thedoctor200
02-09-2012, 08:45 PM
I'm playing around with speed which I treat as an overall number (i.e. not sections). I base my ratings on 100m times (i.e. runners time / distance / 100m) so I can compare across distances.
I'm trying to get a handle on stepping up or dropping back in distance. I'm finding the step up from 1200m (6 furlongs) to 1400m / 1600m (7 / 8 furlongs) in particular makes a big difference to pace - more so than any other change in distance. Is this other peoples views or am I struggling?
I'm finding my back analysis of races fits a lot better when I add more weighting to speed than say form, distance etc.
Keen to hear some views.
p.s. the reason I am covering off a lot of distances is that I'm targetting the Pick 6 in New Zealand once a week when it hits $100k plus.
I'm trying to get a handle on stepping up or dropping back in distance. I'm finding the step up from 1200m (6 furlongs) to 1400m / 1600m (7 / 8 furlongs) in particular makes a big difference to pace - more so than any other change in distance. Is this other peoples views or am I struggling?
I'm finding my back analysis of races fits a lot better when I add more weighting to speed than say form, distance etc.
Keen to hear some views.
p.s. the reason I am covering off a lot of distances is that I'm targetting the Pick 6 in New Zealand once a week when it hits $100k plus.