Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Thoroughbred Horse Racing Discussion > **TRIPLE CROWN TRAIL**


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 05-20-2018, 01:24 PM   #16
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by metro View Post
Was thinking the same, something commonly seen on big days like this when there is a big time gap between dirt races. My question would be... do they work the track (the same way as otherwise) between the Sir Barton and Preakness when they have all the pre-race stuff going on?

Splits of Sir Barton were pretty much on par with Preakness...

SB - 23:56, 46:96, 130, 1:36:19
PR - 23:11, 47:19, 142, 1:36:10

...yet closers didn't crack the top 3 in the former, an hour later and the speed is desperate for the wire. Yes there are other variables, weight, distance, class, horses dueling rather than loose on lead, etc.. but just seems odd that a one run type like Lone Sailor could make up 8 lengths on the Derby winner, in the span of two weeks, on a track that had been so speed favoring up to that point.

For a lot of reasons, comparing raw fractions at different distances is fool's gold. I'll list a few. For one, the longer distance requires a slower pace to run an optimal race. It isn't any different than people running the 200 meters versus the 400 meters. The opening 100 will be slower at 400 because people know if you go the same speed you'll tire more and finish in an overall slower time.

Another involves run up. Some track use consistent run up between distances but many don't. Pimlico uses only 30 feet for the Preakness distance while using 55 feet for the 8.5f races. When you combine longer run up with a shorter overall distance that enhances the difference.

You also have to consider how much of the turn is involved in each fraction at the different distances. This varies from track to track due to the layout of each, but obviously horses don't run as fast on a turn. An example is that on a standard mile track, the opening half mile for a six furlong race includes an entire turn while the seven furlong distance is only half a turn. That makes the 7f fraction look about 2/5 faster than it should if you try to compare it to 6f races.
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-20-2018, 01:27 PM   #17
Lemon Drop Husker
Veteran
 
Lemon Drop Husker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Lincoln, NE
Posts: 11,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj View Post
For a lot of reasons, comparing raw fractions at different distances is fool's gold. I'll list a few. For one, the longer distance requires a slower pace to run an optimal race. It isn't any different than people running the 200 meters versus the 400 meters. The opening 100 will be slower at 400 because people know if you go the same speed you'll tire more and finish in an overall slower time.

Another involves run up. Some track use consistent run up between distances but many don't. Pimlico uses only 30 feet for the Preakness distance while using 55 feet for the 8.5f races. When you combine longer run up with a shorter overall distance that enhances the difference.

You also have to consider how much of the turn is involved in each fraction at the different distances. This varies from track to track due to the layout of each, but obviously horses don't run as fast on a turn. An example is that on a standard mile track, the opening half mile for a six furlong race includes an entire turn while the seven furlong distance is only half a turn. That makes the 7f fraction look about 2/5 faster than it should if you try to compare it to 6f races.

Excellence. A man who knows his stuff.
Lemon Drop Husker is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-20-2018, 01:50 PM   #18
GMB@BP
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Posts: 5,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj View Post
For a lot of reasons, comparing raw fractions at different distances is fool's gold. I'll list a few. For one, the longer distance requires a slower pace to run an optimal race. It isn't any different than people running the 200 meters versus the 400 meters. The opening 100 will be slower at 400 because people know if you go the same speed you'll tire more and finish in an overall slower time.

Another involves run up. Some track use consistent run up between distances but many don't. Pimlico uses only 30 feet for the Preakness distance while using 55 feet for the 8.5f races. When you combine longer run up with a shorter overall distance that enhances the difference.

You also have to consider how much of the turn is involved in each fraction at the different distances. This varies from track to track due to the layout of each, but obviously horses don't run as fast on a turn. An example is that on a standard mile track, the opening half mile for a six furlong race includes an entire turn while the seven furlong distance is only half a turn. That makes the 7f fraction look about 2/5 faster than it should if you try to compare it to 6f races.
This is precisely why I stopped looking at raw charts across a card in any real statistical way, I still do to get a feel for how the races flows help up but across different distances there are way to many variables.
GMB@BP is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-20-2018, 07:48 PM   #19
metro
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj View Post
For a lot of reasons, comparing raw fractions at different distances is fool's gold. I'll list a few. For one, the longer distance requires a slower pace to run an optimal race. It isn't any different than people running the 200 meters versus the 400 meters. The opening 100 will be slower at 400 because people know if you go the same speed you'll tire more and finish in an overall slower time.

Another involves run up. Some track use consistent run up between distances but many don't. Pimlico uses only 30 feet for the Preakness distance while using 55 feet for the 8.5f races. When you combine longer run up with a shorter overall distance that enhances the difference.

You also have to consider how much of the turn is involved in each fraction at the different distances. This varies from track to track due to the layout of each, but obviously horses don't run as fast on a turn. An example is that on a standard mile track, the opening half mile for a six furlong race includes an entire turn while the seven furlong distance is only half a turn. That makes the 7f fraction look about 2/5 faster than it should if you try to compare it to 6f races.
Thanks for your reply.

I'm a former track/CC high school plodder so know fully well about energy distribution, early and late, human or animal.

Was aware of run-ups at Pimlico, more significant at 6F iirc. A good rule of thumb was/is to take a full second from first call times to get a better gauge on early speed there. Is that fairly accurate with what TimeForm does for that particular run-up?

Not a TF user otherwise so bear with me on the times/figures. Obviously your figures show the pace of the Preakness being faster at every point of call than the Sir Barton, with the exception of the final. My question would be what are the times that you give the Preakness at those points of call? If nothing else would especially be interested in the six furlong and mile split where you have 17 point differences

Last edited by metro; 05-20-2018 at 07:49 PM.
metro is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-20-2018, 11:35 PM   #20
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by metro View Post
Thanks for your reply.

I'm a former track/CC high school plodder so know fully well about energy distribution, early and late, human or animal.

Was aware of run-ups at Pimlico, more significant at 6F iirc. A good rule of thumb was/is to take a full second from first call times to get a better gauge on early speed there. Is that fairly accurate with what TimeForm does for that particular run-up?

Not a TF user otherwise so bear with me on the times/figures. Obviously your figures show the pace of the Preakness being faster at every point of call than the Sir Barton, with the exception of the final. My question would be what are the times that you give the Preakness at those points of call? If nothing else would especially be interested in the six furlong and mile split where you have 17 point differences
Good question. Our figures are meant to indicate race shape within a race, not to be compared to other races on different surfaces or different distances. We have something called adjusted fractions for that. These are for comparing which horse was actually traveling the fastest velocity wise. These are how Races 12 and 13 looked for the winner's on that measure:

cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-21-2018, 10:48 AM   #21
metro
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj View Post
Good question. Our figures are meant to indicate race shape within a race, not to be compared to other races on different surfaces or different distances. We have something called adjusted fractions for that. These are for comparing which horse was actually traveling the fastest velocity wise. These are how Races 12 and 13 looked for the winner's on that measure:

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?
metro is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-21-2018, 11:09 AM   #22
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by metro View Post
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.
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-21-2018, 01:30 PM   #23
f2tornado
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Bismarck, ND
Posts: 1,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by menifee View Post
CJ

Did all the also rans in the Preakness (other than Good Magic) run career tops on your numbers?
It looks like even he would have a new high Timeform figure. If the Timeform is more accurate then a bunch of horses nearly caught up with Justify. If Beyer is more accurate then Justify regressed and Bravazo and Tenfold sported new highs. Equibase figure more closely fits Timeform. Beyer provided some insight after the FrontRunner when his figure was called into question. He primarily suggested having several horses make large leaps to career bests in a race is almost unbelievable. It would seem more probable to me in the 2 and 3 year old ranks especially this time of year. I have read Storm Cat progeny tend to mature quickly and it's conceivable the rest of the crew really are simply catching up with him. And, there will be more fresh hooves targeting him at the Big Sandy. I would not be shocked if he won the race or pulled a Chrome and finished 4th.
f2tornado is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-21-2018, 01:42 PM   #24
metro
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj View Post
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.
Again, I agree on the dynamics of pace and how it's distributed. I compared the Sir Barton to the Preakness because it was the most significant other two turn race on the card and occurred right before the feature. I don't put as much into the 1/8th of a mile difference in distance though considering the class of the horses involved.

The run-ups imo are just splitting hairs so to speak when there are so many other variables involved. Just can't see how an extra 25 foot run-up could help create a 17 point difference, at two significant points of call, of the two races. Probably because I'm not the one making the figures, lol.

Obviously you and your colleagues have built a successful business at TimeformUS incorporating all those variables into your figures. For my sake it becomes a case of information overload when trying to compare the figures I get, or compute, from the DRF with those of Timeform or even services like Thorograph or Rags.

Anyway, your feedback is appreciated!
metro is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-21-2018, 02:30 PM   #25
Robert Fischer
clean money
 
Robert Fischer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Maryland
Posts: 23,513
In terms of actual performance, I'd say Bravazo's Derby and Preakness are indistinguishable.

His Preakness looks better, and will score better on systems because his trip was slightly better in a weaker race at a shorter distance.

Justify and Good Magic ran huge in the Derby. Bravazo was perhaps 5th best in the Derby, hard to pinpoint exactly with the variety of trips.

In the Preakness, Justify gutted out a win at maybe 80% condition. He proved best.

Tenfold actually inherited a puncher's chance of tripping into an upset win, but failed.

Bravazo had basically no chance to win, but continued on gamely, continuing to close the gap as they neared the wire. He held his condition from the Derby.

Good Magic was in an almost impossible position. His condition was maybe 90% of what it was in the Derby and the more talented Justify was going to inherit a lone lead in a race devoid of cheap speed. He was the 2nd best in the Preakness.
__________________
Preparation. Discipline. Patience. Decisiveness.
Robert Fischer is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-21-2018, 02:33 PM   #26
GMB@BP
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Posts: 5,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by f2tornado View Post
It looks like even he would have a new high Timeform figure. If the Timeform is more accurate then a bunch of horses nearly caught up with Justify. If Beyer is more accurate then Justify regressed and Bravazo and Tenfold sported new highs. Equibase figure more closely fits Timeform. Beyer provided some insight after the FrontRunner when his figure was called into question. He primarily suggested having several horses make large leaps to career bests in a race is almost unbelievable. It would seem more probable to me in the 2 and 3 year old ranks especially this time of year. I have read Storm Cat progeny tend to mature quickly and it's conceivable the rest of the crew really are simply catching up with him. And, there will be more fresh hooves targeting him at the Big Sandy. I would not be shocked if he won the race or pulled a Chrome and finished 4th.
Why is it so surprising that horse like Bravazo and Tenfold would run career best races and figures when they get a dream setup like they had on Saturday? Sitting behind dueling leaders who engaged the whole way, quickened at at the 3/8ths pole and tired late is exactly what I would have wanted had I trained those horses.

If there are overbet horses out of the Preakness its Tenfold and Bravazo.

Justify's issues in the Belmont wont be that he is too slow it will be that 12F is too much or maybe just too much racing the past couple months.
GMB@BP is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-21-2018, 02:34 PM   #27
GMB@BP
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Posts: 5,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Fischer View Post
In terms of actual performance, I'd say Bravazo's Derby and Preakness are indistinguishable.

His Preakness looks better, and will score better on systems because his trip was slightly better in a weaker race at a shorter distance.

Justify and Good Magic ran huge in the Derby. Bravazo was perhaps 5th best in the Derby, hard to pinpoint exactly with the variety of trips.

In the Preakness, Justify gutted out a win at maybe 80% condition. He proved best.

Tenfold actually inherited a puncher's chance of tripping into an upset win, but failed.

Bravazo had basically no chance to win, but continued on gamely, continuing to close the gap as they neared the wire. He held his condition from the Derby.

Good Magic was in an almost impossible position. His condition was maybe 90% of what it was in the Derby and the more talented Justify was going to inherit a lone lead in a race devoid of cheap speed. He was the 2nd best in the Preakness.
ha, more or less what I posted.
GMB@BP is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-21-2018, 04:22 PM   #28
f2tornado
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Bismarck, ND
Posts: 1,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMB@BP View Post
Why is it so surprising that horse like Bravazo and Tenfold would run career best races and figures when they get a dream setup like they had on Saturday? Sitting behind dueling leaders who engaged the whole way, quickened at at the 3/8ths pole and tired late is exactly what I would have wanted had I trained those horses.

If there are overbet horses out of the Preakness its Tenfold and Bravazo.

Justify's issues in the Belmont wont be that he is too slow it will be that 12F is too much or maybe just too much racing the past couple months.
To me it is not surprising in the 3 year old circuit. To Beyer, it might be. I'm not sold it was a "dream setup". The 3/4 fraction was identical to every other 3 year old route race this season, anywhere. The same old 1:11 and change. Correct, If Justify loses the Belmont it will be a combination of the rigorous TC schedule, but potentially also his competition improving. Like I noted previously, there's no shortage of observations of Storm Cat progeny developing more quickly than others. I'll play against in any 10+F race he partakes in going forward.
f2tornado is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-21-2018, 05:59 PM   #29
Spalding No!
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMB@BP View Post
Why is it so surprising that horse like Bravazo and Tenfold would run career best races and figures when they get a dream setup like they had on Saturday? Sitting behind dueling leaders who engaged the whole way, quickened at at the 3/8ths pole and tired late is exactly what I would have wanted had I trained those horses.

If there are overbet horses out of the Preakness its Tenfold and Bravazo.

Justify's issues in the Belmont wont be that he is too slow it will be that 12F is too much or maybe just too much racing the past couple months.
I agree with this. It also underscores the disappointment (from a fan's perspective) that goes with this decades long trend of holding top class Derby also-rans out of the Preakness to await the Belmont. Basically started around the turn of the century.

What would have transpired if Bolt D'Oro (given he was in form), Vino Rosso, Audible, My Boy Jack, or Hofburg followed the crowd to Pimlico assuming Good Magic still drew inside and still hooked Justify early?

NBC should have had camera crews trained on those horses' connections as they watched the race live...
Spalding No! is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-21-2018, 06:04 PM   #30
GMB@BP
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Posts: 5,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spalding No! View Post

NBC should have had camera crews trained on those horses' connections as they watched the race live...
ha, now thats funny
GMB@BP is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Reply




Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

» Advertisement
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2023 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.