An introduction to Sectional Timing: Part 2

Raw sectional times, much like overall race times, mean little without context.  A sectional of, say, 35.0s might be notably fast in one context and remarkably slow in another.

The first step in making sense of the data is to express a sectional time as a speed compared to the average race speed, a simple and intuitive calculation pioneered by Timeform. This factors in considerations of ability, course-and-distance topography, surface, and so on, which are implicit in the overall time itself. And it makes for easy comparison between different horses and different circumstances.

The calculation is as follows: (100*T*d)/(D*t), where “T” is the overall race time, “t” is the time of the sectional, “D” is the overall race distance and “d” is the sectional distance. The mathematical symbols “*” (multiply by) and “/” (divide by) are those conventionally used in Excel, while brackets within the equation show that the calculations within those brackets need to be completed separately before the result is reintroduced to the equation.

As an example, the last-3f sectionals of Dawn Approach and Toronado in the 2013 St James’s Palace Stakes at Royal Ascot were 35.45s and 34.93s respectively, while their overall times for the 8f race were 99.23s and 99.24s.

Dawn Approach’s finishing speed (expressed as a % of his average race speed) was: (100*99.23*3)/(8*35.45) = 105.0%, while Toronado’s was (100*99.24*3)/(8*34.93) = 106.5%.

So, both horses finished faster than their average race speeds, with Toronado finishing the quicker. While of interest, this really needs to be compared to the sort of figure that could be expected of a horse running at this course and distance under these sorts of conditions: is 106.5% fast or merely indicative of the demands of the track?

In order to establish “sectional pars”, it is preferable to identify all fast overall times (that is, times which were fast compared to the abilities of the horses in question) at that course and distance in recent history. The sectionals which contributed to fast overall times show, in effect, “how to run fast”, though a degree of remodelling may be necessary, mindful of the fact that data from different distances at the same course are unlikely to be totally independent.

The sectional par for the round mile at Ascot (one of the easier courses to establish sectionals by-hand, though electronic ones have been returned from time to time) is in the region of 101%. The fact that Toronado’s finishing speed % was further from this figure than was Dawn Approach’s suggests that the former was more inconvenienced by the run of the race than the latter (judged on just one sectional, admittedly).

As an indication of how different courses and distances affect sectional pars, the Derby course at Epsom has a sectional par from the path entering the straight of in the region of 108% (most of the closing stages is downhill), while the against-the-collar last-3f at Beverley is well below 100% for most distances at the track.

The further step of adjusting a horse’s time, rating, or lengths-beaten, in the light of the difference between the actual sectional % and the optimum sectional % is a complicated one, and one which Timeform continues to develop. But the basic principle – again derived from physical laws (in this case related to velocity) – is that the degree to which a horse’s time was compromised by running inefficiently will increase exponentially the more inefficiently a horse has run.

In other words, a horse running 4% from par (e.g. finishing at 104% when 100% is optimum) will be more than doubly inconvenienced as a horse running 2% from par under the same circumstances.

The adjustments made to times and ratings on the back of these calculations have been validated independently by University lecturer and acclaimed racing-analysis author Bob Wilkins.

More to the point, they definitely seem to work! Timeform’s Sectional Debrief series in 2013 turned up winner after winner on the back of this methodology and ended the year substantially in profit. Timeform nowadays takes as many sectional times as it realistically can and feeds them into the rating and reporting process.

Sectional timing is not for everyone – that is clear from the antagonism shown towards it from some quarters – and it comes at no small cost in terms of sophisticated technology or its labour-intensive manual equivalent. But that it has merit, and utility, for those bothered enough to use it should really not be in doubt any longer.

You can read Part One of an Introduction to Sectional Timing HERE.