Pace and Cap - Sartin Methodology & The Match Up - View Single Post

Mitch44 · 04-05-2017, 08:06 AM

Jeebs:

The ratings are different in that TPR employs a deceleration factor in the 3rd FR which
most are unaware of. The FPS doesn't and are raw figures, deceleration with FPS is within the V/DC formula. The V/DC uses all 3 FR's and is a much more sophisticated formula because it can measure FX and some other factors which can't be measured with TPR.

One of the big reasons so many like TPR is because of its simplification by using a 100 point scale and a length equals one point. In FPS what is the difference between 57.79 and 56.10????? This can be figured out with a hand calculator with knowing the distance being measured, its extremely tedious and prone to mistakes. If computerized its no longer tedious and mistake proof. You only do the work once to write a formula. Why the "Doc" never converted FPS to a 100 scale? I would surmise it had to do with his passing because its not an impossible task and not that complex. Americans as a whole are oriented by the 100 scale and they easily understand a 92 is better than a 89 especially if it uses a 1 point per beaten length formula. BTW 1 point per beaten length is totally incorrect but is used consistently therefore its consistently wrong,and works. FPS is more accurate for beaten lengths.

Many horses can be rated which is why some horses have both red and blue sticks for E & S, even through their better at one or the other. Jocks and trainers use this depending on the speed in todays race or match up.Early horses that get in trouble or break poorly in the 1st Fr can transfer that energy to the 3rd FR and still get up for the win.

If I had to choose only one it would be FPS because its measurements of beaten lengths is much more accurate and by incorporating the 1st FR other ratings like FX can be incorporated. (which is only one factor that the 1st Fr can be used for and there are others.) As Jimmy "The Hat" Bradshaw stated so eloquently " The race starts when the gates open."

To be honest with you I look at and use both as I perceive things from both. I also am one that can visualize better with a 100 point scale. Even through FPS is incorporated into ranking I would prefer to see them on a 100 point scale. I mean how much difference is there between a rank of 1 & 2. According to the "Doc" the answer is always one(1). He stated he hated line scores because they never depict the real difference.

Both of them get a bevy of winners in the top 3. I always consult TPR as a starting point of my evaluation but as I said if I had to choose only one, hands down Total Energy and all 3 Fr's is best. In both look for gaps and use for direction in other readouts to comprehend the factors and readouts.

Jeebs to answer your original question for weeding out non contenders I would use Total Energy for the reasons as stated above.

Mitch44

04-05-2017, 08:06 AM	#3
Mitch44 Grade 1 Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: The Villages, Fl. Posts: 3,705	Jeebs: The ratings are different in that TPR employs a deceleration factor in the 3rd FR which most are unaware of. The FPS doesn't and are raw figures, deceleration with FPS is within the V/DC formula. The V/DC uses all 3 FR's and is a much more sophisticated formula because it can measure FX and some other factors which can't be measured with TPR. One of the big reasons so many like TPR is because of its simplification by using a 100 point scale and a length equals one point. In FPS what is the difference between 57.79 and 56.10????? This can be figured out with a hand calculator with knowing the distance being measured, its extremely tedious and prone to mistakes. If computerized its no longer tedious and mistake proof. You only do the work once to write a formula. Why the "Doc" never converted FPS to a 100 scale? I would surmise it had to do with his passing because its not an impossible task and not that complex. Americans as a whole are oriented by the 100 scale and they easily understand a 92 is better than a 89 especially if it uses a 1 point per beaten length formula. BTW 1 point per beaten length is totally incorrect but is used consistently therefore its consistently wrong,and works. FPS is more accurate for beaten lengths. Many horses can be rated which is why some horses have both red and blue sticks for E & S, even through their better at one or the other. Jocks and trainers use this depending on the speed in todays race or match up.Early horses that get in trouble or break poorly in the 1st Fr can transfer that energy to the 3rd FR and still get up for the win. If I had to choose only one it would be FPS because its measurements of beaten lengths is much more accurate and by incorporating the 1st FR other ratings like FX can be incorporated. (which is only one factor that the 1st Fr can be used for and there are others.) As Jimmy "The Hat" Bradshaw stated so eloquently " The race starts when the gates open." To be honest with you I look at and use both as I perceive things from both. I also am one that can visualize better with a 100 point scale. Even through FPS is incorporated into ranking I would prefer to see them on a 100 point scale. I mean how much difference is there between a rank of 1 & 2. According to the "Doc" the answer is always one(1). He stated he hated line scores because they never depict the real difference. Both of them get a bevy of winners in the top 3. I always consult TPR as a starting point of my evaluation but as I said if I had to choose only one, hands down Total Energy and all 3 Fr's is best. In both look for gaps and use for direction in other readouts to comprehend the factors and readouts. Jeebs to answer your original question for weeding out non contenders I would use Total Energy for the reasons as stated above. Mitch44 Last edited by Mitch44; 04-05-2017 at 08:17 AM.