Chapter 6

 CHAPTER 6  

 Speed Ratings vs Weights & Class Analysis  

​

 Two schools of thought have long divided punters; the edge often lies in learning where they meet.  

Speed ratings in horse racing emerged in the United States during the 1930s. E. W. Donaldson gave the idea early structure in Consistent Handicapping Profits, and the method was later refined by Ray Taulbot through parallel time charts before Sheldon Kovitz added beaten-length adjustments across different distances.   

​

 Speed ratings entered the wider public conversation in 1975 when professional punter Andrew Beyer published Picking Winners. Building on earlier work, Beyer helped shift American handicapping toward speed-based analysis by tying ratings to par times and beaten-length adjustments. 

​

 The Australian Counterpoint: Weights and Class  

 While Beyer’s ratings were reshaping handicapping in the United States, Australian punters were being influenced in a different direction by Don Scott. His 1978 book Winning: An Objective Guide to Successful Punting helped define a local approach built more firmly on class and weight than on raw speed.   

​

 Two Worlds Collide: Timeform  

 Iron sharpens iron, and a European bridge had already connected the two.  

​

 In the late 1940s, British professional gamblers Phil Bull and Dick Whitford developed a form‑based handicapping approach that brought pace, speed, and weight into the one picture. They founded Timeform in 1948, producing performance ratings expressed in pounds on the imperial scale 

​

 Understanding Velocity  

 There will be some horses are slowing down at the finish with other's charging through the line. While race velocity changes throughout, the runners are mostly in cruise control through the early and middle stages of a race. 

​

 Handicap conversions  

 Horses work harder in heavy ground than on firm tracks, meaning weight has a greater impact as surfaces deteriorate. As weight to beaten margin scales with distance, it also makes sense to scale the margin downwards on softer tracks.

​

 Example A — Soft Sprint, 1200m  

 1200m race on a Soft track, using a smoothed velocity of 6.90 lengths per second.  

​

 Horse A is beaten 0.25 seconds, equivalent to:  

 0.25 × 6.90 = 1.73 lengths. 

 Using the Soft Sprint scale of 1.20 kg per 0.10 seconds, the required weight turnaround is:  

 Time-based method: 0.25 ÷ 0.10 = 2.5 units; 2.5 × 1.20 = 3.00 kg.  

 This is close to the visual length-based method which gives a similar result: 1.73L × 1.80 = 3.11 kg. 

​

 The traditional visual length-based method provides the most reliable evidence when comparing two horses who have raced against each other. The time-based method still affords a tool when assessing different formlines. 

​

 Example B — Changing surfaces & different formlines 

 Two races are run at Morphettville on the same Good 4 track. Horse A wins the first over 1600m in 0.15 seconds slower than par. Horse B carries the same weight and wins the 1400m race in 0.30 seconds slower than par. 

​

 Example C — Carrying a previous margin into new distance & conditions   

 Horse B met Horse A at level weights over 1600m on a Heavy 8 track, with both horses settling on the pace. Horse B was unable to peg back the margin and was beaten by 1 length, which is approximately 0.15 seconds using the Heavy Mile velocity scale.  

​

 Horse C settled off the pace and finished with a quicker last-600m to run third, beaten 1.15 lengths, or approximately 0.17 seconds behind Horse A. 

​

​