Breeders' Cup TimeformUS Pace and Speed Figures

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by menifee

He did run well. It's funny I really was on him in a number of races last year including the Derby, Travers, etc. He ran well into those races, but obviously did not win. I jumped off. I guess his BC Dirt Mile last year was the indication that he might progress forward into his 4 yo year and be really good.

I guess you never know when they might get good or go bad.

You never do. Look at Cigar's career before the streak. Or Lava Man's or John Henry's before they got good. Or Alysheba's when he was futzing around as a 2 and early 3 year old before his surgery.

Sometimes a trainer finds the problem and corrects it. Or sometimes the horse just matures and fills out.

The opposite happens too, of course. Songbird kind of flattened out. And, ahem, Arrogate.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Gun Runner ran super this year. He was close to Arrogate when Arrogate was at the top of his game, and then got better. And the track was SLOW on Saturday- I was thinking about a 15 to 20 variant or so- so GR's time was excellent.

I think cj is right on the money.

The only race that they faced each other were Arrogate did not have major trouble or was not the same horse was the Travers....he beat him by like 20.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

The only race that they faced each other were Arrogate did not have major trouble or was not the same horse was the Travers....he beat him by like 20.

Gun Runner obviously got better between then and Dubai.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Gun Runner obviously got better between then and Dubai.

In Dubai he was hopelessly last and still ran by a horse getting a sweet perfect trip.

[cj]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

In Dubai he was hopelessly last and still ran by a horse getting a sweet perfect trip.

You should probably rewatch the Dubai dirt races that day again.

[LemonSoupKid]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

You never do. Look at Cigar's career before the streak.

Speaking of Cigar and why I knew we were walking into a Lion's Den betting wise at Del Mar, I always talk about his shot at the record for 17 straight. Dare and Go with Solis.

With all I've seen, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised that the track weighed heavily in that loss.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by LemonSoupKid

Speaking of Cigar and why I knew we were walking into a Lion's Den betting wise at Del Mar, I always talk about his shot at the record for 17 straight. Dare and Go with Solis.

With all I've seen, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised that the track weighed heavily in that loss.

I get what you are saying, though I think what really killed Cigar in 1996 was the three horse speed duel and a bad ride by Bailey. I suspect if you ran that same race at Aqueduct you probably get the same result.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

My simplistic methods maybe hit a few more.

Heck. I even a posted few.

Very well done CJ. I subscribe to your service, so don't kick me off your mailing list.

[Denny]

CJ,
I'm a new visitor here at Pace Advantage and have a question that maybe you've already gotten from someone else.

How closely do the TimeformUS figures compare to the European TF figures for Turf races? Are the Euro figures more class related since pace doesn't seem to be much of a consideration for them?

Thanks

[cj]

Originally Posted by Denny

CJ,
I'm a new visitor here at Pace Advantage and have a question that maybe you've already gotten from someone else.

How closely do the TimeformUS figures compare to the European TF figures for Turf races? Are the Euro figures more class related since pace doesn't seem to be much of a consideration for them?

Thanks

We try to keep them on the same scale. This is a constant work in progress. Timeform ratings are not speed figures (or pace), but speed does play a part in them. I'm generally pretty happy with the comparisons outside of sprint distances. I thought the Lady Aurelia and other shippers in the Turf Sprint were too high. I'm looking into it.

I noticed this once before when Undrafted shipped to England and won and got a rating much higher than he runs here. But when it comes to turf sprinters, there just isn't much to go in. The Euro sprinters just aren't all that good IMO and there aren't enough high class turf sprints here to entice sprinters to come.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by cj

All the BC winners dating back to 2004.

Looking back at it now, I'm pretty happy with it. I think the best horses have the best ratings, and the low rated ones were nothing special historically.

Those look great in hindsight.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by cj

We try to keep them on the same scale. This is a constant work in progress. Timeform ratings are not speed figures (or pace), but speed does play a part in them. I'm generally pretty happy with the comparisons outside of sprint distances. I thought the Lady Aurelia and other shippers in the Turf Sprint were too high. I'm looking into it.

I noticed this once before when Undrafted shipped to England and won and got a rating much higher than he runs here. But when it comes to turf sprinters, there just isn't much to go in. The Euro sprinters just aren't all that good IMO and there aren't enough high class turf sprints here to entice sprinters to come.

Is it possible curve vs. straightaway mucks it up too?

[cj]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Is it possible curve vs. straightaway mucks it up too?

The racing is so different I think it is a lot of things, including the straight versus the turn. Lasix versus no Lasix, firm courses versus not so firm courses, right handed versus left handed, high weight versus much lower weights, etc.

[LemonSoupKid]

Originally Posted by cj

We try to keep them on the same scale. This is a constant work in progress. Timeform ratings are not speed figures (or pace), but speed does play a part in them. I'm generally pretty happy with the comparisons outside of sprint distances. I thought the Lady Aurelia and other shippers in the Turf Sprint were too high. I'm looking into it.

I noticed this once before when Undrafted shipped to England and won and got a rating much higher than he runs here. But when it comes to turf sprinters, there just isn't much to go in. The Euro sprinters just aren't all that good IMO and there aren't enough high class turf sprints here to entice sprinters to come.

I wish I could have read this post pre-BC. CJ, I'm very interested in how those numbers fit too, just to get a ballpark of handicapping the shippers. I saw a lot of 117 to 120s for the more highly rated, but then you'd get a string of interesting PPs on 4-5 horses in a row sometimes first time Lasix, which I think O'Brien (for example) has used as a relatively big edge. Lasix is known to be performance enhancing, so it can't be denied as a handicapping tool. What's your take on the issues some shippers have who have those 130 TF ratings from the EU that don't do well? Mostly the track? What tips would you give handicappers in assessing them?

Thanks

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by cj

I'm generally pretty happy with the comparisons outside of sprint distances.

The Euro sprinters just aren't all that good IMO and there aren't enough high class turf sprints here to entice sprinters to come.

I'm struggling with the same thing in my own ratings.

I don't think our own turf sprinters are very good (relative to our routers), but it seems as though the Euro turf sprinters could be worse.