It's not really a plug for my database, because I don't know how it will actually turn out, whether it will work out or not.
But I still believe that using specifically tailored data is better than benchmark data.
As an example, par times do not really account for pace.
Par times tell you averages, but don't tell you how good a run was.
Using track records over every distance in every track condition is more useful in showing class, and how far off that time a horse ran.
I am a firm believer in sectionals, although race sectionals are not anywhere near as good as horse sectionals.
A poster posted this in another forum to do with time ratings:
Quote:
|
The track record is 86.5 (set long time ago) I have allowed 2-3 lengths outside that (split the difference between the run by Regansburg at this meeting 2 yrs ago and the track record) By using quick times we are identifying horses that can actually run time and get the rating they deserve rather than be "soft" and allow all the crabs to be over valued.It is this principal that has been applied, a horse doesnt know what class is is, only that it can run, how fast is the key and "fast" should be rewarded and mediocre should not.
|
With all due respect to the poster and the product, allowing 2 to 3 lengths off a track record is in my opinion doomed. 2 to 3 lengths is the difference between an average horse and a great horse, I don't see making allowances as doing the ratings, the horses nor the punters any favours.
A fast race time is not the only benchmark to class either, it must be a portion of an overall picture.
Some of the fastest race times over distance are won by the most ordinary gallopers, it's the time run after a certain pace that tells the story.
As I say, it's a bit of a riddle, but I think you must start with exact parameters, for there to be any chance of success. One second difference is too major a factor to ignore in my opinion.
I'll make some illustrations to demonstrate the point when my database is sewn back together.