Sidebar

[Nitro]

There's been quite a bit of interest recently in threads titled “Speed Figure Comparisons”, “Distance Between Winner & Place Horse”, and “How Long is a Length”. All have a common theme that revolves around the attempt to quantify a horse’s performance based on time.

I was recently digging through some of my old speed handicapping notes from many years ago and I came across some things I thought I had discarded. I thought I might pass on a brief summary of why I shelved Speed handicapping. There could be others who might also be somewhat skeptical about trying to develop truly accurate Speed profiles or figures.

Before I get into it I’d like to preface this scenario by stating that we can all agree that there are many Classes of horses that will also perform at various speed level benchmarks. In other words, the classier animals will generally run faster at any given distance from gate to wire.

With that in mind I’m going use some average time fractions from a typical 6F race on a fast dirt track for a mid-level claiming race at a reasonably sized race track.

I thought an appropriate Summary Title might read:
Fallacies in Creating Accurate Speed Figures.

So, let’s start off by arranging and combining some basic related facts and conditions:
1) A 6F race is ¾ of a mile long which equates to 3,960 feet.
2) There are 3 primary points of call:
¼ mile (1320 feet), ½ mile (2640 feet), and finish - 3/4 mile (3960 feet)
3) There is no consideration taken for the track condition (variant) other than it being rated generically listed as fast without any wind.

The Race Times:
The raw time fractions used for each point of call will be generally recognized as:
¼ mile) - 22 & 3 (22.6) sec
½ mile) - 46 & 4 (46.8) sec
¾ mile) - 1:12 flat (72) sec

Factual summary:
It took the leading horse 22.6 seconds to reach the ¼ m. pole.
It took the leading horse an additional 24.2 seconds to reach the 1/2m. pole.
It took the leading horse an additional 25.2 seconds to reach the finish line.
The only portion of the race where obvious acceleration occurs is during the first ¼ mile.
The remaining two ¼ mile intervals indicate an obserable deceleration.

Controversial Premise:
So, to arrive at a time figure based on beaten lengths you might have already noticed that you simply can’t use constant numerical value like 1 length = 1/5 (0.20) sec. Why? Because any numerical constant would be based on merely utilizing an overall average velocity which is not the case as demonstrated above. Now let’s keep in the back of our mind what many seem to believe to be what a typical “length” should equal: Somewhere between 8 and 10 feet.

Establishing the “Beaten Length”
If a ¼ m = 1320 ft and it’s covered in 22.6 sec than the final avg velocity = 58.4 ft/sec
Dividing this velocity by a 1/5th of a second = 11.68 feet
If the next ¼ m is covered in 24.2 sec than the final avg velocity = 54.5 ft/sec
Dividing this velocity by a 1/5th of a second = 10.90 feet
If the final ¼ m is covered in 25.2 sec than the final avg velocity = 52.3 ft/sec
Dividing this velocity by a 1/5th of a second = 10.46 feet

By comparison, if you were to mistakenly think that the average velocity was based on just the overall final time of 72 sec (1min,12sec) for 3960 feet = 55 ft/sec which would equate to a length being equal to 11 feet.

Class Consideration
Without going any further, we have to also keep in mind that we’re just using an average Class of horse in this example. As the Class rating improves, so do the times at each point of call, which again would not only increase the average final velocity at each call, but the length equivalent as well. (And visa-versa)

This is one of the reasons why horses moving up and down the Class ladder at various times during their racing careers are affected by the new average velocities at each point of call that they must face in each race. Of course that’s both good and bad depending on how much the Class rating changes.

The Beaten Length Fantasy
The proposed clarification of a beaten length dimension is all well and good and should be considered. However, the genuine crux of the matter for attempting to establish truly accurate time figures for all entries in a race lies not only in utilizing the proper beaten length factor for a specific portion of the race, but an underlying factor that seems to be completely overlooked or maybe even ignored.

I call it the "Phantom Dynamic".

The easiest explanation for the recognition of this Phantom Dynamic is to think about what’s commonly being done to establish an accepted time figure for each entry that’s behind the horse at any point of call. Basically, a static snapshot is taken when any leading horse reaches a specific predetermined spot on the race course. Simultaneously an observed measured distance (beaten length) is established for each of the trailing entries. This stationary measurement completely disregards the running dynamic velocity of any individual entry at that moment. In point of fact, some of the entries may be accelerating while others are decelerating. This technique simply presumes (erroneously) that each entry being examined will pass that SAME point of call based on a static beaten length which is based on the velocity of the leading horse. This couldn’t be further from the truth because “acceleration” or “deceleration” is defined as a dynamic change in velocity over a specific period of time.

An example would be an entry, say 4 lengths behind a leading horse at the ½ mile pole. From the race times used above the leading horse has reached this position in 46.8 seconds and has a final average velocity of 54.4 ft/sec. If we accept that a beaten length during that portion of the race is 10.9 feet it would mean that this horse would cross the same point 0.8 seconds later or in 47.6 seconds. However, if this same pursuing horse happens to be accelerating during that portion of the race with an average velocity of 58 ft/sec. its actual time would be 47.5 seconds. This same scenario could also be applied to the final ¼ mile of any race. A 10th of second doesn’t sound like very much of a difference, but at 58 ft/sec it equates to 5.8 feet. How many races are won (or lost) by less of a margin (approx ½ a length).

Conclusion:
The actual measurement of a beaten length can vary at various fixed points in a race due to changes in the average velocities of the leading horse. However, computing the actual time of a trailing horse at any point of call should not be dependent on its beaten lengths in conjunction with the speed of the leading horse but rather on its own average velocity. The problem becomes actually measuring that velocity. Multiplying this Phantom Dynamic by the number of points of call can certainly alter the calculated Speed profile of any entry.