Quote:
Originally Posted by ARAZI91
Man, that is a retro-dumb question from someone who apparently has forgotten more than most know about figure making. The relevancy of such a study is that it provides a benchmark (mean , median , percentiles or whatever) and context to figure makers in up/downgrading performances once the external conditions of the race and the internal condition of the horse are normalised. There is much value in determining how races "should" be run at varying trips over various surfaces and within that where horses "should" finish behind each other in lengths (the old universal metric of racing) which are effectively time margins(or should be in theory)
|
Well Arazi91 thank you for taking the time for explaining why the overall average position of the Placer is so important!
Apparently, you’ve also answered the question as to why my figures that were based on
ACTUAL time splits, final time, beaten lengths and track variants were so flawed and misguided. You see, I never considered the fictional concept of the using numbers based on
HYPOTHETICAL theories such as “how the race should be run” or where the horses “should finish behind each other”.
Gee, I always thought that analyzing the running and of each race was based on
REALITY. Thank goodness I gave all that up!
By all means - Carry on!
