In my first article I looked at pace in 5-furlong handicaps focusing on the running style bias angle. The figures clearly showed a huge difference between the front running chances of horses depending on which 5f course he/she was running. In this second part, we will revisit the course angle and aim to offer a more complete picture.
To recap from the first article, when I talk about pace my main focus is the early pace in a race and the position horses take up early on. The Geegeez website splits pace data into four groups - Led, Prominent, Mid Division and Held Up. These groups are assigned numerical values – led gets 4 points, prominent 3, mid division 2 and held up 1. On each Geegeez racecard these figures are assigned to every horse in the race going back four UK or Irish runs.
We can use these numerical figures to create course and distance pace averages. I have done this by adding up the pace scores of all the winners at a particular course and dividing it by the total number of races. The higher the average score, the more biased the course and distance is to horses that lead early or race close to the pace. Here are the 5 furlong handicap C&D pace averages for all turf courses in the UK.
| Course | 5f pace average | 5f Pace Rank |
| Lingfield (turf) | 3.33 | 1 |
| Chester | 3.3 | 2 |
| Epsom | 3 | 3 |
| Catterick | 2.97 | 4 |
| Ripon | 2.97 | 5 |
| Redcar | 2.88 | 6 |
| Chepstow | 2.86 | 7 |
| Hamilton | 2.85 | 8 |
| Nottingham | 2.84 | 9 |
| Thirsk | 2.82 | 10 |
| Windsor | 2.78 | 11 |
| Musselburgh | 2.77 | 12 |
| Newbury | 2.73 | 13 |
| Beverley | 2.72 | 14 |
| Leicester | 2.72 | 15 |
| Pontefract | 2.69 | 16 |
| Goodwood | 2.64 | 17 |
| Ayr | 2.63 | 18 |
| Newmarket | 2.58 | 19 |
| Haydock | 2.57 | 20 |
| Wetherby | 2.56 | 21 |
| Bath | 2.54 | 22 |
| Doncaster | 2.51 | 23 |
| Salisbury | 2.5 | 24 |
| Sandown | 2.5 | 25 |
| Brighton | 2.49 | 26 |
| Carlisle | 2.49 | 27 |
| York | 2.47 | 28 |
| Ffos Las | 2.38 | 29 |
| Yarmouth | 2.24 | 30 |
| Ascot | 2.24 | 31 |
Lingfield (turf) tops the list, but in truth they have very few 5f handicaps so we perhaps out to take this figure with the proverbial pinch of salt. Chester comes next which is no surprise based on the stats from the previous article. In that article Chester had exceptional winning percentages for front runners and very poor percentages for hold up horses. A 3.3 C&D pace average is huge, so let us look at Chester 5f in more detail.
| Running style
Chester 5f |
Wins | Runners | Strike rate (%) | IV |
| Led | 31 | 88 | 35.23 | 3.38 |
| Prominent | 21 | 194 | 10.82 | 1.04 |
| Mid Division | 5 | 109 | 4.59 | 0.44 |
| Held Up | 4 | 194 | 2.06 | 0.20 |
As can be seen, 52 of 61 Chester races have been won by horses that have either led or raced prominently. Essentially these figures indicate that the winner is almost six times more likely to be racing in the front half of the pack early on, than the back half.
Epsom are third on the list but they have only had 25 races so, as with Lingfield turf, the data is limited. Let us instead look at the Catterick who lie fourth on the list. Catterick have had 145 races so a bigger sample to breakdown:
| Running style
Catterick 5f |
Wins | Runners | Strike rate (%) | IV |
| Led | 47 | 196 | 23.98 | 2.51 |
| Prominent | 65 | 672 | 9.67 | 1.00 |
| Mid Division | 15 | 175 | 8.57 | 0.93 |
| Held Up | 18 | 473 | 3.81 | 0.4 |
The stats for Catterick are not in Chester’s league in terms of pace bias to front/prominent racers, but the tendency is still strong. Front runners especially have a very potent edge. Digging deeper, if we focus on races at Catterick with 12 to 14 runners the pace bias does increase significantly:
| Running style | Wins | Runners | Strike rate (%) | IV |
| Led | 15 | 66 | 22.73 | 2.88 |
| Prominent | 22 | 227 | 9.69 | 1.23 |
| Mid Division | 5 | 88 | 5.68 | 0.72 |
| Held Up | 4 | 201 | 1.99 | 0.25 |
37 of 46 races were won by early leaders or horses that raced prominent early. The winner is roughly four more times more likely to be racing in the front half of the pack early on, than the back half.
At this juncture I decided to dig a little deeper looking to see whether the going made a difference to the overall 5f course pace averages. In the past I have heard two contrasting theories connected with front running horses which would potentially affect the course pace average on a specific type of going:
Theory 1 – horses that lead on softer ground are difficult to peg back because horses find it harder to accelerate from off the pace on such going;
Theory 2 – horses that lead on firmer ground are likely to get less tired at the front due the faster conditions and this accentuates their front running edge. (Plus on quicker ground the race is likely to be run in a shorter overall time again meaning the front runner is expending less energy).
So which one is true – or is neither true? If front runners do have a bigger edge under certain going conditions it will push up the overall course pace average.
I decided to split the results into two – races on good or firmer; and races on good to soft or softer. Here are the course pace averages for all 5f handicaps split into these going types:
| Going | Course Pace average |
| Good or firmer | 2.72 |
| Good to soft or softer | 2.67 |
As we can see the difference is minimal and not statistically significant. I plan to look at more extremes of going when I have time – looking at soft or heavy versus good to firm or firmer. However, looking at these initial figures, I am not expecting to see a huge variance.
My final area of research in this article is concerned with ‘class’. There is an argument, which I believe is a fair one, that the higher the class, the harder it is for horses to lead from start to finish – due to the more competitive nature of the opposition. Hence, at courses that run more higher class handicaps one might expect their course pace averages to be lower as a result. How to calculate ‘class’ at a particular course is difficult – do you use class levels, prize money, average Official Ratings across all races? I have decided to use a relatively simplistic approach by creating average class levels for each course by adding the class levels for each race and dividing by how many races there were. Hence, for example, if a course had had 10 class 2 handicaps and 10 class 3 handicaps their class average would be 2.5. Here are the course class averages for 5f handicaps (lowest class averages at the top):
| Course | Course Race Class Average | Course Class Rank |
| Chepstow | 5.47 | 1 |
| Hamilton | 5.43 | 2 |
| Catterick | 5.32 | 3 |
| Brighton | 5.26 | 4 |
| Ffos Las | 5.12 | 5 |
| Beverley | 5.11 | 6 |
| Yarmouth | 5.08 | 7 |
| Bath | 5.03 | 8 |
| Carlisle | 5 | 9 |
| Nottingham | 4.96 | 10 |
| Redcar | 4.95 | 11 |
| Lingfield (turf) | 4.92 | 12 |
| Musselburgh | 4.85 | 13 |
| Ayr | 4.77 | 14 |
| Leicester | 4.67 | 15 |
| Ripon | 4.57 | 16 |
| Wetherby | 4.56 | 17 |
| Pontefract | 4.53 | 18 |
| Salisbury | 4.45 | 19 |
| Windsor | 4.44 | 20 |
| Thirsk | 4.09 | 21 |
| Goodwood | 4.04 | 22 |
| Newbury | 4 | 23 |
| Sandown | 4 | 24 |
| Doncaster | 3.85 | 25 |
| Haydock | 3.79 | 26 |
| Newmarket | 3.64 | 27 |
| Chester | 3.02 | 28 |
| Epsom | 2.81 | 29 |
| York | 2.8 | 30 |
| Ascot | 2.62 | 31 |
As you would expect, most of the Grade 1 courses are near the bottom of the table. Three of these courses - Ascot, York and Epsom - have the most competitive 5f handicaps in terms of class.
To see if there is a correlation between course pace averages and average course race class I have ranked both lists next to each other, and produced an average rank. For there to be a strong correlation you would expect the majority of the courses to be in similar positions in each column – in other words the higher course 5f pace averages should correlate with the lower course class averages; likewise the lower course pace averages should correlate with the higher course class averages.
| Course | Course Class Rank (low>high) | 5f Pace Rank | Class / Pace Average |
| Catterick | 3 | 4 | 3.5 |
| Chepstow | 1 | 7 | 4 |
| Hamilton | 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Lingfield (turf) | 12 | 1 | 6.5 |
| Redcar | 11 | 6 | 8.5 |
| Nottingham | 10 | 9 | 9.5 |
| Beverley | 6 | 14 | 10 |
| Ripon | 16 | 5 | 10.5 |
| Musselburgh | 13 | 12 | 12.5 |
| Brighton | 4 | 26 | 15 |
| Bath | 8 | 22 | 15 |
| Leicester | 15 | 15 | 15 |
| Chester | 28 | 2 | 15 |
| Windsor | 20 | 11 | 15.5 |
| Thirsk | 21 | 10 | 15.5 |
| Ayr | 14 | 18 | 16 |
| Epsom | 29 | 3 | 16 |
| Ffos Las | 5 | 29 | 17 |
| Pontefract | 18 | 16 | 17 |
| Carlisle | 9 | 27 | 18 |
| Newbury | 23 | 13 | 18 |
| Yarmouth | 7 | 30 | 18.5 |
| Wetherby | 17 | 21 | 19 |
| Goodwood | 22 | 17 | 19.5 |
| Salisbury | 19 | 24 | 21.5 |
| Haydock | 26 | 20 | 23 |
| Newmarket | 27 | 19 | 23 |
| Doncaster | 25 | 23 | 24 |
| Sandown | 24 | 25 | 24.5 |
| York | 30 | 28 | 29 |
| Ascot | 31 | 31 | 31 |
At both ends of the list, sorted by Class/Pace Average, we have the most valid correlations. For instance, Catterick, Chepstow and Hamilton all strongly favour front-runners and all host a majority of low grade five-furlong handicaps.
Meanwhile, Ascot and York, as well as to a lesser degree Sandown, Doncaster, Newmarket and Haydock, all generally host high class sprint handicaps where the early pace holds up less well.
I hope you have enjoyed this second instalment and, as always, comments are welcomed.
***Part 3 can be viewed here***
- Dave Renham