I have to mention one more thing. In my opinion, it's not that final time is more important or has more value on one surface compared to another; what is important is the RELATIONSHIP between final time and sectional times on dirt and turf.
Final time as a standalone figure is only part of the story. Determining how the final time was achieved in relation to pace is important to consider.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by highnote
Here is my understanding of the problem:
Turf routes produce more blanket finishes than dirt routes because the pace of turf routes is slower than dirt routes. James Quinn explains this in his excellent book, "Figure Handicapping". Horses tend to jockey for position at a slow pace in turf routes and then sprint to the wire.
Horses tend to decelerate in the stretch of dirt routes because the pace is much faster. It may look like the winner of the Kentucky Derby is accelerating in the stretch because he is passing other horses, but in reality he is decelerating the least.
See Sartin's writing for more about deceleration and energy expended.
Turf sprints and dirt sprints are likely very similar because the pace is fast in both types.
David Edelman addresses the problem in his outstanding book, "The Compleat Horseplayer". He suggests using the term "Time" ratings rather than "Speed" ratings.
The Sartin people have also written extensively about this.
Sometimes in turf races the pace can be so slow that the final time they run is slow because they don't have enough distance remaining to make up for the lost time even though the final fraction may be faster than some of the internal fractions. (I'm writing from memory, not looking at an actual chart. So you may want to verify this.)
Edelman also suggested a method for adjusting Beyer turf figures by raising the figures to an exponent because on turf the horses tend to bunched close together at the finish and on dirt the horses are more strung out. So by raising the Beyer turf figures to an exponent more separation could be seen in the final time figures. I never found that to be useful, but I understand the concept.
Beyer has also written that he tries a lot of different methods to make better turf figures. So I don't like adjusting his figures because he may already have adjusted them.
James Quinn has published the best method of making turf figures, in my opinion.
Cary Fotias' turf figures were the best, but his methods were proprietary and based on velocity.
Nick Mordin has an unpublished method of making "Handicap" ratings for turf routes. His ratings do not incorporate time -- only beaten lengths (and maybe class?). The handicap ratings don't work as well on dirt races because final time is more significant on dirt than turf. That sounds like it contradicts what cj wrote above, but I think cj is correct in the context to which he was referring.
|
