Question:TGJB, Pace Figs?

[Josephus]

In regard to all of this back and forth posting about pace, can we have your opinion on whether pace figures as accurate as your race numbers are even possible?  And if they aren\'t, why not?  And what are the pitfalls that people would make who try to do their own ( how pars are establised, ground loss. weight, etc.)

Thanks

[TGJB]

We have considered getting involved in pace figures, and may still in the future. I have posted about this before (you can try the search engine below), but the first issue is what they even represent if accurate, since they will be affected by how the horse is ridden-- final figures in theory measure all out effort.

But yes, there are a lot of other issues-- ground loss, wind, weight. And then there is the seperate question of how you use them.

Craig, if you want to jump in on any of this, be my guest. I can\'t take much more CH.

[beyerguy]

I see no reason, given the same wind, ground loss, and runup distance data, that pace figures can\'t be as accurate as overall final time figures.

That said, by themselves, they mean very little.  I think they must be viewed in relation to the final time figure in all but a few rare cases.  I also think trying to predict who will lead a race, duel, etc. with pace figures is an exercise in futility.

[mandown]

Hi beyerguy,

Isn\'t one of the flaws for pace figures that you\'re relying on an eyeball estimate for lengths back rather than teletimer distances? If the tracking equipment ever gets implemented it would be a different story, of course. And, yes, ground loss is also an eyeball measurement but at least it\'s only one!

I was also interested in your comment regarding the futility of using pace figures to determine who leads etc. I\'ve been dipping my toe in these waters and I was slightly surprised to see how the same horse can run markedly different first quarter times in different races.

Cheers,

George

[beyerguy]

Yes George, I did forget that one, but at least the way I do things, the farther back a horse is early, the less significant the pace figure is anyway.  

The quarter times can be greatly affected by jockey intent for one thing, which leads to the wild swings you can see.  It is also very common to see mid pack runners and closers showing faster pace figures (from different races of course) than need the lead type runners, but the front running types will be ahead of them nearly every time.

[Saddlecloth]

Well that makes sense, I mean take a horse like Mineshaft, and put him in with say a cheap speedball, and Mineshaft wont have the lead, despite the higher pace figures.  I think though once you determine running style that pace figures can seperate who will be where in the battle.

beyerguy wrote:

> Yes George, I did forget that one, but at least the way I do
> things, the farther back a horse is early, the less significant
> the pace figure is anyway.  
>
> The quarter times can be greatly affected by jockey intent for
> one thing, which leads to the wild swings you can see.  It is
> also very common to see mid pack runners and closers showing
> faster pace figures (from different races of course) than need
> the lead type runners, but the front running types will be
> ahead of them nearly every time.

[Michael D.]

the same horse could run a :24 first quarter under a tight hold, a :23 first quarter with little restraint, and a :22 first quarter with some encouragement. in my opinion, jockey intent (along with trainer intent) means pretty much everything when talking pace.

[mandown]

Michael,

I think you\'re on the money there. One thing I did find is that horses drawn 1 are more likely to be on the lead at the first call than a random breakdown would suggest. You would presume that a jockey in post one makes a bigger effort to get the lead in order to avoid getting chopped off.

Similarly I think we\'d be fools if we didn\'t appreciate that jocks and trainers also make tactical decisions on how a race will set up and make their own plans accordingly.

Cheers,

George