I seemed to have missed some interesting posts here!
The reason I don't get involved much myself with any discussion here is simply that
I'm out of my depth and out of my interest range, so think it best to just leave it to the experts, especially, as, from the little I am able to see, they rarely agree among themselves.
For me, the upshot or aim of it all is to be able to improve results.
Because of the inconsistencies that I regularly see ( imagine, I guess) in speed figures and ratings, I get mine off the peg ( from inform racing).
And, though I treat these with a healthy scepticism, these
help me decide whether I back my own fancies or not.
Therefore, I feel I am more suited to the sort of discussion outlined by
markfinn, ie. mostly about trainers and methods. Dunno where this is to be found, but I feel I should be there , rather than cluttering up this O.P. s experimental thread.
Finally, now that I have already messed up the thread, I'll state my own views about raw speed and timings: old school - based as much on greyhounds as hosses.
Run 'em over a set distance and time with a watch. After various exercises, diet changes, continue to record the improvements, or not, over the repetitions.
This all takes time, months of it.
OK, not very technical, I agree. But, the trainer will get a sense of when things are right and what suits best.
One northern trainer ( now retired) didn't do much else. When he came down to Wolver and said his was trying that day, he was mostly correct. He knew.
Dunno if he even knew what a sectional or percentile was, but, he got results
when the money was down.
Right: as you were; over and out.
