Moss Figures

[Kash$]

Any fans?

I currently use TimeformUSfigs..Big difference between both..

[ronsmac]

Originally Posted by Kash$

Any fans?

I currently use TimeformUSfigs..Big difference between both..

They're shaky at best. I'd rate them c or c plus.. I've compared them to my pace figs thatthat I have 90% certainly in. Especially shippers since I only make numbers for one track. Overall I'd say they're unreliable. You're better off with tfus.

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by Kash$

Any fans?

I currently use TimeformUSfigs..Big difference between both..

Not a fan of Moss's numbers. Not attacking them, just not a fan. I think it's always best to make your own analysis of fractions in IMO and that includes timing a race yourself/checking run up distances if you think something is off.

[proximity]

isn't it a COMPLETELY different methodology? timeform--energy. moss--velocity.

or did cj start publishing moss style numbers where leaders at shorter distances are going to on average have HIGHER pace figures than leaders at longer distances?

[proximity]

Originally Posted by ronsmac

They're shaky at best. I'd rate them c or c plus.. I've compared them to my pace figs thatthat I have 90% certainly in. Especially shippers since I only make numbers for one track. Overall I'd say they're unreliable. You're better off with tfus.

your pace pars get higher as the distances get shorter?

I don't believe we've ever actually discussed this?

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

Not a fan of Moss's numbers. Not attacking them, just not a fan. I think it's always best to make your own analysis of fractions in IMO and that includes timing a race yourself/checking run up distances if you think something is off.

Since a horse in the gate is at zero velocity; aren't you just making an acceleration calculation with your run up calculation?

Also an interesting calculation is to calculate the final time of two horses at 1/4M in the same race with one starting with "X" run up distance and the other starting with zero run up distance.

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by Cratos

Since a horse in the gate is at zero velocity; aren't you just making an acceleration calculation with your run up calculation?

Also an interesting calculation is to calculate the final time of two horses at 1/4M in the same race with one starting with "X" run up distance and the other starting with zero run up distance.

I wish all run ups were the same (for each track each day). Yes the variation causes an opportunity to find an angle but it just adds to the workload.

Anyway, I personally look for major variations in run ups on the same day, Belmont Day (Coach Inge vs. American Pharoah's run ups) and look to leverage that. Or, at the SPA for example, many days will have 1 5 1/2 Turf Sprint. On a Monday the run up will be 110 FT. On Wednesday, it might be 50 FT. Good to know when there are no other Turf Sprints that day and comparing fractions of horses who come out of those races.

I am not you, will never pretend to be you and know my strenghts and many weaknesses. I will not pretend to even know how to calculate an accleration at a 110 FT run up vs. an acceleration at a 50 FT run up.

If you could coach me on that, I'd be honored. All I know is, if horse A ran a 22.00 with a 110 FT run up VS. horse A who ran a 22.00 at a 50 FT run up, I know horse B is a better early speed vs. horse A (Assuming same hustling by the jocks at the gate to the opening quarter).

Yes, it is a fascinating calculation. I am still amazed by the difference in runs ups of Coach Inge VS. AP. (14 FT more run up in Belmont Stakes VS. Coach Inge's race- 2 more strides of acceleration).

What are your thoughts, Cratos?

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

I wish all run ups were the same (for each track each day). Yes the variation causes an opportunity to find an angle but it just adds to the workload.

Anyway, I personally look for major variations in run ups on the same day, Belmont Day (Coach Inge vs. American Pharoah's run ups) and look to leverage that. Or, at the SPA for example, many days will have 1 5 1/2 Turf Sprint. On a Monday the run up will be 110 FT. On Wednesday, it might be 50 FT. Good to know when there are no other Turf Sprints that day and comparing fractions of horses who come out of those races.

I am not you, will never pretend to be you and know my strenghts and many weaknesses. I will not pretend to even know how to calculate an accleration at a 110 FT run up vs. an acceleration at a 50 FT run up.

If you could coach me on that, I'd be honored. All I know is, if horse A ran a 22.00 with a 110 FT run up VS. horse A who ran a 22.00 at a 50 FT run up, I know horse B is a better early speed vs. horse A (Assuming same hustling by the jocks at the gate to the opening quarter).

Yes, it is a fascinating calculation. I am still amazed by the difference in runs ups of Coach Inge VS. AP. (14 FT more run up in Belmont Stakes VS. Coach Inge's race- 2 more strides of acceleration).

What are your thoughts, Cratos?

I don't use "run up" at all in my calculations and it can easily be proven mathematically that the run up distance has a very nebulous effect on the final time of the race with possibly one exception and that is when the start of the race is close to the turn in a short sprint race.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Cratos

I don't use "run up" at all in my calculations and it can easily be proven mathematically that the run up distance has a very nebulous effect on the final time of the race with possibly one exception and that is when the start of the race is close to the turn in a short sprint race.

I think this is true for most distances. But, very short run ups certainly give much different final times than longer ones. All one has to do is watch 6f races at Pimlico and 6f races at Churchill and compare them and it has nothing to do with the proximity of the turn in those cases.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by cj

I think this is true for most distances. But, very short run ups certainly give much different final times than longer ones. All one has to do is watch 6f races at Pimlico and 6f races at Churchill and compare them and it has nothing to do with the proximity of the turn in those cases.

I don't know about just "watching" anything to determine causation, but I do understand what you are saying and the task would be to understand the "why" at Pimilco and CD that causes the "what'(watching).

However if the position of the horse is of concern to the handicapper, I will argue that post position with respect to race field size and race length is far more detrimental to a horse's winning effort than run up.

A major reason for the post position negative impact on the horse performance is the track geometry which typically forces the horse to transition from linear velocity to angular velocity to negotiate the turn(s) before the end of the race.

I believe that the record in the KY Derby will show that in part, post position probably compromised some potential Derby winners in the past.

[classhandicapper]

I never verified it, but I'd imagine that run ups matter more in dirt sprints than turf routes (to give the extremes) because horses are quickly accelerating to do almost their best in the sprints, but often loafing to to cruising speed in the turf routes.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Cratos

I don't know about just "watching" anything to determine causation, but I do understand what you are saying and the task would be to understand the "why" at Pimilco and CD that causes the "what'(watching).

However if the position of the horse is of concern to the handicapper, I will argue that post position with respect to race field size and race length is far more detrimental to a horse's winning effort than run up.

A major reason for the post position negative impact on the horse performance is the track geometry which typically forces the horse to transition from linear velocity to angular velocity to negotiate the turn(s) before the end of the race.

I believe that the record in the KY Derby will show that in part, post position probably compromised some potential Derby winners in the past.

Watch wasn't the best word. It can obviously be studied and proven that very short runs ups have a negative effect on final time. The why is easy, with little run up the horses take longer to get up to speed and at short distances they are trying to go fast early.

[no breathalyzer]

whatever works for you i guess.. pretty useless for me

[cj]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I never verified it, but I'd imagine that run ups matter more in dirt sprints than turf routes (to give the extremes) because horses are quickly accelerating to do almost their best in the sprints, but often loafing to to cruising speed in the turf routes.

This is what makes it impossible to adjust for run up with a standard adjustment, like .1 seconds per 10 feet or whatever. The effect of the run up is pace dependent. There are times a 200 foot run up won't change the final time much at all if the pace is a canter. If it is hot, different story.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by cj

Watch wasn't the best word. It can obviously be studied and proven that very short runs ups have a negative effect on final time. The why is easy, with little run up the horses take longer to get up to speed and at short distances they are trying to go fast early.

You are very late to the party because the study that prove your assertion incorrect was done by Isaac Newton in 1687.

Furthermore, a horserace is no more than a dynamic event to be evaluated by the laws of science and try if you desire, but in the end the laws of science when correctly applied will always prevail over the contemporaneous assertions from the innocuous speed figure methodology.