Slowly paced turf races.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I agree with this.

The positional advantage of being near the front is often greater than the energy consumed by going faster early. Deeper closers are also typically tired at the end of dirt races despite going slower early and can't make up the difference unless the race falls apart.

On turf, almost everyone is full of run at the end. If you come from behind, it may not be easy to make up the ground on the fresh horses in front of you, but if you are the better horse you can often do it because you are still loaded with energy.

While you say you agree with cj's statement that grass is more tiring than dirt, your examples seem to imply the opposite - that that dirt is more tiring. I agree with this but not for the reason you cite in your 1st example for dirt races. I have previously posted why dirt sprints are an exception to the advantage of even pace running. What makes up for running faster than even pace early is not position but the momentum gained by early speed which mitigates the fatigue caused by the inefficient early speed.

I'm glad to see that in your 2nd paragraph you are agreeing with my previous statement that one of the the reasons late closers often win grass races is because they are better horses and overcoming the disadvantage of running inefficiently slow early. I believe your previous position that was that the horses running slower than even pace early on grass had an advantage.

[Tom]

On turf, almost everyone is full of run at the end

Almost......not the one I bet on.

[bobphilo]

In one of Beyer's books he relates a conversation he had with James Quinn regarding why dirt sprints run on the old California tracks favored inefficient early speed. It's a classic example of a self-fulfilling prophecy. The jockeys were so convinced that extreme early speed was the key that they rarely rated their horses and the races were run like mad Quarterhorse dashes. In such situations horses with the most early speed have the advantage as they can best tolerate the hot early splits. It had nothing to do with the so-called "speed favoring" nature of the surface but everything to do with the way the races were run. If races are run like short sprints they will be won by fast sprinters regardless of surface or distance.
The same is true in the opposite way for grass routes. Since it is widely believed that they favor late closers, despite the fact that this violates the laws of physics, they will be ridden as such and the results will appear to validate this incorrect belief.

[cj]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

While you say you agree with cj's statement that grass is more tiring than dirt,

I said the opposite actually.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

....I'm glad to see that in your 2nd paragraph you are agreeing with my previous statement that one of the the reasons late closers often win grass races is because they are better horses and overcoming the disadvantage of running inefficiently slow early. I believe your previous position that was that the horses running slower than even pace early on grass had an advantage.

Show some examples of horses who have run "efficiently" to win big races.

In theory, I probably agree with you, but in practice, I don't think that a horse can run an "efficient" race very often. If a jockey tries to put a horse on an efficient pace they run the risk of erring on the side of going too fast too early thus eliminating the chance to win. Because an efficient pace is determined primarily by the surface it would seem that guessing is all a jockey can do. Because of the fine line between efficient and too fast it is generally more productive to put a horse on a slower pace rather than seek the elusive efficient pace.

[cj]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Show some examples of horses who have run "efficiently" to win big races.

In theory, I probably agree with you, but in practice, I don't think that a horse can run an "efficient" race very often. If a jockey tries to put a horse on an efficient pace they run the risk of erring on the side of going too fast too early thus eliminating the chance to win. Because an efficient pace is determined primarily by the surface it would seem that guessing is all a jockey can do. Because of the fine line between efficient and too fast it is generally more productive to put a horse on a slower pace rather than seek the elusive efficient pace.

Drafting has been mentioned in other threads on this topic but not here. I think it is much more of a factor on turf than dirt due to the lack of kickback.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by cj

Nothing has been changed at this time. Doing some testing and if any changes are implemented it will be Jan 1.

I stated that "TimeformUS adjusts their final figure based on early pace, both slow and fast (mostly based on 1st call). They also give the final figure before it is adjusted for pace". I based this on the TFUS website and what I recall you saying. ClassHandicapper said this was not accurate. If my recollection is inaccurate, please correct.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

I stated that "TimeformUS adjusts their final figure based on early pace, both slow and fast (mostly based on 1st call). They also give the final figure before it is adjusted for pace". I based this on the TFUS website and what I recall you saying. ClassHandicapper said this was not accurate. If my recollection is inaccurate, please correct.

You also said that Cj has made a fundamental change in his procedure as a result of that "pace-pattern" thread that you started here some time ago. Am I wrong?

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by cj

I said the opposite actually.

I stand corrected. I misread that part of your post. Sorry.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

You also said that Cj has made a fundamental change in his procedure as a result of that "pace-pattern" thread that you started here some time ago. Am I wrong?

Without revealing too much of what was said to me in a private message, cj thanked me for starting a thread as a result of which a better way of applying "pause juice" in adjusting final figures than the traditional method being used of just looking at half mile splits in the type of races that I described. That is a fundamental change in how to evaluate these races. I have not mentioned this until now and only to answer your question.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

Without revealing too much of what was said to me in a private message, cj thanked me for starting a thread as a result of which a better way of applying "pause juice" in adjusting final figures than the traditional method being used of just looking at half mile splits in the type of races that I described. That is a fundamental change in how to evaluate these races. I have not mentioned this until now and only to answer your question.

Please don't misunderstand me...I gathered that something like that must have taken place when I saw you express yourself in the manner that you did in that post. The only reason I brought this up to you was because Cj subsequently stated here that no procedural change would be made before January 1st.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Show some examples of horses who have run "efficiently" to win big races.

In theory, I probably agree with you, but in practice, I don't think that a horse can run an "efficient" race very often. If a jockey tries to put a horse on an efficient pace they run the risk of erring on the side of going too fast too early thus eliminating the chance to win. Because an efficient pace is determined primarily by the surface it would seem that guessing is all a jockey can do. Because of the fine line between efficient and too fast it is generally more productive to put a horse on a slower pace rather than seek the elusive efficient pace.

I'm not saying that a horse has to run efficiently to win big races. It is just one of many positive factors, just like saving ground is. Just as there are times when a horse has to go wide to avoid trouble, there are times when a horse has to deviate from even pace to gain position or for a number of other reasons. The belief that I am arguing against is that a horse is better off running inefficiently because of the surface. Running inefficiently is not intrinsically a good thing but sometimes a necessary evil to avoid something worse. It's never a good strategy for it's own sake but yet, not only is it undervalued, inefficient running is often considered a plus for its own sake because of the surface in defiance of the laws of physics.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Please don't misunderstand me...I gathered that something like that must have taken place when I saw you express yourself in the manner that you did in that post. The only reason I brought this up to you was because Cj subsequently stated here that no procedural change would be made before January 1st.

The date of that change, if any, was not mentioned at that time, but my only point is that that thread did result in an important new way of evaluating the effects of pace. Your question did put me in the uncomfortable position of where if I didn't answer it I would appear to be a liar and if I did answer it truthfully I would appear to be bragging (if I wanted to do that I would have done so long ago). I will give you the benefit of the doubt in that I don't think you were intentionally putting me in that position.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

The date of that change, if any, was not mentioned at that time, but my only point is that that thread did result in an important new way of evaluating the effects of pace. Your question did put me in the uncomfortable position of where if I didn't answer it I would appear to be a liar and if I did answer it truthfully I would appear to be bragging (if I wanted to do that I would have done so long ago). I will give you the benefit of the doubt in that I don't think you were intentionally putting me in that position.

I sensed that my question put you in an uncomfortable position...that's why I wanted to make my own position a little clearer. With the new year fast approaching...I no longer have an appetite for those little jousting games that we sometimes play here.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

I'm not saying that a horse has to run efficiently to win big races. It is just one of many positive factors, just like saving ground is. Just as there are times when a horse has to go wide to avoid trouble, there are times when a horse has to deviate from even pace to gain position or for a number of other reasons. The belief that I am arguing against is that a horse is better off running inefficiently because of the surface. Running inefficiently is not intrinsically a good thing but sometimes a necessary evil to avoid something worse. It's never a good strategy for it's own sake but yet, not only is it undervalued, inefficient running is often considered a plus for its own sake because of the surface in defiance of the laws of physics.

I am not arguing that a horse is better off running inefficiently. You imply that a jockey has a choice to make the horse run efficiently or not. I don't believe that a jockey has the power/skill to do that.