Workout Times & Multi-Distance

[Durzo Blint]

I know people say the gallop comment is misleading and they could be on the high end or low end of the gallop comment spectrum. People also say that workout times are not necessarily an indication of how good your horse will be on the track. Per the Horse Ability thread the gallop comment is just the "level" your horse is most likely to succeed in and the workout times are a better way to assess the sheer speed of your horse.

Now, I have seen a few horses that have had not great workout times in their "atypical" distance that have gone on to win G1s in said "atypical" distances. For example, Fiery Eyes had a workout time of 47.76 over 4F on the turf (a full 1.5 seconds slower than the #50 filly in workout times that year for yearlings). She ended up beating Perfectly Spoken who ran 4F on turf between 46.09-46.21 during his yearling training. I'm just curious that if Fiery Eyes has the amazing ability to put up high 80's low 90's speed figures for sprints or miles, that her 4F workout would be so bad?

Can you not really assess if you have a multi-distance horse by workout times? Can you really only find out by throwing them into races and praying? I've tried a lot of my horses are different distance in workouts, but since the times are never really that great, I keep them in their preferred distances when they being to race.

Thanks!

[Dylan Christensen]

The turf-triple pretty clearly gives a boost to horses no matter what the distance. If Fiery Eyes ran a sprint and maybe even a mile any other time she would likely bomb. I think the same thing goes on in the Canadian Triple, you have Dirt Routers who retire with C Turf hypos winning the Triple Crown easily even with the turf race, the only thing that makes sense is that they get a boost. I think it's great because it gives us something fun to do in the SIM but is in no way a reflection of the horses actual ability.

[Andrew James]

I know people say the gallop comment is misleading and they could be on the high end or low end of the gallop comment spectrum. People also say that workout times are not necessarily an indication of how good your horse will be on the track. Per the Horse Ability thread the gallop comment is just the "level" your horse is most likely to succeed in and the workout times are a better way to assess the sheer speed of your horse.

Now, I have seen a few horses that have had not great workout times in their "atypical" distance that have gone on to win G1s in said "atypical" distances. For example, Fiery Eyes had a workout time of 47.76 over 4F on the turf (a full 1.5 seconds slower than the #50 filly in workout times that year for yearlings). She ended up beating Perfectly Spoken who ran 4F on turf between 46.09-46.21 during his yearling training. I'm just curious that if Fiery Eyes has the amazing ability to put up high 80's low 90's speed figures for sprints or miles, that her 4F workout would be so bad?

Can you not really assess if you have a multi-distance horse by workout times? Can you really only find out by throwing them into races and praying? I've tried a lot of my horses are different distance in workouts, but since the times are never really that great, I keep them in their preferred distances when they being to race.

Thanks!

Gotta say, I love that you are bringing this up, I tried to ask the steward about this in one of the Morning Line episodes but didn't really get the clarification I was looking for. Pete the Cat out here running 97 SFs at a mile with a 4f work of 47.12! There's quite a few other examples of this. I have no clue how that's possible. It definitely seems like workout times don't really prove whether your horse likes or dislikes a distance or surface.

[Cleo Patra]

Fitness and equipment make a difference to workout times in a fairly substantial way and we can’t see how fit a horse was when they worked.

[Durzo Blint]

Fitness and equipment make a difference to workout times in a fairly substantial way and we can’t see how fit a horse was when they worked.

Thanks Cleo! I agree, but we can see Fiery Eyes was having a timed workout each week on the same day, and from my understanding, that’s all a horse needs to stay fit in training (this is what I do, so I’ll hopefully that’s not wrong) and had the correct equipment.

[Durzo Blint]

Gotta say, I love that you are bringing this up, I tried to ask the steward about this in one of the Morning Line episodes but didn't really get the clarification I was looking for. Pete the Cat out here running 97 SFs at a mile with a 4f work of 47.12! There's quite a few other examples of this. I have no clue how that's possible. It definitely seems like workout times don't really prove whether your horse likes or dislikes a distance or surface.

Thanks Andrew, another great example! If these horses have that ability, I just do not understand why it doesn’t show up in the workout times. It’s really so I can better assess my own horses when they are in training to see if any would prefer a different distance or be capable of multi-distance.

[Carole Hanson]

Yea honestly like Dylan says, Fiery Eyes is not a miler or a sprinter. It’s probable that since she’s such a talented horse (she’s a freak but was still progressive last season, is at peak now), she was just able to outclass her competition on those days because her raw number probably outweighed the disadvantages she had like the distance. She was running in peak condition, full fitness, correct equipment, top rated jockey, correct surface and she’s a ‘no preference’ horse so it wouldn’t have mattered what track conditions were like. She had everything her way apart from the distance number. Whilst that might have been a pretty large factor, it was not large enough to outweigh all the positives if that makes sense.

Dylan is totally right that especially in series like the Canadian TC horses just seem to have that little boost and then they don’t seem to run well at the distance/surface ever again and so must stick to their true preference.

[Durzo Blint]

Yea honestly like Dylan says, Fiery Eyes is not a miler or a sprinter. It’s probable that since she’s such a talented horse (she’s a freak but was still progressive last season, is at peak now), she was just able to outclass her competition on those days because her raw number probably outweighed the disadvantages she had like the distance. She was running in peak condition, full fitness, correct equipment, top rated jockey, correct surface and she’s a ‘no preference’ horse so it wouldn’t have mattered what track conditions were like. She had everything her way apart from the distance number. Whilst that might have been a pretty large factor, it was not large enough to outweigh all the positives if that makes sense.

Dylan is totally right that especially in series like the Canadian TC horses just seem to have that little boost and then they don’t seem to run well at the distance/surface ever again and so must stick to their true preference.

Thanks Carole! I had no doubt that Fiery Eyes is an amazing freaky freak and I’m incredibly happy for her and you on her success, congratulations!!! And apologies for using her as an example, it was just the most recent example I could remember.

My point/question is not with Fiery Eyes specifically, but the workout times. They are suppose to show you the sheer speed of your horse. Fiery Eyes is so amazing that she can out-class a very talented field (no small feat) but then why doesn’t her workout time at 4F show that she is a freaky freak that can do that and not just her but other examples like Pete the Cat.

I thought workout times were suppose to help a trainer know if a horse prefers a mile or can run multiple distances, but the examples of Fiery Eyes and Pete the Cat show that workout times do not help a trainer know this (at least, in my opinion).

[Andrew James]

Fitness and equipment make a difference to workout times in a fairly substantial way and we can’t see how fit a horse was when they worked.

This was along the lines of the answer the Steward gave on the Morning Line. I just don't see it though. There are far too many examples that it would be one heck of a coincidence that they all were super unfit and had the wrong equipment when they worked out at the "different" distance. And even then, there's some variation in my horses workout times based on those factors but 47.12 for Pete the Cat is 2 plus seconds off the stakes dirt miler workout times.

I think there is something else at play. Something we don't understand about the relationship between workouts and races. Before the barrier trials were "fixed" there was something weird going on with times where horses were running slower in the barrier trial race than they were in their regular workouts at the same distance. I think that's part of the larger puzzle here.

[Dylan Christensen]

Fitness and equipment make a difference to workout times in a fairly substantial way and we can’t see how fit a horse was when they worked.

I think there is something else at play. Something we don't understand about the relationship between workouts and races. Before the barrier trials were "fixed" there was something weird going on with times where horses were running slower in the barrier trial race than they were in their regular workouts at the same distance. I think that's part of the larger puzzle here.

I think you're onto something with their being something else at play but I don't think barrier trials have anything to do with it. That was explained as mimicking a race and not a workout like it was supposed to.

[Andrew James]

Fitness and equipment make a difference to workout times in a fairly substantial way and we can’t see how fit a horse was when they worked.

I think there is something else at play. Something we don't understand about the relationship between workouts and races. Before the barrier trials were "fixed" there was something weird going on with times where horses were running slower in the barrier trial race than they were in their regular workouts at the same distance. I think that's part of the larger puzzle here.

I think you're onto something with their being something else at play but I don't think barrier trials have anything to do with it. That was explained as mimicking a race and not a workout like it was supposed to.

You're right, that's probably just overcomplicating things on my end.

For another example, Moon House's 4FD work was 46.56 which is a full second a half of what you would expect it to be.

[Andrew James]

I think there is something else at play. Something we don't understand about the relationship between workouts and races. Before the barrier trials were "fixed" there was something weird going on with times where horses were running slower in the barrier trial race than they were in their regular workouts at the same distance. I think that's part of the larger puzzle here.

I think you're onto something with their being something else at play but I don't think barrier trials have anything to do with it. That was explained as mimicking a race and not a workout like it was supposed to.

You're right, that's probably just overcomplicating things on my end.

For another example, Moon House's 4FD work was 46.56 which is a full second a half of what you would expect it to be.

Don't want this to come across as sour grapes, I am actually super happy with VoG's second place finish last night. But...

Spatula's 4FD work was 46.43

I just don't understand how these routers keep dropping into mile races and winning Grade 1s when they run claimer workout times at 4F. What is the game mechanic that Im missing here?

I really want to know because I work all my routers at 4F and now Im wondering why I even bother and how many milers I haven't tried at a mile because of their work times.

[Tim Matthews]

Most of these routers with bad workouts are useless at a mile unless it's against top competition. If you tried a really good router (with no miler pedigree) in a mile maiden, it will almost certainly fail miserably. It happens all the time. But put that same router in the SC Dirt Mile and it will have a better shot.

Top-tier horses tend to run to their competition, for whatever reason. (I suspect this is why it's risky to run a really good horse in an allowance, no matter what division.) Since these top routers have numbers that are a lot higher than milers, they will usually run well in G1 mile races. For the same reason, most milers cannot stretch out.

My guess is that the 4f work is a crude representation of a horse's ability at a mile, whereas a lot more factors go into deciding the winner of an actual race.

[Durzo Blint]

I agree Andrew. I just keep going back to the Horse Ability thread that tells me that workout times are suppose to show you the sheer speed of your horse. With these examples we’ve highlighted, based on that fact, these routers are not “faster” than their “true miler” counterparts when it comes to a running a mile (or perhaps 4F?).

These routers are great horses, but so are the milers. There clearly is, in my opinion, a disconnect here between workout times and distance ability or “sheer speed”. There are just too many examples of these really bad (I can’t stress that enough) workout times and these horses winning at a mile.

If the workout time is useless (and does not show the sheer speed of your horse) then it would just be good to know that as I, and I’m sure others, put a lot of stock into them.

[Paul Sellers]

I am not trying to hijack the thread, but can I ask a question about my horse?

She just won a barrier trial in 5F with a time of 0:57.73.

That would've won pretty much every 2yo turf sprint stakes race so far this year. Should I have been racing her in sprints? She's bred to be a router.