TC,

I can't speak for Lee, but I think the first letters are the real thing. The Janet and John stuff started with this a/rating.

If the procedure suggested in SIAO is followed for the first examples, we lose PK and Baronet at the first hurdle. They are not in the top four for ability, plain and simple. So why the change in procedure? The only thing I can see is the introduction of the a/rating.

Why does he show the 'other' ratings in SIAO? Are his final thoughts, and decisions driven by these unimportant ratings or the a/rating?

Be Lucky

Jib
Nice to see MARCEL bounce back.

JIB,

You must be the fool that I speak of.

BC -

'fraid so

Mtoto -

Have always considered the AR to be flawed - esp when comparing Handicap and Stakes !

Do however always look at "Race Class/Value lto ! -

just as a confirmation of "Class" !

One of the two "Other Ratings! as almost certainly - "Speed" !

I cant locate the other - but he did make frequent reference to Pace !! ( Red Herring ???)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Tuppenycat,

Lee,

Time will tell who is more foolish than who, and to what extent. If I may be so bold, I think you arent far behind me with your tales of ratings that go bump in the night.

horses profiles
cormorant wharf
a day in advance
why go back to 1970?

JIB,

I will look forward to that time

I cant locate the other - but he did make frequent reference to Pace !! ( Red Herring ???)

TC,

I think when VDW referred to pace he meant the overall pace of the race, and judged it on the s/f recorded. So not a red herring, just a different interpretation of pace.

I agree one of the methods was judged/based on speed, but not the bare s/f. BL had a faster s/f than PK, and he wasn't the best in the race.

VDW said the two figures used came from different ideas. So I think one was based on form, possibly a figure compiled by a private handicapper like Superform, etc. Even then it doesn't mean he used them in the way intended.

[Do however always look at "Race Class/Value lto ! ]

That wouldn't have been much help with the likes of PK and Baronet and others.

[Have always considered the AR to be flawed - esp when comparing Handicap and Stakes !]

Think it is often more pronounced here, but also handicap to handicap has to be watched very carefully. There are a couple of handicaps today with good prize money, but not very good class horses running in them. Yes, these poor(er) horses will try hard, but they are still not very good class horses.

Be Lucky

From memory, I can only recall pace being mentioned twice by VDW; once as an argument against s/f, and once as as a guide to something that had no mention of them.
But then, others have come up with their own interpretation, and made the pieces fit their understanding?

Interesting points about things that are difficult or impossible to define:

"Class", "value", " pace".

Frankly, I couldn't reel off an understandable definition for any of these, any more than I could define the color " red" or the essence of " beauty".

Maybe they're things we see in our " mind's eye" ( whatever that is!).

Anyway, we have to be practical, so I read some more American stuff on pace; actually, it was for humans, training for running.

It seems that each runner has a " natural, sustainable, cruising speed" which gives the most efficient, and thus the fastest way, to cover the required distance.
This is what's meant by " pacing oneself".

This seems to be a natural ability. Physical training is needed to make sure that it's used to the full, AND MENTAL TRAINING - possibly more important - is essential yo get the " splits" right.
That means the mental clock has got to become a tool that's second nature to use in practice.

In horse racing, This is the job of the jockey.
The trainer's job is to tell him how to " pace the race" ( ie. what best suits the horse).

Decenber 18.

Saturday morning means it's time to have another crack at a VDW selection.

Top race of the day is

225, Windsor, £43.5K Class A, grade 1, Hurdle, 3m 1/2f.

Because of an outstanding fav, this doesn't look a punter friendly race to me - so that should suit the majority of VDWers who don't like sticking their necks out! NO bet should be the cry.

However, I've come up with some strange ratings:

Geos 290
Barracouda 274
Rule Supreme 258
Ilnamar 232
Crystal 223

I guess the sensible bets - if forced - are Rule Supreme EW ( also the Pricewise selection, as it happens) and Ilnamar EW.

My own feeling is that Barra will win, and Geos ( JIB has mentioned this one) will go close.

Worrying to see that Crystal, whom I make 2nd to Barra on speed, is way down my shortlist.

arry dash 11-30

i wrote this one down in my notepad last night,ovbiosly its not fit enough to do itself justice today after a break,friendless on the exchanges,should do well rest of the season on the aw though

[From memory, I can only recall pace being mentioned twice by VDW; once as an argument against s/f, ]

John D

Is this the argument against s/f you are talking about?......

[What the clock says at the end of a race may not appear to tell the whole story, but it gives enough when interpreted and used to best advantage to provide one of the most useful means of evaluation.]

Then the other part of your statment......

[and once as as a guide to something that had no mention of them.]

He may not have mentioned s/f, (at the time) but what other meaning can be put on pace in this context? In the later article he then shows he is using pace in the context of assessing s/f.

[There are few races run flat out, even those at the minimum five furlongs and to produce figures that would appear consistent every race would need to be free from tactics and lack of pace at some stage. In a five furlongs sprint, lack of pace over the first one or two furlongs makes a great deal of difference to the resultant figures produced.]

Your final remark.......

[But then, others have come up with their own interpretation, and made the pieces fit their understanding?]

I have tried to make my understanding fit the pieces.

Be Lucky

Mtoto
Even after all the recognised variants have been adjusted, there is still the question of pace and genuine effort. The proportion of true run races is not high and so horses do not produce their best figures consistently and most only repeat them a few times during their racing careers
Part of letter 42, where he advocated the use of speed figures for younger horses, but not before pointing out their shortcomings as above.

and

it is necessary to study the form of all concerned taking particular note of the class they ran in, the course they ran over, the pace and going of their respective races, and how they performed in the late stages of each race.

Form is the operative word in the above statement, with pace being a part of understanding that form, and not a mention of s/f or any other ratings.

You have obviously found a third reference to pace in letter 42, again it points to the shortcomings in s/f.

The whole point of my post was to show that pace, as opposed to s/f, was a part of the complete method, but as I said, (And you appear to agree with ) others will have their own interpretation to make their pieces fit.

Lee
Would you have considered the backing of barracouda madness?

Time v pace


Now who might have written this ???


-

An alternative to time figures, is pace figures. Superform have used pace figures for over 25 years.

However, Superform pace figures whilst excellent are not perfect. (Nothing is of course). Pace figures are on most days recorded and reproduced mechanically, without reference to type/class of race, racehorse, and level of competition.
Superform might well disagree with this last statement, but this year, they have changed the way their pace figures are calculated on the days when all the majority of races, being run on a programme containing top or high class horses.

Regarding race times this is what Superform say:
'Race times: A single race reveals little. It's meaningful only when compared with some standard or average. Consistent methods must then be used to evaluate the condition of the track. Superform produces pace and going ,figures, which pinpoint fast run races and reflect the condition of the track, on the day.

Often our "going" figures differ from the official going report supplied by the racecourse.'

Superform also details the relationship between Time/Pace and Going and an explanation of what these figures mean.

'Time/Pace/Going/Figures: We do use race times to calculate the prevailing going on the day, and also to give an idea of the relative pace at which each race was run.

Firstly we compare the race time with the standard time for the track. When this is calculated on a per furlong basis over 6 races, a fairly accurate picture of the prevailing going emerges.

Take for example a race over 5 furlongs that returns a time of 63 seconds. The standard for the track is 59 seconds. Thus the race was run in 4 seconds slower than standard time. Divide 4 (seconds) by 5 (furlongs), which equals 0.80. Do this for all six races, which would typically give figures of .80,1.00,1.10, 1.15, and 1.05. Add the figures together - total 5.75 for 6 races. Divide 5.75 by 6 (races) and we have an average per furlong figure of .96 (.9583 rounded up).

The general conclusions to be drawn from the pace figures are:
Slow pace - Form might be suspect particularly with regard to placed horses (especially in non handicaps).

Fast pace - Form can be relied on and the form of close up, placed horses should work out well. Easy winners can be followed with some confidence:
This would indicate that the going was on the soft side or good since we use the following table as a guid

1.30 and upwards - HEAVY
0.90 to 1.30 -SOFT
0.60 to 0.90 - GOOD/SOFT
0.40 to 0.60 - GOOD
0.20 to 0.40 - GOOD/FIRM
Below 0.20 - FIRM


The average figure for each meeting is printed after the going in each race - usually without the decimal point. Thus - Good 60.

The official going report is also printed at the start of each meeting.
This pace figure is especially noteworthy when it is confirmed by a good speed figure.

Please note that we may omit races from the calculations should these races have been very slow run. There are also days when small fields and/or a succession of slow ran races make it impossible to produce any meaningful figure.

Pace Figures: We also find this going figure useful in determining the relative pace of each race. In the above example the average per furlong figure for the meeting was .96.' The third race produced a figure of only .65 and was therefore run at a relatively fast pace. Conversely the fifth race with a figure of 1.5 was a fairly slow run affair.

We indicate in the results whether the race was fast or slow run. This figure is calculated by comparing the figure for each race with the average for the meeting. Thus the first race would be +16 Fast (.96 minus .80) Race five would be -19 slow (.96 -1.15).

The general conclusions to be drawn from the pace figures are:

Slow pace - Form might be suspect particularly with regard to placed horses (especially in non handicaps).

Fast pace - Form can be relied on and the form of close up, p1aced horses should work out well. Easy winners can be followed with some confidence:

Now whilst that explains how you can find out if a race was run at a slow or fast pace, what use is that information in your quest for winners?

Generally, fast pace form is much more reliable, however, that does not necessarily mean slow pace form is unreliable. Easy winners, that won at slow pace, still go on and win again and many become champions.

My view of how you can use this information is what it tells you about the horse and the class of its opponents.

This pace figure is especially noteworthy when it is confirmed by a good speed figure.

tc

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Tuppenycat,

My reading of that, TC, says

the only placed horses we should consider are those that finished close up in a fast race.

We should consider all winners from fast races and, also, winners that won easily in slow run races.

Have I got it right?

If so, what's the best source of this data, in your opinion?

seanrua -

I think you have it right - but I would regard winners in slow run races with doubt - less there was summit else as well !

Re - source

As far as I can see - Superform - is the only source -

MONEY !!! -

-

I think Lee uses Superform !

perhaps he will contribute

tc

SHIMSHEK

14 May 1988 race no 666

According to VDW he had done nothing from the distance in his last run and that run was considered a downturn on his previous outing (seasonal debut).

Debut - 3rd btn 3,1 lgth giving 21 & 14 lbs to 1st and 2nd in a class 77 Newmarket hcap over 12 furlongs. The 2 in front of Shimshek were rated better than him if using the bare abilty rating as a guide.

He then goes to Ascot and runs Sergeyevich to 0.75 lgth in the Gp 3 Sagaro Stakes, class 254.

I find it hard to say the 2nd effort was a downturn ?

Any views ?