A rod was 5. The Republic of the Union of Myanmar, formerly Burma uses furlongs to note distances on their highways signs; however, they are unique in this regard. And England continues to reference the length of their many canals by both miles and furlongs. Interesting facts:.
You can see this in the breeding requirements, track names, and naming restrictions. Furlongs were the unit of measurement initially used to set up racecourses in England back in the s when horse racing formalized. Horse races less than a mile are referred to by furlongs. Once a race exceeds a mile, it goes by fractions of a mile. For example, a three-quarter-mile race is listed as six furlongs, but a mile and a quarter race is called a mile and quarter, not a mile and four furlongs.
Most horses begin their racing career competing in races less than a mile. Races are timed at quarter poles 2 furlongs and are listed in the racing forms. These quarter pole times are how Thoroughbreds have a faster record at this distance.
Quarterhorse records are based on their time coming out of the starting gate in a quarter-mile race, whereas Thoroughbreds are timed every yards. Having a running start gives them an advantage. A furlong is represented in the racing program with an f. The world record in a yard race one furlong belongs to a quarter horse named Travel Plan. He set the record in a cheap claiming race in at Los Alamitos Racecourse with a time of And the more you look at this system, the less sense it actually makes.
To explain why, let's look at the calculations underpinning Bristol De Mai's length winning distance. The lengths-per-second scale is not one size fits all: it varies according to code — Flat, all-weather or jumps — and going. Since this was a jumps race run on heavy ground the lengths-per-second scale was at its lowest possible level: four lengths per second.
Cue Card finished 14 and a quarter seconds behind Bristol De Mai, hence the length distance. Had the race been run on good ground, however, the calculation would have been five lengths per second rather than four, so a winning distance of This happens because, reasonably enough, it is assumed that a horse running on good ground is likely to be finishing the race at a faster pace than a horse running in the same race on heavy ground. The same logic applies to Flat and all-weather races, which have their own lengths-per-second scales.
Yet, confusingly, while the scale varies according to code and going, it does not adjust for distance. So the finishers in the Epsom Dash, the world's fastest five furlongs, are allotted their distances using the same formula as in Royal Ascot's Gold Cup over two miles four, despite the fact that the runners in each race are almost certainly moving at quite significantly different speeds come the finish line. Even worse is the effect on some jumps races. So long as they are run on the same ground, the same lengths-per-second scale is applied to the finishers in a freewheeling two mile hurdle or bumper as in something like the Eider, where runners have been known to plod home at not far above the pace I walk to work.
The difference this creates in actual distance can be considerable. The average length of a horse is around 2. This confusing and unsatisfying situation could be partially remedied by extending the lengths-per-second scale to account for race distances as well as going and code, but that's not really the problem here. The issue is this guessy and intrinsically inaccurate system is a consequence of attempting to do the impossible: present a unit of time as a unit of distance it's like the airport PA telling you your flight boarding closes in yards.
The system then compounds the problem by trying to make this pretend unit of distance look more believable by rigidly adjusting for some, but by no means all, variables in a race. The end result is to obscure the one accurate measurement of finishing margin we actually have: the time.
All of this is akin to the Olympics deciding to start measuring winning margins in track events by taking the time back to second, running it through a formula based on wind direction and surface water but not race distance and then expressing it in trainer-lengths between finishers, despite that number having no relevance to the actual distance back to second. Coelomate vs. Ocean vs. Judge vs. Flag vs. Forbear vs. Awesomely vs. Fat vs. Sonhood vs. Ricochet vs. Channel vs. Trending Comparisons.
Mandate vs. Ivermectin vs. Skinwalker vs. Socialism vs. Man vs. Supersonic vs. Gazelle vs. Jem vs. Mouse vs. You vs. Lubuntu vs. Carnation vs. Featured Comparisons Guidence vs. Togather vs. Maintenance vs. Brachycardia vs. Villainize vs. Catagory vs.
0コメント