'paceQuality' figs: Street Sense (last 4); Bluegrass S. (w/Trakus)

Originally Posted by Bobby Fischer

IMO CQ would have needed to come on much more than he appeared likely before the incident to run a faster Risen Star pQ2.

This is kind of a clumsy sentence. Are you saying; "Even w/o the spill, CQ was not likely win the Risen star?"

I would tend to differ how far back from notional was he,4-5 lenghts? His final time was messed up but wasnt that because of the spill? I know his final quarter time was not good but look at the final 1/8.

[Bobby Fischer]

Originally Posted by easy goer

This is kind of a clumsy sentence. Are you saying; "Even w/o the spill, CQ was not likely win the Risen star?"

I would tend to differ how far back from notional was he,4-5 lenghts? His final time was messed up but wasnt that because of the spill? I know his final quarter time was not good but look at the final 1/8.

Agreed.
I think Circular Quay may well have won the Risen Star without the spill.

Beyond winning-
Comparing the pQ and pQ2 figures

Circular Quay would have really had to catch fire and win by open lengths in order for his Risen Star pQ2 velocity to have been faster than his Risen Star pQ1 velocity.

Circular Quay has not had pQ2 > pQ1 in his last 4 races (likely never).
Street Sense has done it twice in the last four.

Big problem I have is how the distance covered is measured. That has to be accurate or this is a mess. Does one go out there with a unicycle measuring device and follow the path of the horses?

This one reason I have never trusted speed measured this way. Another thing is the wide trip v. the rail. Depends a whole lot of the curvature of the turn. Some horses run well with that right side taking over and some horses run better in a stretch where one side does not have to dominate the other. Also horses that are lugging out or in may cover a lot of ground in a good time but they also might be dead tired compared to a horse who is full of run in a straight line path, running evenly and efficiently... in the figures this would work out to be slow because it was straight(again assuming distance is measured accurately)

Also horses that have changed speeds a number of times might have a low average time, but actually may have run a much tougher race because of having to change speeds (a bit hesitant to move thru a hole that closed, etc...)

Figures and numbers can be helpful (more so in betting, not as much in assessing a particular run) I will stick with my eyeballs and some basic figures in assessing a race. Nonetheless, it gives one something to ponder.

Ok I see Trackus... how is measuring distance accurately done by trackus?

[Bobby Fischer]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Big problem I have is how the distance covered is measured. That has to be accurate or this is a mess. Does one go out there with a unicycle measuring device and follow the path of the horses?

This one reason I have never trusted speed measured this way. Another thing is the wide trip v. the rail. Depends a whole lot of the curvature of the turn. Some horses run well with that right side taking over and some horses run better in a stretch where one side does not have to dominate the other. Also horses that are lugging out or in may cover a lot of ground in a good time but they also might be dead tired compared to a horse who is full of run in a straight line path, running evenly and efficiently... in the figures this would work out to be slow because it was straight(again assuming distance is measured accurately)

Also horses that have changed speeds a number of times might have a low average time, but actually may have run a much tougher race because of having to change speeds (a bit hesitant to move thru a hole that closed, etc...)

Figures and numbers can be helpful (more so in betting, not as much in assessing a particular run) I will stick with my eyeballs and some basic figures in assessing a race. Nonetheless, it gives one something to ponder.
Ok I see Trackus... how is measuring distance accurately done by trackus?

The Trakus uses a microchip in the saddle bag to chart actual ground covered.
There are actually two different distances to consider here. Trackus measures actual total distance run by the horse.
If the horse raced wide and changed paths he will have covered more ground. (Street Sense actually had the highest ft/s velocity in the Bluegrass).

With Linear Distance, path is not considered. It is simply how fast a horse ran to each point of call and finish using 660 feet per furlong.

To calculate linear velocity I currently use 8feet per length(spacing of safety rail posts) for beaten lengths at point of calls and a seconds/length conversion at the finish line as the photo finish companies do.

These figs were originally designed to be a nice tool for showing a more accurate race shape. The human eye and judgement is where it's at. Everyone who sells figures tends to hint that they pick winners - I would be happy if I narrow my search a little, have a frame of reference, and maybe have something to look for on the replay.

Originally Posted by Bobby Fischer

The Trakus uses a microchip in the saddle bag to chart actual ground covered.
There are actually two different distances to consider here. Trackus measures actual total distance run by the horse.
If the horse raced wide and changed paths he will have covered more ground. (Street Sense actually had the highest ft/s velocity in the Bluegrass).

I did not read closely enough. I thought most of these numbers were based on total distance run. I thought that was the crux of the whole idea... anyways:
How did a company get to put this kind of technology in the saddle? At any track? Through NTRA or what...? I know its not like extra weight, I would just like to know how they got the rights to gather this sort of data and distribute it?

[Bobby Fischer]

Originally Posted by pgardn

I did not read closely enough. I thought most of these numbers were based on total distance run. I thought that was the crux of the whole idea... anyways:
How did a company get to put this kind of technology in the saddle? At any track? Through NTRA or what...? I know its not like extra weight, I would just like to know how they got the rights to gather this sort of data and distribute it?

Right now, I know of Trakus at Keeneland and Woodbine only. They offer the Trakus as a service, and one of the main uses is to show the position of horses during the simulcast of the race. Information is available at Keeneland's website.

Originally Posted by Bobby Fischer

Agreed.
I think Circular Quay may well have won the Risen Star without the spill.

Beyond winning-
Comparing the pQ and pQ2 figures

Circular Quay would have really had to catch fire and win by open lengths in order for his Risen Star pQ2 velocity to have been faster than his Risen Star pQ1 velocity.

Circular Quay has not had pQ2 > pQ1 in his last 4 races (likely never).
Street Sense has done it twice in the last four.

I would not put great stock in this, (not sure if you are). SS's last race on the polytrack well surely any horse could have produced a better final speed than early speed. Given the way it was run. That doesnt say much.

As to the other race, I'm guessing it was the TB derby, they came home w/ a strong tail wind so that probably explains it.

Like I said, I dont know if you put much stock in this but you've obviously formulated your ratings in order to reflect something like this. It matters to your way of thinking. Could you elaborate then on why you think its important to compare these pQ1 and pQ2s to one another. What do you think is going on?

ALso, left off from last time,where do you come out on Great Hunter do you think he was tiring? thanks

[philcski]

Originally Posted by easy goer

I would not put great stock in this, (not sure if you are). SS's last race on the polytrack well surely any horse could have produced a better final speed than early speed. Given the way it was run. That doesnt say much.

As to the other race, I'm guessing it was the TB derby, they came home w/ a strong tail wind so that probably explains it.

Like I said, I dont know if you put much stock in this but you've obviously formulated your ratings in order to reflect something like this. It matters to your way of thinking. Could you elaborate then on why you think its important to compare these pQ1 and pQ2s to one another. What do you think is going on?

ALso, left off from last time,where do you come out on Great Hunter do you think he was tiring? thanks

It isn't a formulation of a rating, it's simple physics (average velocity = distance covered/time)

The value of comparing a horse's average velocity in the first half of the race to the second gives you a quantitative value on how much they slowed down in the second half of the race (99% of dirt races are run faster in the first half than the second.) Those that slow down less are more apt to stretch out.

[Bobby Fischer]

Originally Posted by philcski

It isn't a formulation of a rating, it's simple physics (average velocity = distance covered/time)

The value of comparing a horse's average velocity in the first half of the race to the second gives you a quantitative value on how much they slowed down in the second half of the race (99% of dirt races are run faster in the first half than the second.) Those that slow down less are more apt to stretch out.

Exactly.

In simple terms it tells you how much a horse slowed down.

In the Bluegrass several horses actually "came home" the last 3 furlongs faster than they started. That race started very slow and was run on polytrack. In the Breeders Cup Juvenile only one horse- Street Sense, ran a faster pQ2.

These types of comparisons have to be viewed in the context of the race, and may or may not show any worthwhile information.

I will post more Kentucky Derby contenders (Great Hunter, Tiago, Dominican, Any Given Saturday likely next - Also open to posting any Derby Horse that someone may request),

and I will also eventually post a complete list that shows all the figures as well as some extra comparisons and manipulations of the data along side.