|
|
To advertise on these forums, e-mail us. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
[quote]
And such figures seem to mock the concept of sustained pace. Consistently going slower hardly appears "sustained". ******************************* La Mer: You make some good points jfc, but just a few comments about sustained pace. Basically I agree with your observations about that the slower sectionals (other than the first as you mentioned) tend to come later in the race, with the last 200m sectional usually being the second slowest of any race. But in regard to ‘sustainability’ then it is all relative – relative to the amount of energy usage –so that if high amounts of energy is used early, i.e. the pace is on, then the amount of sustainability later in the race are relative to the level of the early pace and energy usage, so that if high amounts of energy is used early and a horse maintains a run, then its sustainability can be judged by the amount of slowing down it does in the latter parts of the race. As an example of what I mean, the following is an extract of an email I wrote to a few punting friends back on 14 Oct 2002 re Choisir: “After the running of the Caulfield Guineas on Saturday, all the talk/discussion has been about how Bel Esprit was probably a good thing beaten. Well, it didn't get the best of runs from the turn to half way down the straight and Oliver suffered what often occurs with get-back horses but IMHO it wasn't one of his best rides. But was it a good thing beaten?? Maybe, but I also think that there was another horse in that race that definitely was a good thing beaten - Choisir. I have little doubt that had Glen Boss ridden a more patient ride then neither the winner (Helenus) nor Bel Esprit would have got close and Choisir would have won by two to three lengths. These are the early sectionals that Choisir cut out: 9.67s (first 170m) then followed by 10.70s (suicidal so early in a race over 1600m); 11.57s; 11.91s. Credit to the horse that Choisir was still able to run the last 400m in two sub 12-second sectionals - 11.61s and 11.99s. Should have won - but when a horse cuts out a 10.70 second sectional over a mile, it makes the task not only hard but just about impossible. By comparison, (at the same meeting) given that Lonhro/Sunline ran within 1/5th of the track record in the Caulfield Stakes - Sunline ran the first 170m in 12.32s with her fastest 200m sectional being 11.35s (three lengths slower than Choisir's) and her's came much later in the race between the 1000m and the 800m marks with her last two 200m sectionals run in 11.65s and 12.15s, both slower than Choisir's last two respective 200m sectionals. Lonhro's fastest sectional was run in 11.34s, again half a second slower than the big colts. To get into spectrum just how fast a 200m sectional is, Spinning Hill who from dead set last in the 1000m race, ran a last 200m sectional 10.74s, a mere 4/100ths of a second faster than what Choisir did between the 1400m to 1200m mark. Outside of the shorter sprint races of 1200m/1000m, Choisir ran the fastest 200m sectional at the meeting and the only one (other than for Great Glen's in the same race over the same 200m sectional), under 11 seconds. When you consider that Saturday's Caulfield Guineas was the fastest ever run in its 100 year plus history and the time run was as a result of the early sectionals carved out by Choisir, it was it a good thing beaten and IMO is a future multiple Group 1 winner.” Chosir’s sectionals got slower later in the race, but also demonstrated sustainability by being able to run his last 400m in 23.6s, more so given his 10.70s early 200m sectional. So when the sectionals are observed, they also have to be interpreted and to merely state that the slower late times ‘mock the concept of sustained pace’ somewhat misses the point. [ This Message was edited by: La Mer on 2003-06-24 15:17 ] |
#22
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
I concur totally La Mer. The assessment of sections and in particular how fast or slow they go late, must be made relative to the how fast or slow they went early. At the simplest level there is a clear relationship between the speed of the first section and speed of the last section, hence overall time. This is something that also changes over various distance ranges due to the balance of early & late distance. As an example, following is an extract of information from my own database. It shows the average first section at difference pace intervals according to my classificaions, and the corresponding average final section and overal time. The numbers are my rating numbers...the higher the faster. For races up to 1250m...within a defined class range (data over last 6 years).
|