The Emperor’s New Index: Why RaceIQ’s Jump Index Trips Over Its Own Metrics

I have asked repeatedly for an explanation of RaceIqs Jump Index, but nothing but silence. So lets see what value this "unparalleled insight" with "machine learning and millions of calculations" might be worth? One example admittedly here but the same pattern repeats itself.

Data-driven horse racing was supposed to make betting smarter—less about gut feeling, more about cold, hard statistics. And then along came RaceIQ’s Jump Index, a supposedly revolutionary way to measure jumping ability. And dont tell me its all about "race interpretation" when I would be better just watching the race than using contrived isolated metrics.

Yet, as we've seen time and time again, including at Cheltenham yesterday, the Jump Index has a tendency to, well, jump to conclusions. It’s a metric that sounds scientific, but when you peel back the layers, it’s about as robust as a three-legged horse at Becher’s Brook.

And at the heart of this confusion is Racing TV’s Angus McNae, who presents RaceIQ’s data like a head prefect reading from the answer book, bombarding viewers with numbers while failing to grasp what any of it actually means. It’s technical waffle—sectional times, entry speeds, positive jump percentages—all rattled off with the unshakeable confidence of a man who thinks saying something faster makes it true.

The problem? None of this data means anything in isolation. It’s just a lot of decimal places with no practical application.

The Grand Promises of RaceIQ: An Index That Measures... Something?

According to RaceIQ’s own documentation, the Jump Index "assesses a horse’s jumping against every jump in our database," spitting out a score out of ten to reflect how well the horse has performed. Sounds impressive, right? A rigorous, deeply analytical process backed by sophisticated tracking technology?

Except, much like a government minister explaining a failed policy, it all falls apart under scrutiny.

Consider the RaceIQ data explanation, which defines no fewer than ten separate jumping-related metrics. We have Entry Speed, Speed Lost, Exit Speed, Time in Envelope, Speed Recovery, and even the delightful Positive Jump % (which sounds like something a GCSE maths teacher made up to keep students engaged).

But what do these actually tell us?

Yesterday’s Cheltenham Race: Jump Index vs. Reality

Let’s put this into context using Mytretown (IRE) and The Changing Man (IRE) from yesterday’s Cheltenham race.

Now, here’s the problem:

• The Jump Index told us The Changing Man was the better jumper.

• Yet Mytretown gained more lengths, ran faster at the end, and won the race comfortably.

So what exactly is the Jump Index measuring, if the horse with the better score lost?

It’s as if we judged football teams solely by how aesthetically pleasing their passing was—ignoring goals, defence, and results. Sure, The Changing Man may have jumped with crisp, technical precision, but Mytretown barrelled over the obstacles and actually won.

The Flaws in the Jump Index Logic

1. It confuses technique with effectiveness – A horse that jumps smoothly isn’t necessarily a better jumper than one that gains more lengths over fences. Think Cristiano Ronaldo vs. Peter Crouch—who's more elegant, and who's just effective?

2. It doesn’t adequately measure what wins races – Mytretown entered fences faster, exited faster, gained more lengths, and finished stronger—but had a worse Jump Index?

3. It creates misleading confidence – If punters relied on the Jump Index alone, they’d have assumed The Changing Man had a superior chance—when in reality, he lacked the tactical edge that actually wins races.That’s like awarding a Michelin star to a restaurant that burns the food beautifully.

The real problem? The Index doesn’t stand alone as a useful number. It’s a possible piece of a puzzle if calculated correctly, but the analysts presenting it behave as if it's the whole picture.

Angus McNae and the Rise of the Amateur Analyst

This is where Racing TV’s Angus McNae comes in—delivering RaceIQ data like an overzealous maths teacher who just discovered a new formula.

The sectional times (useful, the acceleration figures, the entry speeds—it all sounds dazzling. But much like a university student who’s memorised every page of the textbook without understanding any of it, McNae doesn’t explain why any of this matters in detail,just keep the faith.

The end result? A legion of amateur analysts parroting numbers without understanding the significance behind them.

Yes, sectional times can provide useful insights into pace, acceleration, and energy use. But when we’ve got people spitting out decimal points like it’s gospel—without knowing what to do with them—we’ve entered an era of data without direction.

Alternative Metrics: What Actually Works?

If we want a true jumping performance metric, it needs to focus on race impact, not just style. Some more practical alternatives might include:

1. Jumping Efficiency Index (JEI)

Rather than just judging how neatly a horse jumps, JEI isolates time lost at obstacles compared to running speed between fences. If a horse loses momentum, the metric punishes it accordingly.

2. Fence-By-Fence Error Rate (FFER)

Instead of an opaque "score out of ten," why not simply count how often a horse makes a significant jumping mistake?

Both of these would provide far more clarity than RaceIQ’s current cocktail of entry speeds, recovery times, and jump positivity percentages.

Conclusion: When Data is Just Data

RaceIQ’s Jump Index suffers from the classic problem of modern analytics—it looks sophisticated and insightful, but fails in real-world application. It tells us which horses are technically "good jumpers", but doesn’t account for what actually wins races.

And when you combine that with Angus McNae’s overly confident, yet hollow, delivery, you end up with a lot of baffled punters listening to impressive-sounding nonsense.

If the Jump Index were a racehorse, it would be a beautifully bred, well-trained thoroughbred that jumps immaculately... but somehow never actually crosses the finish line first.

And in the world of serious betting analysis, that’s not a horse worth backing.