other top class horse who ran so slowly early in the race.

If anything other than another great horse tried to duplicate her style, they would have hung like a rat at the top of the stretch.

There is clearly a relationship between the very early fractions and finishing times, but it's not linear or equal for all horses. The middle fractions matter also. Some of her middle moves were herculean but she still finished really well almost every time despite the synthetic surfaces not being kind to moves like that either early or middle.

[PaceAdvantage]

If anything other than another great horse tried to duplicate her style, they would have hung like a rat at the top of the stretch.Only if starting as slow as a slug wasn't this other mythical horse's regular running style. If it was his regular style, he very may well not have hung like a rat.

Zenyatta was a very unique runner, we can all agree. How many other great horses of the last 15 years have employed her type of running style?

None that I can think of.

[PhantomOnTour]

When you take into consideration how SLOW Zenyatta was in the beginning of a race, is it any wonder that she HAD TO RUN fast late if she was ever going to WIN?

Her impressive late numbers are a product of her running style more than anything else.

If Secretariat had run that slow early AND STILL MANAGED TO WIN, his Kick rating would have been astronomical. Same goes for any Grade 1 winning horse who happens to be handicapped with that running style (yes, I said handicapped).

How many GRADE 1 SUPERSTARS have employed such a running style? I mean, look at her last race...look at how SLOW she was going early...there hasn't been a Grade 1 Horse of the Year-caliber horse with that kind of running style in the last 15 years...that's for sure.
None to find on dirt except maybe Aptitude, but he was no supertsar or even HOY.

[bcgreg]

Classhandicapper...you are one smart cookie!

Really enjoy your posts!

bcgreg

[cj]

Only if starting as slow as a slug wasn't this other mythical horse's regular running style. If it was his regular style, he very may well not have hung like a rat.

Zenyatta was a very unique runner, we can all agree. How many other great horses of the last 15 years have employed her type of running style?

None that I can think of.

Heavenly Prize, though that was maybe a little past 15. Jewel Princess had very little early speed. Lit de Justice, though a sprinter, was a big closer, even the few times he routed. Pleasant Tap was closer to 20 years ago but used a similar style, and Unbridled fits that as well. Victory Gallop had to be within 15 years.

More recently, Islington ran well towards the back, at least in her two BC races.

I can't think of any more.

[Cratos]

Hands up, please, anyone else who thinks that Zenyatta would've outran Seattle Slew, Affirmed, Spectacular Bid-- even if Frank Whiteley was training instead of that unsuccessful bum named John Shirreffs.

I don't know what is the point of logarithmic curves, etc., if it leads one to an affirmative answer to the above.

Do you think Zenyatta was better than Slew going the 1 ¼ mile distance? Slew ran that distance (not including the Belmont and the JCGC) 3 times losing once to J.O. Tobin, but his best time was 2:00 flat; he would have to do better than that to beat Zenyetta with the conditions that I stated earlier.

My all-time favorite is Dr. Fager and at 1 ¼ miles he ran a sub-two minute final time, but in that same race he would have hell to pay if Zenyatta was in it.

Zenyatta was an unbelievable race mare who had the wrong connections in my humble opinion.

Probably like you I have seen every great or so called great horse to ever run at the NYRA tracks since 1967 and that doesn't make me an expert on anything, but I do believe I have a rational and informed opinion and if it differ from yours it doesn't mean that either of us is right; we just don't agree

The logarithmic curve will help you understand how energy is distributed with respect to speed and the interaction between speed, weight and stamina over distance.

[Cratos]

..........IMHO, the closer a horse is to "all out" the more extreme the energy burn. So IMO Seattle Slew would get the best of the duel and put SB away.

One of the best statement I ever read on this forum; go to the head of the class.

[Greyfox]

Heavenly Prize, though that was maybe a little past 15. Jewel Princess had very little early speed. Lit de Justice, though a sprinter, was a big closer, even the few times he routed. Pleasant Tap was closer to 20 years ago but used a similar style, and Unbridled fits that as well. Victory Gallop had to be within 15 years.

More recently, Islington ran well towards the back, at least in her two BC races.

I can't think of any more.

If one wants to go back more than 15 years, Silky Sullivan was an interesting runner. He never was a Champion, but leading up to the 1958 Kentucky Derby several of his winning races were similar to this 1958 Santa Anita Handicap on dirt. Unbelievable wins in his 3 year old season.

In several of the races, the track had two have 2 cameras.
One on the field and one on Silky.
Good closers are exciting, but they don't win big very often.
(I'd like to see the curve applied to him.)

1JTbjGQyJaI

[classhandicapper]

Only if starting as slow as a slug wasn't this other mythical horse's regular running style. If it was his regular style, he very may well not have hung like a rat.

Zenyatta was a very unique runner, we can all agree. How many other great horses of the last 15 years have employed her type of running style?

None that I can think of.

IMO you may be thinking about it the wrong way.

The reason so few horses with her running style get great results (or are considered great) is because it's damn near impossible to spot the other horses that much early and then make a long fast sustained move into contention without hanging like a rat late.

Very deep closers tend to use their energy inefficiently.

The difference between running the first quarter in 25 and change or 26 and change means very little in terms of energy consumption, but it definitely means you are 5 or more extra lengths behind the leaders. So you are basically spotting them that much. Then when they make that giant move into contention, they are basically doing the same thing as a speed horse in an early duel. They are using themselves really hard just trying to get even.

Earlier in her career she ran a little more evenly early even though she was well behind horses.

I'm not sure if that was her training, the fact that her competition was always backing down the pace trying to beat her and she got used to lagging even slower early, Smith got too comfortable doing nothing early, or she was just bigger and lazier as she got older, but IMO if they could have gotten her run more evenly at ages 5-6 like she did at 4, she would have won a lot of races much easier, ran a lot faster, and been 20 for 20. It was well within her range to do so.

She was big lovable freak. :)

[PaceAdvantage]

Do you think Zenyatta was better than Slew going the 1 ¼ mile distance? Slew ran that distance (not including the Belmont and the JCGC) 3 times losing once to J.O. Tobin, but his best time was 2:00 flat; he would have to do better than that to beat Zenyetta with the conditions that I stated earlier.

My all-time favorite is Dr. Fager and at 1 ¼ miles he ran a sub-two minute final time, but in that same race he would have hell to pay if Zenyatta was in it.I really don't want to open the Zenyatta can of worms again, but I can't let these statements go without at least typing how shocking I find them.

[thaskalos]

I really don't want to open the Zenyatta can of worms again, but I can't let these statements go without at least typing how shocking I find them.
I, on the other hand, am in complete agreement with them...:)

[PaceAdvantage]

Perhaps I missed the conditions Cratos stated earlier (such as Seattle Slew having to carry 250lbs perhaps?), but if you think Zenyatta would beat Seattle Slew going 1 1/4 miles, well then...

She couldn't....even....beat....BLAME.

'nuff said.

[Dahoss9698]

Concern won the Classic coming from dead last at Churchill, although it doesn't fit the 15 year criteria.

He must be an all time great.

[PaceAdvantage]

I limited it to 15 years because that's how long pandy said he's been making his kick ratings.

[thoroughbred]

Cratos,

I suggest that you are using the term "Potential Energy", not in it's true scientific sense.

An example of the standard definition of potential energy is that of a weight located at some height above, say, the ground. Depending on the value of the weight, and the distance above the ground, we can say that it has potential energy. If we let the weight fall, it falls with a velocity, and at any instant, the potential energy is being transformed into Kinetic Energy. The value of the Kinetic Energy is 1/2*m*v^2, where m is mass and v is velocity.

Having said this the trouble I have with your analysis is this.
If only the small fraction of what you call potential energy is used up during the race, why would a horse slow down? According to you it still has the majority of its energy left. But we know for a fact that the horses do slow down. But if over 70% of the energy remains, (according to you), the horse would still continue at the same speed and perhaps even speed up.

So I don't follow what you are saying.

Please take a bit of time to explain more. Thanks.

[the little guy]

I really don't want to open the Zenyatta can of worms again, but I can't let these statements go without at least typing how shocking I find them.

You have to use the logarithmic curve to understand it.

[thaskalos]

Perhaps I missed the conditions Cratos stated earlier (such as Seattle Slew having to carry 250lbs perhaps?), but if you think Zenyatta would beat Seattle Slew going 1 1/4 miles, well then...

She couldn't....even....beat....BLAME.

'nuff said.
Cratos specified that Zenyatta would have had to be trained by Frank Whiteley, ridden by Bill Shoemaker, and have raced primarily at Belmont...in order to be properly prepared to defeat Seattle Slew and Dr Fager at 1 1/4 miles.

It seems a difficult argument to disprove...

[thoroughbred]

You have to use the logarithmic curve to understand it.

In a typical race, a horse will slow down as the race proceeds, in an approximation to an exponential curve.

There is nothing mysterious, or magical, about the term "logarithmic" and I don't see what using such a term has anything to do with reality.

I may be missing something, so I'm hoping someone will demonstrate how a logarithmic curve is useful.

Thanks

[the little guy]

In a typical race, a horse will slow down as the race proceeds, in an approximation to an exponential curve.

There is nothing mysterious, or magical, about the term "logarithmic" and I don't see what using such a term has anything to do with reality.

I may be missing something, so I'm hoping someone will demonstrate how a logarithmic curve is useful.

Thanks


I agree with you. I was making a joke.

[Cardus]

Zenyatta had something working for her during her career that Seattle Slew and Dr. Fager never had for them:

Internet Land.

[gm10]

In a typical race, a horse will slow down as the race proceeds, in an approximation to an exponential curve.

There is nothing mysterious, or magical, about the term "logarithmic" and I don't see what using such a term has anything to do with reality.

I may be missing something, so I'm hoping someone will demonstrate how a logarithmic curve is useful.

Thanks

For each horse in a particular race, you plot the curve (X-axis distance, Y-axis running time).
At a given value for X (=distance of the race), you check which curve has the lowest Y-value. That's your winner.

[lsosa54]

For each horse in a particular race, you plot the curve (X-axis distance, Y-axis running time).
At a given value for X (=distance of the race), you check which curve has the lowest Y-value. That's your winner.

Can we do this consistently BEFORE the race?

[gm10]

Can we do this consistently BEFORE the race?

Cratos says that he has a model that does this, and I don't see any reason why that wouldn't be true. From what I gather, he estimates the curve parameters for each horse on the basis of their past performances. Once you have a reliable estimation procedure for those parameters, the rest becomes very easy.

[pandy]

I have an energy rating built into my Diamond system, similar to median energy except that my rating shows how much energy a horse has left (for the finish) not how much it used, so it's reversed. I've always found these ratings interesting, not just for modeling.

[TrifectaMike]

Cratos says that he has a model that does this, and I don't see any reason why that wouldn't be true. From what I gather, he estimates the curve parameters for each horse on the basis of their past performances. Once you have a reliable estimation procedure for those parameters, the rest becomes very easy.

I believe Cratos. I did something very similar in the 80's. I used a linear combination of exponential growth and decay functions. The trick was in estimating the k's ( rate of growth and rate of decay) for individual horses.

As gm10 has stated once you have this information, you can make a point to point comparison for all the horses as a function of distance.

Mike (Dr Beav)

[cj]

You have to use the logarithmic curve to understand it.

I've asked for a few examples of how, but he cratos seems to ignore them.

[thoroughbred]

For each horse in a particular race, you plot the curve (X-axis distance, Y-axis running time).
At a given value for X (=distance of the race), you check which curve has the lowest Y-value. That's your winner.

gm10:

Your explanation has nothing at all to do with a logarithm curve.

I believe all you are saying here is that you look for the horse with the best finish time.

[thaskalos]

Cratos started this thread with the following words:

"This is the speed curve for the average horse..."

There is no such thing as "the average horse"; it doesn't exist!

It is created by us - the handicappers - in our zeal to make this an easier game to understand than it really is.

We take a large (or small) group of horses, all having run under distinctly different circumstances...and average out their times - or "rates of speed" - thus creating the mythical "average horse".

I like Andy Beyer's statement in one of his books...where he addresses the idea of "averaging out" several Beyer figures in a horse's PPs...in order to get a better idea of the horse's ability.

The inamitable Beyer stated:

"A horse runs two races, a 60 and an 80. Depending on the circumstances of each race...the horse is either a "true" 60 or a "true" 80.

In no way is the horse a 70..."

Averages are to be used as guidelines...not as absolute truths! There is nothing DEFINITE about them!

[cj]

There is no such thing as "the average horse"; it doesn't exist!



Not only that, but every horse is somewhere different in its form cycle. A horse in top condition will react differently to running "outside the curve" than will a short horse, or one over the top.

[bcgreg]

Maybe energy distribution would help point to where they are in their form cycle?

bcgreg

[classhandicapper]

Concern won the Classic coming from dead last at Churchill, although it doesn't fit the 15 year criteria.

He must be an all time great.

The issue is not where a horse comes from.

The issue is that most horses run faster early and decelerate late.

Most closers are also decelerating at the end of a race, just at a slower rate than the front runners. So they catch the horses that are tiring faster.

It's when a horse is actually accelerating late and picking up other horses that are still fresh and running fast that you are seeing something a little more unique.

If the horse is very very deep closer that ran insanely slow the first part of the race and then came home super fast, you are seeing an even bigger race because that's not an efficient way to run on any surface.

The fact that Zenyatta actually accelerated in the final quarter relative to the previous one after making a long sustained move because she got disconnected from the field after reacting poorly out of the gate (kickback or dislike of surface), is somewhat mind boggling to me. She was used multiple times. Anything other than a truly great horse would have made a nice run and decelerated to hang badly from the quarter pole home. IMO, she was much the best over Blame that day, but her style was conducive to the inefficient use of her ability - especially as she got older. And that day it was exaggerated.

[Dahoss9698]

You missed the point and I am well aware of all of the obvious things you insist on posting over and over again. I'm also well aware of your thoughts on Zenyatta. Give your keyboard a break.

[gm10]

gm10:

Your explanation has nothing at all to do with a logarithm curve.

I believe all you are saying here is that you look for the horse with the best finish time.

Why would my post have nothing to do with a log curve?

[classhandicapper]

You missed the point and I am well aware of all of the obvious things you insist on posting over and over again. I'm also well aware of your thoughts on Zenyatta. Give your keyboard a break.

I got the point.

You were making a snide (but irrelevant) remark about Concern winning from far off the pace ("therefore he must be a great horse" ha ha ha).

I wanted to clarify the irrelevance of that to the topic (which is about energy distribution and not position) and Zenyatta because some of us are actually more interested in measuring ability and performance than diminishing legitmately great horses as a past time.

[classhandicapper]

Cratos started this thread with the following words:

"This is the speed curve for the average horse..."

I like Andy Beyer's statement in one of his books...where he addresses the idea of "averaging out" several Beyer figures in a horse's PPs...in order to get a better idea of the horse's ability.

The inamitable Beyer stated:

"A horse runs two races, a 60 and an 80. Depending on the circumstances of each race...the horse is either a "true" 60 or a "true" 80.

In no way is the horse a 70..."

Averages are to be used as guidelines...not as absolute truths! There is nothing DEFINITE about them!

I actually think averages have some merit, but only within framework you are describing. You can't just average a bunch of figures because there are pace, bias, trip etc.. issues that impact them.

But I think horses are a lot like other athletes in that "all else being equal" they will perform within a range. They have good and bad days. If you can sort of cut through all the pace, trip, bias, distance etc.. issues you can get a better view of that range and better understand where a horse has been "on average" in its last few races. Then hopefully you'll have some insight into where it might be going.

[Dahoss9698]

I wanted to clarify the irrelevance of that to the topic (which is about energy distribution and not position) and Zenyatta because some of us are actually more interested in measuring ability and performance than diminishing legitmately great horses as a past time.

I'm interested in making money. Not trying to break world records for words typed in a single day.

We're all here for different reasons.

[cj]

While her final fraction was about 2/5ths faster, since the previous one was run on a turn I wouldn't really say she was accelerating.

[classhandicapper]

I'm interested in making money. Not trying to break world records for words typed in a single day.

We're all here for different reasons.

:lol:

Alright, I'll give you that one because it was hysterical.

IMO there are certain races and certain horses that present important handicapping lessons if you study them carefully.

Someone mentioned the Blue Grass Stakes where Street Sense got out kicked by an inferior rival in a spectacular closing time as one. I agree. That race helped make it clear that when the pace is extremely slow it's not always the best horse that has the fastest kick (even though the two are correlated).

Zenyatta's PPs contain an almost endless supply of spectacular handicapping information and understanding if you dig deep enough. If you want to make money, she's a great place to start. But some people would have to give up some of their long held beliefs and desired beliefs about pace, final time figures, class etc...

[gm10]

Zenyatta's PPs contain an almost endless supply of spectacular handicapping information and understanding if you dig deep enough. If you want to make money, she's a great place to start. But some people would have to give up some of their long held beliefs and desired beliefs about pace, final time figures, class etc...

Very good. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[classhandicapper]

While her final fraction was about 2/5ths faster, since the previous one was run on a turn I wouldn't really say she was accelerating.

I agree that a turn tends to slow horses down, but that' a very tricky issue. The physics are way outside my range.

Personally, I can't remember too many instances of a dirt horse running the last quarter of a 10F dirt race faster than the previous one where both quarters were darn fast relative to the norms. I'm sure it has happened, but I doubt it has happened very often, especially not after a move like Smith made very early after she started becoming disconnected and then making her regular move into contention.

[Dahoss9698]

Zenyatta's PPs contain an almost endless supply of spectacular handicapping information and understanding if you dig deep enough. If you want to make money, she's a great place to start. But some people would have to give up some of their long held beliefs and desired beliefs about pace, final time figures, class etc...

I disagree with this entire paragraph. And it really goes back to the whole Zenyatta fans see something others don't. That arguement has been rehashed so many times it isn't worth it.

But one side was correct when the dust settled and made money because of it. If you have even a novice understanding of surface, and their nuances, Zenyatta's results aren't going to provide much in terms of information and understanding.

[Dahoss9698]

Very good. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

Don't think it's gone unnoticed you have avoided the Frankel thread like the plague.

[Cratos]

I've asked for a few examples of how, but he cratos seems to ignore them.

I haven't ignored anything; being it is Derby week and I will be out of town my time is very limited, but eventually I will give an example.

[cj]

I haven't ignored anything; being it is Derby week and I will be out of town my time is very limited, but eventually I will give an example.

Coolio.

[TrifectaMike]

I agree that a turn tends to slow horses down, but that' a very tricky issue. The physics are way outside my range.

Personally, I can't remember too many instances of a dirt horse running the last quarter of a 10F dirt race faster than the previous one where both quarters were darn fast relative to the norms. I'm sure it has happened, but I doubt it has happened very often, especially not after a move like Smith made very early after she started becoming disconnected and then making her regular move into contention.

The horses are actually accelerating around a turn to maintain their forward speed.

Mike (Dr Beav)

[RXB]

Personally, I can't remember too many instances of a dirt horse running the last quarter of a 10F dirt race faster than the previous one where both quarters were darn fast relative to the norms.

Measured by the race leader, my par numbers at CD have the last quarter nearly as fast as the fourth quarter for top older stakes horses going 10f there. (As opposed to the 3YO-only Derby where the last fraction par is significantly slower.) By Classic standards, there was nothing truly outstanding about her turn move, or Blame's or anybody else's, as the frontrunners absolutely blew up in that segment.

That said, I imagine it will be quite a long time before the BC Classic is nearly won again by a 6YO mare. By female standards it was an excellent performance, especially considering her age as very few stakes horses are at their peak come November of their 6YO campaigns. She left everyone but Blame far behind and I'm nearly certain that the 4YO/5YO version of Zenyatta would've won that race going away again.

[Fastracehorse]

Cratos started this thread with the following words:

"This is the speed curve for the average horse..."

There is no such thing as "the average horse"; it doesn't exist!

It is created by us - the handicappers - in our zeal to make this an easier game to understand than it really is.

We take a large (or small) group of horses, all having run under distinctly different circumstances...and average out their times - or "rates of speed" - thus creating the mythical "average horse".

I like Andy Beyer's statement in one of his books...where he addresses the idea of "averaging out" several Beyer figures in a horse's PPs...in order to get a better idea of the horse's ability.

The inamitable Beyer stated:

"A horse runs two races, a 60 and an 80. Depending on the circumstances of each race...the horse is either a "true" 60 or a "true" 80.

In no way is the horse a 70..."

Averages are to be used as guidelines...not as absolute truths! There is nothing DEFINITE about them!

......this is a fun and interesting thread; largely because of the good array of posters.

I'm not in anyway suggesting you agree w/ what Beyer says but I don't like the "averaging" out of Beyers to gain a 'grasp' of the animal's true ability.

I think it is quit evident that a horse's true ability is always in flux, for a plethora of reasons, and; that a horse doesn't always run to it's truest ability.

An understanding of the universal genetics of the thorougbred - and the universal knowledge of the trainer to tap into those genetics, and; a more accurate determination of the horse's speed figure needs to be, and can be, determined.

And,
I don't actually mean a player needs knowledge of the horse's genome :confused:

fffastt

[Fastracehorse]

The issue is not where a horse comes from.

The issue is that most horses run faster early and decelerate late.

Most closers are also decelerating at the end of a race, just at a slower rate than the front runners. So they catch the horses that are tiring faster.

It's when a horse is actually accelerating late and picking up other horses that are still fresh and running fast that you are seeing something a little more unique.

If the horse is very very deep closer that ran insanely slow the first part of the race and then came home super fast, you are seeing an even bigger race because that's not an efficient way to run on any surface.

The fact that Zenyatta actually accelerated in the final quarter relative to the previous one after making a long sustained move because she got disconnected from the field after reacting poorly out of the gate (kickback or dislike of surface), is somewhat mind boggling to me. She was used multiple times. Anything other than a truly great horse would have made a nice run and decelerated to hang badly from the quarter pole home. IMO, she was much the best over Blame that day, but her style was conducive to the inefficient use of her ability - especially as she got older. And that day it was exaggerated.


.........that Zenyetta ran an "otherwordly" race versus Blame. Her late acceleration was exhilirating, and; it was surreal she didn't get Blame.

Even though this subject has been re-hashed it obviously still needs to be illustrated.

fffastt

[PaceAdvantage]

.........that Zenyetta ran an "otherwordly" race versus Blame.otherworldly? Maybe if she was a confirmed frontrunner, it would have been otherworldly. But she basically ran the same race she always ran, but this time, couldn't run down a superior foe. Nothing otherworldly about it...

[Tom]

Wouldn't otherworldly be more what the winner ran?
He beat the greatest horse to ever drool through a bridle, after all. ;)

[cj]

By female standards it was an excellent performance,

Isn't that the whole thing in a nutshell? It is true, and a compliment, but those that say she isn't one of the greatest ever (males included) are said to be knocking her!

[RXB]

Isn't that the whole thing in a nutshell? It is true, and a compliment, but those that say she isn't one of the greatest ever (males included) are said to be knocking her!

There are always going to be fans who overrate their favourite horse/team/pop star, etc. Her fans are no worse than the people who unfairly denigrate her accomplishments. In this case, we're talking about a horse that had a rare combination of extraordinary size, personality and ability. That's sure to draw a significant amount of fandom.

[thaskalos]

Isn't that the whole thing in a nutshell? It is true, and a compliment, but those that say she isn't one of the greatest ever (males included) are said to be knocking her!
No CJ...your memory seems to be a little faulty...

We never accused "those that say she isn't one of the greatest ever (males included)"...of knocking her!

Most of Zenyatta's most ardent supporters - myself included - readily acknowledged that she doesn't belong with the Secretariats, Spectacular Bids, or Seattle Slews of the sport.

The people who were TRULY knocking her were some "sophisticated" bettors, who - eventhough they clearly should have known better - flatly proclaimed that she would have a hard time breaking the top 50...IN HER GENDER!

[elysiantraveller]

There are always going to be fans who overrate their favourite horse/team/pop star, etc. Her fans are no worse than the people who unfairly denigrate her accomplishments. In this case, we're talking about a horse that had a rare combination of extraordinary size, personality and ability. That's sure to draw a significant amount of fandom.

No one is arguing that... What I find so interesting about Zenyatta though is there are two different opinions of her. The people that know she was a terrific horse and have a realistic grasp of her place in history and those, her fans, that Need her to be something much more... I've never seen another horses fans so rabid about preservering their animals place in history. They need her to be great when she was extremely good.

[RXB]

No one is arguing that... What I find so interesting about Zenyatta though is there are two different opinions of her. The people that know she was a terrific horse and have a realistic grasp of her place in history and those, her fans, that Need her to be something much more... I've never seen another horses fans so rabid about preservering their animals place in history. They need her to be great when she was extremely good.

It's nothing new. For example, Rachel Alexandra also had a legion of fans, some of whom were realistic about her ability and some who went overboard. And there are a few people who still try to deny that she was one of the greatest 3YO fillies ever, even though the evidence for that greatness is beyond any logical dissent. Just human nature, I guess.

BTW, I'm one of those who rates Zenyatta as a great female, not just a very good female, and perhaps the best synthetic runner of any gender to-date. My doubts are related to the thread topic of energy distribution, as I don't think any horse can be the greatest dirt runner of either gender while employing a deep closing running style, especially at 9f or less. At some point, a backrunner will meet a more versatile dirt foe that can move sooner and finish effectively enough to hold off the backrunner more often than not. That's the nature of racing on a dirt surface.

[thaskalos]

It's nothing new. For example, Rachel Alexandra also had a legion of fans, some of whom were realistic about her ability and some who went overboard. And there are a few people who still try to deny that she was one of the greatest 3YO fillies ever, even though the evidence for that greatness is beyond any logical dissent. Just human nature, I guess.

BTW, I'm one of those who rates Zenyatta as a great female, not just a very good female, and perhaps the best synthetic runner of any gender to-date. My doubts are related to the thread topic of energy distribution, as I don't think any horse can be the greatest dirt runner of either gender while employing a deep closing running style, especially at 9f or less. At some point, a backrunner will meet a more versatile dirt foe that can move sooner and finish effectively enough to hold off the backrunner more often than not. That's the nature of racing on a dirt surface.
Could not have said it better myself! :ThmbUp:

[Dahoss9698]

No CJ...your memory seems to be a little faulty...

We never accused "those that say she isn't one of the greatest ever (males included)"...of knocking her!

Most of Zenyatta's most ardent supporters - myself included - readily acknowledged that she doesn't belong with the Secretariats, Spectacular Bids, or Seattle Slews of the sport.

The people who were TRULY knocking her were some "sophisticated" bettors, who - eventhough they clearly should have known better - flatly proclaimed that she would have a hard time breaking the top 50...IN HER GENDER!

This isn't true, not at all.

[thaskalos]

This isn't true, not at all.

We already know that you are not trying to break the world record for words typed in a single day...but, when you are voicing your disagreements with people, you should expand on your remarks a little more...

[cj]

No CJ...your memory seems to be a little faulty...

We never accused "those that say she isn't one of the greatest ever (males included)"...of knocking her!

Most of Zenyatta's most ardent supporters - myself included - readily acknowledged that she doesn't belong with the Secretariats, Spectacular Bids, or Seattle Slews of the sport.

The people who were TRULY knocking her were some "sophisticated" bettors, who - eventhough they clearly should have known better - flatly proclaimed that she would have a hard time breaking the top 50...IN HER GENDER!

I'm pretty sure I said she was top 50, maybe top 25. I'm too tired to use the search. Unfortunately, that was taken as somehow insulting a horse.

[Dahoss9698]

We already know that you are not trying to break the world record for words typed in a single day...but, when you are voicing your disagreements with people, you should expand on your remarks a little more...

When I disagree with the entire post, it just seems redundant to go point by point.

Of course people who didn't think she was one of the greatest ever were said to be knocking her. We were labeled as "haters" and in this very thread you see the same pompous attitude of you (not you specifically) saw something we didn't. You personally might not have, but to see it didn't happen isn't true.

I also disagree that most of Zenyatta's ardent supporters don't still view her among the all time greats. In this thread I have read she would have defeated Seattle Slew and Dr Fager. Again, maybe not you specifically, and maybe the majority of her ardent supporters stay silent, but of the ones that post, a majority felt and still seems to feel that way.

I also don't remember many if any saying she wasn't one of the top 50 in her gender.

Get Guiness on the line.

[classhandicapper]

I disagree with this entire paragraph. And it really goes back to the whole Zenyatta fans see something others don't. That arguement has been rehashed so many times it isn't worth it.

But one side was correct when the dust settled and made money because of it. If you have even a novice understanding of surface, and their nuances, Zenyatta's results aren't going to provide much in terms of information and understanding.

With all due respect (despite this kind of revisionist nonsensical statement) one side was wrong about her for between 2-3 years straight by contending that all her slow Beyers and narrow winning margins against a mixture of good and mediocre horses indicated she was a mediocre horse and a synthetic specialist.

The other side contended that her final time figures and winning margins were a function of pace, the unique characteristic of synthetic racing relative to dirt racing, her running style etc.. and that her closing times and the reserve racing power she went out with after the finish indicated she could run could much faster if need be. They said she was a great mare. They also contended that in her limited experience on dirt she had given no indication she couldn't be great on that surface also.

Then we watched her win 19 in a row, her winning margins stay relatively flat regardless of the level of the competition, her winning figures fluctuate wildly to the internal dynamics of the races, and then saw it all culminate with with a 111 Beyer on dirt in the Classic against Grade 1 males (despite running 90s for much of the year) after absolutely hating the kickback early and getting disconnected so badly early she had to be used just to stay in the race.

In addition, many of those that were correct about her for three years straight and watched her make fools of her harshest critics when she won the Classic the first time conceded she was a huge underlay in the Classic last year. So they were right about her for 3 years straight and then cashed a bet against her too. IMO, they were lucky to do so because she was the best horse that day.

I am happy if you cashed a bet on Blame. But there is no doubt at all who was right regarding her ability and all the issues in her PPs that caused some very high profile and even famous handicappers to think she was a mediocre synthetic specialist.

She proved she was one of the greatest mares that ever lived on either surface (if not the greatest) and she also proved to be extremely versatile having won at a variety of distances, on multiple synthetic surfaces, dirt, and delivering a great race in the Classic.

There is an endless supply of information in her PPs that some of her harshest critics never understood. That's a simple fact. Some still don't get it.

(Sure there were a handful of over the top comments about her, but few were from very experienced and knowledgeable handicappers who contended she was one of the greatest "mares" of all time as opposed to a mediocre synthetic specialist that faced all weak fields, barely beat them, and never ran fast)

[thaskalos]

With all due respect (despite this kind of revisionist nonsensical statement) one side was wrong for between 2-3 years straight by contending that all her slow Beyers and narrow winning margins against a mixture of good and mediocre horses indicated she was a mediocre horse and a synthetic specialist.

The other side contended that her final time figures and winning margins were a function of pace, the unique characteristic of synthetic racing relative to dirt racing, her running style etc.. and that her closing times and the reserve racing power she went out with after the finish indicated she could run could much faster if need be. They also contended that in her limited experience on dirt she had given no indication she couldn't be great on that surface also.

Then we watched her win 19 in a row, her winning margins stay relatively flat regardless of the level of the competition, her winning figures fluctuate wildly to the internal dynamics of the races, and then saw it all culminate with with a 111 Beyer on dirt in the Classic against Grade 1 males (despite running 90s for much of the year) after absoluting hating the kickback early and getting so disconnected early she had to be used just to stay in the race.

In addition, many of those that were correct about her for three years straight and watched her make fools of her harshest critics when she won the Classic the first time conceded she was a huge underlay in the Classic last year. So they were right about her for 3 years straight and then cashed a bet against her too. IMO, they were lucky to do so because was the best horse that day.

I am happy if you cashed a bet on Blame. But there is no doubt at all who was right regarding her ability and all the issues in her PPs that caused some very high profile and even famous handicappers to think she was mediocre synthetic specialist.

She proved she was one of the greatest mares than ever lived (if not the greatest) and she also proved to be extremely versatile having won at a variety of distances, on multiple synthetic surfaces, dirt, and delivering a great race in the Classic.

There is an endless supply of information in her PPs that some of her harshest critics never understood. That's a simple fact.
Great post Classhandicapper!

That is the BIGGEST testament to her greatness, IMO.

For all the criticism she received for the "softness" of her competition...she delivered her biggest punches - and recorded her highest speed figures - on racing's biggest stage, and at the most grueling distance.

There was no QUIT in her!

The bigger THEY were...the larger SHE became.

[Dahoss9698]

With all due respect (despite this kind of revisionist nonsensical statement) one side was wrong about her for between 2-3 years straight by contending that all her slow Beyers and narrow winning margins against a mixture of good and mediocre horses indicated she was a mediocre horse and a synthetic specialist.

There is an endless supply of information in her PPs that some of her harshest critics never understood. That's a simple fact. Some still don't get it.


'
With all due respect, you're wrong. No one was aying she was a mediocre horse. You're making that up.

You keep trying to unlock the secrets of her PP's. The "haters" are too busy making money actually betting.

[thaskalos]

'


The "haters" are too busy making money actually betting.
ALL OF THEM?

[Dahoss9698]

ALL OF THEM?

The "haters" I know on here are doing pretty well.

Then again, they care more about making money than looking smart on a message board by turing every post into Moby Dick part deux.

[cj]

The "haters" I know on here are doing pretty well.

Then again, they care more about making money than looking smart on a message board by turing every post into Moby Dick part deux.

And despite all she did, I still say getting a 110 Beyer with a perfect setup doesn't make her the greatest mare of all time, especially since she didn't win. She may have been the best managed mare of all time, but I can think of several females immediately that I think could have beaten her in a race with an average pace going 9 or 10f. If that makes me a hater, so be it, but I call it being a realist.

[Tom]

Some make money, too.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1096089#post1096089

[classhandicapper]

'
With all due respect, you're wrong. No one was aying she was a mediocre horse. You're making that up.

You keep trying to unlock the secrets of her PP's. The "haters" are too busy making money actually betting.

With all due respect, several well known racing personalities and handicappers were very harsh and revealed a wealth of misunderstanding in their comments about her over 3 years in print, on TV, on racing radio shows and elsewhere. She was sometimes ridiculed on this forum to the point where one of the sharpest horse players that posted here voluntarily left and hasn't returned because he got tired of it. I even took vacations because I got tried of explaining the same criticisms over and over.

That doesn't mean there wasn't some level headed discussion and that some of her fans didn't go way over the top in the other direction, but anything else is revisionist history.

[classhandicapper]

And despite all she did, I still say getting a 110 Beyer with a perfect setup doesn't make her the greatest mare of all time, especially since she didn't win. She may have been the best managed mare of all time, but I can think of several females immediately that I think could have beaten her in a race with an average pace going 9 or 10f. If that makes me a hater, so be it, but I call it being a realist.

CJ,

I know you less class oriented than I am, but IMO, there is a difference between earning a 111 Beyer in the Breeder's Cup Classic against a field of multiple Grade 1 winning males (112 in the synthetic version) and earning a mildly faster figure on some occasions while dominating vastly inferior females in softer and less deep fields.

IMO, many of the fillies and mares that ran faster than 111 on some occasions under softer conditions would have been well beaten in that same spot and had Z had more opportunities to run on dirt she probably would have run faster on occasion also.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that. ;)

I know we already discussed this, but IMO that pace really didn't help her much in terms of her own final time. She still ran very slow early. It just didn't hurt as much as a bunch of fillies running a boat race trying to beat her.

But more importantly, IMO she clearly either didn't get hold of the surface initially or reacted badly to the dirt kick back because she wasn't used to it. She was becoming so disconnected early in the race that for a moment while I was watching it live I thought she was in distress and was going to be eased.

Being used early by Smith just to get back into a race because she wasn't used to dirt kickback or wasn't handling the surface initially is not a great trip. I think she was clearly the best horse that day and showed that with more experience on dirt she would have been capable of running even faster.

The once criticism that is totally justified (and related to that loss) is that she didn't run on dirt a few more times. Not so much because it made a lot of sense to ship her around the country when there was Grade 1 money in CA in front of her own fans and the the goal was the BC. If anything what they did made sense. But it was a shame because it would have given her more of an opportunity to demonstrate her greatness on dirt to the doubters.

I think we have to let this debate go and just agree to disagree. ;)

But I think without question my initial contention that her PPs taught some valuable lessons about pace/time, closing times, winning margins, and going out well etc... that were not well understood is true. I learned a lot from her and verified some other things. Being used to dirt norms is why it took some people a very long time to come around and realize how good she was even though she ran some slow races and barely beat some mediocre fields.

[Dahoss9698]

Some make money, too.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1096089#post1096089

I shouldn't have to explain the difference, but there is a giant one.

[cj]

CJ,

I know you less class oriented than I am, but IMO,...

I'll leave it at this. I still think her record was a bit of a farce due to polytrack and weak competition, and I think her last race proved it. She was able to win many times overcoming slow paces and decent horses on rubber, though in some cases decent is stretching it.

On dirt, I don't think that was happening. There were many females that could set a 110 pace and still run a 110 final figure in the past 20 years. Zenyatta might have beaten them sometimes, but certainly not all. And if the pace was a 105 or even 100, she would have had little chance in my opinion.

To me, that doesn't mean she wasn't a great horse. She just wasn't great enough for me to automatically jump her into the top 10 of even females, let alone all horses. I've learned plenty of lessons from Zenyatta and other great horses, but one of them defninitely is not that no early speed big closers can overcome bad pace setups on dirt, especially when they can't overcome a good one. While you say the pace of the Classic didn't help her, even if someone believes that, it most certainly didn't hurt.

[Dahoss9698]

With all due respect, several well known racing personalities and handicappers were very harsh and revealed a wealth of misunderstanding in their comments about her over 3 years in print, on TV, on racing radio shows and elsewhere. She was sometimes ridiculed on this forum to the point where one of the sharpest horse players that posted here voluntarily left and hasn't returned because he got tired of it. I even took vacations because I got tried of explaining the same criticisms over and over.

That doesn't mean there wasn't some level headed discussion and that some of her fans didn't go way over the top in the other direction, but anything else is revisionist history.

I find it hard to believe you got tired of explaining anything....ever.

How many keyboards do you go through a year?

[PaceAdvantage]

She was sometimes ridiculed on this forum to the point where one of the sharpest horse players that posted here voluntarily left and hasn't returned because he got tired of it. I even took vacations because I got tried of explaining the same criticisms over and over.I don't think I'll ever read anything more silly than this.

Who is this sharp player? DanG? I'll put Dahoss up against him, or anyone else, any day.

[Fastracehorse]

otherworldly? Maybe if she was a confirmed frontrunner, it would have been otherworldly. But she basically ran the same race she always ran, but this time, couldn't run down a superior foe. Nothing otherworldly about it...

......you simply underestimate
......otherwordly is a great word isn't it?

fffastt

[classhandicapper]

I'll leave it at this. I still think her record was a bit of a farce due to polytrack and weak competition, and I think her last race proved it. She was able to win many times overcoming slow paces and decent horses on rubber, though in some cases decent is stretching it.

On dirt, I don't think that was happening. There were many females that could set a 110 pace and still run a 110 final figure in the past 20 years. Zenyatta might have beaten them sometimes, but certainly not all. And if the pace was a 105 or even 100, she would have had little chance in my opinion.

To me, that doesn't mean she wasn't a great horse. She just wasn't great enough for me to automatically jump her into the top 10 of even females, let alone all horses. I've learned plenty of lessons from Zenyatta and other great horses, but one of them defninitely is not that no early speed big closers can overcome bad pace setups on dirt, especially when they can't overcome a good one. While you say the pace of the Classic didn't help her, even if someone believes that, it most certainly didn't hurt.

Just as an aside, IMO the disdain for "class" by modern handicappers is both silly and ignorant. Virtually everything wrong with numbers (and that's a boatload) can be clarified through an analysis of field quality, comparative trips, race development, watching how horses perform when they come out of races etc... Of course just like with making numbers, to be a good comparative class handicapper you have to know what you are doing.

IMO any purely numbers oriented view of horses has severe limitations.

I won't go through every race, but a 110 loose on the lead or stalking some other outclassed filly that happens to have some speed is not the same as repulsing the bid or trying to outrun solid Grade 1 older males even when the numbers look similar or the same.

The accuracy issues with numbers alone make some comparisons and conclusions silly. But beyond that, what's going on in races is infinitely more complex than anyone is able to measure with the numbers people have today.

If you think a mare missing by a head/nose in the BC Classic after getting disconnected due to kickback/not handling the surface and then being used early just to get back in game was not a spectacular performance for any mare, I don't know what to say.

Maybe there have been some better individual performances by mares that had many chances on dirt to show a peak, but not many. Some of those were by mares that were not in the same league overall.

If I made a list of the 5 best mares I have seen in 35 years, I doubt more than 2-3 would have hit the board with any degree of consistency in that race or any other Classic no matter what a few of their numbers say, let alone after being used to stay in the game because they weren't used to the surface. If any of those great mares raced against each other regularly they would have taken turns beating each other. None of them wold have dominated.

[classhandicapper]

I don't think I'll ever read anything more silly than this.

Who is this sharp player? DanG? I'll put Dahoss up against him, or anyone else, any day.

It's not my place to evaluate the relative handicapping skills and knowledge of people I don't know personally. There are many sharp people here. But without question DanG was one of the sharpest regulars before he decided to pack his bags and go elsewhere.

[PaceAdvantage]

But without question DanG was one of the sharpest regulars before he decided to pack his bags and go elsewhere.Can you elaborate just a bit on exactly why you considered him one of the sharpest regulars?

And when I called your reply silly, I was really talking about the fact that someone would actually leave a message board they had participated on for years, simply because there were others on the board who disagreed with your opinion. Because no matter what is claimed, that's what it all boiled down to in the end.

[cj]

If I made a list of the 5 best mares I have seen in 35 years, I doubt more than 2-3 would have hit the board with any degree of consistency in that race or any other Classic no matter what a few of their numbers say, let alone after being used to stay in the game because they weren't used to the surface. If any of those great mares raced against each other regularly they would have taken turns beating each other. None of them wold have dominated.

First off, I don't "disdain" class. I've just never seen anyone, including you, be able to actually tell me how to use it in any tangible way.

As for the above, you are probably right. However, you are ignoring the fact that her unique running style is the reason she was able to perform well in her last race. If she were a speedy mare, like most past greats, she would have been at a huge disadvantage taking on males going 1 1/4 miles.

However, that same style is exactly the thing that would have gotten her beat by many of those same fillies and mares in your normal, run of the mill G1s. You act like horses like Inside Information, Lady's Secret, and Serena's Song were never challenged by very good horses early. Not only were they, many times they drew off to win in very fast time.

If you want to say she was better because she fit one particular race better than most others, fine, but lets not pretend she would have dominated horses like Paseana, Go For Wand, and Bayakoa. It simply isn't true in my opinion. She might have beat them a few times IF things went her way, but if things didn't go her way, she would have lost more often that not. On dirt most times, it is my experience (and yours as well) that most likely things would not go her way a majority of the time.

None of that has a thing to do with class.

[cj]

If you think a mare missing by a head/nose in the BC Classic after getting disconnected due to kickback/not handling the surface and then being used early just to get back in game was not a spectacular performance for any mare, I don't know what to say.



So, I'm silly and ignorant, but you try to pass the above off as 100% positively true. It is a slanted spin by a fan in my opinion. If any other horse not named Zenyatta, she'd be called a plodder...which she was. A very, very good plodder, great even, but still, a plodder at the mercy of those in front of her.

[pandy]

To me a plodder is a one-paced horse that can't win a sprint and just outkicks tired horses. Zenyatta won her debut sprinting very impressively and easily. She was certainly not a plodder. Plus she was never at the mercy of the horses in front of her, she won regardless of the pace. You're kind of forgetting the fact that she won 19 of 20 and lost the other race by a nose. She wasn't at the mercy of anyone, they were at her mercy.

[cj]

To me a plodder is a one-paced horse that can't win a sprint and just outkicks tired horses. Zenyatta won her debut sprinting very impressively and easily. She was certainly not a plodder. Plus she was never at the mercy of the horses in front of her, she won regardless of the pace. You're kind of forgetting the fact that she won 19 of 20 and lost the other race by a nose. She wasn't at the mercy of anyone, they were at her mercy.

Surface, surface, surface. I've acknowledged all along she is the best synthetic horse ever. However, since that is in the vast minority, I don't think it counts very much.

On dirt, with the pace in her favor against the best horses she faced, she lost, albeit a close lose. There was no shame in that at all. It was a tremendous effort for a 6 year old male. It doesn't, however, change anything I wrote about earlier.

When she won that sprint, she wasn't a plodder, but her last season, she most certainly was.

[cj]

I'm also curious how people compare Azeri's run in the Classic to that of Zenyatta, both as 6 year old mares. I think they are actually extrememly close ability wise. One had a very tough trip and Beyered a 109, and her name doesn't begin with Z.

[elysiantraveller]

The only things a deep closer can hope for is a strong pace and a clear path and Z got both of them.

Azeri on the other hand was pinched onto a less than favourable rail by the best horse that has come around, easily, in the past 10 years to finish evenly for 5th in what was a good Classic field.

[thaskalos]

I'm also curious how people compare Azeri's run in the Classic to that of Zenyatta, both as 6 year old mares. I think they are actually extrememly close ability wise. One had a very tough trip and Beyered a 109, and her name doesn't begin with Z.
It's OUR fault...for not holding you to your promise to never talk about Zenyatta again...:)

But seriously though...this is what I don't understand about your position about Zenyatta since her loss in the Classic. And it has NOTHING to do with her "ability"...because, after all, this is all handicapping opinion...and we already know that horseplayers seldom agree on handicapping-related matters.

On the one hand, you say that Zenyatta's "valiant" loss was a COMPLIMENT!

But then...you proceed to refer to that loss, in post after post, as proof of her LIMITATIONS as a racehorse.

You have referred to the pace of that race as BRUTAL (it wasn't)...and of Zenyatta's trip as IDEAL (another exaggeration!).

It just does not seem like you want to be complimentary to this horse CJ...either that...or you are lousy at giving compliments.

[cj]

It's OUR fault...for not holding you to your promise to never talk about Zenyatta again...:)

But seriously though...this is what I don't understand about your position about Zenyatta since her loss in the Classic. And it has NOTHING to do with her "ability"...because, after all, this is all handicapping opinion...and we already know that horseplayers seldom agree on handicapping-related matters.

On the one hand, you say that Zenyatta's "valiant" loss was a COMPLIMENT!

But then...you proceed to refer to that loss, in post after post, as proof of her LIMITATIONS as a racehorse.

You have referred to the pace of that race as BRUTAL (it wasn't)...and of Zenyatta's trip as IDEAL (another exaggeration!).

It just does not seem like you want to be complimentary to this horse CJ...either that...or you are lousy at giving compliments.

It is because I think the pace was brutal (for those horses, not historically). I also think the trip was ideal. I don't count problems a horse has keeping up early, all of its own doing, as real trouble, but obviously that is just me.

Why not address the stuff I said about pace on dirt and those other great fillies and mares? What is so wrong with having a limitation? Seattle Slew had one, so did Spectacular Bid. It doesn't make them any less race horse.

[classhandicapper]

Can you elaborate just a bit on exactly why you considered him one of the sharpest regulars?

And when I called your reply silly, I was really talking about the fact that someone would actually leave a message board they had participated on for years, simply because there were others on the board who disagreed with your opinion. Because no matter what is claimed, that's what it all boiled down to in the end.

I've had a few conversations with him privately and read a lot of what he contributed here. I think he offered a lot of good insights and is very studious about gathering and using data.

You'd have to ask him why he left, but I don't think it was because people disagreed with him. I think he left because some of the commentary from serious people was just as idiotic as the extremes at the other end. At other times the conversation seemed agenda and bias driven. When those views were proven wrong, instead of acknowledging it, the chains were simply moved in order to keep the same positions and diminish her anyway.

The simple fact is that most of the commonly used metrics for evaluating performances, ability, and the quality of some of her competition (speed figures, various performance figures, winning margins, etc... ) were preposterously inadequate for evaluating her every step of the way. Some of that was specific to the peculiarities of synthetic tracks, but some of the same issues are equally true on dirt. Some people refused to recognize that.

At the margin there was room for a lot of opinions, but it's like the old man with a hammer story. To a man with only a hammer in his tool chest, everything looks like a nail.

You would think when a certain way of thinking about things keeps failing to adequately explain things, people would look for a new model.

It wasn't an accident that one of the most consistent horses of our generation ran speed figures that varied from "about" 80 to 112 (yes she ran an 80 this year, but Beyer arbitrarily adjusted it up because it would be embarrassing to publish an 80 and expose the ridiculousness of his own figures).

[classhandicapper]

First off, I don't "disdain" class. I've just never seen anyone, including you, be able to actually tell me how to use it in any tangible way.

As for the above, you are probably right. However, you are ignoring the fact that her unique running style is the reason she was able to perform well in her last race. If she were a speedy mare, like most past greats, she would have been at a huge disadvantage taking on males going 1 1/4 miles.

However, that same style is exactly the thing that would have gotten her beat by many of those same fillies and mares in your normal, run of the mill G1s. You act like horses like Inside Information, Lady's Secret, and Serena's Song were never challenged by very good horses early. Not only were they, many times they drew off to win in very fast time.

If you want to say she was better because she fit one particular race better than most others, fine, but lets not pretend she would have dominated horses like Paseana, Go For Wand, and Bayakoa. It simply isn't true in my opinion. She might have beat them a few times IF things went her way, but if things didn't go her way, she would have lost more often that not. On dirt most times, it is my experience (and yours as well) that most likely things would not go her way a majority of the time.

None of that has a thing to do with class.


CJ,

on class:

We've had plenty of public and private conversations where I suggested that pace and speed figures weren't accurately measuring the quality of a field even when no one was disputing them. Sometimes races come up fast or slow for no easy to identify reason. Viewing a field from a qualitative perspective helps you understand the actual level of performance.

I've often stated that IMO if two horses look approximately equal numerically (on pace and speed figures) but one earned those figures against vastly superior competition and was competitive within the race, it is usually the superior horse.

I often make non numeric trip comparisons within the same race.

I often talk about how horses are coming out of race etc..

Class handicapping is simply using qualitative non numeric measures to determine the level of performance because pace, speed, and performance figures are prone to error (sometimes significant) and don't measure everything that's going in a race. They compliment each other.

Zenyatta's style would be a disadvantage in some races, an advantage in others, and neutral in others. But at the highest levels of competition like the BC, paces are almost always highly competitive. I think few of the speedy great mares that ever lived would be very successful going 10F under deep conditions like the Classic. That's why I always said Zenyatta's camp should wait for the Breeder's Cup Classic to take on Rachel. There were no other great mares in the country that could run with Rachel. She would dominate any other female (even if they were going fast) on the front end but face her equal against males and create a more neutral race.

[the little guy]

It wasn't an accident that one of the most consistent horses of our generation ran speed figures that varied from "about" 80 to 112 (yes she ran an 80 this year, but Beyer arbitrarily adjusted it up because it would be embarrassing to publish an 80 and expose the ridiculousness of his own figures).


Nobody, on any message board, covering any topic, writes more and says less than you. However, this particular snippet takes the cake.

[classhandicapper]

It is because I think the pace was brutal (for those horses, not historically). I also think the trip was ideal. I don't count problems a horse has keeping up early, all of its own doing, as real trouble, but obviously that is just me.


It's always tough to get a numeric line on 10F races. I know you have that pace as brutal on your figures, but I don't think it was as fast as it looks.

Setting aside numbers, virtually the entire qualitative premise for the pace being fast rests on the fact that several speed horses finished up the track.

Upon closer examination that case is not too strong.
Jerry Brown, who is generally skeptical about biases unless they are extreme, made that day a terrible rail and I agree with him.

1. Quality Road has always been a bit suspect going 10F in a competitive race. He broke from the rail and raced there most of the way.


2. Espoir City looked like a quality horse (I used him in the BC futures), but he was a shipper from Japan and reportedly looked terrible in training all week. It was no shock he didn't fire his "A" race .

3. Haynesfied was another horse that looked like he really didn't want 10F in a highly competitive race. He had backed up a few times in his career when he didn't get a comfortable trip. He also had some trouble in the race.

4. But the most important evidence is that First Dude was the actual pace setter that supposedly put away all those solid Grade 1 horses after running such a fast pace. I don't buy it and never have.

Nothing in First Dude's record indicated he was anything more than a pretty good 3YO that was a notch bellow the best of his own generation. So he more or less finished right where he figured to finish - a few lengths behind some of the better 3YOs in the race. If it was the pace that did those other horses in, he also should have finished poorly, but he held up OK and finished ahead of some other decent horses.

Nothing he has done since then indicates that he ran really well that day either. I think that's because the pace was lively and honest, but it didn't have a huge impact on even him, let alone QR and the others. IMO the other horses on or near the lead simply did not want 10F in a high quality race, got buried on the rail, or didn't fire.

[cj]

CJ,

But at the highest levels of competition like the BC, paces are almost always highly competitive.

So, again, you are basing it on the dynamics of one race. What other races would even fit that category? Certainly not any of the G1 routes for females. I choose to base horses on what one could do over a variety of circumstances, not a specific one that favors its preferred style.

Lets say Azeri and Zenyatta raced ten times, nine against females. The other would be the BC Classic. I would bet Azeri would win at least six at a bare minimum, and as many as eight times. I'm assuming most of the female races would be 9f with maybe one or two at 10f.

[classhandicapper]

Nobody, on any message board, covering any topic, writes more and says less than you. However, this particular snippet takes the cake.

Uh, exactly what part of that comment do you have a problem with?

The figures are correct and the point is extremely relevant.

Beyer himself will tell you he often arbitrarily adjusts his figures when he thinks the pace might have impacted the final time.

When I commented to him privately that that would cause issues for handicappers that incorporate pace, he told me he did it because he thought it was in the best interests of the DRF readership to have figures that came closer to representing the horses ability than the reality and that serious handicappers should make their own figures.

Perhaps "embarrassed" was the wrong choice of words, but any method that can produce a variance of 32 points for a horse with a remarkably consistent record has some real issues. I would say giving Zenyatta an 80 would have raised some eyebrows and made it obvious how ridiculous they can be at times and how poor they were for evaluating her and many other horses/races. It did take him a couple of years to figure that out though.

[classhandicapper]

So, again, you are basing it on the dynamics of one race. What other races would even fit that category? Certainly not any of the G1 routes for females. I choose to base horses on what one could do over a variety of circumstances, not a specific one that favors its preferred style.

Lets say Azeri and Zenyatta raced ten times, nine against females. The other would be the BC Classic. I would bet Azeri would win at least six at a bare minimum, and as many as eight times. I'm assuming most of the female races would be 9f with maybe one or two at 10f.

I think Zenyatta would beat Azeri more often than the other way around as long as it was a Grade 1 race for fillies and mares that produced a pace that was honest for high quality horses like Zenyatta and Azeri. In a weak field where Azeri dominated the front, it would be tougher, but Z would beat her sometimes.

I think Zenyatta would get much the best of her going 10F in the Classic and without knowing, most likely dominate her on synthetic.

[cj]

It's always tough to get a numeric line on 10F races. I know you have that pace as brutal on your figures, but I don't think it was as fast as it looks.

Setting aside numbers, virtually the entire qualitative premise for the pace being fast rests on the fact that several speed horses finished up the track.

Upon closer examination that case is not too strong.
Jerry Brown, who is generally skeptical about biases unless they are extreme, made that day a terrible rail and I agree with him.

1. Quality Road has always been a bit suspect going 10F in a competitive race. He broke from the rail and raced there most of the way.


2. Espoir City looked like a quality horse (I used him in the BC futures), but he was a shipper from Japan and reportedly looked terrible in training all week. It was no shock he didn't fire his "A" race .

3. Haynesfied was another horse that looked like he really didn't want 10F in a highly competitive race. He had backed up a few times in his career when he didn't get a comfortable trip. He also had some trouble in the race.

4. But the most important evidence is that First Dude was the actual pace setter that supposedly put away all those solid Grade 1 horses after running such a fast pace. I don't buy it and never have.

Nothing in First Dude's record indicated he was anything more than a pretty good 3YO that was a notch bellow the best of his own generation. So he more or less finished right where he figured to finish - a few lengths behind some of the better 3YOs in the race. If it was the pace that did those other horses in, he also should have finished poorly, but he held up OK and finished ahead of some other decent horses.

Nothing he has done since then indicates that he ran really well that day either. I think that's because the pace was lively and honest, but it didn't have a huge impact on even him, let alone QR and the others. IMO the other horses on or near the lead simply did not want 10F in a high quality race, got buried on the rail, or didn't fire.



You could have stopped after the first part. The clock that day and the history of times at that track and distance is what tells me the pace was fast for those horses. If anything, I'm understating it because the Derby is the race predominantly run under those circumstances, and the pace, even for the winner, is generally quite a bit faster than it would be for G1 older males. However, since the sample size is small, I am forced to mix the two together.

Throw in the fact that the rail was probably dead and that pace setter was in the three path, running at least a few extra lengths around the first turn, and I think you can see why I believe what I do.

[FenceBored]

Uh, exactly what part of that comment do you have a problem with?

The figures are correct and the point is extremely relevant.

Beyer himself will tell you he often arbitrarily adjusts his figures when he thinks the pace might have impacted the final time.

When I commented to him privately that that would cause issues for handicappers that incorporate pace, he told me he did it because he thought it was in the best interests of the DRF readership to have figures that came closer to representing the horses ability than the reality and that serious handicappers should make their own figures.

Perhaps "embarrassed" was the wrong choice of worlds, but any method that can produce a variance of 32 points for a horse with a remarkably consistent record has some real issues if that's what you are using as the basis for evaluating ability.

I'm sorry, I thought one of the 'positives' about Zenyatta was her ability to do only so much as was needed to win a particular race. Wasn't that the explanation for her lack of large winning margins? If that's the argument, then of course she would have a variance in her actual level of effort from race to race and that effort and the figures derived from it would vary with the level of competition faced and the pace setup of the particular race.

[cj]

I think Zenyatta would beat Azeri more often than the other way around as long as it was a Grade 1 race for fillies and mares that produced a pace that was honest for high quality horses like Zenyatta and Azeri. In a weak field where Azeri dominated the front, it would be tougher, but Z would beat her sometimes.

I think Zenyatta would get much the best of her going 10F in the Classic and without knowing, most likely dominate her on synthetic.

I don't care about synthetics, and likely nobody else will in a few years. I'm talking dirt.

Again, you throw in the "pace clause" as if that is some given right for a closer. Of course in my guess, I'm assuming a mix of slow, average, and fast paces. Why can't you do the same? That is how racing works.

I'd love to know how Z would ever beat Azeri going 9f setting a slow pace, let alone sometimes, as in more than once.

[classhandicapper]

You could have stopped after the first part. The clock that day and the history of times at that track and distance is what tells me the pace was fast for those horses. If anything, I'm understating it because the Derby is the race predominantly run under those circumstances, and the pace, even for the winner, is generally quite a bit faster than it would be for G1 older males. However, since the sample size is small, I am forced to mix the two together.

Throw in the fact that the rail was probably dead and that pace setter was in the three path, running at least a few extra lengths around the first turn, and I think you can see why I believe what I do.

You are missing the point.

You are relying entirely on the published fractions, your data, your track variant, your formulas etc... and assuming they are all correct for that race.

Sometimes one or more of those things is simply wrong because of wind, timing issues, changing track speed, non uniform track speed, etc.. or the dynamics and track conditions are such that the fractions do not have the impact on the horses they usually do.

That's the whole point of viewing races from a qualitative perspective is to try to overcome those problems.

You know I love your numbers, but I often just set aside your PF because I am confident a supposedly fast pace didn't take anything out of the pacesetter.

Sometimes you just know the numbers are wrong and subsequent performance verify it.

It's not so obvious for that race, but I've been suspicious of that pace since the beginning and made several comments about First Dude being a potential bet against because some people were going to love him next out thinking he put away a bunch of fast horses in a very fast pace. He hasn't done anything to make me less suspicious.

[cj]

You are missing the point.

You are relying entirely on the published fractions, your data, your track variant, your formulas etc... and assuming they are all correct for that race.

Sometimes one or more of those things is simply wrong because of wind, timing issues, changing track speed, non uniform track speed, etc.. or the dynamics and track conditions are such that the fractions do not have the impact on the horses they usually do.

That's the whole point of viewing races from a qualitative perspective is to try to overcome those problems.

You know I love your numbers, but I often just set aside your PF because I am confident a supposedly fast pace didn't take anything out of the pacesetter.

Sometimes you just know the numbers are wrong and subsequent performance verify it.

It's not so obvious for that race, but I've been suspicious of that pace since the beginning and made several comments about First Dude being a potential bet against because some people were going to love him next out thinking he put away a bunch of fast horses in a very fast pace. He hasn't done anything to make me less suspicious.

Qualitatively speaking, the speed horses sucked that day, so fast pace or not it was still a good set up. If the pace was truly average or even slow, it makes the fact she couldn't keep up early even less of an excuse.

[classhandicapper]

I'm sorry, I thought one of the 'positives' about Zenyatta was her ability to do only so much as was needed to win a particular race. Wasn't that the explanation for her lack of large winning margins? If that's the argument, then of course she would have a variance in her actual level of effort from race to race and that effort and the figures derived from it would vary with the level of competition faced and the pace setup of the particular race.

The explanation is mostly the timing of her moves.

She moved at approximately the same time and got into approximately the same position regardless of the pace and then Smith asked for as much as he needed to get the job done. In relatively slow placed races, you can only draw off by so much and run so fast if you are only doing your best for the last 2-3 furlongs regardless of how much better you are.

Sometimes she was doing her best late, but was loaded with reserve stamina past the finish and sometimes she made the lead so easily she was geared down.

[classhandicapper]

Qualitatively speaking, the speed horses sucked that day, so fast pace or not it was still a good set up. If the pace was truly average or even slow, it makes the fact she couldn't keep up early even less of an excuse.

Oh we definitely agree the speed sucked. No doubt about that. But she ran well relative to the closers also.

I think the "not keeping up" part is a matter of your point of view.

Some people thought she was way way behind because she's very slow early and the faster dirt pace (faster than synthetic) put her much further back than usual.

I thought she reacted to kickback or wasn't handling the surface properly initially and as she was becoming disconnected Smith used her just to try to get back into the race.

There are two ways of looking at that.

1. It's not everyone else's fault she didn't handle the kickback and surface.

2. If she had gotten a little more seasoning on dirt like many suggested would be a good idea, she probably would not have reacted the way she did and won the race the race for fun instead.

I choose the latter because I think it's a better reflection of her natural ability and consider the loss a preparation issue. That was the downside of staying in CA so much.

[cj]

Oh we definitely agree the speed sucked. No doubt about that. But she ran well relative to the closers also.

I think the "not keeping up" part is a matter of your point of view.

Some people thought she was way way behind because she's very slow and the faster dirt pace (faster than synthetic) put her much further back than usual.

I thought she reacted to kickback or wasn't handling the surface properly initially and as she was becoming disconnected Smith used her just to try to get back into the race.

There are two ways of looking at that.

1. It's not everyone else fault she didn't handle the kickback and surface.

2. If she had gotten a little more seasoning on dirt like many suggested would be a good idea, she probably would not have reacted the way she did and won the race the race for fun instead.

I choose the latter because I think it's a better reflection of her natural ability and consider it a preparation issue. That was the downside of staying in CA so much.

I can agree with that, but if the pace wasn't fast, being used to "get back into it" shouldn't have really been a problem.

[classhandicapper]

I can agree with that, but if the pace wasn't fast, being used to "get back into it" shouldn't have really been a problem.

She was probably used for less than a furlong or so.

She reached the first quarter in her typical 26 (for last year), but it was probably a very uneven 26. I guess it was the right thing for Smith to do, but it can't help a horse to not be handling the surface or reacting to kickback for a furlong and then have to be pushed to get back into it to catch up.

[classhandicapper]

I don't care about synthetics, and likely nobody else will in a few years. I'm talking dirt.

Again, you throw in the "pace clause" as if that is some given right for a closer. Of course in my guess, I'm assuming a mix of slow, average, and fast paces. Why can't you do the same? That is how racing works.

I'd love to know how Z would ever beat Azeri going 9f setting a slow pace, let alone sometimes, as in more than once.

IMO, versatility at various distances on various surfaces is part of the evaluation of greatness. I know synthetics don't matter to most here, but handling multiple surfaces well says something.

Azeri was also a great mare when she was at her best. I think Zenyatta was better and would beat her more often than the other way around over the long haul. But again, I think in classic races like BC and Ladies Classic where titles are won and lost, Zenyatta would have a bigger edge because the paces would reflect the quality of horses like that instead of being slow relative to champions like that.

[cj]

IMO, versatility at various distances on various surfaces is part of the evaluation of greatness. I know synthetics don't matter to most here, but handling multiple surfaces well says something.

Azeri was also a great mare when she was at her best. I think Zenyatta was better and would beat her more often than the other way around over the long haul. But again, I think in classic races like BC and Ladies Classic where titles are won and lost, Zenyatta would have a bigger edge because the paces would reflect the quality of horses like that instead of being slow relative to champions like that.

That has never really been the case in the Distaff, and even the Classic isn't usually overly fast early. The only race that has a very fast pace most times is the Derby. I can't think of another true route that does.

[classhandicapper]

That has never really been the case in the Distaff, and even the Classic isn't usually overly fast early. The only race that has a very fast pace most times is the Derby. I can't think of another true route that does.

This is the way I look at it.

For arguments sake let's just call Azeri, Rachel and Zenyatta 110 horses.

If we are talking about a typical Grade 2 or Grade 1 filly and mare race the Beyer PARs are about a 98 and 102 respectively. So the pace on average will be in line with those figures. 98 and 102 may be PAR paces for those classes, "but they are slow for champions like these" that are 110 horses.

The Ladies Classic draws the best fillies and mares from all over the country. So the PAR for the pace and final time is going to be closer to 106 or 107. That's more in line with the quality of championship mares like these.

The BC Classic PAR will be more like a 116-117 and thus fast for even championship mares.

So I am saying if Zenyatta faced either Rachel or Azeri in some typical Grade 1 or Grade 2 race, on average she would be at a disadvantage relative to if she faced them in the Ladies Classic race.

On average she would be at an advantage against them in the Breeder's Cup Classic against males.

Hence my view that Zenyatta should try to get Rachel at 10F against males. I long thought Rachel had very little chance of hitting the board in a 10F race like that and Zenyatta was almost lock to beat her even if she didn't win. :lol:

The paces of those Classic races may not be more likely to be fast relative to the final time, but they will be faster and more competitive than average Grade 1 races because the fields are deeper and stronger.

I would consider the Ladies Classic to be a neutral set of conditions, but I think Zenyatta would hold her own against those mares in the other races also.

[elysiantraveller]

She proved she was one of the greatest mares that ever lived on either surface (if not the greatest) and she also proved to be extremely versatile having won at a variety of distances, on multiple synthetic surfaces, dirt, and delivering a great race in the Classic.

You said this earlier and now you are drawing up "conditions" that would enable her to excel... :confused:

[Fastracehorse]

First off, I don't "disdain" class. I've just never seen anyone, including you, be able to actually tell me how to use it in any tangible way.

As for the above, you are probably right. However, you are ignoring the fact that her unique running style is the reason she was able to perform well in her last race. If she were a speedy mare, like most past greats, she would have been at a huge disadvantage taking on males going 1 1/4 miles.

However, that same style is exactly the thing that would have gotten her beat by many of those same fillies and mares in your normal, run of the mill G1s. You act like horses like Inside Information, Lady's Secret, and Serena's Song were never challenged by very good horses early. Not only were they, many times they drew off to win in very fast time.

If you want to say she was better because she fit one particular race better than most others, fine, but lets not pretend she would have dominated horses like Paseana, Go For Wand, and Bayakoa. It simply isn't true in my opinion. She might have beat them a few times IF things went her way, but if things didn't go her way, she would have lost more often that not. On dirt most times, it is my experience (and yours as well) that most likely things would not go her way a majority of the time.

None of that has a thing to do with class.


........I'm glad you brought this up.

I came from harness racing originally - glad to say I haven't played harness in over 10 years - sorry jugheads - and meltdowns have a severe affect on the finish position; late pacers being the benefactors.

But it isn't quite the same in tb racing; yes speed duels occur and the speed gets beat by strong late runners, like Zenyetta, but the late runners are also burdened by hot early paces; (not to the same degree but of similar consequence) and, therefore their late sustained runs cannot be underestimated as being the recipients of fortuitous hot paces.

It almost doesn't matter what pace a strong move was made into; you can expect similar if the horse is still sharp. Yes, tote finish may be different for most horses depending on the severity of pace, or lack of; and admittedly it is difficult to quantify numerically. That is what made Z's career so amazing.

She ran an incredible Classic in 2010; equal to her velociraptor type predation of foes in 2009; but she missed. How? She had a ferocious last 100 yard kick in 2010; maybe the brief steady in the stretch charted by Bris made the difference; if not the sluggish start.

Watch the overhead of the 2010 race. The lengths she spotted...........

fffastt

[Fastracehorse]

You are missing the point.

You are relying entirely on the published fractions, your data, your track variant, your formulas etc... and assuming they are all correct for that race.

Sometimes one or more of those things is simply wrong because of wind, timing issues, changing track speed, non uniform track speed, etc.. or the dynamics and track conditions are such that the fractions do not have the impact on the horses they usually do.

That's the whole point of viewing races from a qualitative perspective is to try to overcome those problems.

You know I love your numbers, but I often just set aside your PF because I am confident a supposedly fast pace didn't take anything out of the pacesetter.

Sometimes you just know the numbers are wrong and subsequent performance verify it.

It's not so obvious for that race, but I've been suspicious of that pace since the beginning and made several comments about First Dude being a potential bet against because some people were going to love him next out thinking he put away a bunch of fast horses in a very fast pace. He hasn't done anything to make me less suspicious.

.......a #'s players. Most figure makers know their inherent weaknesses and strengths.

If he is purely a #'s player he could still make $ by betting his advantages.

Class: figures offer amazing value in the right situations based solely on their merit. Probably the best single factor I know of.

However, of course you are right when you say that a comprehensive approach is needed for the large majority of races.

fffastt

[FenceBored]

The explanation is mostly the timing of her moves.

She moved at approximately the same time and got into approximately the same position regardless of the pace and then Smith asked for as much as he needed to get the job done. In relatively slow placed races, you can only draw off by so much and run so fast if you are only doing your best for the last 2-3 furlongs regardless of how much better you are.

Sometimes she was doing her best late, but was loaded with reserve stamina past the finish and sometimes she made the lead so easily she was geared down.

That has nothing to do with the determination of a final time based speed, though.

If you have a G1 class sprinter who 'only does enough to win' and faces a group where a 6f 1:12 will get the win, he'll run 1:12. If he needs 1:10.50, he'll run 1:10.50. If he needs 1:08, that's what we'll see. In what universe should those races (assuming equal track variants) have anything like the same speed figure? However consistently timed his move, no matter how consistent his wins. When you run slower, the figure's lower.

[classhandicapper]

.......a #'s players. Most figure makers know their inherent weaknesses and strengths.

If he is purely a #'s player he could still make $ by betting his advantages.

Class: figures offer amazing value in the right situations based solely on their merit. Probably the best single factor I know of.

However, of course you are right when you say that a comprehensive approach is needed for the large majority of races.

fffastt

I'm not anti-figures. I love them and think CJ makes some great ones. I've been a customer since almost the beginning. I am anti incorrect conclusions based on figures that I don't reflect ability because of the occasional weaknesses.

[classhandicapper]

That has nothing to do with the determination of a final time based speed, though.

If you have a G1 class sprinter who 'only does enough to win' and faces a group where a 6f 1:12 will get the win, he'll run 1:12. If he needs 1:10.50, he'll run 1:10.50. If he needs 1:08, that's what we'll see. In what universe should those races (assuming equal track variants) have anything like the same speed figure? However consistently timed his move, no matter how consistent his wins. When you run slower, the figure's lower.

Agreed.

What I was suggesting is that pace helps determine the final time.

If a horse always times it's move at approximately the same point in a race and always gets approximately the same position turning for home regardless of pace, the pace will have a huge impact on its final time.

If they reach 1M in 136 and the horse is 2 lengths off of it and rallying that's a lot different than if they reach 1M in 141 and the horse is 2 lengths off it and rallying. That kind of slow pace issue tend to not impact front runners as often.

I was simply suggesting that since we know this to be the case, a literal view of some of Zenyatta's speed figures were very misleading as to how fast she could actually run. She often faced fillies attempting to turn things into a boat race trying to beat her.

[classhandicapper]

You said this earlier and now you are drawing up "conditions" that would enable her to excel... :confused:

LOL

Hagler and Leonard were both great boxers, but in a 12 round fight instead of 15 round fight, using the largest possible ring to give SRL room to move, with gloves that take away the advantage of the bigger puncher, Hagler was asking for trouble.

I think the idea is to think in terms of neutral conditions.

[elysiantraveller]

Except thats not the picture you paint. Zenyatta is the greatest mare of all time was the statement and then you make the case to best be able to beat her contemporaries (Azeri, RA) she would needs faster males on the front to soften them up... sounds hypocritical... just sayin.

[PICSIX]

I haven't ignored anything; being it is Derby week and I will be out of town my time is very limited, but eventually I will give an example.

Can we please see the example? :confused:

Thanks,

Mike

[Cratos]

Can we please see the example? :confused:

Thanks,

Mike

In the “Triple Crown Trail” discussion on this forum I published a ranking of the pre-race Derby projections.

However if you are waiting for a detail explanation of how the model works from an algorithmic point of view that “ain’t happening” and the reason being is that the algorithms that was developed to make the model work is proprietary and the research and work that went into the development has been long and is still ongoing. Also there is some discussion to turn this into a retail software program.

If you have questions and they are not invasive to the inner workings of the model I will answer them; you can send me a PM

[cj]

In the “Triple Crown Trail” discussion on this forum I published a ranking of the pre-race Derby projections.

However if you are waiting for a detail explanation of how the model works from an algorithmic point of view that “ain’t happening” and the reason being is that the algorithms that was developed to make the model work is proprietary and the research and work that went into the development has been long and is still ongoing. Also there is some discussion to turn this into a retail software program.

If you have questions and they are not invasive to the inner workings of the model I will answer them; you can send me a PM

It is pretty clear what I asked for from the beginning and you agreed to give one. It has nothing to do with pre-race Derby projections. If you don't want to give one, just say so and we can delete this thread now.

[Tom]

If I had known it was going to take 170 posts to get to here, I would have bought Snap-capper Pro and been done with it!

[yak merchant]

If I had known it was going to take 170 posts to get to here, I would have bought Snap-capper Pro and been done with it!

Yes for a thread I checked almost daily to see if anything new was posted this thread might have ended up being the biggest wait of my time in all my years of reading PA.

[lsosa54]

In the “Triple Crown Trail” discussion on this forum I published a ranking of the pre-race Derby projections.

However if you are waiting for a detail explanation of how the model works from an algorithmic point of view that “ain’t happening” and the reason being is that the algorithms that was developed to make the model work is proprietary and the research and work that went into the development has been long and is still ongoing. Also there is some discussion to turn this into a retail software program.

If you have questions and they are not invasive to the inner workings of the model I will answer them; you can send me a PM

Can you give us some basic insight as to how you came up with your pre-race choices?:

Grits, the following are my choices:
1. Midnight Interlude
2. Derby Kitten
3. Archarcharch

[classhandicapper]

Except thats not the picture you paint. Zenyatta is the greatest mare of all time was the statement and then you make the case to best be able to beat her contemporaries (Azeri, RA) she would needs faster males on the front to soften them up... sounds hypocritical... just sayin.

That's not what I said.

I said she proved she was among the greatest mares of all time on two surfaces and possibly the greatest of all time. I was then defining the conditions I think would be in her favor, neutral, and against her vs. some of the other great mares. IMO, you have to define neutral. All the great mares had distance and pace preferences.

To give a an extreme example, she might not beat a lot of best sprinting fillies of all time going 6F on a speed favoring good rail day on the sharp turned Aqu Inner. ;)

[classhandicapper]

Cratos,

IMO one of the biggest issues facing "numeric handicappers" is that all horses are unique in terms of the relationship between their short term speed/brilliance and stamina even when their overall ability tends to be similar.

Everyone knows that. They classify horses as speed horses, stalkers, closers, even paced grinders, assign letters to define them, create numbers to measure them etc... even when they of the same class.

But then almost everyone uses either speed figures alone or performance figures than combine pace and final time that treat all these horses the same way in their formulas.

It's as if changing the pace from 46 to 44 will have the same impact on a lightning bolt of a horse and a more even paced horse just because they are very similar in overall ability (the same is true of all large variances).

It's as if a deep tiring track will impact the speedy faint hearted horse as much as the speedy horse loaded with stamina or that a closer without deep reserves of stamina won't be impacted at all.

Aside from accuracy issues, surface differences etc... I think this is where all the existing numeric models fall apart.

If you are working towards addressing that, it's likely you will have a leg up.

To date, the only approach that works for me is more class oriented comparative trip style handicapping and an analysis of the horse's overall record.

[Tom]

But then almost everyone uses either speed figures alone or performance figures than combine pace and final time that treat all these horses the same way in their formulas.

Where did you get that crazy idea????

[Cratos]

Yes for a thread I checked almost daily to see if anything new was posted this thread might have ended up being the biggest wait of my time in all my years of reading PA.

Yak, I apologize and I didn’t realize that there was urgency for me to present an example. Therefore I have chosen the Schuylerville Stakes at Saratoga from last year to give an example; the example should be posted before the end of today. The reason for my choosing that race is that it is a 6f race where none of the horses have ever run 6f and I hope I will be able to illustrate the projected time at the greater distance.

[classhandicapper]

Where did you get that crazy idea????

I don't think I was clear.

I don't know much about energy ratings/Sartin methodology etc... I know many people make pace figures for individual fractions, categorize horses, and look at different ratings depending on running style, but I've never seen a method that tries to incorporate each fraction into a performance figure that varies by horse even when the fractions are the same.

22 45 is treated like 22 45 no matter which horse did it.

But IMO 22 45 may be a jog in the park for one horse and a ticket to being eased for another even though they may finish in a head bob if the fractions were 22.3 46.1.

Many people try to handle this with pace figures and match up analysis before the race and by looking at charts and race development after the race, but I haven't seen a formula that says the impact of 22 varies by horse and calculates the performance figure or total rating that way.

If one exists, I'd like to see it so I can see if it's getting to the crux of the problem that I think exists. It seems like an incomprehensible problem to me. :confused:

[thaskalos]

Yak, I apologize and I didn’t realize that there was urgency for me to present an example. Therefore I have chosen the Schuylerville Stakes at Saratoga from last year to give an example; the example should be posted before the end of today. The reason for my choosing that race is that it is a 6f race where none of the horses have ever run 6f and I hope I will be able to illustrate the projected time at the greater distance.
No disrespect Cratos - I am always fascinated by your posts, eventhough most of what you say is "over my head" - but, IMO, a race which is YET to be run would be much more instructive than one whose winner is already known.

Based on my own experience, it gets considerably easier to predict and explain the chaotic nature of this game...after the race is run.

As Tom Ainslie so brilliantly remarked:

"After every race, another system is born."

[Cratos]

Cratos,

IMO one of the biggest issues facing "numeric handicappers" is that all horses are unique in terms of the relationship between their short term speed/brilliance and stamina even when their overall ability tends to be similar.

Everyone knows that. They classify horses as speed horses, stalkers, closers, even paced grinders, assign letters to define them, create numbers to measure them etc... even when they of the same class.

But then almost everyone uses either speed figures alone or performance figures than combine pace and final time that treat all these horses the same way in their formulas.

It's as if changing the pace from 46 to 44 will have the same impact on a lightning bolt of a horse and a more even paced horse just because they are very similar in overall ability (the same is true of all large variances).

It's as if a deep tiring track will impact the speedy faint hearted horse as much as the speedy horse loaded with stamina or that a closer without deep reserves of stamina won't be impacted at all.

Aside from accuracy issues, surface differences etc... I think this is where all the existing numeric models fall apart.

If you are working towards addressing that, it's likely you will have a leg up.

To date, the only approach that works for me is more class oriented comparative trip style handicapping and an analysis of the horse's overall record.

Indirectly my model addresses the issue that you have pointed out. The model takes 3 curves into consideration for pace: F-curve (front-runner), P-curve (presser), and C-curve (closer). Those designations are only for the model and are not distinct to any horse because pace can dramatically change style. The model solves this issue with exponential curve fitting. The trick is getting the negative constant, β correct.

[classhandicapper]

Indirectly my model addresses the issue that you have pointed out. The model takes 3 curves into consideration for pace: F-curve (front-runner), P-curve (presser), and C-curve (closer). Those designations are only for the model and are not distinct to any horse because pace can dramatically change style. The model solves this issue with exponential curve fitting. The trick is getting the negative constant, β correct.

It appears you are attempting to solve the problem. :ThmbUp:

And the record, most of what you say is over my head too. :lol:

My after the race analysis goes something like this:

It was a hot pace between similar rivals, the winner of the duel weakened and finished 3rd and the others were very well beaten or eased. If I plug the fractions into the formula I use it will tell me that the horse that finished 3rd ran it's usual race and the others were terrible. But since I know that several in form losers of that duel got killed, I know that my numeric representation of their performance is probably incorrect. My formula just broke down at the extreme for several horses.

[Cratos]

No disrespect Cratos - I am always fascinated by your posts, eventhough most of what you say is "over my head" - but, IMO, a race which is YET to be run would be much more instructive than one whose winner is already known.

Based on my own experience, it gets considerably easier to predict the chaotic nature of this game...after the race is run.

As Tom Ainslie so brilliantly remarked:

"After every race, another system is born."

You are absolutely correct, but I agreed with CJ that I would use a race from Saratoga. However I will be more than happy to use a future race from the current Belmont meet.

This is not necessary about picking the winner, but to show the fallacy of speed figures in respect to energy distribution. If you review my post in the “Triple Crown” section it is clear that speed figures would not have pointed you in the direction of Animal Kingdom.

Admittedly, I didn’t choose the horse and gave my reasons for not doing so, but it doesn’t change the fact that when energy distribution is taken into consideration; and speed, stamina, and strength are integrated into an single metric, Animal Kingdom was a worthy consideration.

[Cratos]

Can you give us some basic insight as to how you came up with your pre-race choices?:

Grits, the following are my choices:
1. Midnight Interlude
2. Derby Kitten
3. Archarcharch

Midnight Interlude projected to be one of the faster horses in the race and having Bob Baffert as its trainer didn’t hurt him because Baffert had been to the Derby and won.

Derby Kitten was my X-factor, he looked awfully fast off of the model’s projections and coupling that with my “greed” (I know that was an irrational decision) he became my second choice.

Archarcharch was my choice to pick up the pieces if the speed broke down, be came up lame and was never a factor in the Derby.

[TrifectaMike]

Indirectly my model addresses the issue that you have pointed out. The model takes 3 curves into consideration for pace: F-curve (front-runner), P-curve (presser), and C-curve (closer). Those designations are only for the model and are not distinct to any horse because pace can dramatically change style. The model solves this issue with exponential curve fitting. The trick is getting the negative constant, β correct.

Cratos,

Would the β be directly proportional to a fatigue factor allowing you to project farther on your scale?

Mike (Dr Beav)

[cj]

No disrespect Cratos - I am always fascinated by your posts, eventhough most of what you say is "over my head" - but, IMO, a race which is YET to be run would be much more instructive than one whose winner is already known.

Based on my own experience, it gets considerably easier to predict and explain the chaotic nature of this game...after the race is run.

As Tom Ainslie so brilliantly remarked:

"After every race, another system is born."

The point of the thread was that there was a better way to rate horses from races already run than speed figures. I was asking for a race that had been run to be rated, just like one would assign figures, but using Cratos' method. I don't want any trade secrets, just some generic stuff...like who ran better than looked because of energy distribution. From there, we can see how they do in the future.

It looks like now Cratos wants to give an example of how to use energy distribution to predict how horses will run a new distance. While a noble idea, that wasn't the original premise, at least in my opinion.

His original data was based on 1m races. I picked a race that would be a good test, at one mile. He changed to 2yo going 6f.

[cj]

You are absolutely correct, but I agreed with CJ that I would use a race from Saratoga. However I will be more than happy to use a future race from the current Belmont meet.

This is not necessary about picking the winner, but to show the fallacy of speed figures in respect to energy distribution. If you review my post in the “Triple Crown” section it is clear that speed figures would not have pointed you in the direction of Animal Kingdom.

Admittedly, I didn’t choose the horse and gave my reasons for not doing so, but it doesn’t change the fact that when energy distribution is taken into consideration; and speed, stamina, and strength are integrated into an single metric, Animal Kingdom was a worthy consideration.

Animal Kingdom was running very slowly at the end of his last prep race. I'm not sure how that could make him worthy of consideration at a 1f longer distance. Please expound, after you tidy up the other stuff of course.

[Cratos]

The point of the thread was that there was a better way to rate horses from races already run than speed figures. I was asking for a race that had been run to be rated, just like one would assign figures, but using Cratos' method. I don't want any trade secrets, just some generic stuff...like who ran better than looked because of energy distribution. From there, we can see how they do in the future.

It looks like now Cratos wants to give an example of how to use energy distribution to predict how horses will run a new distance. While a noble idea, that wasn't the original premise, at least in my opinion.

His original data was based on 1m races. I picked a race that would be a good test, at one mile. He changed to 2yo going 6f.

CJ, we agreed on using a race from the previous meet at Saratoga, but I don’t remember you selecting a specific race or a specific distance.

However if you have a specific race from Saratoga or Belmont that was run at 1 mile I will be more than happy to use it.

I don’t understand how you misunderstood what I initially stated at the beginning of the thread, but whatever you thought I said is clearly not being understood by all readers.

However I don’t want to get sidetracked with a “you said, I said tangent.” I would like for you to post the race you selected at either Saratoga or Belmont previous meets and I will run it through the model and let the chips fall wherever they may.

[Cratos]

Animal Kingdom was running very slowly at the end of his last prep race. I'm not sure how that could make him worthy of consideration at a 1f longer distance. Please expound, after you tidy up the other stuff of course.

This is easy because you are referring to a discretionary point, whereas I am using the entire curve and if you do the calculations both logarithmically and exponentially I believe you will arrive at a similar conclusion as I did.

[cj]

CJ, we agreed on using a race from the previous meet at Saratoga, but I don’t remember you selecting a specific race or a specific distance.



I mentioned a recent one mile race at Belmont, the Westchester.

[cj]

Essentially using final times of a race to calculate speed figures is very weak and attempting to project times along a logarithmic curve is not easy.

This was the gist of it. My question was how do you use the curve to evaluate performance.

[gm10]

Animal Kingdom was running very slowly at the end of his last prep race. I'm not sure how that could make him worthy of consideration at a 1f longer distance. Please expound, after you tidy up the other stuff of course.


I still don't really know what happened to that Turfway race. Maybe there was a timer problem, maybe some track maintenance took place right before it, maybe the time was so slow because the horse did nothing more than required.

However he had finished fast in each of his other races.

[cj]

I know, that is how I judge races. Show us an example of how you compare a real race to that curve to determine how a horse ran.

The Westchester at Belmont on Apr 30 was at 1 mile. How does this fit your curve and what conclusions could you draw from the horses that ran in the race. I doubt any of them have run back, so this should be a good test.

[cj]

I still don't really know what happened to that Turfway race. Maybe there was a timer problem, maybe some track maintenance took place right before it, maybe the time was so slow because the horse did nothing more than required.

However he had finished fast in each of his other races.

The problem was the pace was very fast for that track and surface. Neither of your guesses make any sense.

[sjk]

The half time was likely wrong. The teletimer said 45.2 and that time was up well before the horses got to the pole. The chart said 46.2 but I think it was probably slower than that.

[cj]

The half time was likely wrong. The teletimer said 45.2 and that time was up well before the horses got to the pole. The chart said 46.2 but I think it was probably slower than that.

Apologies gm10, I stand corrected. I didn't realize that happened. Once one fraction is out of whack and not timed electronically properly, I don't trust any of them.

[Fastracehorse]

You are absolutely correct, but I agreed with CJ that I would use a race from Saratoga. However I will be more than happy to use a future race from the current Belmont meet.

This is not necessary about picking the winner, but to show the fallacy of speed figures in respect to energy distribution. If you review my post in the “Triple Crown” section it is clear that speed figures would not have pointed you in the direction of Animal Kingdom.

Admittedly, I didn’t choose the horse and gave my reasons for not doing so, but it doesn’t change the fact that when energy distribution is taken into consideration; and speed, stamina, and strength are integrated into an single metric, Animal Kingdom was a worthy consideration.

.......Cratos.

Speed figs did point towards Animal Kingdom - a projection method.

I'm not saying I had AK in the Derby, I didn't.

Interestingly, this same method of projection pointed towards Nehro when he finished 2nd at FG at 30 something to 1. I actually thought Nehro would go off at 4-1 in that race - that is what happens sometimes when your figs are good at projection ( you get too close to them); I got nothing out of the race.

fffastt

[Tom]

In some way, this thread is making up for them canceling All My Chidren.

[Cratos]

Cratos,

Would the β be directly proportional to a fatigue factor allowing you to project farther on your scale?

Mike (Dr Beav)

Correct

[Cratos]

.......Cratos.

Speed figs did point towards Animal Kingdom - a projection method.

I'm not saying I had AK in the Derby, I didn't.

Interestingly, this same method of projection pointed towards Nehro when he finished 2nd at FG at 30 something to 1. I actually thought Nehro would go off at 4-1 in that race - that is what happens sometimes when your figs are good at projection ( you get too close to them); I got nothing out of the race.

fffastt

Fast, according to several posts on this forum there were several other notable handicappers who picked Animal Kingdom. I didn't and I am honest about it and given the chance to do it all over again I don’t see my selections changing. Yes, I can now see why Animal Kingdom won and why others picked him to win, but again, I didn’t.

[Cratos]

The point of the thread was that there was a better way to rate horses from races already run than speed figures. I was asking for a race that had been run to be rated, just like one would assign figures, but using Cratos' method. I don't want any trade secrets, just some generic stuff...like who ran better than looked because of energy distribution. From there, we can see how they do in the future.

It looks like now Cratos wants to give an example of how to use energy distribution to predict how horses will run a new distance. While a noble idea, that wasn't the original premise, at least in my opinion.

His original data was based on 1m races. I picked a race that would be a good test, at one mile. He changed to 2yo going 6f.

CJ, the Westchester is an excellent choice.

[Cratos]

I was asked by CJ to apply the model to the previous G3 Westchester Stakes which was run at Belmont on April 30, 2011.

The winner was known before the analysis was made and therefore this isn’t an attempt to pick a known winner, but to look at the energy distributions of the contenders and see whether they make sense.

After running the PPs through the model the result5s were as follows:

Convocation 99.01

Caixa Eletronia 95.99

Schoolyard Dreams 97.90

Haynesfield 94.41

Christmas for Liam 96.59

There is no doubt that off of the PPs, Haynesfield was the classier and faster horse, but he hadn’t run since November of last year although that wouldn’t eliminate him, it would make him a suspect choice. Convocation comes with speed and he had run previously against Haynesfield, but the model says at the end with his high PFT he would burn too much energy too early.

Therefore why would Caixa Electronia win? As I said before, this is not picking the winner because race had been run, but to give an assessment of why this horse won.

Except for Haynesfield, Caixa Electronia PFT projected much better than any other horse in the race and his last two races were exceptional. Given his odds of 10-1 and his PFT in such a small field I would say he was worth the eager.

Christmas for Liam looked to be a strong contender off of his two recent mile wins, but the model rated him third best in the field.

Incidentally, the Belmont surface SSRV for April 30th was +.26 which meant it was running .26 seconds fast.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Oh my god 2 + 2=4 doesn't solve reality.Let's headache about it til the wheels come off.:cool:

[PaceAdvantage]

Oh my god 2 + 2=4 doesn't solve reality.Let's headache about it til the wheels come off.:cool:I'm not sure how this was supposed to be helpful.

[cj]

How does this tell me how they ran that day?

Please, enlighten us on how the horses ran that day compared to your curve, and what it tells us we can expect in the future.

[gm10]

Cratos, personally I am more interested in the overall performance of your model.
Can you pick a set of, say, 1000 races and tell us how often your model predicted the winner, compared with how often the public picked the winner in those races.

Unless I've misunderstood, you are using this to predict the running time of a horse in a race and as such the winner of the race. I do something similar but with the extra step of converting the predicted time into a predictive rating.

[classhandicapper]

If we keep digging, eventually I think we'll get to some ratings we can discuss, but it does seem like we took a detour, wound up where we started, and are going back in circles.

To me, the real issue is that there is a relationship between the fractions and the final time, but it varies by horse due to differences in innate overall ability and unique combinations of speed/stamina. It also varies by track surface (including the same surface on different days).

Most efforts to measure this in order to improve on standard speed figures fall apart at the extremes. They also yield highly suspect results in many other circumstances.

So the question becomes are you better off with half baked numbers or an analysis that goes something like this:

Rachel Alexandra and Life At Ten (a legitimate Grade 1 winner) got into a heated duel and opened up a huge gap on the rest of the field. Life At Ten wilted badly, but Rachel continued on until deep stretch until she was caught very late at 10F by a very inferior rival.

Given that LAT was a fairly consistent horse that held the show over a couple of other decent horses with superior trips and the fact that Rachel also weakened from their efforts, there was no reason to think LAT was simply dreadful that day. More likely, she ran her usual race but got put away by a vastly superior mare. (Subsequent efforts reinforced that view).

So we continue to rate LAT as a Grade 1 caliber mare and consider Rachel to have run a very high caliber race (superior to average Grade 1) despite the loss to a somewhat mediocre rival at 10F.

That's not exactly very precise, but at the time there was a lot of controversy about the speed figure for the race and the impact of the pace. That was my analysis right after the race (posted here I believe) and it remains that. Rachel was excellent that day.

Unless Cratos has better numbers, sometimes I think we are better off with a more subjective non numeric analysis.

[Cratos]

How does this tell me how they ran that day?

Please, enlighten us on how the horses ran that day compared to your curve, and what it tells us we can expect in the future.

I am not sure what you are looking for explicitly because what you are getting is the output from a model. To go into great detail about how the numbers were generated would be a violation of proprietary rights.

But when the race is remodeled against the actual final time of 1:34.26 for the mile, the horses ran very close to the curve

http://i.imgur.com/cxZEM.png

What is very significant is that when all horses in a given race is compared; the energy expenditure of past races with respect to distance clearly delineates where each horse should be in the race and how it will battle during the race.

In the Westchester, Christmas for Liam was a confirmed P-curve horse and performed exceptionally to that level, but his running at 40 MPH+ for the ½ mile (the typical distance a horse can maximize it energy) he was finished.

The great benefit of having the energy distribution by horse is that you can compile a database of the actuals for each horse and when they face each other again you will have a very good indication of which horse(s) have the energy to battle. But remember a significant part of this battle is how the jockey handles the animal and what the SSRV was at the time of the battle.

Therefore looking at the speed figure methodology with respect to physics and what I have found is that in a horse race there are two motion dynamics that should be observed.

One is the scalar quantity which is the magnitude of the velocity vector or simply the distance travelled per unit of time. This is the speed figure concept.

However the rate and direction of the change in the position of the horse during the race is what is more important because this is the velocity of the horse and in calculus terms this would be construed as the first derivative of position with respect to time. This is the pace figure concept.

What I am saying is that speed is a function of velocity or in horseracing terms final time is a function of pace.

With the above understanding I believe this is where figure developers speed and Andrew Beyer in particular went awry. They are confusing the dependent variable, speed with the independent variable, pace and this has led them to a false premise from which they are attempting to draw a true conclusion.

In other words, the premise that a speed figure at one race track can be concluded to be the same at another racetrack is flawed.

This unsound thinking comes from a lack of technical knowledge and a good understanding of physics.

Physics tells us that speed changes from track to track and surface to surface (i.e., synthetics and turf) because of the velocity surface resistance generated as the horse changes it position during the race. If the surface resistance is increased, the velocity is retarded and therefore speed is slowed. On the contrary, if the surface resistance is lessened the velocity is increased and therefore faster speed.

Since it takes energy and work by the racehorse to move, it can be clearly correlated that a horse will have more energy and can optimize its work as the surface resistance (SSRV) declines.

Therefore it should be very clear why the speed figure makers have failed miserably with their attempt to make figures for the synthetics and turf surfaces; and it is because each surface (including dirt) has its own unique surface resistance (SSRV).

Moving forward it is very wrong for the speed figure followers to suggest that speed figures are one of the best ways to “accurately” compare racehorses for greatness. “Accurately” suggests precision and where is the precise measurement in speed figures?

In my opinion they are very imprecise and they were intended to; and are used primarily as an qualitative assessment variable for performance and that is a distinction with a difference.

But why is that so? If I remember from his book, “Picking Winners,” Andrew Beyer was conceptually brilliant in using his speed figure concept to discover winners that were being overlooked by bettors because the bettors was looking at final actual times and they should have been looking at under what conditions were the final times developed; that makes speed figures an assessment of performance not a comparison to greatness.

The late Phil Bull, a mathematician and the founder of the timeform ratings and time figures was more in line with a comparison to greatness than an assessment to performance with his methodology because he used a hypothetical weight load to bring the quality and class of each racehorse into equality and at that point one could theoretically say which horse is greater. However that concept is somewhat flawed because of some of the adjustments and assumptions made on the model.

But let’s take a brief another look at the beloved “speed figure” concept and see if it is mathematically and statistically flawed.

First and foremost the concept ignores the general shape of the speed curve which is downward sloping and it attempts to measure all speed performances under the same performance distribution curve. The performance distribution curve for claimers is uniquely different than it is for stakes horses.

This is because of the inherent stamina ability between claimers and stakes horses make the slopes of their performance curves very different and their respective sigma values are more dispersed.

[Dahoss9698]

You asked for it CJ. I hope you're happy.

[PICSIX]

I am not sure what you are looking for explicitly because what you are getting is the output from a model. To go into great detail about how the numbers were generated would be a violation of proprietary rights.

But when the race is remodeled against the actual final time of 1:34.26 for the mile, the horses ran very close to the curve

http://i.imgur.com/cxZEM.png

I don't understand most of what you are saying, but I do think there is merit in what I've highlighted.

Thanks for posting.

Mike

[pandy]

So what you're saying is a long-winded way to the old axiom pace makes the race.

I agree with you about speed figures being a flawed way to gauge greatness. Rachel Alexandra was a good example of a filly who was over hyped because of her speed figures. She was a great filly but not as good as many think because when you come right down to it, the best field she ever beat was in the 2009 Woodward and it was at 9 furlongs (not 10) and it was a pretty ordinary field. It's not the speed figures, it's who you beat.

I like your energy ratings. In my computer System I have an energy rating which rates the amount of energy a horse has left for the finish. It's sort of the opposite of Sartin early energy distribution. Very useful rating.

[Dahoss9698]

Rachel Alexandra was a good example of a filly who was over hyped because of her speed figures. She was a great filly but not as good as many think because when you come right down to it, the best field she ever beat was in the 2009 Woodward and it was at 9 furlongs (not 10) and it was a pretty ordinary field. It's not the speed figures, it's who you beat.


Oy vey.

[cj]

I don't understand most of what you are saying, but I do think there is merit in what I've highlighted.

Thanks for posting.

Mike

This?

The performance distribution curve for claimers is uniquely different than it is for stakes horses.

This is because of the inherent stamina ability between claimers and stakes horses make the slopes of their performance curves very different and their respective sigma values are more dispersed.

Why not show us the difference then? I would argue the differences aren't nearly as great as Cratos would have us believe. I've seen that it is skewed earlier for cheap horses of course, generally moves towards late as class increases, but moves back the other way for top stakes horses because the races become more competitive.

[cj]

So what you're saying is a long-winded way to the old axiom pace makes the race.

I agree with you about speed figures being a flawed way to gauge greatness. Rachel Alexandra was a good example of a filly who was over hyped because of her speed figures. She was a great filly but not as good as many think because when you come right down to it, the best field she ever beat was in the 2009 Woodward and it was at 9 furlongs (not 10) and it was a pretty ordinary field. It's not the speed figures, it's who you beat.

I like your energy ratings. In my computer System I have an energy rating which rates the amount of energy a horse has left for the finish. It's sort of the opposite of Sartin early energy distribution. Very useful rating.

Yeah, beating the Derby winner (a horse getting a great trip) after dueling while wide through fast fractions going 9.5f wasn't much.

[Fastracehorse]

Yeah, beating the Derby winner (a horse getting a great trip) after dueling while wide through fast fractions going 9.5f wasn't much.

........and beating G-1 older males after taking the bull by the horns...

fffastt

[Tom]

A 3yo filly beating older males in a graded dirt route - how often do you wee that happen?

RA made history that day.


But back to curves - sound like we are talking about pars here.

[davew]

somewhere around 25 years ago I bought a system from a prolific system seller (possibly Dan Pope?) that had charts and numbers and they used fractional times and position change in stretch I think, to find a energy score - they said they had engineering background


This thread brought back the memory along with my more recent experiences and I wonder how hard it would be to make scores of every horse after a race - taking into consideration traffic, lanes out on turns, bad starts, steadied.

to get a value on every horse from every race could be a handicapping breakthrough similar to Rags sheets or Beyers speed

[Cratos]

A 3yo filly beating older males in a graded dirt route - how often do you wee that happen?

RA made history that day.


But back to curves - sound like we are talking about pars here.

Pars are points not curves

[Cratos]

somewhere around 25 years ago I bought a system from a prolific system seller (possibly Dan Pope?) that had charts and numbers and they used fractional times and position change in stretch I think, to find a energy score - they said they had engineering background


This thread brought back the memory along with my more recent experiences and I wonder how hard it would be to make scores of every horse after a race - taking into consideration traffic, lanes out on turns, bad starts, steadied.

to get a value on every horse from every race could be a handicapping breakthrough similar to Rags sheets or Beyers speed

This model will do exactly that and more

[Cratos]

This?



Why not show us the difference then? I would argue the differences aren't nearly as great as Cratos would have us believe. I've seen that it is skewed earlier for cheap horses of course, generally moves towards late as class increases, but moves back the other way for top stakes horses because the races become more competitive.

In all due respect I have responded to your request, but I haven't seen anything from you except opinions and criticisms; please enlighten me and others with your mathematical and statistical knowledge that will refute what I have stated..

[GameTheory]

All sounds very similar to the "Bioenergetics" book described in this thread:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=67461

[Cratos]

All sounds very similar to the "Bioenergetics" book described in this thread:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=67461
I have not read this book, but I will purchase it and read it to see if our concepts are similar

[classhandicapper]

CRATOS,

I suspect you are attempting to build the method I always dreamed of building if I had the time, energy, and physics/mathematics background to do so.:ThmbUp:

However, I really have to wonder how much of advantage it will gain over using a combination of the more common pace/speed and comparative class models that handicappers use now.

Once you get into numbers, there are many unavoidable pitfalls related to accuracy of completeness of data.

Once you get into comparative class handicapping, there are times there simply isn't enough information about the horses to draw a confident conclusion or where the classing structure is inefficient for some groups.

I've been battling and thinking about this dilemma for about 20 years. In fact, I would say thinking about the problem has limited me as a gambler.

I keep coming to the same conclusion though. To best understand a race result and performance, you have to look at it from both directions.

[GameTheory]

The bioenergetics is specifically about modelling anaerobic vs aerobic energy on a curve considering weight carried, etc. I haven't really digested it all yet.

[thoroughbred]

All sounds very similar to the "Bioenergetics" book described in this thread:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=67461

Game Theory,

There are some interesting aspects that are related to this in my paper:

http://www.revelationprofits.com/docs/Engineering%20Analysis.pdf

[cj]

CRATOS,

However, I really have to wonder how much of advantage it will gain over using a combination of the more common pace/speed and comparative class models that handicappers use now.


This is what I've been questioning all along. What real insights are gained that are not using pace and speed figures. Of course, Cratos was comparing it speed figures only, but I can't imagine there are serious players that don't realize the weaknesses of speed figures used in isolation.

[Cratos]

This is what I've been questioning all along. What real insights are gained that are not using pace and speed figures. Of course, Cratos was comparing it speed figures only, but I can't imagine there are serious players that don't realize the weaknesses of speed figures used in isolation.

What serious players realize is that speed figures are one-dimensional and are both weak when applied to physics and weak statistically. Furthermore, you are running an integrated model in which pace and speed is only part of the algorithmic process. I realize that you are a figure maker guru and God bless you, but that ship has sailed.

Many figure makers assailed Zenyatta as being less than stellar, but if you apply her performances under the following equation you would realize differently. F= m*a which states that force equals mass times acceleration and Zenyatta had both the mass and the acceleration thus it was the force that she applied on her adversaries in the race battle that brought them down to defeat. Speed figures would never detect that phenomenon.

[Cratos]

CRATOS,

I suspect you are attempting to build the method I always dreamed of building if I had the time, energy, and physics/mathematics background to do so.:ThmbUp:

However, I really have to wonder how much of advantage it will gain over using a combination of the more common pace/speed and comparative class models that handicappers use now.

Once you get into numbers, there are many unavoidable pitfalls related to accuracy of completeness of data.

Once you get into comparative class handicapping, there are times there simply isn't enough information about the horses to draw a confident conclusion or where the classing structure is inefficient for some groups.

I've been battling and thinking about this dilemma for about 20 years. In fact, I would say thinking about the problem has limited me as a gambler.

I keep coming to the same conclusion though. To best understand a race result and performance, you have to look at it from both directions.


Class, I have built an integrated predictive model that is designed to work on dirt, synthetics, turf, and all foreign race tracks because it is about geometry (track layout), environment; and speed, strength, and stamina as being the function of class of the racehorse.

I agree that comparative class handicapping is a tough nut to crack and the model makes assumptions that are hopefully correct. However you can make the model “learn” by changing the assumptions.

[Fastracehorse]

What serious players realize is that speed figures are one-dimensional and are both weak when applied to physics and weak statistically. Furthermore, you are running an integrated model in which pace and speed is only part of the algorithmic process. I realize that you are a figure maker guru and God bless you, but that ship has sailed.

Many figure makers assailed Zenyatta as being less than stellar, but if you apply her performances under the following equation you would realize differently. F= m*a which states that force equals mass times acceleration and Zenyatta had both the mass and the acceleration thus it was the force that she applied on her adversaries in the race battle that brought them down to defeat. Speed figures would never detect that phenomena.

......velocity is measured as m/s

.....horses' velocity is measured non-metrically by the teletimer; which is extremely accurate

......however, we want a comparative analysis so we need a physical coefficient; we simplify this vector of force under the umbrella of friction known as a track variant - simplified yes, but still complex enough to provide useful measurements for analysis

....and probably the strength of the above is it's speed of access

.......your measurement is 2-D; more complex; ATTEMPTING to be finite; and yet measures the same thing

......you love Physics Cratos

....one of the greatest inventions for Physicists is scientific notation; which simplifies the measurement of complex problems

......that's what speed and pace figures do

fffastt

[Cratos]

......velocity is measured as m/s

.....horses' velocity is measured non-metrically by the teletimer; which is extremely accurate

......however, we want a comparative analysis so we need a physical coefficient; we simplify this vector of force under the umbrella of friction known as a track variant - simplified yes, but still complex enough to provide useful measurements for analysis

....and probably the strength of the above is it's speed of access

.......your measurement is 2-D; more complex; ATTEMPTING to be finite; and yet measures the same thing

......you love Physics Cratos

....one of the greatest inventions for Physicists is scientific notation; which simplifies the measurement of complex problems

......that's what speed and pace figures do

fffastt

Fast, what is odd is that it has been said several time within this thread that is what speed and pace figures do, but I have yet to read one post with an overview of how that is done.

[Fastracehorse]

Fast, what is odd is that it has been said several time within this thread that is what speed and pace figures do, but I have yet to read one post with an overview of how that is done.

.....we use the teletimer to derive figs?

....the variant is like the coefficient of friction because it affects final time ( i said umbrella because wind speed and other factors affect final time )

fffastt

[lsosa54]

In 16 pages of this thread, I still see no example of how this approach would work in predicting the possible outcome of a race before it is run and what potential wagers one would come up with as requested in the first couple of posts.

I see no evidence of any predictive value and I see no evidence of the approach's profitability on a consistent basis. I also see nothing unique conceptually that has not been brought up at one time or another.

Is this approach profitable on all surfaces at all tracks and on all types of races (Breeder's Cup or a $5K claimer)?

What am I missing?

[Tom]

What serious players realize is that speed figures are one-dimensional and are both weak when applied to physics and weak statistically.

They are not meant to be applied to anything other than analyzing races and predicting winners.

[thaskalos]

Fast, what is odd is that it has been said several time within this thread that is what speed and pace figures do, but I have yet to read one post with an overview of how that is done.
Speed figures tell us how fast a horse is able to negotiate a given distance under normal or ideal circumstances...while pace figures inform us of the cases where the circumstances have been abnormal and far from ideal.

Using these figures in combination, the horseplayer is often able to make an educated guess as to level of a horse's performance in an upcoming race...against the circumstances this horse is likely to face.

The more seasoned the handicapper, the more "educated" his guesses become...but they are still GUESSES...based on imprecise data.

And carrying these imprecise figures to the fourth decimal place - the way you do - does not make them any more precise.

At least the speed/pace figure "gurus" realize the fallibility of the data they use for their hypothesis...

[cj]

In 16 pages of this thread, I still see no example of how this approach would work in predicting the possible outcome of a race before it is run and what potential wagers one would come up with as requested in the first couple of posts.

I see no evidence of any predictive value and I see no evidence of the approach's profitability on a consistent basis. I also see nothing unique conceptually that has not been brought up at one time or another.

Is this approach profitable on all surfaces at all tracks and on all types of races (Breeder's Cup or a $5K claimer)?

What am I missing?

Of course you aren't missing anything. He refuses to address his original premise.

[Cratos]

In 16 pages of this thread, I still see no example of how this approach would work in predicting the possible outcome of a race before it is run and what potential wagers one would come up with as requested in the first couple of posts.

I see no evidence of any predictive value and I see no evidence of the approach's profitability on a consistent basis. I also see nothing unique conceptually that has not been brought up at one time or another.

Is this approach profitable on all surfaces at all tracks and on all types of races (Breeder's Cup or a $5K claimer)?

What am I missing?

Simply stated this is a model; having spent some time in forecasting in corporate America before my retirement I find the model very consistent with forecast or predictive modeling.

What you are alluding to is an informative methodology that will allow you to use it personally. The model wasn’t develop for public use, but to give juxtaposition to speed figures that there is a better way and more efficient way to handicap thoroughbred racehorses.

I can understand why there might be some confusion, but this is a predictive model not open methodology.

[Cratos]

Speed figures tell us how fast a horse is able to negotiate a given distance under normal or ideal circumstances...while pace figures inform us of the cases where the circumstances have been abnormal and far from ideal.

Using these figures in combination, the horseplayer is often able to make an educated guess as to level of a horse's performance in an upcoming race...against the circumstances this horse is likely to face.

The more seasoned the handicapper, the more "educated" his guesses become...but they are still GUESSES...based on imprecise data.

And carrying these imprecise figures to the fourth decimal place - the way you do - does not make them any more precise.

Wrong and wrong again, speed figures do not tell how fast a

At least the speed/pace figure "gurus" realize the fallibility of the data they use for their hypothesis...

Wrong and wrong again, speed figures do not tell how a horse is able to negotiate a given distance under normal or ideal circumstances.

What they attempt to do is give comparative performance measurements using the “speed figure” as a grade.

Pace is the rate of travel and becomes the measured time for any distance of travel therefore it is the fraction of the total time at any given measured distance of the race.

[Cratos]

Of course you aren't missing anything. He refuses to address his original premise.

What original premise? Logic tells that a true conclusion cannot be drawn from a false premise. The only premise here is that speed figures are a weak and inefficient way to handicap thoroughbred racehorses and modeling is a better and more efficient way. What are missing are the algorithms to the model which were never intended to be revealed..

[Cratos]

They are not meant to be applied to anything other than analyzing races and predicting winners.

They are not predictive, but they do analyze

[cj]

Time to close this total waste of time thread since that doesn't appear to be only my opinion.