Champion Hurdle 2015

The whole form book is historic. It has to be. I just don't get this logic that a speed figure is retrospective in the context that a race result is somehow held not to be?
 
Surely you are at a massive disadvantage trying to bet in running on the flat compared with those [bookies I imagine] at the track? There's a two or three second delay in transmission of TV signals - even if it's less than that you're at a disadvantage - in which time the entire complexion of a race can change. Then there's the five-or-so seconds delay while the transaction goes through.

Not for me.
 
you don't have to bet in running..that was one comment..to which i mentioned

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

we not really discussing an in running strategy
 
EC1 said:
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
Click to expand...

Knowing the track, trip, ground (to a fair degree of accuracy), the weights, the quality of the opposition etc.....these all help inform me as to who is best-placed to win a horse-race. Knowing the sectionals/pars beforehand, don't inform me. That's the difference for me.

It was a fair question though, and I agree with the broader-point that all form-analysis is guesswork to a degree.
 
Grasshopper said:
Knowing the track, trip, ground (to a fair degree of accuracy), the weights, the quality of the opposition etc.....these all help inform me as to who is best-placed to win a horse-race. Knowing the sectionals/pars beforehand, don't inform me. That's the difference for me.

It was a fair question though, and I agree with the broader-point that all form-analysis is guesswork to a degree.
Click to expand...

So at a stroke you'd now accept that the fundamental objection you had is flawed?

"But it doesn't give you an edge - it can only be used retrospectively......that's my point."

Whether you can be arsed to calculate and understand a speed analysis is another issue, but speed analysis, like any other form item, is premised in a previous running and always has been, and therefore can only be used retrospectively. It's really a non-argument, yet I've seen it trotted out for years in cyberspace without anyone seeking to challenge it and point out the rather obvious.

What 'informs' you is really therefore a question of what it is you allow to inform you. Ultimately they all come from the same broad approach, namely a previous level of performance being archived and then used as evidence, or not, to support the likelihood of that level of performance being repeated under certain conditions in the future. All form is retrospective and it certainly can't be used as a rationale to dismantle the validity of speed figures unless you're prepared equally to drive a lorry through the entire form book on the same line of conclusion
 
Last edited:
What insight can I gain from sectionals/pars in advance of a (Jumps) race, to help me select a winner.......given it's acknowledged that we can't know the pace of the race in advance. Can you please do this in easily-digestible chunks.

Also, if you try educating rather than insulting me, we might get somewhere.
 
I was mildly trying to provoke you to see if you were reading in this particular case, but having established that you clearly still are, let me think on how it might be best to present some simple angles that aren't going to require you dig out calculators and class par tables or generate spreadsheets and start mucking around with things that you'd rather not, as I'm sure there are some relatively straight forward things you can do that won't require a massive leap.

Have you got a full subscription to the RP database that gives you access to TS and RPR? That's probably as good a place to start as any, because at least that way we can use someone elses figures and remove at a stroke any need to generate your own
 
Grasshopper said:
What insight can I gain from sectionals/pars in advance of a (Jumps) race, to help me select a winner.......given it's acknowledged that we can't know the pace of the race in advance. Can you please do this in easily-digestible chunks.

Also, if you try educating rather than insulting me, we might get somewhere.
Click to expand...

I thought I did this earlier grass- it allows you to spot horses which have run better than the result suggests. These horses will therefore have a better chance next time out than the odds suggest, assuming nobody else used the sectionals. If you bet horses with a better chance than the odds suggest, you'll win long term. Of course next time the race might not be run to suit again, but that's the chance you take.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Grasshopper said:
I would give the last fart from my ass for RPR's or Topspeed ratings.

Does that answer the question?
Click to expand...

It answers a question

Let's try another angle. Would you accept that you would stand a better chance at forecasting that there will be more hours of sunlight in July than December? and that if you were asked to bet on one over the other you'd plump for July? I'm assuming the answer is yes. But equally you wouldn't be able to say for certain that July 15th need generate more sunlight hours than December 15th, but you could load the dice in your favour?
 
Last edited:
You did, Benny......and maybe that's all it is.

Maybe I was looking for too much from it - some kind of revelation that doesn't actually exist.
 
Can I help you clowns before you go on for another 500 pages.

The Champion Hurdle for dummies

Back any of the front 3 in the betting at 9/4, 3/1 or 6/1 each way. Regardless of the result this is currently a +EV bet so stop going around in circles splitting hairs. There is no bad bet among st the front of the market
 
EC
My completely incorrect assertion was taken directly from Simon Rowland's blog, viz:
One of the main reasons for that unflattering time comparison becomes clear by consideration of the sectionals. By Timeform's reckoning, Rock On Ruby got to halfway about 2 seconds quicker than Champagne Fever in the opener and was still about 1.5 seconds ahead at the second-last.
Click to expand...
For obvious reasons, Champion Hurdles are generally run c2 secs quicker than Supremes, so it's perfectly reasonable to adjust the 1/2way time by 1 second, and I did point out that it was relative but as with many of your rants, you chose to ignore the bits that didn't suit your story. So maybe all the names you call me perhaps apply to Simon Rowlands too?
You spouted so much about HF not staying a test that you just can't back down now.
Click to expand...
I've never said anything of the kind, indeed am well aware that HF stays further, but typically for you, why tell the truth when you embroider your own story so well?
HF ran the first 5.9f ...5 lengths faster than CF
Click to expand...
As above, that's relative, and only equates to c1.5l when adjusted for class, hardly lung-bursting stuff.
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?
Click to expand...
Once again, it's relative, and it would seem both I and SR were exceedingly accurate. 0.87 secs after 9f would hardly be cause to shout for the stretcher bearers, would it?
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
Click to expand...

Once again, your arithmetic owes more to convenience than it does to fact. It's 0.41 secs, and equates to 2l.
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.
Click to expand...
And again, it boils down to a relative 0.5 secs over the first 3/4 of the race, and another OTT embellishment by yourself of what a honest and unvarnished appraisal would show to be peanuts in horse racing terms.


Fair enough, the CH was slower from the 2nd last, and there has to be a reason, but the whole sorry edifice of pace collapse is predicated on the need for that reason, and no amount of messing around with '2l here, and 1 second there' could ever justify the relative (note that word) 6 seconds that the CH was run slower than the Supreme in.
Now, I don't know that reason, but I'm convinced it had nothing to do pace collapse or altered ground, and there are very good reasons to believe it's down to the form of the protagonists in the 2 races, and it ties in precisely with the overall form of all concerned, both before and since.
HF travelled well from before the 2nd last, and did just enough to dispose of 2 slow horses comfortably, as and when Ruby wished. He was driven out afterwards, but that's no different to what he did 2 years ago to horses who similarly needed further, and there was no talk of pace collapse then. Champagne Fever's a different kettle of fish, and after a superlative ride from Ruby, had to fight off 2 horses with a deal more speed than those close to HF could ever hope to muster. That's not to say HF could have found another 9l, neither you or I know how much. but the plain and simple truth is, he didn't need to.
However, you go on believing they went too fast, (and try and justify it from how they've all run since) and I'll continue with my understanding of the race, and see it vindicated, time after time. :lol:
 
Do not forget that Ruby rode both horses. on Cf he set the pace to suit himself and so rode the perfect race; on HF he had no such luxury and having been flat footed the previous year could not allow the leaders too much lee way.HF also made a mistake down the far side did he not so had more ground to make up. After the race Ruby as much as admitted that he chased the pace beyond his comfort zone. He knew that once HF hit the front he would out battle the rest.
His primary function though is to win the race which he did, in both cases.
 
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


Once again, your arithmetic owes more to convenience than it does to fact. It's 0.41 secs, and equates to 2l.

sorry to point this out..but 37.67 - 37.08 does not equal 0.41..its 0.59..which is 3 lengths as stated

but at least you are now taking seriously what i have pointed out..so we getting there

all you need to do now is acknowledge that HF isn't just a speed horse..if you don't then there is bugger all i can do about it..and care even less

my words on that CH are done..i'd sussed it in half an hour..your still struggling 2 years on.

it doesn't matter really does it now?
 
Last edited:
edgt said:
Do not forget that Ruby rode both horses. on Cf he set the pace to suit himself and so rode the perfect race; on HF he had no such luxury and having been flat footed the previous year could not allow the leaders too much lee way.HF also made a mistake down the far side did he not so had more ground to make up. After the race Ruby as much as admitted that he chased the pace beyond his comfort zone. He knew that once HF hit the front he would out battle the rest.
His primary function though is to win the race which he did, in both cases.
Click to expand...

in no way is my analysis a criticism of RW..he did what he thought right..and won..but won by staying not speed

the argument is..that Reet believes HF is a one trick speed pony..and wants taht race to support it..but it doesn't in any way..when HF won the 2013 he didn't use a burst of speed..he out battled stayers in a real test..unlike his 2011 win which was a speed test

i think Ruby feared another repeat of 2012..and thought..i'm not giving ROR any rope this time..problem for ROR was..his jockey asked horse to go too fast..and then found that HF wasn't all about speed after all
 
Last edited:
Rooster Booster has been dead nearly a decade and he still lives on in cyber legend.

The one who should have had a legacy is Black Jack Ketchum of course :lol:
 
Fair response EC1; nor do I.
He probably is harder on himself than any of us !
I was just making the point for those that are lost in the points being made.
That Ruby rode both for W P Mullins adds to the comparisons and contrasts being made as these are two constants.
A similar analysis of Quevegas six Mares Hurdles wins could make interesting reading as would Istabraq's three Champion hurdles if only to highlight the ability of those horses to win under different circumstances for those suffering HF anxiety!
 
edgt said:
Fair response EC1; nor do I.
He probably is harder on himself than any of us !
I was just making the point for those that are lost in the points being made.
That Ruby rode both for W P Mullins adds to the comparisons and contrasts being made as these are two constants.
A similar analysis of Quevegas six Mares Hurdles wins could make interesting reading as would Istabraq's three Champion hurdles if only to highlight the ability of those horses to win under different circumstances for those suffering HF anxiety!
Click to expand...

the ability to win a race no matter what the scenario thrown at you is the sign of a special animal..HF proved the doubters wrong about speed horse..me included when he won the 2013 CH

Istabraq is one of those eras when you really wanted a proper adversary for him..i'm sure he would beaten such an adversary but his reign never excites me due to lack of such an adversary

See You Then..not as good as Isty..still won 3 CH's..but again that period lacked the tough adversary

Thats why KS and Denman will always be revered..they had each other to battle....you will never forget those races
 
Back
Top