To figure a race on speed alone is meaningless! Many fans have a notion that speed will tell the tale exclusively. Per­haps it is the generation we live in, where everything is measured in terms of miles per hour, that causes this. It seems that the average person grabs at the nearest and easiest measure to use in analyzing everyday occurances. Why not apply this logic to harness racing? After all, it seems out­wardly practical. If A can run the mile in 2:06 and B runs it in 2:05, then B will beat A. He is one full second faster. Well, this isn't always the case.

The only item that one can garner from the above is that this was true last week and the only really correct statement that can be made is that last week B ran a 2:05. One might add that this was against last week's opponents, in last week's post position, and in last week's race.

This may come as a shock to some old-time harness racing fans, but I generally do not use speed as the uppermost factor to determine a horse's ability in a specific race. Of course there are justifiable limits; I am not saying that a horse who is considerably faster than another horse will not win over him. However, horses within a given class are generally about the same speed or close enough in approximate times to make "speed" hair-splitting unreasonable. Seldom, if ever, will you find a really fast horse running with much slower ones, and this can be shown by an examination of the record.

How often have you seen a pacer or trotter win by 5 or 10 lengths? The answer is seldom! The usual winning space is half a length to two lengths.

This in itself should show an intelligent handicapper that the winners are generally not much faster than the losers! Of course, there are instances where a horse breezes home with a comfortable two-length lead, and could open this up if he desired. But since one can only generalize, he will realize at a glance that most races are hotly contested and hard fought, right down to the wire.

To take the opposite point of view on this question, one would have to show that the first horse crossed the finish line at least five lengths ahead of the second horse, and as we have said previously, this just doesn't happen often.

Speed can be shown as a combination of factors. Since each race must be looked upon as a different combination of factors, you can see how speed can vary even with the same horse at different times. Examples of this are numerous and could be shown by the thousands. A few random ex­amples might further clarify this point:

A.Hi Lo's Peppy ran a 2:05 at Roosevelt Raceway on 9/10/59 winning the race by three lengths. But the race preceding this win, and just eight days before at
Roosevelt (also on a fast track) he finished 3M lengths behind the winner who won the race in 2:06.1.

B.At Detroit, Lynanna, on 8/24/59 (fast track) won a race running from the 2 position, in 2:05.2. She came back a week later (9/2/59) also on a fast track and also from the 2 position and finished fifth in 2:07—against similar competition.

This type of example could be continued indefinitely be­cause speed and "times" simply do not show all of the factors in a race.

One must consider post positions, drivers and "How the race was run"; to name a few of the factors. A major part in examining last week's race can be uncovered by the ques­tion: "How was the race run?" This question includes speed as a part of its answer, but speed is not the most important part, nor is it a major part of this answer. Factors, such as how the pace was set, by whom, how the horse under con­sideration runs, what other horses were in the race, how do the other horses in the race run (stretch, front, etc.), what kind of track it was, who was driving the horse, who broke, etc., all combine to make up the real answer to this question!

On the night that the world's record for pacing one mile was set at Roosevelt Raceway all the conditions were perfect. Bye Bye Byrd, the record setter, was running from the one post, but he was running against strong competition, stronger competition than he had run against in the previous weeks. As a brief run-down, the other major competitors were Widower Creed, a winner of $97,000.00 and a winner in 2:00 flat, W. D. Direct, a winner of $54,000.00 and a winner in 1:59.2, Speedy Pick, with lifetime earnings of $202,000.00 and a winner in 1:59.3. None of these horses could be counted out of the race!

From the outset this race looked like a real thriller, and yet it is my contention that Bye Bye Byrd never would have set that record of 1:57.4 had not the following occurred: Widower Creed literally pushed Bye Bye Byrd around the track. This was sincerely an enchanting race, and I was one of the 30,000 fans who gave Clint Hodgins a standing ova­tion for his marvelous piloting operation! Nevertheless, I must repeat that had not Widower Creed, who ran a torrid second all the way (1:58.1) pushed Bye Bye, there would have been no record set that night in that race.

In other words, the time of that race tells us the historical fact that Bye Bye finished first in 1:57.4. In reality, much of the answer still lies in how the race was run. In other words much of the story is told in the prevailing factors that night which forced the race to be run in that particular manner! It was run in a manner in which the second horse pushed the first horse literally around the track. The winner had to strain with every bit of energy in him to hold that lead, which he did to his credit. Interestingly enough, the race preceding this one, an invitation race on 8/22/59, was won by Bye Bye handily in 2:01, a full 3.6 seconds slower.

This, however, was not against the same competition and therefore did not require the effort of the nature that was needed to win one week later. It is an old story—pit a cham­pion boxer against a so-so opponent and you will find the champion winning, but not in "championship" style. Take the same champion and put him against another champion, and you will see a superb match!

It can be shown that speed in itself doesn't tell everything one wants to know about a particular race, unless the speed factor is so great as to warrant a "no contest" match or race. In this case I would have to say that recent winning times should be about three or more seconds faster than the com­petition—otherwise you still have a horse race. This is only a rule of thumb, and as such should be considered with reservations. The main point here is that hair-splitting over winning times between two contenders is unreliable, and an over-simplification of the problem.

Time does have its place in the scheme of handicapping harness races. As I have said it counts roughly one third in making a decision. It can add much to the knowledge of how a race was run last week, or the week before that, and can add valuable information in providing the answer to how and why a particular race was "won." It will not fully answer the question of what will happen today, but since racing must be viewed through past performances, it does give valuable historical assistance. Take the past performance on page 40 for example.

If you will note, the race on 8/4 at Roosevelt Raceway, which McPhergus won by two lengths, was won going away at the finish. Not only did he win by two lengths but he set his best time for the year, in 2:06.2. Let's take a closer look, however. The first quarter was run in a torrid 29.4 (C class, remember), and McPhergus was right on the outside, in the second position—challenging for the lead. He was then able to wrest the lead away and hold it. Had the second quarter re­mained fast, let's say around 1:31 or 1:32, McPhergus may have lost the race. Instead the ¾ mark was 1:35.2 and as such served as a breather allowing him to keep the lead without further exerting himself to do it. This breather allowed him to breeze home.

Here then is an example of one way in which "times" can be important in analyzing past races and hence useful in figuring today's race. "Time," then, is not used in the sense of dividing up the race among eight machines and figuring out which goes faster. If you understand what I am advo­cating, then this will appear simple and logical. The concept of speed will show why last week's race was won; it will show the quarter and who set the pace, who took the lead at the ¾ and why—and who won and why.

If you have a race in which there are four front runners in the first four positions, then you might logically assume that the 1st quarter will be torrid, and that a stretch horse will win the race because of the combination of factors. The time that the first quarter will be run in doesn't alter another basic premise; that is, that this hypothetical 1st quarter will be fast simply because there are four horses fighting for the lead and only one can get it.

Time should not be relied on as being the sole determinant. Instead it may be used as a kind of added factor with which you can get a line on a particular horse. I assume that the reason most people use "time" is that it is easy to find and outwardly logical. But harness racing is also a geometric phenomena; for if you think of the start, you will realize that the number 7 and 8 horses generally have a terrific disad­vantage; they must accept an immediate handicap of about five or more lengths. It may be shown that a horse going from the 7 or 8 post actually runs a second or two faster than the same horse running from the number 1 post. The former's winning effort is much more to be noticed than that of the latter. Here one must consider not only winning time but post position also.

It is true that horses are carried along by other horses. What is meant here is simply that a hypothetical race is run in which the leader is moving at a pace which the 2nd and 3rd can't beat, but are forced to follow as second and third. Horses don't carry stop watches, and hence they are unaware that they are running faster than they should be running—hence the fact that a horse ran an exceptional sec­ond, much faster than his recent times, doesn't always mean that he can win in a time anywhere near that. A race can be run in 2:04, for example with the winner winning by 1 ½ lengths in 2:04, while the second horse is running a good second in 2:04.2. It may be that this 2:04.2 is the best time of the year for the second-place horse. However, the next time out he loses in a 2:05.2 race. The simple explanation here is that the horse in question was carried along unknow­ingly by the winning horse in the first race, and the 2:04.2 sec­ond was not a true indication of his form. He simply followed the leading horse around the track, since he was not aware that he could not have run that fast if he were out in front.

As we have mentioned before, another important factor in analyzing a race is to determine "how the race will be run" While this can be done by inspection, you can get some help from the element of time in so far as last week's race is concerned. I do not mean utilizing the winning time of the race, but rather the ¼ ½ and ¾ times so as to give you a definite key as to how last week's race was won. If one notes that a strong stretch runner was in the 6 post and stayed there during the race, while the leading horses set a slow pace, it is safe to assume that he planned to challenge at the head of the stretch. However, further assume that the race suddenly became very fast, and the final quarter was much faster than the first quarter. Well, this would give a strong indication as to why the stretch runner was unable to challenge and make a move. He had waited for his chance —only to find himself out of contention when the time came.

In the above example "time" would tell the story as to why this race was lost. However, as a simple mechanical factor "time" cannot usually show why a horse won, it is more suitable for explaining why a particular horse lost. There are instances, of course, where the "mechanically" faster horse wins, but there are also instances where horses win in races in which they are outclassed, and outraced.

"Time" does, however, set many favorites on the odds boards. The public uses this as an easy mechanism and hence they generally select the "fastest" horse as the favorite. Rather than be too rigid in this anaylsis, I wish to point out that there are occasions where a smart handicapper can note a race or races where a horse showed that he "was ready and in form" or where he made such a move, at such a burst of speed that he showed that he was ready for the next race. In this case, however, it is mere inspection that will signal this type of winner, and it will not happen too often. However, the harbinger of this type of winner will be nothing more than a very recent good time.

One of the best examples of what happens when a horse signals that he is ready (through fast times) can be shown by a particular race used as the following example. This race more than pays back the patient handicapper looking for such a signal. It also will pay back anyone intelligent enough to see a pot of gold staring him in the face. It does not take special skill, but an ability to interpret a signal of readiness which is impossible to miss.

On September 5th, 1959, at Roosevelt Raceway, the co­feature race starred Grand R. Volo at 3/1, Amortizor at 7/2, Hundred Proof at 9/2 and Hal O Matic at 15 to one. These were some of the outstanding horses in the race. From every viewpoint it looked like Grand R. Volo's race, especially after winning three in a row.

Hal O Matic had had a very poor showing (except for his last race, which was seven days ago). His record, much sim­plified was as follows:

8/27 he finished 1st in 2:01.4

8/21 "                  6th in 2:04.3

8/14 "                  4th in 2:04.3

8/7          "           7th in 2:04.2

7/31 "                  2nd in 2:04

Do you notice anything strange? A glance at these times will show that Hal O Matic was running generally in a 2:04 category, as all his last races except the one on 8/27 were of this general speed. What happened on 8/27, to cause such a differential of three full seconds? What did he do here? If any handicapper could have had a second chance at that

(September 5) race he would have installed Hal O Matic as the 8/5 favorite.

Look at this: On 8/27 Hal O Matic was in the 7th post, and was 26 to one on the odds board. At the quarter he was 3rd on the outside, challenging for the lead; at the half, still on the outside and still challenging for the lead, he was now moving up to second but still on the outside. At this point he had run on the outside for a half mile. At the ¾ mark, he had wrested the lead away and assumed the lead, at the head of the stretch he was leading by a length on the rail, and he in­creased this down the stretch by ½ to win by 1 ½ lengths as the victor. A hard-fought race, at a torrid pace—2:01.4. If one looks at the past performances listed on the next page he will immediately see that Hal O Matic in his last race sig­nalled something and was almost saying, "Watch out for me next time, boys. I'm in form again."

Hal O Matic won the race on 8/27/59 and paid over $50.00 to win. He won it as convincingly as any horse has ever won any race that I have ever seen. Recalling that he ran & mile on the outside, the week before, from the 7th post, and "bettering" his own best time of the last two years by over three seconds, he was a horse to be remembered when the next race came along or at least till then.

But the same fans who play "time" as a handicapping rule, refused to even give him a cursory glance. Why? I don't know. As I have said, I put little stock in times as the pri­mary rationale in handicapping a race, and yet my eyes al­most popped out of my head that night when I saw Hal O Matic go off over 10 to one, one week after running the race which I have just mentioned. I don't believe that handicap­ping by "time" will solve more than ⅓ of your handicapping problems—but when the horse himself says, "I'm ready to win," unless winning is alien to your nature, you should at least give this a glance.

Without carrying this tale on to boredom, Hal O Matic won again from the 7th post, and again he came out to win convincingly and going away at the finish! The chart of the race is on page 48.

Hal O Matic won this race in the same way he had won the week before and in a slower time, too, the winning time being 2:03.1.1 was one of the few fans present who had seen the obvious and had the convictions to wager on this race. As you can see it was very profitable.

Of course this is a spot play, and I wouldn't expect this type of thing too often, as I do not generally advocate play­ing 10-to-one horses. Although in a case as obvious as this was, you should play the apparent winner at "any price." However, the above example simply shows how in some cases the last race can signal readiness to such a degree that one cannot ignore the signal. You can readily see, therefore, that time does have its place, but not as a purely mechanical device to figure winners by hair-splitting.

It is true that many drivers carry stop watches with them during the running of the race. But this is not necessarily to determine how fast the race will be, but rather "how the race is being run" and what the speed of the 1st quarter, % and ¾, etc., will be. They are trying to ascertain the way they should move in relation to the time of the front horse. How­ever, and I cannot emphasize this point enough, they are not figuring on how fast their horse will go around the circuit in relation to the front horse, but rather how advantageous a move would be for them in relation to the front, or leading, horse.

Speed doesn't tell the full story in any race. We will see in later chapters how one can relate speed and "time" to the figuring of a particular race. Meanwhile, the most important thing to be gained from reading this chapter is that speed handicapping will not tell the entire story, but is rather a part of the answer to the problem.

Are You Ready To Move Onto The Next Lesson? Click Here...