Lee,

A couple of questions seeing as nothing is now hidden.

CVDW asked interested readers to consider which is the better speed figure? A 62 at Redcar or a 58 at Epsom. In your uncluttered view what factors was CVDW asking us to consider? A) The class of horse than could be reasonably be expected to be engaged at each location. OR. B) The characteristics of each course. OR. C) the respective standard times of each course.OR. D) None of the above just that Redcar is the better speed figure because it is higher?

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

ECTOO,

Very sorry that you appear to have mis-interpreted MY post. I should have stated more clearly that I think its one of the best posts on this CVDW thread for a long while. In fact, many would do well to consider it fully. I ONLY , mentioned the above posibilities as a possible SPanner in the work.

If youve looked already, I take my hat off to you. AGAIN.

Second time that!

it's not VDW though

if it doesn't lose I'll say it is though

Pipedreamer,

As this list is compiled from 2 yo maidens thankfully the speedfigs are usually free from the weight complication.

However what I ve found really worrying is the almost complete lack of correlation of the speedfigs between the various brands on offer. Lee put up some of his Raceform qualifiers for this past season but if you take the same horses sfs on the RP its hard to make any sense from there relative values.

I ve really gone off sfs recently (too many considerations are involved in their composition) and prefer to look at the race time and the going to see if the run was a quick one or not.

best ignore Topspeed..shite speed figures

mine are much better

Pkboy,

Given that this thread is a VDW thread, and the fact that you asked me a direct question related to the clock I presumed…

The fact that VDW phrased the question as such most certainly means he was suggesting that the Epsom performance, on many occasions, would be the better than Redcar, even though the rating might tell a different story. This relates to the class/form of horse that normally compete at Epsom in comparison to Redcar, backing up his theory that ratings should be regarded as a guide, and not the be-all and end-all.

Lee,

Now I'm very intrigued, are you suggesting there maybe a way to judge class and form from a s/f? If I have misunderstood your post could you say why it is not possible?

Be Lucky

"Thanks for posting that comment by Peach. The split race time could be a modern adaptation Of "looking what a horse does, or does not do at this stage will provide the answers."
: PKboy.


I realise I'm harping on about " what a horse does in in the last two furlongs", but I find this puzzle intriguing.

From what I know, a horse can do one of five basic things:

1) Run faster
2) Run slower
3) Run at one pace
4) Run out or veer/hang
5) Breakdown/pull up/fall

If I watch the race I can draw my own conclusions from what I see.

If I read or hear about the race, I can draw my own conclusions from what someone else says they saw.

If there are sectional times, I can draw my own conclusions from figures provided by someone else.

Otherwise, I can think of no way of " looking what a horse does".

I just hope and pray that we don't have to bring in Paul Daniels.

From someone who was around at the time, it may be worth pointing out to the younger element that the class disparity between Epsom and Redcar was probably much greater then, than it is now, hence their use in the example.

Seanrua,

I,like you am intrigued by what a horse does in the final 2 furlongs.

The experts suggest that a race readers comments is just one person's opinion and as VDW dealt in cold methodical logic we are told to ignore the form book comments.

VDW said that Greenhills Joy had less of a test than First Division when evaluating the Newmarket race.

What did he mean ?

A question I am working on presently whilst struggling with the Righthand Man example and in particular the assessment of Peaty Sandy's in form or not for that race.

Mtoto,

No, I’m not suggesting that is how VDW worked.

Why is not possible? There are many ways to isolate winners using different means of investigation, however, VDW’s method did not hinge around speed figures, whether to determined class, or any other way. He said that they were a useful guide, but not the be all and end all.

Determined,

As I’ve stated before, you are focusing on an area that is of vital importance to the method. In order for the reader not to get too carried away with speed figures VDW was careful in how he gave his assessment.

From Racing in My System:

“Greenhills Joy won her race and First Division was second, but the latter’s performance was far superior in a faster race.”

From Systematic Betting:

“Both were first outings but, although Greenhills Joy won, her form upon inspection is below that of First Division. A slow race and the closing stages show hers was less of a test.”

He felt the need to make clear that he was judging each performance in the closing stages by other means than what the clock said at the end of the race.

Lee,

Class and Form most certainly appear to be at the core of CVDW's methods

"
The experts suggest that a race readers comments is just one person's opinion and as VDW dealt in cold methodical logic we are told to ignore the form book comments."
: Determined.

To All,

Yes, this is the hard bit; we are told to ignore both racereader's comments and the clock " when assessing how a horse is running in the last 2f".

I've posted the five possible categories of finishing performance that can be done by / happen to a horse.

To determine the category without imput from others means to me that we must see the actual last two furlongs by being on course or by watching video recordings or Tv pictures.

Any reference to " reading the formbook" will have to be dismissed on the same grounds that ruled out race-reader's comments, ie third party information from a human source.

Perhaps life is an illusion after all; let me just ask this angel at the bedroom window. I'll have to be quick, as those pigs look like they're on a collision course......

Seanrua,

Think about things logically, if a horse is noted as having 'qcknd inside the last' to make a race of it, what does this mean?

For instance, is it now a contender for the Derby?

Surely the factual side of race-readers comments have to be considered, such as the change of position in the final 2 furlongs. However, these cannot be isolated from the class against which the horse was running.

Lee,

To answer your question - it all depends of the class of the race and the class of the opposition. If it was running in a Derby 'trial' against horses that had previously run well in Group races, then possibly. If it was a selling race, then no way!

Oldtimer

He felt the need to make clear that he was judging each performance in the closing stages by other means than what the clock said at the end of the race.

Lee,

If this is correct why then bother to mention one race was run at a quicker pace than the other? One was run on heavy going so it would be expected to be run slower than a race on good going. To bring these races together the/a going allowance would need to be used. Is this not where the s/f comes into it's own showing one race was faster than the other in real time?

The strange bit about all this is the different interpretations different people can get when they read the same articles. Reading the thought process and logic VDW showed in these examples (Roushayd) was/is the main reason I think they apply to ALL of the main methods.

I also find it strange that you and others keep making the point that ratings are not the be all. I don't think I have ever suggested they are. They are an important cog, but just a factor that has to be used with ALL the other factors.

I have asked many times, what did Roushayd show in the last 2f of his Epsom race? If he was the only one that hadn't done anything, I would just put it down to my misunderstanding the point being made, but he wasn't. I'm told s/f are not the way because no record of the Irish horses s/f were recorded. Fair enough, but now I'm being told what happens in the last 2f is important. How do we know and VDW for that matter, as no race comments are recorded for the races run in Ireland? No doubt you will again say race comments don't matter, but the bare finishing distances can be very misleading. How do we know if the winner was eased, and now could we judge if a horse was ridden for the place, or the second horse was well out gunned on the run in?

Be Lucky

Old-Timer,
It's for that very reason that I feel the Irish race reports seem so much better than ours. They give a far more accurate view of how things pan out, considerably so, when detailing the various horses positions at key points throughout the race and where and when they started to go forwards/backwards through the field.

OT,

Of course, the race-readers comments can be telling, however, they need balancing against other factors.

It is the latter stages of the race that are important, and what a horse does or doesn't do at this stage will give the answers.

VDW's method of gauging one performance against another, from the distance, is the key.

Mtoto,

“A slow race AND the closing stages show hers to be less of a test.” The final time was of course a negative for Greenhills Joy, but it wasn’t the Speed Figure (or lack of it) that suggested to VDW that hers was less of a test, it was something else that CAN be found in the form lines of EVERY horse, and nowadays nothing more than the RP is required.

Race comments are useful to gauge how the race was run, but that is all they tell us, in isolation.

pkboy,

You should see the US reports, where every horse's position is recorded at the 4 quarters of the the race (plus the time). It's very easy to see from that how the different horses ran their race.

Lee,

I've always had a feeling about that, but to date still can't put my finger on it.

Oldtimer