Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cj
I did some research today that was pretty enlightening. I've always known turf finishes are tighter than dirt finishes in general, but I didn't know to what extent. The value of a beaten length in a turf race is much greater than a dirt race. It actually breaks out really clearly by distance, less than a mile and a mile and over:
< 1m Value of a beaten length in turf races is 1.6 times that of a similar dirt race
> 1m Value of a beaten length in turf races is 2.0 times that of a similar dirt race
I use different values for the two, but not to that extent. Beyer made and adjustment to use his 6.5 furlong chart for turf routes, but that is about the 1.3 to 1.4 range, not 2.0. I don't believe Rags or Thorograph or BRIS or Equibase differentiate between the surfaces.
This is definitely something I'll be digging into a lot deeper the next few weeks. It sure looks like also rans in turf races are being given more credit than they deserve by speed figure guys, myself included.
|
Good post CJ.
I think this illustrates how important linking Speed Figures, Pace Figures and Trip Handicapping is when it comes to evaluating races.
This is especially the case in turf races. The slightest bit for difficulty (wide trip, waiting for a hole, not ideal pace setup etc) can virtually eliminate a horse from hitting the board in a turf race.
Figures are fantastic tools but they only tell a piece of what happened and they need to be used with good trip notes and charts to get the full picture.
