Champion Hurdle 2015

Have you ever considered the possibility that the three novices were better horses EC? They shattered their own field after all, and the following season they occupied first and second in the Champion Hurdle.

That explanation would allow Hurricane Fly to run well, but in the face of superior opponents who stayed a strong pace for longer, he'd still lose. I'd be more persuaded by the apparent fact that the biggest single section discrepancy just happens to come at the toughest part of the course (uphill near the finish), and at the stamina ebbing limit (right at the end). The sun shines on the home straight, the grandstand is set north west at Cheltenham. There's no reason for it to cast a shadow into a frosted area in March
 
The explanation for me is much simpler, hence the fishwife comment. It wasn't meant as something to take the wrong way EC, so I should explain.

Most who were against The Fly last year (myself included), were against him because of regression, therefore leaving him vulnerable to the next generation.

In my opinion that's a far simpler and a more obvious conclusion than those being made.
 
we are talking about 2013 Maruco

no Warb..i don't see the novices being that good after the last ..not when they went that hard early and down to the 2nd last in the CH...horses only go as slow as the CH field did when knackered after early exertions..which can be seen as clear as day to anyone looking at the splits..just compare them with 2011..do they look in any way similar?..nothing like 2013


f you look online there is an article where the jockeys of ROR and Zarkandar did go purposefully fast as they saw it as the only way to beat the Fly...and logically they were right..yet another reason why the pace would not be slow early in the CH

they over did it..but did find out..it still wasn't enough to beat him
 
Last edited:
Racing fans will tell you that novices can't beat Champion hurdlers. Oceanographers will tell you that the '40 year wave' does break (in fact they think it's more frequent than 40 now). My own ratings have Hurricane Fly as running below a Champion par, but not sufficiently so to set alarm bells thundering. By contrats Champagne Fever set a new high water mark beating Hors La Loi. The proximity of the runenrs up would also mean that they too will have recorded the second and third fastest times I hold for the race
 
Warbler said:
Racing fans will tell you that novices can't beat Champion hurdlers. Oceanographers will tell you that the '40 year wave' does break (in fact they think it's more frequent than 40 now). My own ratings have Hurricane Fly as running below a Champion par, but not sufficiently so to set alarm bells thundering. By contrats Champagne Fever set a new high water mark beating Hors La Loi. The proximity of the runenrs up would also mean that they too will have recorded the second and third fastest times I hold for the race
Click to expand...


have you see the finishing % of the CH compared to overall speed?..on top of evidence of the actual sectionals..there is no way was that an evenly run race..there isn't one piece of info that shows the CH was slowly run anywhere..apart from 2 out when the pace collapsed completely..then they walked..whereas there is an avalanche of info showing it was way too fast. Even if the Supreme had really really good novices..the highest rated ever..they still wouldn't beat a CH overall time by nearly 4 seconds.

You seem to suggest those final times represent true ability..so you would be rating CF a 28 lb better horse than a CH winner...lets say par for CH is 168... So CF MTOY & JETZKI would get ratings of 196 195 & 192 if your theory is correct

i can't see that tbh..so have to assume the CH time didn't represent the abilities of those in it..and looking at 10 runnings split times of the particular race..it hits me between the eyes why that race achieved the slow overall time it did
 
Last edited:
But that's a totally different explanation to something revolving around tundra condition thawing out
 
Warbler said:
But that's a totally different explanation to something revolving around tundra condition thawing out
Click to expand...

oh...thats the only reason i have said that might explain the big difference in times is it??

..I think you will find i have said it was the pace that damaged the time..and its also possible the ground was not the same..i think you are trying to turn it round a bit....whether or not it was softer later as well due to the covers coming off and getting ploughed up is just a theory that could explain the extreme slow finish..it could just have been the pace..but it could also be both..it was just a theory..that was also mentioned at the time..when people were scratching their heads with the 4 second difference in time

you now seem to accept the pace slowed a lot then??..so it wasn't a true run race then?

Like you said earlier..punters can't believe a novice can beat a CH time

Same punters also might struggle with..when a race is run too fast throughout...it damages final time

you don't answer points put to you either ..what about the 195 rating you must have given Champagne Fever?:)

thats it for me on this..you said the other day..you didn't think it was worth bothering discussing anything in detail on here


i agree
 
Last edited:
Oh I have little doubt that expending too much time on Talking Horses is a waste, but it can be mildly amusing as well to keep throwing in the odd grenade and watching everyone who said they'll never contribute again falling over themselves to have the next word

I think it's worth going back to see what you posted though when I suggested that 2011 was the better race to look at and that you'd learn more from that

"I think you getting confused with 2013 Warbler tbh

in 2011 it was a speedier test..2013 was the year when it was slower by far than the supreme..but wasn't the difference between the overall times partly put down to frost coming out of the ground and them churning the top off in the supreme..hence a direct overall time was a bit misleading"

I don't know? Was it partly put down to that? By whom? It sounds unlikely to me, but you seem to be asking it as a rhetorical question, as if the answer is a definitive yes. For the Supreme runners to take the top off to the extent that they slow champion horses up by this much they'd have to be towing lawnmowers with a sprinkler system attached

I'd be more persuaded by the pace collapsing as a result of the principal opposition looking to draw Hurricane Fly's sting as a result of setting a strong pace. I think the idea that there was some frozen ground somewhere that thawed out into a mush, and that this ground just happened to be on the final section at the very end of the race is very unlikely to the point where it could be dismissed. Even if they were going an even tempo you'd see evidence of it in other races too, and on the first circuit when they suddenly ran straight into it

I'm always slightly surprised as to why this race, which has to be one of the worst betting races at the entire festival, generates so much discussion. It's possibly because the value in the market often gets sucked out by November and the ante post books are priced as if they're running tomorrow. The only movement really occurs in line with injury and hoping that you've guessed right in the near lottery that is fitness. I suppose it leave little else to discuss
 
Warbler said:
But that's a totally different explanation to something revolving around tundra condition thawing out
Click to expand...

Totally different, but equally flawed.
ROR, who'd won a very strongly run race the previous year, reputedly fell in a heap because he'd reached halfway a (relative) 1 second in front of Champagne Fever?
Hurricane Fly's finishing speed was a direct result of doing just what he had to to beat slower horses - exactly as he had 2 years previously.
 
“i’m not sure i agree with those prices,” he says, in reference to the champion hurdle market (faugheen 2/1, hurricane fly 14/1). “let’s just say i don’t think hurricane fly would’ve had any trouble beating the horses that faugheen has beaten.”

yet it’s hard to dampen enthusiasm for a horse like faugheen. You can say he was an average point to pointer, you can say he was run over longer distances as a novice to avoid the ‘apple of my eye’ (vautour – ‘he still is, he’s an oil painting of a horse to look at’) and you can say he hasn’t got the pedigree of a champion hurdler.but you can’t argue with a seven from seven record, achieved in the style of a potential national hunt great. And, despite his best efforts, mullins can’t hide his excitement either.
“i was really worried about him going over to ascot, could he win with his size? Ruby said he’d never sat on a horse as fat in a race like that before. So if he can do that with that sort of condition on him there must be loads of room for improvement for the rest of the season.”
“we’re going to irving’s home ground,” mullins says. “a flat, right-handed track will suit him, but faugheen’s in good order and he’s going to have to pass that test.”
Click to expand...
 
Thanks, Granger; great to see he's an intended runner, and - by association - Champagne Fever too.
It'll give us a clearer picture of his speed, though it needs to be said that plenty of Irving's form - flat and jumps - suggests he'd be better over further, too. Doubt TNO will show up, either.
 
reet hard said:
Totally different, but equally flawed.
ROR, who'd won a very strongly run race the previous year, reputedly fell in a heap because he'd reached halfway a (relative) 1 second in front of Champagne Fever?
Hurricane Fly's finishing speed was a direct result of doing just what he had to to beat slower horses - exactly as he had 2 years previously.
Click to expand...

I'm only go to explain this once...if you don't comprehend it..don't come back blathering b0llo0x about what is a very simple picture to paint for you..or post some of the same generalised incorrect nonsense as you have above....read it and absorb..you might actually learn something...one thing here is...that you have got it completely wrong about a horse.

I'm quite happy to correct your completely incorrect assertion of 1 second difference, which shows you don't seem to know what you are talking about here, i'm also happy to accept the ground wasn't slower, my theory on that actually supported your argument, even though you seemed unable to grasp that. So my theory, that helped your argument is dismissed, no problem. In fact..its a massive support to a pace collapse. I'll also point out..that my view of HF being a speed horse was the same as yours before this race..so actually showing the opposite to be true is not doing me a favour..its admitting i got it wrong..you should try doing that sometime rather than bending facts to suit an obvious wrong assessment. You spouted so much about HF not staying a test that you just can't back down now.

Before we start...Champagne Fever ran an excellent overall time...you can only do that when you get the pace right..which every person watching thought he had done..the overall time backs that up too..the sectionals back that up too. He basically ran the distance in the same way that someone who achieves their best time when running a distance does..by running efficiently

So we have two races on similar ground.

H1 - H3
CF = 87.12
HF = 86.16

HF ran the first 5.9f ...5 lengths faster than CF

H3-H4
CF = 24.09
HF = 24.08

Same speed nearly for 1.7f

H4-H5
CF = 21.62
HF = 20.72

HF ran 1.1 second faster here..bear in mind thats over a distance of just 1.4f..so just in this small section has taken 5.8 lengths off CF

At the 5th hurdle HF total time was 130.96..CF 132.83

So by the 5th..HF had run 2 seconds faster...which means he has been running faster than CF for 9 furlongs. 2 seconds faster than the time needed to run a decent overall time as well don't forget. So just at H5..your 1 second is completely incorrect...you will now make up another excuse..you won't admit you were wrong with 1 second though will you?

H5-H6

CF = 37.67
HF = 37.08

Well bloody hell..there is nearly another second here:)..in just a distance of 2.6f.....HF has run another 3 lengths faster....so on top of running 2 seconds faster before this..his total time to this point is now 2.5 seconds faster than CF.

The total time at this point was CF = 170.5...HF = 168.04. can you read that Reet? Take it in..its massive re the use of energy over a distance in MPH terms.

At this point they have run nearly 12f ...can you imagine how much more petrol HF has used by this point in mph terms..he has been running above even pace for 12f...if you are a mile runner...you try running a mile at a similar mph % above your normal pace..and see what happens to your final time. Its not just lengths at one point that counts..its a constant running faster than efficient for a long distance that damages final time

Are there any runners on this forum?...what would happen to your final time if you ran that fast above your normal pace for 80% of a race??..think final time might suffer?

H6-H7
CF = 17.35
HF = 17.58

CF runs this section 1 length faster.

So we are now at 2 out...you say at this point.....HF had had an easy time early and was now going to out sprint stayers...that's after running far too fast for most of part of 13f..really?

H7-H8

CF = 25.26
HF = 27.15

oh dear..your theory just bit the dust..CF who we know is running efficiently..has just run for about 2 furlongs ....9 lengths faster than a champion hurdle field.

H8-finish

CF = 13.35
HF = 15.89

omg..your theory about HF out speeding the field is so far out its nearly coming back on itself

Lets see...HF had lots left after running efficiently did he?

well..you might need to explain a few things here...because on top of the very slow time from 2 out to 1 out..remember 9 lengths slower?..well...from the last to the line... CH field has run nearly 13 lengths slower...thats in just a furlong..the CH field lost 13 lengths in a furlong. At a point where you say speed is being shown???

So we have a field who in your opinion has lots left due to saving energy early running from 2 out ....22 lengths slower than a very good Novice..thats a Novice..yes a good one..but even if CF was a 170 horse on the day..htf do you explain that level slowness by a CH field?

I'll hazard a guess,,the whole CH field pace collapsed.

Does anyone in their right mind think that the CH field ran efficiently here?

Unless you can address a few facts here Reet..don't bother replying..i'm not remotely interested in time wasters trying to make themselves look right about a horse..and making it fit to suit..you do not think HF is a stamina horse..neither did i..the difference between us is..when i see cast iron evidence like that..i readily admit to being wrong

If HF was a speed only horse then the pace here would have curled him up..instead those setting it curled themselves up ...and still HF didn't curl up as much as them.

The lengths you have gone to to keep peddling your view that HF is only a speed horse just tells me you never admit when you are wrong..like many people..you will spout any nonsense to keep that belief in place..what has made me laugh is how when i put something forward that might explain the slow time..possible ground change allied to the pace...you even belittled that...which would have actually helped your argument...and you didn't even realise it.
 
Last edited:
Clear, and unequivocally correct EC. Impossible to argue with the pace collapse theory given those sectionals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Agreed......and the penny has dropped with me, regarding the nature of the pace-collapse in the race EC1 refers to.

Here is my question though.

How can we use this information, which - by its very nature, can only understood after a race has played-out - to make a profit?

Even if we accept that sectional-pars are accurate, a given race will rarely be run to exactly those pars. There will always be a degree of variance; either up or down, and given the extent of this variance cannot be known in advance, it's hard to envisage how this particular type of analysis avails itself to winner-finding. I can see how it could have merit after-the-fact, as it adds a further dimension to the way the form can be viewed/reviewed........but as pace is a 'real-time' element, I can't see how this type of analysis can be used to any great effect in advance. It seems much more powerful as a retrospective analysis tool, than one that can be used to make race-selections.

Caveat all of the above by stating I'm talking about Jumps racing only. I appreciate it's more straightforward on the level, and I'm sure we can all agree that there's absolutely no need to be discussing that unsavoury aspect of racing, on a Champion Hurdle thread.
 
Last edited:
Grassy. After your bet on the flat the other day, for a second there I though you were going to suggest that all racing should be on the sand and the jockeys should be following a mechanical rabbit! :whistle:
 
Grass - I'd use it after the event to work out whether we can rate a horse better or worse than the bare result.

So in a pace collapse scenario which favours hold up horses you rate up with the pace horses better than the bare form and hold up horses worse, as the race was run to suit the latter but not the former.

Opposite applies to slowly run races.

So if a horse looks to have run to its mark, but the sectionals say the race wasn't run to suit, you can assume the horse is ahead of its mark.

What you can't predict is whether the next race will be run to suit, however.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Succinctly put, Benny.....and was how I'd summarised EC's position.

I guess the bit I still have trouble with is the "faster-than-par-suits-hold-ups-merchants" bit.

Whilst I get the mechanics of such an argument, it is somewhat counter-intuitive to the earlier argument that all horses are essentially travelling at the same pace ("they don't get further behind"), and doesn't really account for the fact that such types might simply be better horses. In some cases - Rooster Booster's being an example - I'd want further corroboration before I was inclined to mark it down.

:cool:
 
I think the point is that it's just one of many tools we can use, but the fact so few punters choose to can make it a valuable one in gaining an edge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Grasshopper said:
But it doesn't give you an edge - it can only be used retrospectively......that's my point.
Click to expand...

i think its very difficult to use per se over the sticks to make money.

The only area that is practical without surrendering your life to gathering data every day is the split novice race..or novice race and handicap over same trip/same day.

In that scenario..you only have to time the two races..lets say you timed two novice hurdles..and they went faster early and also faster late in one of those races..it would tell you that one race has the better animals in. Its not going to be a comprehensive guide obviously..but you have removed many enemies by timing on the same day..rail movement going etc..so it has merit. I will admit i haven't done much lately re this over sticks..but we can always give it a go with a few sample races if you wanted. Main part of Gigilo's time analysis is based on same distance races..add into that in his case an eye for spotting the non triers in those races.

Apart from that obviously after a race you can see if a horse has closed into fast late pace as you can with a flat race. So you can actually find horses that have run well..and are not obvious to the many

Its like anything else..its a piece of jigsaw...the problem over the jumps is that the pieces are harder to put together due to..lets see...low sun affecting obstacles jumped...rail movement..obstacle movement?...and the actual length of the races. I'd specialise in 2m races i think if wanted to take it on
 
Last edited:
Nice one, EC.

Maybe there is an in-running angle to be exploited - though you'd probably need to be pretty quick on the trigger?
 
not as quick as you would on the flat though

but there are other issues with in running..that would be difficult imo

i think if you only looked at the split race thing...and specialised in that..you could gather a list of Novice hurdlers to follow throughtout a full season...its an option...that i doubt many others are doing

the split times are way more helpful than overall time...a lot more
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
But it doesn't give you an edge - it can only be used retrospectively......that's my point.
Click to expand...

Know of you of a form item that isn't about the extrapolation of previous performance with the view to informing an opinion about making a forecast regarding a future one?
 
thats true

Form reading is all about retrospective..with a bit of future needed..ie the distance going..course type..pace if you bothered etc

you could say..whats the point of knowing if horse acts on slow ground?..if you don't know to the nearest lb what the horse has gone on in the past..to the nearest lb of slowness..and the slowness of the ground today..to the nearest lb

SOFT covers a wide range of slowness..but just gets that one description,,thats too vague..but readily accept it in our minds?,,but is that accurate enough?..some soft ground horses don't like heavy..which is just a further amount slowness...again not known before a meeting how slow ground is..yes it might say hvy..but is that just hvy..or bottomless hvy
 
Last edited:
Back
Top