TimeformUS Figs Key to Belmont Longshot Win

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

Sorry but saying that, just because of a simple mistake in reading figures once, I cannot tell the difference between the class level of Finger Lakes and Belmont/Saratoga is both wrong and insulting. I'd have to be totally ignorant to not know that difference.
I probably have had about as many years of handicapping experience as you (over 60 years) and I have found that when horses fail to reproduce good figures when going up in class it is mainly because they cannot deal with the faster pace when going up in class. The exceptions, as you admit are really due to trainer intentions. That is a separate factor that has nothing to do with
the horse being "outclassed" as the cause of the horses' declining performance.

I never said that I was certain that these class "aberrations" were due to 'trainer intent'...I only proposed that as one of the possible reasons. IMO...these form reversals, when horses take moderate steps up and down in class, may be due to something else entirely. As far as I am concerned...the "class factor" cannot be thoroughly understood by consulting speed/pace figures...which is where you and I seem to disagree most. And...we are BOTH entitled to our opinions.

[Tom]

I tend to agree on that, Gus.
Pace and Speed figs in their proper perspective are, to me, a major identifier of class. But not alone.

I don't do the whole procedure every day, but the Class of the Field idea of Quinn's where class, par, figs, and manor of winning are all considered is a good one. Combining those ideas with Beyer's chapter on how the was the fig earned go a long way to know which figures translate to class and which ones come from situations.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by cj

Well by all means show it. Don't be shy. Why bring it up otherwise?

A horse race is an event of motion defined by time, velocity, and displacement.

What is termed “pace” is the “velocity of the race” which changes with respect to the horse’s “acceleration.”

The ‘horse’s race shape” or running line can be determined from understanding that the velocity of a horserace is not a monotonous function, but it shows a minimum different from the initial and terminal velocities.

Therefore, we can mathematically write:

Velocity = dv/dt

Acceleration of a moving object (a racehorse) = d2r/dt^2

Initial Velocity = Vi = dv/dt – (d^2r/dt^2 * t/2)

Where 2*(dv/dt) – (d^2r/dt^2 *t/2) = terminal velocity, the point in the race where the horse is no longer accelerating.

Also, the reduction to a horse’s velocity (change of the shape of its running line) during race comes invariably and primarily from two forces: (1) Air Resistance (drag force) and Surface Resistance (frictional force) and is controlled by the horse’s acceleration.

Air Resistance (drag force) is force in the opposite direction of the horse’s motion and can gotten be from the following equation:

F = 0.5 C ρ A V^2 where,
0.5 = constant
C = the coefficient of drag
Ρ (Rho) = the density of air
A = the reference plane which the force is against
V^2 = the horse’s velocity squared

Frictional force is also a force in the opposite direction of the horse’s motion and can be gotten from the following equation:

µ * N, where µ is the coefficient of friction and N is the normal force which is the horse’s mass times g-force.

These two resistance forces occur in every race against every horse in the race and regardless of level of competition.

[Tom]

When you finish your physics homework, this is the article Bob referenced. Good read, and I thing it will explain the race more than theoretical formulae will.

https://www.horseracingnation.com/ne...delssohns_Euro
tactics_influenced_Travers_Stakes_123

I took the last 42 10 furlong races at Saratoga, the distance he used in the article and calculated the fractions and percentage as he showed in his chart.

Looking at the slow down between F1 an F2, the average through 2017 was (-.31) in percentages.

The chart below shows the races in order from 2005.
Funny, the two absolute greatest slow downs, or Brakes on, and called it.....the two races THIS year.

[cj]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Cj...would you please clarify something for me?

In post #6 of this thread...bobphilo erroneously reported to TLG that the winner of Wednesday's Belmont race had or shared the highest TFUS speed/pace figures in the group. "I agree with all of this" you responded to him in post #8...even though bobphilo later admitted that he was WRONG in his speed/pace assessment of this particular race. There were other horses in that race who held HIGHER speed figures than Cartwheelin Lulu. Why didn't you correct bobphilo's obvious mistake then and there...instead of "agreeing with all of this"?

Also...TLG's response to me on that matter (post #39) seems to be a complete contradiction to the point that bobphilo has been trying to make in this thread. And yet, as evidenced by that same post #8...you seem to agree with BOTH bobphilo AND TLG on this issue...even through the two of them seem to hold totally different pre-race views about this particular horse. When I asked TLG of his pre-race opinion of Cartwheelin Lulu...he responded: "Fringe player at best. I would never use her in my play, for whatever that is worth, and highly doubt that she would hit the board if they ran the race again, especially on a fair/even track." As you can see...TLG is saying the OPPOSITE of what bobphilo is asserting here...and yet...you seem to be in agreement with BOTH of them!

How can that BE?

I'm at the OSU football game so I'll look at this deeper later, but I'm nearly certain I did mention she wasn't the top figure horse long ago. Don't play the "gotcha" game with me please. I was the first to mention it.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by cj

There is a big difference between horses moving up in class and young and lightly raced horses that we don't really know what their class is. Two totally different things in my opinion.

I agree 100%.

Early on it's hard to know how cranked the trainer has his horse.

A really good horse will sometimes not reveal how fast he can run when all he has to do is stalk some much inferior horses and draw off in the stretch. Even if he is all out in the stretch, he isn't telling you what would have happened with a faster pace. He might have drawn off by more with a faster final time (or collapsed).

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Disagreements lead to the most interesting discussions...IMO.

What, in your opinion, is the most "efficient" way for the pace-setter to run? Should the pace-setter be more "reserved" out of the gate...and have the pressers breathing down his neck during the race's early stages?
Or should the pace-setter pressure himself all the way to the half-mile...so he can open the largest early lead that he is capable of?

Again...I don't mean to appear overly argumentative. It just seems to me that topics such as these cannot be settled solely by the analysis of one particular race...and the reading of a solitary handicapping article.

First of all this depends on the distance. Physics tells us that in general the most efficient way of covering a distance is with even pace. That's because any increase in velocity (acceleration) requires the application of force upon mass. This is not only true for horses, but includes humans and even cars - even paced driving gives the best MPG. This holds true in middle and long distance racing in track and routes in horse racing as well.

However, in extended sprints, like the 400 meters in track and about 6F in horse racing, the momentum gained by going a bit faster early carried into the late part mitigates the extra fatigue caused by the faster early pace. I have only recently deduced this and wish I had known it when running the 400 meters in college track when my attempts at running even pace left me too far back to catch the early leader. At least it's not too late to help me with estimating ideal pace in my sprint handicapping now.

But back to the original question, In a horse racing sprint the ideal situation for a front runner would to go off at slightly less than full speed and decelerate due to fatigue slightly at the finish. In longer races of a mile or longer, even pace is most efficient. Of course, this does not include the pesky influence of other horses in the race. On a lead to need type you just have to run along as fast as you need to get the lead and hope you don't have to go too fast on an accelerate -gradual decelerate pattern. The slower you can go within this pattern the more advantage you have on the rest of the field. This is common knowledge. If you can rate, the strategy is to go at whatever pace you can sustain at a little faster than even pace.
In routes, if you can rate, even pace is the way to go regardless of what anybody else is doing. Too many little pinheads get beat by "riding he other guys horse" rather than getting the best performance from their own.

By the way, I don't have to settle this argument by just an article and analysis of just a couple of races. The laws of Physics do that. The article and my analysis merely illustrate it.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by Tom

When you finish your physics homework, this is the article Bob referenced. Good read, and I thing it will explain the race more than theoretical formulae will.

https://www.horseracingnation.com/ne...delssohns_Euro
tactics_influenced_Travers_Stakes_123

I took the last 42 10 furlong races at Saratoga, the distance he used in the article and calculated the fractions and percentage as he showed in his chart.

Looking at the slow down between F1 an F2, the average through 2017 was (-.31) in percentages.

The chart below shows the races in order from 2005.
Funny, the two absolute greatest slow downs, or Brakes on, and called it.....the two races THIS year.

Thanks for posting this. I think those rascals at Horse Racing Daily switched that Travers article. This link should work:

https://www.horseracingnation.com/ne...rs_Stakes_123#

[classhandicapper]

Personally, I think the ideal pace pattern for a front runner depends somewhat on the distance and surface. At 6F on dirt it will be different than at 10F on dirt or on turf.

At 6F on dirt I would WAY rather see my speed horse run:

slow 2f, fast 2f, finish

than

fast 2f, slow 2f, finish

I am talking here about relative to average and not necessarily the actual times because most dirt races decelerate.

If the speed horse gets away with a slow 1st 1/4 at 6F and then picks it up in the middle (relative to the typical race), all the closers that are trying to make up ground during that fast 2nd 1/4 are both behind him positionally and working a lot harder than him to gain into it (probably wide making it even worse). They either won't be able to get into position to win or will be exhausted from doing it. The front runner essentially turned the race into a 4F sprint where he had the lead.

Just in general, if you are a speed horse you want to make the horses behind you work really hard to get into position to beat you. You don't want to let them into the race on that last turn without working really hard to do it.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Tom

Pace and Speed figs in their proper perspective are, to me, a major identifier of class. But not alone.


I don't do the whole procedure every day, but the Class of the Field idea of Quinn's where class, par, figs, and manor of winning are all considered is a good one. Combining those ideas with Beyer's chapter on how the was the fig earned go a long way to know which figures translate to class and which ones come from situations.

This is my position in about 500-1000 less words.

There are subtle race dynamics involved that impact time (including how the surface is playing). They are hard to measure. But you do have the ability to look at the quality and type of horses in the race, look at the flow, and then interpret the results to understand it better than you would with just the fractions and final times.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Just in general, if you are a speed horse you want to make the horses behind you work really hard to get into position to beat you. You don't want to let them into the race on that last turn without working really hard to do it.

However, you don't want to work just as hard to get them in that position.
As the analysis shows you don't want to go into that accelerate - decelerate -
re-accelerate pattern. The physics will get you.

I once met the late great Phil Johnson who said "I like to go to the front because the closers have to pump just as hard to get you". Yes but, If you have to work too hard to get ahead they won't have to work too hard to get you as you tire" Even the great ones can have some mistaken ideas.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

However, you don't want to work just as hard to get them in that position.
As the analysis shows you don't want to go into that accelerate - decelerate -
re-accelerate pattern. The physics will get you.

Right.

The first turn is the key for the front runners and the 2nd turn is the key for the closers. You never want to be wide working hard to improve your position (unless of course rail is dead lol).

IMO, if you are a front runner, you want to get to that 2nd turn as fresh as possible so you can start picking it up (relative to normal) and torch the closers.

IMO, if you are a closer you want the front runners to be exhausted at that point so they start to slow down on the 2nd turn and allow you to get into position to win without working too hard.

IMHO, the bad ride is a front runner that is fresh going into the 2nd turn and slows it down more anyway waiting for the stretch drive. That allows the closer to get into position without paying a price and the race comes down who has the better kick. I do not like that. You have to use your speed to your advantage.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Personally, I think the ideal pace pattern for a front runner depends somewhat on the distance and surface. At 6F on dirt it will be different than at 10F on dirt or on turf.

At 6F on dirt I would WAY rather see my speed horse run:

slow 2f, fast 2f, finish

than

fast 2f, slow 2f, finish

By George you've got it. That is exactly what I have been saying. What you want to do is accelerate - continue - decelerate (as little as possible).

What the horses did in that Belmont race did is the dreaded accelerate - decelerate - re-accelerate pattern. All their figures tanked.

Of course any distance race is ideally run at even pace on any surface. However at 6F, since grass is a more natural and and less tiring surface for horses, they can run it a bit more like a pure sprint than an extended print.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Right.



IMHO, the bad ride is a front runner that is fresh going into the 2nd turn and slows it down more anyway waiting for the stretch drive. That allows the closer to get into position without paying a price and the race comes down who has the better kick. I do not like that. You have to use your speed to your advantage.

Excellent example. Another way to put it is that if the front runner decelerates on the turn, he's going to have to use more energy to re acelerate in the stretch than he saved by slowing down on the turn.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

First of all this depends on the distance. Physics tells us that in general the most efficient way of covering a distance is with even pace. That's because any increase in velocity (acceleration) requires the application of force upon mass. This is not only true for horses, but includes humans and even cars - even paced driving gives the best MPG. This holds true in middle and long distance racing in track and routes in horse racing as well.

However, in extended sprints, like the 400 meters in track and about 6F in horse racing, the momentum gained by going a bit faster early carried into the late part mitigates the extra fatigue caused by the faster early pace. I have only recently deduced this and wish I had known it when running the 400 meters in college track when my attempts at running even pace left me too far back to catch the early leader. At least it's not too late to help me with estimating ideal pace in my sprint handicapping now.

But back to the original question, In a horse racing sprint the ideal situation for a front runner would to go off at slightly less than full speed and decelerate due to fatigue slightly at the finish. In longer races of a mile or longer, even pace is most efficient. Of course, this does not include the pesky influence of other horses in the race. On a lead to need type you just have to run along as fast as you need to get the lead and hope you don't have to go too fast on an accelerate -gradual decelerate pattern. The slower you can go within this pattern the more advantage you have on the rest of the field. This is common knowledge. If you can rate, the strategy is to go at whatever pace you can sustain at a little faster than even pace.
In routes, if you can rate, even pace is the way to go regardless of what anybody else is doing. Too many little pinheads get beat by "riding he other guys horse" rather than getting the best performance from their own.

By the way, I don't have to settle this argument by just an article and analysis of just a couple of races. The laws of Physics do that. The article and my analysis merely illustrate it.

You are so right.