You and me both
You and me both
Some people say he’s the best since Arkle and that’s certainly true when you look at what he’s done
ORs don't have 'p' or 'P' or '+'
I reckon I'd lose a fortune if I didn't have my symbols to help me interpret improvement or regression.
I don't have a problem with the OH factoring in a few pounds for ease or manner of victory. In fact, I think it's good that they do but I think they should give reasons punters can understand, even if they disagree.
If I see a horse ten lengths clear and it eases down to a three length win, I'll rate it value for the ten. If I horse edges three lengths in front and wins without being asked to do more, I'll rate it a 3L winner but add a symbol and keep an idea in mind about how much more to expect it to show if pressed. It can only ever be educated guesswork whereas there is more empirical evidence in the former scenario.
Last edited by Desert Orchid; 11th December 2012 at 11:45 PM.
Illegitimi non carborundum
He needs to get a bloody grip of himself.
Welsh and Proud.
Champion trio do claims no harm in International.
Quite how much influence the result of Saturday's Stan James.com International Hurdle may have on the Champion Hurdle come March given the prevailing conditions is open to debate but surely connections of the three main protagonists will all have taken heart from the performance of their horses at the weekend, writes David Dickinson.
Zarkandar backed up his Wincanton lifetime best (on figures at least) by winning again in receipt of 4lb from his main rivals. Last year Grandouet won this race in receipt of 4lb from the subsequent Champion Hurdle runner-up Overturn before meeting with a setback.
A year on, he returned to the track in defeat but given his concession of weight to the winner he comes out of the race as the best horse on the day. Current Champion Hurdler Rock On Ruby was hardly disgraced either on his first run since Grand National day, looking the likely winner for much of the long run from two out to the last only to flatten that flight and appear to blow up on the run in.
I have used Grandouet as my marker horse reproducing last year's 166, which means Zarkandar has not had to run to the 168 he achieved at Wincanton (Prospect Wells has subsequently let that form down but the third, Balder Succes, has franked it).
I have left Rock On Ruby on the 170 he achieved in March and was a little surprised to hear quotes as long as 12-1 for a repeat in the immediate aftermath of the race. Such quotes fly in the face of statistics if nothing else, as the title has been successfully defended eleven times since 1968.
Small fields in conditions races is a perennial subject, so well done to Middleham Park Racing for providing two of Saturday's seven-runner field. In finishing fourth and fifth, the duo (Mad Moose and Minella Theatre) picked up over £10,000 for connections. I have Minella Theatre running to a figure in the mid 120s (he went into the race rated 111) having beaten a couple of higher rated opponents. However, on reflection I decided that the reason for this was that his stamina came into play in a pretty truly run race.
I have therefore, left his mark unchanged. So, between the two horses, a five-figure sum pocketed and not a single pound rise in their handicap marks, the stuff that dreams are made of!
BATCHELOR PARTY
Coneygree cemented his place at the top of the staying novice hurdle tree with a comprehensive victory in the Grade 2 Albert Bartlett Bristol Novices' Hurdle at Cheltenham last Saturday, writes Martin Greenwood.
Ridden by regular pilot Mattie Batchelor, Carruthers' relation Coneygree had looked a smart prospect when winning over a shorter distance on the same course in November. He made all the running on that occasion, and followed suit over this 3m trip.
Chief rival and smart chaser Aerial, receiving 7lb, had totally different tactics adopted and travelled strongly under a confident Ruby Walsh ride. However, when push came to shove Aerial was comfortably outstayed up the hill, with Coneygree pulling six lengths clear.
Coneygree's pre-race rating of 146 made him top of the tree in his division, and using standards as an initial guide his new figure of 150 puts him clear of his domestic rivals (two very interesting recruits turned up at Navan on Sunday in Pont Alexandre and Don Cossack who will be rated in a similar ballpark). Aerial performed well below his chase form but left the strong impression he will do better given a less testing set of circumstances (all his previous runs have been up to 2m5f).
HEREFORD REMEMBERED
When news of Hereford Racecourse's impending closure first broke in late July I felt more than a tinge of sadness, writes David Dickinson.
Not because Hereford was a great track, in truth it wasn't but every returning visit brought reminders of some great experiences that I had at the venue over the years. My very first visit being a case in point.
I started freelancing doing comments in running for Raceform in 1982, in itself a great experience. I was interviewed and passed as competant by the late, much missed Steve Boggett and was used as ‘second man' to the likes of John Hanmer, John Penney, Ivor Markham, Alan Amies, the late Di Matthews and just occasionally their senior man at the time, John Sharratt, who passed away earlier this year.
At that time there were always two people at each meeting except on Easter Monday which traditionally featured sixteen meetings, twelve of them jumping. My first ‘solo' day was duly allocated to me in 1983, at Hereford - a long drive from my then base on the Northamptonshire/Cambridgeshire border and featuring eight races with well over a hundred runners, a baptism of fire.
On arrival, I discovered there were two of us in the Press Room, myself and Stewart Brodkin (who still works in racing) returning the starting prices. It was a stressful experience but one I enjoyed immensely, although I wouldn't want to study the form book comments from that day too closely!
From then on my days at Hereford were limited by geography but with Raceform's local man, Ivor Markham, working for the BBC at Aintree, I tended to end up there every Grand National day. One sticks in my mind. Dropping my then fiancee of with her parents in Redditch, I was asked what would win the National.
I replied confidently Last Suspect. My future father-in-law took no notice of me but my soon to be mother-in-law did. Sadly, the marriage didn't last the course but Last Suspect did and I am still very friendly with my one-time mother-in-law.
Hereford wasn't the sort of place to go to see great horses. The very day of Last Suspect's National win ended at Hereford as it usually did with a bumper. However, the 1985 one was no ordinary bumper - the 25-length winner was no lesser mare than the debutante Mrs Muck, probably the best horse I ever saw run at the track.
Just as I mourn the passing of Steve Boggett and John Sharratt, a piece of me mourns Hereford.
This blog appears courtesy of the BHA
Ah! but a man's reach should exceed his grasp......
Can only be fishing to see how many bites he gets Rory.
Twitter @davidjohnson82
http://www.justgiving.com/David-Johnson82
That's a bit strong, Rory. He might be going down the wrong route there but I think you'll find the vast majority of official ratings for hurdlers aren't far wrong. If a Timeform handicapper made that kind of misjudgment, would he be a cretin?
I intend to look at last Saturday's race again in detail this evening. I can't see me coming to the same conclusion at the moment but I wouldn't rule it out either.
What I do find a bit contradictory is that he says he's using G's previous as a marker yet he's rated him 162 on his performance (cf OR 166), which brings the front three right down. That's maybe to tie in in terms of a pure pounds-to-lengths evaluation of the entire race but I'm a great believer in races within races and that outclassed horses shouldn't be rated according to the distance beaten by vastly superior types.
Last edited by Desert Orchid; 19th December 2012 at 5:48 PM.
Illegitimi non carborundum
Yardstick handicapping is inherently wrong, for all it is an effective simplistic approach. Using a horse with Grandouet's profile as a yardstick horse is so wrong, it's frightening. For the record, his figures may prove to be fairly accurate (the beauty of being able to use a yardstick is that you can randomly pick one which provides the most pleasing result), but the logic is cringeworthy.
handsome is as handsome does
Given that all handicapping involves using a yardstick of some sort, you appear to be suggesting that handicapping or just applying ratings is inherently wrong. From a professional involved in the business of horse racing, I find that rather frightening and cringeworthy. (But not as frightening or cringeworthy as Strictly Come Dancing)
He has stated that he thinks that Grandouet and Zarkandar ran their race and Rock On Ruby appeared to blow up after the last, thus running a few pounds short of his best. That doesn't appear, on the face of things, to be an unreasonable assessment of the race to me. Perhaps you could elucidate as to why you find that opinion to be frightening and cringeworthy?
Grandouet is better than that..he had the ground and fitness against him..ROR likewise... rating off either is illogical..imo.
Last edited by EC1; 19th December 2012 at 7:37 PM.
I think you are all being unduly harsh.
Earlier in the thread, the author reviewed the Morgiana, and came to the conclusion that Go Native was "simply a better horse" than Hurricane Fly "at this stage of their careers".
He presumably came to this conclusion by ignoring the tactical nature of the race where HF set it up for Go Native, the fact that HF was a length up at the last (which he pinged, as he did every other obstacle), the fact that HF is entirely capable of finding plenty, the fact that GN had a fitness advantage, and the fact that GN has had a good look up HF's hoop every time they've met.
Personally, I think Go Native might have won if he'd stood-up, but it was by no means in the bag, and looked about 10/11 the pair to me, before GN hit the deck.
Yet Go Native is not only the "better horse", but "simply" so.
Whoever the Author is (and I assume we're talking about Mordin?), his logic seems more than somewhat flawed, and possibly even verging on the dribblings of a raging fud-heid.
"Beat the price and lose. It's what we do".
SlimChance, March 2018
Grasshopper - I believe that this is the official handicappers chatter.
EC1 - hes rated Zarkandar 4lbs below his best, based on an assumption that Grandouet has replicated his previous best performance. To assume that Grandoeut has not replicated that, as you are suggesting, would mean that Zarkandar has run some way below his best.
Nothing about the race that I watched suggested that Zarkandar didn't run his race (or Grandouet). Which is not to say that either of them couldn't do better in future.
Maybe they did all run a complete stinker and the race should really be rated around Minella Theatres mark of 111 which would have Zarkandar running to about 150? Quite plausible given the ground.
Having now checked the results, I don't think it's safe to conclude that any of them ran their race. It was no more than a racecourse gallop. The final outcome may well point to the three having run somewhere close to where the perceived level of the abilility of each would place them but, according to my figures, the race itself was 25lbs slower than Oscar Whisky's. That should sound alarm bells right left and centre.
As I said, I believe in races within races. It was probably a racecourse gallop with a valuable pot for the winner but if it proves ultimately to be a true reflection of the respective abilities [of the big three] it could just as easily be put down to coincidence.
In the absence of the computer power that Timeform would have us believe they have at their disposal and the obvious massive brains that interpret form for us lesser beings, there isn't much else raters can do than apply some form of yardstick handicapping - the same yardstick handicapping that identified Far West, Highland Lodge, His Excellency, Coneygree, Unioniste, Zarkandar and Oscar Whisky as having strong winning chances on the day.
My frighteningly cringeworthy logic tells me the above but in terms of allocating figures to the race, I've decided to rate it around Grandouet running to the same figure I had him on last season (170+), meaning that Zarkandar has run to within a pound of the figure I had for him at Wincanton and Rock On Ruby 7lbs shy of his Champion win.
It may be frighteningly cringeworthily simplistic and it's the kind of race I'd simply just add a '?' to (to remind me not to put too much trust in the figures) but it does seem to provide a 'best-fit' idea of each performance on the day. Which, after all, is often all the OH can do.
Illegitimi non carborundum
All handicapping absolutely does not involve using a yardstick of some sort. The hanging of a set of ratings in any race based on the notion that one horse in that race ran to form is convenient, but scientifically flaky. A more robust way of establishing the worth of a race is described here by by ex-forumite Simon Rowlands: http://bit.ly/hRdpkE
This isn't a Timeform love in by any means, but it's clear that the methods used by any individual who utilises race standards and applies rigorous mathematical principles are going to provide truer results than some bloke who decides to rate a race through a random horse because the result "feels right" to him.
Grandouet is a terrible horse to hang a rating on, because the likelihood of him being exactly the same horse as he was a year ago is almost nil. Injury/lack of fitness are factors which could be expected to retard his performance, while greater physical maturity is a factor which might see him improve since his 2011 win. Only by accepting that these factors cancel each other out perfectly can he deem Grandouet to be the correct means of measuring the merit of the race.
Again, it's possible that Dickinson's ratings are spot on, but that isn't the argument. It's also possible that he's actually rated the race using proper methodology, but simply uses yardstick terminology to explain it to the public, as the BHA refuse to disclose the exact methods they use, or indeed if different handicappers use the same method.
handsome is as handsome does
I'm not arguing against that. But how else do you evaluate the race? Zarkandar was coming in from a small-field handicap, the form of which is difficult to accept at face-value while Rock On Ruby and Grandouet were having their first run of the season, and all this happened on ground which was among the heaviest, according to my going allowances, ever raced upon anywhere in the last 30 years. At least we knew G had had a couple of racecourse gallops so there had to be some prospect of his being close to fitness and we saw last week that the same yard's Sprinter Sacre turned up at least as good as before.
I think we are talking about a Timeform love-in. Not only that, but we're talking about Timeform being so superior to everything else around that everything else around is to be scorned as a waste of time, space and energy.
If Timeform was any good, I might subscribe to the view but I have first hand knowledge of how dreadful Timeform ratings are and if they think they are the be all and end all then they are sadly deluded.
I'd also be pretty certain that both the Official Handicappers and Raceform compilers are more than aware of how Timeform use race standardisation and do likewise themselves. I can accept that it works in the situation referred to in the link but when we're talking established form then yarrdstick handicapping becomes just as valid so long as the evidence is there. I wouldn't be able to quote a figure with any accuracy but I'd be pretty sure Timeform rated Oath an average Derby winner when all other evidence made it obvious he was well below that, as subsequent events proved. Timeform shouldn't start throwing stones from within the glass walls of Halifax.
Last edited by Desert Orchid; 19th December 2012 at 11:47 PM.
Illegitimi non carborundum