tiggers1972
Senior Jockey
All that's proved is how we all read form differently, correct?
OC had the chance at Cheltenham
OC had the chance at Cheltenham
Champion Hurdle 2014
- Thread starter granger
- Start date
A
I think MTOY run a huge race today, pulled in his usual style, a mistakes for out,
I rate him today in the same figure he did in the festival, 167.
I think his best route would be novice chasing and could be an arkle type.
I think MTOY run a huge race today, pulled in his usual style, a mistakes for out,
I rate him today in the same figure he did in the festival, 167.
I think his best route would be novice chasing and could be an arkle type.
Clearly the hood and ear plugs did not work . He pulled harder today than ever .
One wonders if he needs a CH like 2003 when Intersky Falcon set things up for the Booster.
Last edited:
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
My issue is with DO's assertion that OC would have scattered-up in the Champion if he hadn't hit the deck. There is not a scrap of racecourse evidence to suggest this would have been the case.
I should add that I've taken my medicine regarding Hurricane Fly. He was beat fair-and-square at Cheltenham, and there were no excuses. What I object to is the assertion that OC was some kind of wonder-horse. He, like other top-end juveniles before him, was found out when facing all-aged company. That is a bare fact. I'll concede that he cane as close to bridging the gap against some really good 2m hurdlers as any. His form in his runs behind HF (and marginally in front of Jezki) in the trials, was much superior to Katchit's in winning the CH (imo), but to suggest he woukd have won easily if he'd stood-up is dream-catcher nonsense.
I should add that I've taken my medicine regarding Hurricane Fly. He was beat fair-and-square at Cheltenham, and there were no excuses. What I object to is the assertion that OC was some kind of wonder-horse. He, like other top-end juveniles before him, was found out when facing all-aged company. That is a bare fact. I'll concede that he cane as close to bridging the gap against some really good 2m hurdlers as any. His form in his runs behind HF (and marginally in front of Jezki) in the trials, was much superior to Katchit's in winning the CH (imo), but to suggest he woukd have won easily if he'd stood-up is dream-catcher nonsense.
I think it is very possible that he would have won . Possible though is the operative word.
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,016
The is plenty of evidence in support of Our Conor but it is circumstantial and, in the big scheme of things, a matter of speculation, conjecture, assumption and presumption.
But I think it holds a lot more weight than any assertion that yesterday's race would have been a case of MTOY winning unopposed.
As EC1 suggests, not many of those wild assertions are being challenged by anyone other than, as far as I can see, him, Sunybay or me. I consider myself in Grade 1 company there. I'm in with the Night Nurses and Istabraqs of the game. You guys are in with the Flakey Doves.
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
If you're talking about after-timing, it's hard to disagree.
"Would" reflects certainty, not the conjecture and supposition you now claim to be the case. At least you've now confirmed that you're guessing.
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,016
Not in the grammar books I studied. "Would" is conditional and therefore dependent upon other things happening.
Oh here we go. When did I after-time?
The day after the Champion Hurdle I wrote:
So within a day or so of the race I'd laid out my opinion - with figures to support it rather than saying HF will win and anyone who didn't agree was a misguided idiot.
As for yesterday's race, I said beforehand:
I had all the figures laid out and I said there were three or four in the race whose chances I could fancy more. How the fcuk is that after-timing?
I hope you are not an English teacher. The 'would' refers to something you suggest would have certainly happened IF an event had taken place. By saying IF he didn't fall he WOULD have won, you are inferring certainty, based on the IF clause occuring. Your explanation is consistent with the word COULD. I'm surprised at your use of grammar.
And you aftertiming? No way. Never!
:lol:
And you aftertiming? No way. Never!
:lol:
Last edited:
EC1
On a break
I'm starting to realise DO that you are best not backing an opinion up..best just to say..x will win..then if it don't ..just stick to your original view and don't learn from it.
The big difference between NH and flat is that when horses don't finish is that the form is read as it appears.
Lets say that OC & TNO both came to the last 5 clear of the field..both fall..only then do people think...well that means the winner and second would have been 3rd & 4th.
If horses that would have been involved in a finish do not appear in the finish..it means the form has to be in question...times can help with this...the CH time didn't compare favourably with the SN to make the CH winner a 170 horse..even though the way both races were run it should have...which indicates that the winning mark you put on the CH winner is not of an above average one.
The big difference between NH and flat is that when horses don't finish is that the form is read as it appears.
Lets say that OC & TNO both came to the last 5 clear of the field..both fall..only then do people think...well that means the winner and second would have been 3rd & 4th.
If horses that would have been involved in a finish do not appear in the finish..it means the form has to be in question...times can help with this...the CH time didn't compare favourably with the SN to make the CH winner a 170 horse..even though the way both races were run it should have...which indicates that the winning mark you put on the CH winner is not of an above average one.
Last edited:
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
Cobblers, EC1.
By all means back-up an opinion, but if your horse hits the deck before half-way, prepare to be taken-on if you suggest it "would" have won.
By all means back-up an opinion, but if your horse hits the deck before half-way, prepare to be taken-on if you suggest it "would" have won.
EC1
On a break
did i say he would have won?..he would have been with TNO in the finish imo..on form lines...i think he probably would have won..but who knows what TNO would have done with those lengths he lost..then again Diakali nearly did TNO at Liverpool...how far did OC beat Diakali?
its interesting how no one has mentioned how unfancied Jezki was on the day...maybe they didn't fancy him as they thought he would only get 3rd
at the end of the day..you can't just ignore horses who don't run their race...it can give a clue to how strong a race is...and the CH was not one of the best renewals for a number of reasons...and MTOY was judged yesterday on him being involved in an above CH finish...a false assumption by anyone backing him at the price he was yesterday
which is the whole crux of the discussion here
Last edited:
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,016
I do believe Our Conor 'would' have won the big one but clearly it can be no more than a belief. However, it is based on all the evidence I can find in the form book.
He was by miles the best of last year's juveniles, recording a time [in the Triumph] that was almost off the scale. As is the case every year, most juveniles improve 7-10lbs the following season. I've highlighted repeatedly the cases this season. My rating for Our Conor in last season's Triumph was 168, a long way ahead of any previous juvenile rating. I've read on here that that was just because he was an early developer but that can be no more than speculation either, especially as it flies in the face of connections' assertion that he was "just a baby".
As it turns out, if - and I accept it is a biggish if - my ratings are correct Our Conor would not have had to improve to be involved in the finish last month. If he improved as much as the other juveniles did from last season, he'd have run to 175 at least, which would have been higher than my previous high for Hurricane Fly, hence my enthusiasm for him.
I, for one, am further encouraged when I read contributions by people like EC1 whose approach is quite different. I often find when we agree we have something to go to war with.
No-one seems to have a problem suggesting Golden Cygnet would have reigned supreme for years but his life was also cut short before he got the chance to prove it. It seems the only reason Our Conor isn't held in such awe is that connections targeted one race and didn't mind if he was defeated en route.
EC1
On a break
this is the main point ignored so many times on the CH thread
and yet...no one were too surprised when Jezki won..even though beaten twice ..once by both OC and HF...odd one that
BigTea
At the Start
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2014
- Messages
- 145
He was beaten twice by HF, the time OC finished ahead of him so did CCB so taking form lines out of that race are meaningless.
I think it's fair to say he would been close and finished ahead of HF who had age and course catch up on him but it would have taken bags of improvement to win which will only ever be speculation now unfortunately
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think it's fair to say he would been close and finished ahead of HF who had age and course catch up on him but it would have taken bags of improvement to win which will only ever be speculation now unfortunately
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
The suggestion OC was trained only for one race is - again - conjecture, and not something upheld by Hughes' apparent confidence before both the Istabraq and Irish Champion hurdles. Of course, it's easy for him to state otherwise, after his horse has been handed his arse in both races in receipt of weight.
I have plenty of respect for OC, and have no quibbles with the argument that he was a top-class hurdler. Even now, his Triumph Hurdle looks strong form.....but the argument that the CH is no good simply because TNO struggled at Aintree is misguided, imo. It is a totally different test to the Champion Hurdle, and has little relevance to the Cheltenham event. You cod just as easily make a case for rating the CH highly, given the strength of the 2013 Supreme form (easily comporable with the Triumph, imo) and the finishing positions of the first two in the 2014 CH.
I have plenty of respect for OC, and have no quibbles with the argument that he was a top-class hurdler. Even now, his Triumph Hurdle looks strong form.....but the argument that the CH is no good simply because TNO struggled at Aintree is misguided, imo. It is a totally different test to the Champion Hurdle, and has little relevance to the Cheltenham event. You cod just as easily make a case for rating the CH highly, given the strength of the 2013 Supreme form (easily comporable with the Triumph, imo) and the finishing positions of the first two in the 2014 CH.
EC1
On a break
yes i know he was beaten twice by HF
and no...i haven't taken any form lines out of that race
EC1
On a break
i don't think TNO's run at Aintree has much to do with the CH form...the CH form alone tells you the first and second are below par ...and DO said after the CH he thought it were a below par CH finish
if OC was fancied in both those two runs...why did he drift like he lost a leg?...something that nearly everyone here deems as a horse not fully on...i read it all the time..oh it wasn't fancied..see the drift...well OC drifted both runs.
either way...OC is still the best juvenile hurdler i've seen..apart from GC..and the runs of those he beat Frankel-like have upheld the belief he was a mid 170's horse..a crying shame we won't see some great future races is how i see it
ignoring OC ...anyone pinning their hopes on the CH form being above average will probably be shown to be wrong..imo
Last edited:
EC1
On a break
And you aftertiming? No way. Never!
there aren't many days i don't read aftertiming of some sort on the board..i've just read some today on another thread...depends on who you are if owts said about it though
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
If the Champion Hurdle was 'the day' for OC, how come he wasn't backed off the boards?
There's a very obvious reason why he drifted in the Irish CH.....he was worse-off at the weights against a dual Champion Hurdler who comfortably beat him in their previous outing, and who was undefeated in eight runs at the track. It's that simple, and no conspiracy theories are required.
Anyhoo, WTF do I care? I didn't exactly call it right myself.
PS. Vautour wins the next one.
There's a very obvious reason why he drifted in the Irish CH.....he was worse-off at the weights against a dual Champion Hurdler who comfortably beat him in their previous outing, and who was undefeated in eight runs at the track. It's that simple, and no conspiracy theories are required.
Anyhoo, WTF do I care? I didn't exactly call it right myself.
PS. Vautour wins the next one.
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
No hard feelings, DO, and apologies for yanking your chain.
As I said about 100 pages back, I will be curating HF's legacy very closely, and felt obliged to put down the suggestion that a horse beaten in all his starts outside juvenile company was a wonder-horse......when HF's merit is still open to question by some (eejits).
I was a bit out-of-order the way I went about it though, so apologies again.
As I said about 100 pages back, I will be curating HF's legacy very closely, and felt obliged to put down the suggestion that a horse beaten in all his starts outside juvenile company was a wonder-horse......when HF's merit is still open to question by some (eejits).
I was a bit out-of-order the way I went about it though, so apologies again.
there aren't many days i don't read aftertiming of some sort on the board..i've just read some today on another thread...depends on who you are if owts said about it though
Indeed but there is no-one like DO.
He could talk about backing 6 horses in a race, but you can guarantee when another horse goes and wins he will be on here within 2 seconds congratulating himself.
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,016
Better observers than me will tell you that Hughes is exactly the type of trainer who targets one race per season with certain horses and is quite happy to take a longer-term view even than that where, for example, the Grand National is concerned. For all the Irish Champion is a Grade 1, it is, in the big scheme of things, a poor relation to the Cheltenham race. Why leave the glory behind in what is basically a trial? It is to the Champion Hurdle what the Craven is to the Guineas or the Dante to the Derby.
I don't believe I argued so. Here's what I said going into the Aintree race:
I also backed it up with the note that Rock On Ruby's best form of last season [170] was slightly better. It was a very tight finish and you could argue that chasing may have blunted ROR a touch.
That wasn't arguing that the CH form is poor because TNO didn't win at Aintree. It was suggesting in advance that maybe TNO isn't all his price was cracking him up to be, just as was the case with MTOY yesterday.
Last edited:
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,016
This is one I'm not sure about. Maybe the prize money was enough. Maybe it was down to a lack of confidence in the jockey (there was certainly plenty of evidence of that on this thread). How often are Hughes's horses 'backed off the boards'?