Quote:
Originally Posted by steveb
too many assumptions.
|
What am I assuming?
We already know that most US figure makers break out WAY more turf races than dirt races due to very slow paces. They have to or the final time figures would be meaningless as a representation of the horses' ability. This has been widely discussed.
We already know that at least some US figure makers don't use the same beaten length charts for turf as dirt because of the different race developments and tighter margins. Beyer has stated that and CJ has discussed some of those issues in this and other threads.
There are unquestionably days in the US when there is either a single turf sprint or single two turn turf race on that course and it's filled with horses that are first time starters or first time turfers about which you have very little insight for figure making.
Since public figure makers are in the unenviable position of having to provide a figure, they often base it on whatever prior evidence they do have and not necessarily on the clock because there is no means of determining the track speed accurately. It's a best guess not based on the clock. This is a regular problem in the US.
That's kind of what class handicappers at Timeform Europe do. They look at the horses' past records, watch the race, figure out who they think delivered their best run, and create a class oriented Timeform Rating for the horses based on that past record, today's finish, the weights etc... It's not all about the final time.
To me, when you call something a speed figure, you are talking about the final time. That's means it's not a projection of how fast you think the horses might have run if the pace was more reasonable etc... When you do that, it's more of performance figure.
Again, I have no problem with it. The idea is to help players evaluate the horses. It's a definition issue for me.