Effects of slow pace

[cj]

I'll never understand why those riding favorites seem to allow, and even encourage, slow paced races. This is my thinking. Slow paces lead to slow final times. The best horses are capable of running better times, so why in the world would you want a slow pace that allows more horses to be competitive?

Just a random thought for a Wednesday.

[classhandicapper]

I suspect I know what the thinking is, but I don't think it's always the best approach.

They are probably assuming that if they are on the fastest horse that day it will also be able to run the fastest last part of the race given it will be fresh. So if they have the lead, they should be able to win drawing away. If they are not on the fastest horse that day, the fact that the pace was so slow may make it impossible for the faster horses behind them to make up the difference in the last part.

That theory only holds water for me if the horse isn't using up energy fighting the rider's restraint and it has demonstrated it can finish well after going slow early. Also, there are probably some closers that are extremely fast for short periods of time that tend to get used up chasing normal paces. Those horses will now be fresh too and might catch you.

[mountainman]

Allow me to play devil's advocate: Aside from long grass races and occasional instances on dirt, I've never been totally convinced that slow fractions cause slow final times.

To me, it's a correlation rather than consequence. Of course slow splits correlate with slow final times: slow fractions often characterize a slow field-or a field that just isn't feeling it that day.

Giving some trips extra credit based on the fractions is one thing, but arbitrarily upgrading a final-time figure because of a slow pace strikes me as completely backwards and a classic confusing of cause and effect.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by cj

I'll never understand why those riding favorites seem to allow, and even encourage, slow paced races. This is my thinking. Slow paces lead to slow final times. The best horses are capable of running better times, so why in the world would you want a slow pace that allows more horses to be competitive?

Just a random thought for a Wednesday.

Jocks want to be seen as the reason for victory. That's why they get cute and draw atn to themselves on chalk.

[cj]

Originally Posted by mountainman

Aside from long grass races and occasional instances on dirt, I've never been totally convinced that slow fractions cause slow final times.

To me, it's a correlation rather than consequence. Of course slow splits correlate with slow final times: slow fractions often characterize a slow field-or a field that just isn't feeling it that day.

Giving some trips extra credit based on the fractions is one thing, but arbitrarily upgrading a final-time figure because of a slow pace strikes me as completely backwards and a classic confusing of cause and effect.

When I say the pace is slow, I'm saying to in comparison to the final time, so that pretty much excludes races that are just slow overall.

I'm talking about, for example, horses that are capable of going in 1:09. If these horses go 24 for the quarter and 48 for the half, they simply can't finish in 21 to reach their potential. The 1:09 horses now have to deal with horses that are only capable of 1:10 or even slower.

[cj]

Originally Posted by mountainman

Jocks want to be seen as the reason for victory. That's why they get cute and draw atn to themselves on chalk.

I think that is some of it, and I think more of it might be this silly notion of "saving" some horse for the next start.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by cj

When I say the pace is slow, I'm saying to in comparison to the final time, so that pretty much excludes races that are just slow overall.

I'm talking about, for example, horses that are capable of going in 1:09. If these horses go 24 for the quarter and 48 for the half, they simply can't finish in 21 to reach their potential. The 1:09 horses now have to deal with horses that are only capable of 1:10 or even slower.

I get your point. And a brisk final fraction could be one clue that certain horses weren't fully expended, but I would base that on my visual impression of tactics and reserve racing energy. And the example you give would be an extreme rarity.

With all respect, I remain skeptical that slow fractions actually impact final time on other than rare occasions.

[cj]

Originally Posted by mountainman

I get your point. And a brisk final fraction could be one clue that certain horses weren't fully expended, but I would base that on my visual impression of tactics and reserve racing energy. And the example you give would be an extreme rarity.

With all respect, I remain skeptical that slow fractions actually impact final time on other than rare occasions.

Of course my example was extreme to make a point, didn't mean to imply that happens often. As somebody that makes figures and track variants every day for every track, I'll have to agree to disagree. I see at least a few of these races every day where the final time is negatively effected by a slow pace.

[tophatmert]

Riders do seem to be less aggressive than they used to be. Perhaps the type of races we have now contributes to the problem. Poly racing , more turf and turf sprints, and a lot of short fields make for less urgency. The AQU inner used to be a speed track 75% of the time now it is more about being inside than speed. The old Chicago rider Juvenal Diaz used to go to the front then let the others come to him and pull away quickly. Make them use some energy to get to you instead of staying even and floating them out on the turn.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by cj

I'll never understand why those riding favorites seem to allow, and even encourage, slow paced races. This is my thinking. Slow paces lead to slow final times. The best horses are capable of running better times, so why in the world would you want a slow pace that allows more horses to be competitive?

Just a random thought for a Wednesday.

Yes...when the pace is slowed to an extreme level, it will negatively impact the final time...as will the QUICKENING of the pace to an extreme level. But the jockeys are not concerned about the "timing" of the particular race...they just want to WIN. And winning while setting a leisurely pace accomplishes the task of leaving the horse "fresher" for his subsequent race.

Question:

Let's say that you and I are runners...and you are obviously faster than me. You have the ability to take off and leave me far behind in the beginning of our race, but, for some reason, you decide to harness your "early speed"...thus making the early battle between us more "competitive" than it otherwise would have been. Would this strategy of yours improve my chances of beating you in the race...or would your superiority over me simply allow you to draw away from me late in the race? When a runner slows down the pace of the race and keeps the early pace "competitive"...it isn't as if he has given the rest of the field a "head start". The energy that he conserves by setting a leisurely pace still remains at his disposal within him...waiting to be used when it is most needed.

The problem, of course, is that these horses have pre-determined running styles...and sometimes have to be heavily restrained in order to slow down the pace. My guess is that this affects the temperament of the horse in a negative way...and that's why the stretch run isn't what the restraining jockey wants to to be. The horse probably gets frustrated and sulks during the early going...and just throws in the towel late.

The "theory" of the runner drastically slowing down the pace is sound...IMO. It just hasn't been thoroughly thought out as it applies to horses.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I suspect I know what the thinking is, but I don't think it's always the best approach.

They are probably assuming that if they are on the fastest horse that day it will also be able to run the fastest last part of the race given it will be fresh. So if they have the lead, they should be able to win drawing away. If they are not on the fastest horse that day, the fact that the pace was so slow may make it impossible for the faster horses behind them to make up the difference in the last part.

That theory only holds water for me if the horse isn't using up energy fighting the rider's restraint and it has demonstrated it can finish well after going slow early. Also, there are probably some closers that are extremely fast for short periods of time that tend to get used up chasing normal paces. Those horses will now be fresh too and might catch you.

I didn't see your post, CH. I started typing my post before you posted your comments...and finished it hours later...because I got tied up with something else. Had I seen your post...I would have rephrased mine.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by mountainman

Allow me to play devil's advocate: Aside from long grass races and occasional instances on dirt, I've never been totally convinced that slow fractions cause slow final times.

To me, it's a correlation rather than consequence. Of course slow splits correlate with slow final times: slow fractions often characterize a slow field-or a field that just isn't feeling it that day.

Giving some trips extra credit based on the fractions is one thing, but arbitrarily upgrading a final-time figure because of a slow pace strikes me as completely backwards and a classic confusing of cause and effect.

Mountainman,

In all due respect and hopefully you won’t take my response to your post as some scientific intellectual goby-gook, but I respectfully disagree with you.

Pace of any moving object whether it is man, animal, or machine is the “rate of motion of the object with respect to time and distance.”

In horseracing the object is the horse and the distance is the fixed distance of the race.

Therefore the final time elapsed over the “fixed distance” is determined by the “rate of motion” or pace.

Yes, there are races where the horses run at a “slow pace” early and still yield a respectable final time; and conversely there are races with “fast pace” early and the final time is less than average.

However I believe in both of the aforementioned cases we are speaking of outliers because in the aggregate of all races run in North America at all distances on both turf and dirt you will find a downward sloping race curve with the average final times being faster as the pace is faster.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I love this topic. It took one of the craziest and best people I know to open my eyes to the reality that a fast horse that "slows the pace up front" is not necessarily improving his chances. All too often it simply allows the remainder of the field to dictate to said pacesetter when the real running will begin and negate the benefit of opening up and getting a mid-race breather.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by Cratos

Mountainman,

In all due respect and hopefully you won’t take my response to your post as some scientific intellectual goby-gook, but I respectfully disagree with you.

Pace of any moving object whether it is man, animal, or machine is the “rate of motion of the object with respect to time and distance.”

In horseracing the object is the horse and the distance is the fixed distance of the race.

Therefore the final time elapsed over the “fixed distance” is determined by the “rate of motion” or pace.

Yes, there are races where the horses run at a “slow pace” early and still yield a respectable final time; and conversely there are races with “fast pace” early and the final time is less than average.

However I believe in both of the aforementioned cases we are speaking of outliers because in the aggregate of all races run in North America at all distances on both turf and dirt you will find a downward sloping race curve with the average final times being faster as the pace is faster.

Appreciate the response, sir, but must reiterate: faster fields that fire better to the points of call NATURALLY run faster final times-any parallel time chart establishes this. But in most cases, fields don't run faster final times BECAUSE they ran faster to the breaker beams, they run faster to the breaker beams because they are DESTINED (by reason of class or sharpness) to post faster final times.

With all respect, I think other theories confuse cause and effect. And final time figures upgraded because of soft increments strike me as arbitrary numbers derived from PREVIOUS performances that doubtful applied to the contest being rated. To paraphrase my opinion: I find it highly questionable to reward horses for running slowly.

Again, race-flow and running styles are a separate topic. And I do realize there are rare exceptions to my own theory.

And finally, this is just my subjective take on the issue. I could, of course, be completely mistaken.

[Appy]

"The problem, of course, is that these horses have pre-determined running styles"

It may be true that some horses tend to run to a certain style, but I believe a horses run style is determined more by the shape, or collection of styles, present in today's race.
Horses react to each other and that reaction can recreate a running style just for today.
It amazes me to watch my horses, who are well acquainted and have run with each other countless times, yet I can never be certain who will be the first back in the corral at the end of their stretch run.
I know which of my horses is the best sprinter, and which is the most enduring, and which is the best high rate cruiser, etc. But if you put Joel Rosario on one of them, and Joe Blow on another, I know which of those I'd choose.