Pass the Raven by - for now at least

[Spook]

I’m afraid this post is largely for the terminally tragic amongst you. For those who aren’t interested in speed etc (ratings not the drug) look away now.

Having slagged off the odd jockey for behaving like sheep regarding their acquiescence on going descriptions, I’ve now found myself taking up something of a contrary position to everyone else regarding Ravens Pass, and trying to conjure up methods of speeding him up beyond the 92.52++ I awarded him at Sandown, in order that I too might comply with the consensus. Suffice to say, I can do it, but I know I’m bending the rules beyond all reasonable subjectivity to achieve my conformity. So this is my revised take, fwiw, in fact I’m not sure I’ve revised much?

Visually he was most impressive and I was immediately on the phone to someone “did you see that? Bloody hell!!! etc”. I fuller expected him to record a Teofilo rating of 100+, especially as he’d demolished the 2yo track record at Sandown, so I was very surprised to bring him in where I did. My first reaction was an error on the calculation (I’ve made them before) but I couldn’t find one. Mind you I’ve failed to find them before and only spotted them a few weeks later with a fresh pair of eyes etc.

Next explanation, was that he’s been unlucky to have encountered a card of reasonably truly run races. This is possible, but he’s still the fastest performance on the card, it’s just that there’s a crop of others very close to him. But what does this mean in reality? Well in truth it means you’re more likely to have a pretty good fix on him. The fault line that is more likely to exist is elsewhere. That is to say where I’ve drawn a conclusion about another horse whose had a few more dodgy races on his respective card (not run a true pace) and I haven’t quite appreciated it (most likely to occur where the spread of times is narrow and thus much harder to detect and isolate). This can lead to me over estimating other horses (and occurs most frequently in France) but it doesn’t effect the fix I have on Ravens Pass in the slightest. The only impact it has on the Gosden colt is where I place him in the hierarchy. In any event he’s still 8L’s behind Teofilo even if I’m prepared to rip up my French ratings for Minted. Even then Myboycharlies 97.00 was achieved on the Irish Oaks card, and with Peeping Fawn running a massive time, and New Approach as well as couple of useful other yardsticks being amongst the winners the quality looks reasonable. (note to self – recheck this card).

Third attempt to make Ravens Pass speed up; The sprint course? I’d included both 5 furlong races in my variance calculation. Well yes I’d finally made some progress, and by omitting the two sprints, I’d been able to speed him up to 94.11 (a full 1.5L’s). The problem however, is that there was no evidence that the sprint course was riding differently. Quite the opposite in fact. My normal variance calculation came out at +3.54 omitting the last two races, where as the two sprints taken in isolation would be +3.52 (a nose). I’d only speeded him up by virtue of now allowing Indian days time of +1.66 into the variance calculation and hence lowering the threshold. In short I was cheating, and with the RP’s time based ground also suggesting no difference in the going between the two courses, I couldn’t justify it.

Then an inspired moment; “you can only get the right answer, if you’re asking the correct question” – some inspired words drifted back to me from a different context.

What has he beaten? Has he beaten trees?

This sent me off digging out the ratings I’d given the rest of the field (for someone who actually keeps a record, you’d be surprised how rarely I actually use them)
This is how I had them anyway;

City Leader = 77.23 – moderate winner of an Ascot maiden
Gasper Von Wittel = 83.58 – 8L defeat to Winker Watson in the July stakes (a clue in itself?)
Belgrave Square = 78.51 – 0.25L defeat to Latin Lad in Goodwood maiden
Pegasus Again = 87.69 – 0.25L defeat to Maze in the Chesham
Maze = 87.94 – poor winner of the Chesham
Yem Kinn = 82.69 & 79.89 – 1.25L defeat to Yahrab in 2yo conditions race at Newbury, 9.75L defeat to Henrythenavigator in the Coventry
Lindoro = 66.63 – 3.25L defeat to Spanish Bounty in a Newmarket maiden

Yep, there wasn’t a great deal in this race to worry about other than the Chesham. Even then, it threw down with rain after that race, and Maze and Pegasus Again clearly had the best of the ground even if it wasn’t that detrimental to the rest of the card, there was still every chance their respective ratings were flattered a bit.

So if I assume that all the other horses have at least matched their previous standard, all in have to do is add on Ravens Pass’s winning margin of superiority in order to take a tentative stab at producing a projection rating.

City Leader – 7L’s + 77.23 = 84.23
Gasper Von Wittel – 7L’s & a Shd + 83.58 = 90.61
Belgrave Square – 8L’s + 78.51 = 86.51
Pegasus Again – 9L’s + 87.69 = 96.94
Maze – 15L’s + 87.94 = 102.94
Yem Kinn – 15.25L’s + 82.69 & 79.89 = 97.94 & 95.14
Lindoro – +15.5L’s + 66.63 = 82.13

Eight projected ratings based on previous runs = 736.44 / 8 = 92.05

In other words my class par figure of 92.52 is a little less than 0.5L different from a projected rating of 92.05. To beat them by the kind of distances that he has this is the level he’d have to run to in order to do it. There’s a pretty good chance therefore he has beaten trees.

But wait a minute. Am I not always espousing how a 2yo improves about 2.5L’s to 3.5L’s between runs? Guilty? I am. Is it not therefore unfair to assume that the rest of the field have improved 3L’s on the ratings I’ve projected off? It’s half fair. In truth I’ve always said that’s the case in pattern races, where as maiden runners can improve by 12L’s when stepping into pattern company. A crude way of legislating for this would be to add 3L’s to the projections and this brings Ravens Pass out at 95.52+.

However there’s grounds to believe that I’ve flattered a few already (most notably the Chesham runners). Using the 92.52 figure that the class par suggested Ravens Pass had run lets see how much the respective horses had improved by back calculating their losing distances against this figure, and comparing it to their previous rounding to the nearest quarter? (Sweet Solerio first – previous second)

City Leader, 85.55 – 77.23 = +8.25L’s
Gaspar Von Wittel, 85.52 – 83.58 = +1.94L’s
Belgrave Square, 84.52 – 78.51 = +6.01L’s
Pegasus Again, 83.52 – 87.69 = -4.17L’s
Maze, 77.52 – 87.94 = -10.42
Yem Kinn, had improved 2.80 from the Coventry to Newbury but regressed on his Newbury performance by 77.27 – 82.69 = -5.42L’s
Lindoro, 77.02 – 66.63 = +10.39

The average improvement is now +0.94L’s, suggesting that the field has indeed run below expectation. This is largely attributable to the two Chesham runners, but to some extent, they cancel out those that have come out of maidens where improvement is often even more violent than their apparent deterioration. I’d be prepared to give Ravens Pass at least 0.94L’s to his rating of 92.52 for 93.46.

The horse that appears to have run his race is the third home Gaspar Van Wittel. He’s improved pretty well 2L’s since his 8L defeat at the hands of Winker Watson. Then again, he was a group performer moving within pattern company where the level of improvement is much more predictable (I have no explanation for the Chesham, other than the one alluded to earlier, and the old age adage – this is horse racing, and horses aren’t machines).

If Van Wittel is the most reliable yardstick in the chasing pack? Then it’s surely worth reflecting on the fact that he lost by 8L’s (a fraction further) to Winker Watson, than he has to Ravens Pass (7L’s and a shorthead). Advocates of the Raven will point to the fact that he never saw the stick? True. But you’re probably talking about 1L to 1.5L’s, he wasn’t eased after all, just wasn’t asked for maximum extension,

The last rating I had for Winker Watson was 91.58 in the July Stakes, and it’s not as if he exactly had the run of the race either. I’d expect him to be capable of another 3L’s if on the normal 2yo improvement schedule of a top pattern horse. So 94.58 projected. If we accept that Winker Watson is about 1L faster than Ravens Pass through Van Witel that would make Ravens Pass as follows through Winker’s rating

91.58 – 1 = 90.58 (the difference in distance beaten through Van Witel)
+ 3L’s improvement = 93.58. Again this brings him out more or less within a neck of the 93.46 I was prepared to award him through the field’s improvement at Sandown

In summary

Try as I might I can’t make him go any faster and if the lone wolf belongs to the wilderness, then I think I’m destined to howl at the moon, until May 2008. Every line I try is bringing him out in the low to mid nineties at the best (and I have to bend the rules to achieve the latter ratings).

The only way I can make him go faster in the hierarchy is to find ways of ‘skipping’ those ahead of him. I can’t speed him up otherwise. I think he’s good, sure don’t get me wrong, but I’m yet to be convinced he’s the Guineas lock. The race is a veritable graveyard for fancied horses. Mind you, we have a Dewhurst to put my theory to the test yet. Depending on what turns up, I’ll take him on.

The only line I can find that suggests he’s brilliant involves Belgrave Square through Latin Lad to Sharp Nephew, but that’s a blind leap of faith, and requires more belief than what I’ve put up in support of the prosecution.

[Bally]

Im no expert on Speed Ratings (Although i do think they give you a massive clue about a horse, If you know how they work) but i do agree totally with you Spook. This horse so far still has not proved himself totally for me, But i am still impressed by him (Doesn't make sense probably). His Yarmouth form has tood up nicely although unproven in higher class so still questionable. At Ascot its very debatable at what he beat. Then at the weekend he travelled like a dream and quickened extremely well. But i dont think Maze looked at all right entering the straight and was not its true form. Looking at other dangers they were hardly great. 2nd won a nice maiden at Ascot but still unproven. 3rd was beaten 8 Lengths by Winker Watson at Newmarket. 4th i just dont believe is any were near good enough. 5th was Pegasus Dancer who i thought would run a lot better than he did and also didn't run to form for me. Forget the rest.

As you say he may be good but is he upto the top notch. Maybe he is but im not sure. I think there is better out there and there will be plenty better to come!




Also, Was doing form research for tomorrows racing and fell across a horse i really like and wondered if you rated the race? Horse was Lady Jane Digby from the Mark Johnston yard. She jumped out well but was just off the pace, She travelled well and a bit green, She had to wait for a gap but she quickened up impressively. Now i dont think the majority of Mark Johnston horses ''Quicken'' or have a ''Change Of Gear'' unless they are decent horses. The way this horse quickened was quite impressive i thought so just wondered what you think on her?

[Budgie]

I too would be a little wary. I've learned over the years not to go overboard about the "fastest thing since Pegasus" etc. Its worth remembering that Sandown only run two decent 2YO races all year. The National in May and the Solario.

I can name a few good horses that have won the Solario but not a very good one for many years. Its proximity to the St Leger meet mean the really good ones usually wait for the Champagne. I'm also guessing the course record claims are for a 2YO over 7 furlongs and not an all aged record?

If the Saturday also rans start popping up and winning then we can go to war with Ravens Pass.

[Bally]

Originally Posted by Budgie

I'm also guessing the course record claims are for a 2YO over 7 furlongs and not an all aged record?

His wining time of 1m 26.56secs beat theprevious 2yo record of 1m 27.87secs set 11 years ago by Red Camellia.

He was around 0.2 off the All Aged Course record.

Hope that helps you mate.

[Budgie]

Thanks for the info.

2YO Red Camellia blitzed it from the front when she won the Milcars Stars Stakes at Sandown on Good to Firm ground. She ended up running 3rd in the French 1000 Guineas before injury forced her retirement.

The all age record seems to have been broken by Mawsuff in a 3YO maiden race in 1986 (firm going). Again from the front he just hung on after setting a furious pace. His only other win in the UK was at 25/1 in an 7f Epsom handicap.

I found he went to the states and was 2nd in a couple of big races on the dirt. In the NYRA Mile H'cap he split Forty Niner (miltiple Group I winner) and Precisionist (Breeders Cup sprint).

They both did it from the front at Sandown - not have the rest of the field acting as pacemakers. Maybe RP's performance should be followed?

[Spook]

Pretty much as I expected to be honest Bally. Lady Jane Digby = 80.58. It's a modest time, but then I thought it would be given that you noted the horses change of gear. If she'd run a fast time you wouldn't have been able to spot a change of speed, as a horse winning under these circumstances tends to pull clear as the field falls away as they reach their breaking points.

Fast times are invariably run by consistantly going through the sections at a good clip and distributing this effort evenly over the race distance. It's a particularly valuable insight to have in novice and juvenile hurdles for instance, as all to often something wins a 'jog and sprint' race in Ireland and gets catapuled to the head of the market as a result of visually taking performances. Come Cheltenham however, this form can be close to meaningless as the top hurdle races just aren't run in a fashion remotely close to the manner in which the horse has been successful. You're comparing 'apples with pears' if you rely on the evidence of such races. Essentially, such winners are going into new territory and you have no way of knowing whether they're going to be able to handle such alien circumstances. People frequently confuse stamina and speed in these kind of races. Speed only occurs if the horse possesses the stamina necessary to go through the sections and deliver the end product fast time. To a large extent the winner is the last horse to start slowing down in effect. Stamina in any other language.

Chris recently told us of a friend of his (not on this forum) who doesn't pay much attention to the form from fast races as he thinks its unreliable. It seems opportune to perhaps pick up on this point here, as I believe I know what his friend is saying, and in this context, it's relevant. You need to be able to visualise how a race is likely to be run, and whether the race conditions are going suit a certain horse. Few races are run in really fast times, (although there are certain ones in the calender which are run quickly more times than not). This being the case you need to realise that you might very well be deploying the wrong analytical tool for the job at hand. Knowing who the fastest horse is, is only really useful if you believe that the race is going to be run quickly. Most races aren't, and so what Chris's friend is saying is that the percentage call lies elsewhere. It's tantamount to findign the most appropriate tool to do the job, based on what you think the assignment is likely to involve and bring to a premium. I'm trying to think of an analogy to illustrate the principal but can't really. You wouldn't use a hedge strimmer to cut someones hair, even though you know it cuts faster (bad example). I'll use a horse one instead (especially as I do quite well out of this one)

A few years ago, I got involved in a quite heated argument regarding the Supreme Novice Hurdle and the Triumph. The debate raged and entrenched positions were taken. The opposition to me were taken in by Sweet Wake and Mister Hight. Both had been visually impressive winners by virtue of accelerating off a slow pace and hence earning themselves reputations that bore no relation to the type of race they would be required to run in the main event. Both races are traditionally run tape to post lickety spit, and require a horse to run a fast time. As I said fast times involve banging out a series of sections over the race distance and hence bring stamina into play. You can't run a fast time by going slow early and then blasting away at the business end to win by 10L's etc. What people confuse as being speed, is in actual fact nothing more than acceleration. The two things are subtly different. At Cheltenham it will be speed and stamina rather than acceleration that would decide the issue, and since neither horse had remotely indicated they possessed it, I suggested that it was a blind leap of faith to follow them into the unknown at prohibitvely short prices. As tensions mounted I went further and said neither would place!!! which caused rancour. I had two selection by contrast that topped my speed figures, and indicated to me that these two would be capable of going into open company the following year, and that neither Sweet Wake or Mister Hight would. Suffice to say, I knew that Straw Bear and Detroit City had shown the necessary stamina to run a series of fast sections that results in an overall fast time. But for a bunny hop at the last Straw Bear would have won the Supreme and Detroit City broke the track record in slamming a good Triumph field. Both progressed to win graded events the following year. I can't think I've ever felt so relieved however, about the failure of two horses for non financial reasons as I did with Sweet Wake Mister Hight.What had happened is that their analysis wasn't relevant, or in a trade descriptions context, 'fit for purpose' They were trying to put a square peg in a round hole. Their analysis would be ok for run of the mill races, which of course make up the majority of betting opportunities (which is what I think Chris's friend is referring to). He's siding witht he percentages, and diagnosing that fast times are only any use for solving fast races (which are a minority) etc

Anyway, lets pull this back to Lady Jane Digby. It's pretty rare for a maiden to turn up a fast time, and even rarer for a debutant to do it. My own experience with 2yo's is that any fast time usually occurs on their second or third race, or when they get pitched into pattern company. 80.58 is a slow to moderate time. I actually beleive that you can learn something off slow times (well with a few qualifications you can anyway).

The first thing I'd qualify is that it needs to be in group company, or a hot maiden. Almost by definition, a horse that wins a race under such circumstances, has done so by being the fastest accelerator (it's not strictly true of course - but its a good rule of thumb, as things such as a troubled passgae, first run, stupid jockey etc are potentially in play). A horse that wins a seller in a slow time by contrast, has probably done so because the other horses are even slower.

A few year ago Nick Mordin wrote that you can't learn anything from slow times, which prompted an email from me to him, to suggest you could. I was slightly amused to read last week a theory he'd developed to suggest that you can learn things from a slow time He never replied to my email.

To get a really meaningful handle on Lady Jane, you'd need to obtain the sections. There is a method for calculating a sectional rating, to do with the percentage contribution each section makes to an overall time. I'll spare you a tutorial as it makes class par speed rating look like a CSE assignment.

For the time being, I'd be prepared to veture the opinion that she probably has got a turn of foot, and personally, I always like to side with a horse that's won races with both fast and slow times to cover both eventualities. Whether she can run a fast time or not we don't know, but the evidence to date suggests she might have a bit of class about her, but at the moment this is taken on trust until such time as she's asked to put in a more searching performance.

Her stable mate (Screen Star) by comparison ran 86.88 on her debut at Redcar a fortnight ago when an 11L winner eased down. This figure is roughly consistent with that of a Royal Ascot 2yo winner. Once you allow for the 2L's she lost through easing, she adjusts to 88.88. Sense of Joy won a Newmarket maiden on debut for 87.11 a month ago. Royal Ascot 2yo winners invariably run between 87.50 and 89.50. Both of these two are about 7 to 8L's faster than Lady Jane Digby so far as I can establish, but that would be harsh on a horse that hasn't been asked a question yet. She might very well have the answer? we don't know, and can't really tell on the information available. I'd draw some additional comfort from the fact that the second division of the maiden was 0.44 slower too, so she'd have won that by 2.5L's as well.

[Norton]

Spook. Fascinating, a good read

[FMH]

Thanks for taking the time to write this mate, very informative.

[Chris]

cracking read again alun.

[Bally]

Thanks Spook. Again another top read from you fella!

I really only noted the horse because of the trained and the way it quickened. Like i say the majority of Mark Johnson horses are basically slowboats who just keep galloping and fighting were as she showed the ability to quicken. Maybe being by Oasis Dream says it all as you would not associate such a speedy pedigree with Mark Johnston nowadays really.

Cheers for that Spook again.

[Spook]

Whilst trying to look for an old archive posting elsewhere concerning the use of sectional times in relation to Brave Inca's Champion Hurdle, I came across this one which I wrote in December last year. I subsequently found the sections one too, so I'll combine them as it probably makes the point about stamina and speed better than I have so far.

"Horses like Brave Inca (who's a nightmare for a speed rater) and Detroit City (as a juvenile) run their very fast times as a result of pumping out section after section consistantly. They might not give the impression that they're exceptionally fast (in the way Rooster Booster visually misled people) but the evidence of their speed is in the times they run rather than how the appear to the eye.

It sounds obvious, but the winner of a Champion Hurdle is invariably the horse that runs the fastest sections, for the longest period, (it's an exercise in stating the obvious) but most importantly, it's the one that distributes this effort evenly across those sections. Other horses win races impressively off a moderate pace by using one devastating burst of speed to pull clear. These horses often earn the reputation for being 'speed machines', but the simple fact remains that they invariably aren't. It's near on impossible to run an overall very fast time off a moderate pace, and thus rely on the last 3 furlongs to compensate for the pace of the first 13F. It defies the laws of both physics and hysterisis to do so.

People get seduced into backing these supposed 'fast types' types every year, (particularly in novice or juvenile events). The simple fact remains however, that in most cases they won't get the chance to deploy the tactics at the Festival, that they'd used to such effect in preparation. As such, a decision to back them represents a leap of faith. In essence you're siding with something "that might", over something "that has", and its not a percentage call (imo). Horses like Mister Might and Sweet Wake would be consistant with this profile, neither had run particularly fast last year, despite the fact they were heralded as 'speed machines' etc. The two who'd run the respective fast times in their divisions were Detroit City and Straw Bear, and they'd achieved this by consistantly banging out section after section.

To win a race in a fast time therefore, and in this manner, you're essentially profiling the economic use of stamina, as much as you are speed.

Hardy Eustace recorded the second fastest time from the last flight to the post in the last 20 years I seem to believe (beaten only by Istabraq) when wining his first Champion?. This was as a result of a comparatively slow pace. Yet if you asked people to guess who was the fastest in this period, I suspect a lot of people would nominate Rooster Booster? What Rooster did was keep on at a similar pace, whilst the others were stopping around him, creating the impression that he was blasting the field apart through acceleration. He wasn't. What he was doing, was bringing his stamina into play, and won as a result of being able to sustain a steady level of high performance. In effect he was the last horse standing when the others were in reverse.

In short, Brave Inca, Straw Bear, Macs Joy, Hardy Eustace and Ikitiaf have all demonstrated an ability to run and win races in fast times, as a result of sustaining a consistant level of performance that pulls them away from a field gradually, rather than one that relies on a burst of speed. Detroit City being by the far the youngest of the group is a little bit behind them, but gives no reason to suggest he can't join them, if he hasn't quite done so just yet.

The comparison between the flat and the jumps with regards to speed assessment illustrates aspects of this, imho. Flat horses tend to win races by using the devastating turn of foot I described earlier in the context of Sweet Wake, Clopf, Mister Hight et al. You can see this visually on a Turftrax tracker graph. (not advising any one to subscribe - poor investment)

What tends to happen is that all the horses in a group 1 race are more or less capable of hitting identical top speeds. The critical factors appear to be the length of time it takes them to get there (acceleration) and the amount of time they can sustain it for (stamina). It is this relationship that I think is critical to informing our understanding of what is a fast horse and what isn't necessarily so fast, and our eyes can decieve us to this end, which a stopwatch won't do.

What tends to happen on the graph, (though not exclusively) is you can see what I call "an acceleration furlong". Typically the horse blessed with a change of gear quickly establishes a superiority of about 2 lengths in the space of a furlong. This is because they've been able to reach finishing speed quicker than their rivals. After that, the performance to the rest of the field tends to remain pretty constant, suggesting the other horses have also reached the same speed. Once this advantage is established, you're no longer profiling acceleration but rather stamina instead. A fast jumps time (Championship races) by contrast is less prone to have this kink in the graph (where the winners performance departs markedly from the field average). What tends to happen instead, is that you get an attritional cranking up of the pace, where the gap is opened up more steadily and evenly, and provided the stamina is there, it is this that translates into the overall time and margin of superiority. What you're probably seeing is the last horse that starts to slow up, winning in effect.

I therefore think that stamina is a much under valued aspect of profiling the winner of the Champion Hurdle. Istabraq and Hardy are indeed examples I believe of fast horses who used stamina to achieve their level of performance (indeed, it might not be any coincidence that both had won the 21F Sun Alliance Hurdle as novices). Detroit City is potentially in the same mould, having won a Cesarerwitch. Although not often run beyond 2 miles, if you looked at Brave Inca's dosage profile you'd discover he's got a surprising amount in his pedigree. What I'm suggesting is you need to be able to run 2 and half miles to win a Champion Hurdle, because of the way the race is typically run. Some horses can of course win both types of races, but I'd rather side with the one that we know bangs out a level standard of fast times across the sections rather than one that hasn't. I should say however that just because "one hasn't", doesn't mean "it can't". It's just that you're going into unknown territory and asking the horse to run and perform in a way that to date it hasn't hitherto been conditioned to doing so. Black Jack Ketchum is one that comes to mind in this category, and as I've told you all at length, this horse is well over-rated despite it's wins this year and place in the market. He's never been remotely close to a fast time, and is an excellent candidate to come seriously unstuck when he's asked to get involved in a true run race.

What I think I'm saying therefore, is that all of the top 2 milers will exhibit the trait of stamina driven speed to differing levels and be able to bang out a succession of fast timed sections drawing on their reserves (indeed they almost inevitably have to in order to get where they have). Where the fast horse (and I mean the accelerating fast finishing type) tends to be more vulnerable is in novice and juvenile races. By the time these horses progress to open company, they've invariably been found out having failed in novice company. Or to put it this way might help?. All of the prospective Champion hurdle horses mentioned possess the necessary stamina. If they didn't, they simply wouldn't be able to be competitve and win the races that they have. They'd have been taken off their feet long before they got near the top grade. It's a feature that they necessarily need to have the required stamina to progress.
A quick flick at some my ratings will give you a hint of who I think qualifies this year, who will join Sweet Wake and Mister Hight (so far to date). But the likes of Clopf, Tidal Bay, Aran Concerto and Catch Me all look vulnerable at this stage, however they could change this with just one race. But bear in mind they've been winning races (or more pertinently, getting conditioned to running in a race) in a fashion that they're unlikely to be allowed to do so in March. As such you're going into dark with them on a leap of faith, as they're likely to be entering new territory at which they remain unproven".


Now some of this was prohetic, other aspects of it weren't. As it transpired of course Sublimity won the Champion Hurdle off a slow time, having previously done little over hurdles to suggest he was the kind of horse I was describing. Mind you I'm not convinced the race was typical, and it's the slowest Champion Hurdle I've got records for in the last 12 years, which suggests it would have been the one you get every now and then that is vulnerable to the jog and sprint merchant

I believe there are reasons for this, and it comes down to the observation I made about using stamina economically and evenly across the sections. What came to pass was that Brave Inca and Hardy cut each others throats by going too fast too early, and allowed Sublimity to come through to record a slow time by virtue of picking up over-cooked horses. Ikitaif fell when travelling well (can't legislate for that). Straw Bear broke a blood vessel (can't legislate for that either) Macs Joy never turned up (again, can't legislate for that) and Detroit City just went AWOL (guess what you can't do for that?).

Black Jack Ketchum did exactly what I thought he would and none of the others won, even though a few ran with distinction and Clopf would go on to post a fast winning time at Punchestown to suggest I revise my opinion of him

The second post relates to sections and how they can be interpreted to show the horse that has used its stamina the most effectively. In this case it relates to the 2006 Champion Hurdle, and involves me trying to build a case for Macs Joy. Luckily there was no ante post money down, and the horses subsequent form would have driven me off anyway, but it was written around Christmas before he'd run and shown himself to be below best.

"The fastest section is between 5 and 4 furlongs, and I'm assuming that's at the top of the hill. Inca runs this section faster than any other horse. He and Hardy are the only two to break 36mph, for the section. Inca runs the 4 - 3 furlong section faster than any other horse too, again Hardy's close on his heels, suggesting the two are engaged in a dual. Far from having the race run out of him though, Hardy runs the 3 - 2 furlong section faster than any other horse, and regains the lead I think. So between 5 and 2 furlongs you wouldn't like to say either horse has established superiority over the other.

For the record these 3 furlongs were covered as thus;

Brave Inca had pulled out about a third of a length on Hardy, whilst Macs Joy had sat off the battle a bit, and surrendered 2 lengths to Hardy as they came past the 2 furlong pole. It's as they hit the hill (I estimate this occurs about 2.5F out) that the times get incrementally slower. Now the race unfolds, and Hardy is the first to break.

Hardy Eustace does appear to give up the ghost a little bit, and notably flounders in the last furlong in particular, losing 6L's over the final 2 furlongs, and more tellingly about 4.25L's in the final furlong alone (bear in mind I've had to convert times to distance) for copyright purposes I can't reproduce the exact times (so the gaps are indicative rather than 100% accurate). The threat now comes from Macs Joy. Having surrendered 2L's coming down the hill though, he needs to get this back, but is only able to make up 1.75L's, nearly all of which was achieved in the section 2 - 1 furlongs.

It was clearly a fine call for Gerraghty. Although MJ ran the final section faster than Inca, we're talking about 0.02 seconds, suggesting that Inca was holding him, or that MJ's challenge had come to an end. Had he surrendered just 1.5L's coming down the hill instead of 2, It would have been interesting?. In pure time analysis, MJ would have passed him, but somehow I know what you're going to tell me here by way of riposte, and on balance I'd probably agree, that a combination of your boys heart, (the person I was responding to was Brave Incas principal shareholder) and your jockeys drive, would have repelled the challenge if we're talking about less than 0.25L's

One of the interesting things by way of reflection is MJ's section between 8 and 7 furlongs. For no apparent reason he's 2.75L's faster here than Inca, and follows up in the next section, gaining another 0.5 of a length. This suggests he was putting himself in a position to challenge having allowed himself to sit off the pace?. It's at this very point though, (when Macs Joy reaches the two main protagonists) that Inca and Hardy decide take each other on coming down the hill. Effectively MJ's taken 2 furlongs to get himself in striking distance, and having got there, the front two decide to kick on as soon as he's arrived. If there were reasons to suspect he had a stamina doubts, I'd have thought the place where he was least vulnerable was coming down the hill. I suspect however, that he might have been used up a little bit between 8 and 6 furlongs, and Gerraghty realising this, was reluctant to pitch him into this battle. Had he been a bit nearer at the 7F marker, he might very well have been able to tail them a little bit more closely? ensuring that the gap he surrendered coming down the hill was shorter than 2L's. In other words he wouldn't need to have run a sustained increase in tempo for 5F, if he hadn't had to do the 8 - 6 furlong section the way he did, and had been a length nearer in the first place, after completing the first mile".

As it happened Macs Joy ran the second mile faster than any other horse in the field, but because he had used his energy evenly, Brave Inca was the one that ran the faster time. Hardy was able to match him for 3 furlongs when the pressure was applied, and both thorses seem to have had the same level of acceleration and ability to sustain that cruising speed for 3 furlongs up to the two pole. Hardy falters a bit between 2 and 1, and comparatively collapses in the final furlong as his engine gives up losing 6L's. This was because Inca had the greater stamina. Had Macs Joy gone with them down the hill then it's impossible to know what might have happened. He used up some acceelration to get himself into a position to challenge only to find the other two hitting the gas the moment he arrived. If he'd gone with them, he'd have had to run 8F's at a top clip by comparison, where as they went from the 5F pole. The fastest final furlong was actually put up by sixth place Briareus. What we saw therefore was Inca started to slow up later than the others, and so it was his stamina that won the race, having been able to sustain the sectional speed for a longer time period then his main rivals. Macs Joy had tried to win the race with two pieces of acceleration between 8 and 6 and 2 to the finish. Inca had gone solidly across the final 5 furlongs and run a very even sequence in doing so. It was this that won in the end as Hardy couldn't ultimately match the sections all the way to the line. In essence, a great piece of race riding by Tony McCoy

[Bally]

I think a Speed Rating needs doing swiftly on Echo Of Lights Performance at York in the Strensall Stakes. Smashed the Course Record by 2 Seconds!! according to Racing Uk. Time was 1.46.76. But the first 5 horses home also broke the record. Maybe the ground? But Echo Of Light set a really good pace and kept it right up to the line on the looks of it. Very good. . . .

[Spook]

Almost certainly the ground, and one of the reasons why track records need to be treated with caution, as they're one of the least reliable indicators of speed. When Rakti won the Lockinge the whole field beat the previous mile record for Newbury. It might have been last year when Yeats and Road to Love both broke track records at Goodwood on the same day, which prompted some one to declare that the Johnston horse was a Gp1 animal etc. Unfortunately in breaking the record he'd only run a Gp3 time, which I had to inform them of, and of course they disputed it, telling me that it must be a Gp1 performance etc how else can you break a track record?

Well the simple fact is you can. The most important aspect of a speed calculation is what Americans call track variance (we call it going allowance). This is the time per mile that you either add or deduct from the time run in order to equalise things. It's this variance figure that forms the foundation that all horses are rated against on any given day. It's actually one of the more reliable aspects of speed rating and can be a very useful weapon in the event of misleading going descriptions (about 25% of all UK races - and over 50% in France). It tends to be same courses too, that consistently give out false going reports and some are frankly very badly wrong. Still, I'm not complaining, as it can certainly hand me an edge, especially at festival meetings.

It's not that difficult a calculation to perform in honesty and with a bit of mathematical dexterity you can do it in about 2 minutes after you're armed with a race time and provided you know what the standard time for the distance is. It does therefore permit you to change betting strategy half way through a card. The best example I can think of was this years Cheltenham festival when Simon (liar) Claisse was trying to tell us the ground was Soft on the Tuesday. In the Arkle chase MWDS beat standard by 0.30secs. Put simply, you can't do that on soft ground, and I duly switched to backing good and good to firm ground horses from the Wednesday onwards. Winners followed including 20/1, 100/1 e/w, 7/1, 20/1 e/w, and 11/10. Had Aces Four not fluffed his jump I'd have landed a 1-2-3

It's not quite that straight forward as it's calculated on something called class pars, which are similar to a golfing handicap and are designed to reflect a horses ability. Without this concession, somewhere like Catterick would appear permanently soft or heavy ground and Newmarket permanently good or firm, as all you'd be capturing is a horses ability rather than the state of the ground. Once you're familiar with the logic behind the use of class pars though, and how to apply them, it's really not very difficult to learn how to calculate variance.

[Spook]

You're not wrong Bally!!!

Echo of Light has gone phenonemonally fast (expect to see Dave Edwards make it the 'Timewwatch' horse next week if the column appears). I might get round to giving it a full write up, but it isn't far off being the biggest figure of the year.

Having said that there is a weakness in the methodology and every now and then you can get a card that beats the system. Last year it happened on the 'Eclipse' card. I suspect that this is the best example of it happening this year to date, as the adjusted times to class do have something of an uncomfortable spread about them. My suspicion is that the Gp3 might have been the only true run race of the day and this has inflated the figure.

Another 2yo appears to have emerged at the Curragh incidentally. Nothing 'stand out' but I'd call it noteworthy.

If you're unlucky I'll get round to posting up a formula for calculating track variance. Otherwise the best advice I can give anyone is to ignore the official going description in a horses form, but rather note the date of the race and bring up the card summary instead. Once you've done that, check the RP's 'Time based going' on the extreme right hand column, I'll promise you, it's a damn sight more accurate regarding what any given horse has actually run on.

[MrXtreme]

Spook, I am new to the world of horse racing and learning by the day. Your write ups here have made very informative and interesting reading. Many thanks.

[Bally]

I dont know if it was jus that card that beats the system, Although races did follow a similar path that day with Front runners doing well. But what impressed me and thought that this could be a horse to speed rate was the way he did it throughout the race and not just take an overall look and say it won easy.

In the race was Flying clarets. Richard Fahey's instructions to jockey Paul Hanagan was to niggle at Echo Of Light and keep the pressure on as she usually has good early pace. Yet she couldn't keep up with the winner throughout so Echo Of Light has obviously showed alot of speed early. He then travelled like a dream showing a really good cruising speed so probably give some good sectional timing (Which would be nice to have, Anybody?) and wasn't really slowing down at the end.

Im no expert at all though to say the least on these ratings, But maybe you should compare the cards from that day to the meeting Royal Ascot held at York as they were both on exceptionally fast ground. Problem would be the difference in class??? I dont know if that makes a difference when resulting the ratings though. . .

[The Duke]

Originally Posted by Bally

He then travelled like a dream showing a really good cruising speed so probably give some good sectional timing (Which would be nice to have, Anybody?)

Just tried to find the data on the turftrax website but to no avail as it seems they haven't done any sectionals for there, just all weather crap.

I'm not going to follow the Nick Mordin method of hand timing sections off Youtube either as that's open to error.

I'll keep looking...

[Spook]

My understanding is that Turftrax are tryting to sell their data to the far east and have pretty well given up on European racing. I used to subscribe as I wanted to do some Cheltenham research. I even recruited half a dozen volunteers to help me as it would have been a massive undertaking, but the data just wans't there

[Spook]

Originally Posted by Spook

You're not wrong Bally!!! Echo of Light has gone phenonemonally fast (expect to see Dave Edwards make it the 'Timewwatch' horse next week if the column appears).

Lo and behold - this weeks 'Timewatch' horse is (and I quote from the Weekender)

"Not many races are run over 1m 1f at York over the course of a season, particularly on ground conducive to fast times, but the time recorded by Echo of Light in the Group 3 Strensall Stakes last Wednesday was exceptional. The fact that Saeed Bin Suroor's five year old knocked over two seconds off the previous best is merely a statistic that underlines conditions were ripe for fast times, but his time of 1 min 46.76 secs is remarkable when judged in context. He hotfooted through each furlong in about 11.90secs, including a standing start. That breaks down to over 18 yards a second, which suggests he could make his mark in Group 1 company"

[andthereoff]

Well done everyone in master minding the speed of this horse, now 2 years on we can look back and see everything that was mentioned was right as he went on to win the Breeders Cup Classic. Great stuff