Quote:
Originally Posted by metro
Is it mostly the run-ups and turn times that account for the differences? what does the 17 pt. difference in the 6F and 8F splits equal in either real time or lengths?
Also, would appreciate your thoughts on this generalization....
One length is 8 feet, five lengths would be 40.
Beaten one length at a sprint equals approx. 1/5th of a second, beaten 5 lengths would be 1 second.
First calls (1/4) for 6F races at Pimlico historically have always been at least :23 seconds. Average 1/4 times for 6F races Saturday at Pimlico would support that. Therefore, imo, taking away one full second would get one to a truer time, handicapping wise, and on par with what a horse has demonstrated he can run in his other pps.
With that said can we assume that 40 feet is enough to get a thoroughbred up to race speed in a sprint? If it is 40 feet at a sprint wouldn't it be less at a route? Is there really that much difference (with the time/figures being discussed) between a run-up of 30 feet as opposed to 55 feet when trying to gauge how fast they are going?
|
The 17 point difference is in large part due to the distance of the race. As I said, comparing pace figures between races at different distances is not how the pace figures at TimeformUS were designed. They are best used as a comparison to final time for that race. Similar times, as you are aware as a track guy, are a lot more taxing at longer distances.
At the end of my Air Force career, I was almost 40, I was training for a half marathon with the goal to be to run in under two hours. I mostly ran about an eight minute a mile pace in training but as distances lengthened I couldn't keep that up. I knew I had to do about 9:15 to meet my goal. But what I found was that by running those eight minute miles for five or six miles, when I lengthened the distance I could clip off those 9:00 minute miles like they were nothing. I made my goal pretty easily and probably could have kept going for a while.
Shortly after we had a competition among various countries. I was one of eight guys for the US. I wasn't one of the eight best athletes but there were age requirements. The last race was the 1500 meters. Obviously the pace was much quicker. I wasn't really pacing myself, just trying to keep up with a couple others. In the end I ran a 5:50, getting dusted by two guys I just couldn't keep up with the whole way. It was way faster than I would have guessed possible. But I also felt like I was going to die.
Obviously the distances in horse racing are much closer together. But I exaggerate to make my point. If somebody were doing pace ratings for humans, those 1:30 quarter miles I was running early would have been high for me at 1500 meters but off the chart high (for me) in a half marathon. Sorry for the long winded example. That is for everyone. We do get some confusion on these numbers. They just aren't made to be compared across different surfaces and distances. Compare them to the final time to understand race shape. We have other tools for comparing raw speed, namely the Early Speed Rating and the Pace Projector.
As for run up, since no two races are run alike, there are no hard and fast rules. A lot of it depends on the pace and how hard horses are pushing from the gate. Distance matters of course too, but there are times 30 and 60 and even 90 might not have much effect at all, and other times there would be a huge difference.
