Constitution Hill

an capall said:
What intrigues me is why (an ageing) Mr. Buckley who paid 180K for the beast and probably 30K PA doesn't seem to have a voice at the table. Maybe I'm misreading things.
Click to expand...

Owners are pretty much "powerless"

yes they pay the bills, purchase the animal, have legal title.

History shows that it rarely looks good on an owner if they move horses around. Trainers call the shots and with a long history between them, poor Mr Buckley is also toeing the line
 
Desert Orchid said:
I'd be 100% for him running the Betfair Hurdle. Off 175 he'd have a lot bandits out of the handicap thereby going a long way to foiling the plots.

I wouldn't goas far as to say he would win without having a hard race because even if he's a 185 horse he might end up trying to beat a 160+ horse that's got in off 149/10-2.

But it could be a proper spectacle and a narrow defeat would not necessarily do his reputation that much harm. Old Foghorn Leghorn would have won off 166 if Johnson hadn't been over-confident and given him too much to do, leaving his Champion Hurdle chance behind to boot. I don't really see Nico making that kind of mistake.
Click to expand...

Rooster Booster was 1from 14 following his Champion Hurdle victory -there was always an excuse.
 
I remember seeing Phillip Hobbs at Cheltenham, probably the year after Rooster Booster had won the ChH and he looked absolutely shell shocked that he’d been beaten.
 
LUKE said:
Rooster Booster was 1from 14 following his Champion Hurdle victory -there was always an excuse.
Click to expand...

He was 3 from 18, Luke, and his “excuse” is probably that 15 of those runs came when he was either 10yo or 11yo.

He’d also run in 25 hurdle races in the three-and-a-bit seasons prior to winning the Champion Hurdle. If the inference here is that his Champion Hurdle win ‘left a mark’, it’s a rather fanciful take, in my view.
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
He was 3 from 18, Luke, and his “excuse” is probably that 15 of those runs came when he was either 10yo or 11yo.

He’d also run in 25 hurdle races in the three-and-a-bit seasons prior to winning the Champion Hurdle. If the inference here is that his Champion Hurdle win ‘left a mark’, it’s a rather fanciful take, in my view.
Click to expand...

He had that glorious year then was being looked after ahead of a repeat win. In hindsight maybe going for the Tote Gold Trophy was a mistake. I honestly don't think anyone will convince me the ride he got at Newbury meant the race left its mark. (Brian H paid me out on our private wager for the CH after his TGT run. He'd given me 13/2 and paid me out at 7/2.)

He might just have peaked for those two seasons but he was the highlight of those two seasons for me.
 
I don't think I've ever truly gotten over the fact I was all over him at 16/1 to win the Tote Gold Trophy the season before and he was beaten off 138 (131 if you allow for the jockey's claim) then didn't back him in the County next time out.
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
He was 3 from 18, Luke, and his “excuse” is probably that 15 of those runs came when he was either 10yo or 11yo.

He’d also run in 25 hurdle races in the three-and-a-bit seasons prior to winning the Champion Hurdle. If the inference here is that his Champion Hurdle win ‘left a mark’, it’s a rather fanciful take, in my view.
Click to expand...

My point is that his career is viewed through Rose coloured glasses due to the fact he won 5 races in a row in his Champion Hurdle season landing some nice punts along the way.He didn't exactly win a vintage Champion Hurdle and Hardy Eustace was clearly a better horse the following season.After his Champion Hurdle win he failed to win another Grade 1.
He wouldn't have got close to Istabraq,Hurricane Fly or Constitution Hill.
 
Think that under-values the horse a bit, tbh. There were also several heroic handicap efforts under stopping weights to consider.

Rooster Booster needed a true-run race to show his best form. Once he'd won a Champion Hurdle, he was basically forced into small-field conditions races, where he was always vulnerable tactically.....plus, he'd probably shown his best by that stage, and age started to catch-up with him.

Whilst I agree with the assertion that he wasn't as good as the three horses you mentioned.......or as versatile.......he was an absolutely top-drawer hurdler at his peak, imo.
 
I saw my first champion Hurdle in 1982 and there is no way Rooster Booster makes it into the top ten winners in terms of overall record.The true greats win against the best as novices and progress from there.
 
I probably wouldn't disagree, if we're speaking about a top-ten based on overall record, but there are plenty of Champion Hurdle winners in that period that he was better than - measured either on career performances or his CH win, imho. Off the top of my head, I'd be thinking Flakey Dove, Collier Bay, Make A Stand, Hors La Loi III, Brave Inca, Sublimity, Katchit, Punjabi, Binocular, Rock On Ruby, Espoir D'Allen, Epatante.

Rooster Booster was campaigned differently from your usual Champion Hurdle type horse. He was somewhat of a late developer, and took some figuring-out as to his optimum conditions (undoubtedly helped by the switch to Hobbs), but I don't think that necessarily drags him down, tbh. Nobody has claimed he was a true great - just that he was a top-class animal on his day, in the admittedly relatively-brief window when he was operating at full capacity.
 
NH just on Radio Berkshire saying CH having a fortnight off and then will start back aiming for Cheltenham and that he, CH, 'in a very good way and good place for Chelthenham'.
 
LUKE said:
The true greats win against the best as novices and progress from there.
Click to expand...

That's probably true but it shouldn't preclude the idea of a late developer ultimately posting figures that puts him in the same level of ability.

Hardly Useless's peak OR was 170 and his top three RPRs were 170, 168 and 168.

Rooster Booster's were 170, 173, 173 and 170.

I know which one I think was the better.
 
Most racehorse owners / syndicate members or their friends/family would gladly donate organs without anaesthetic to have a part in any of those "inferior " Champion Hurdle winners you have mentioned Grassy.
Make no mistake. Each and every one gave connections multiple good days out.
Rooster was a hell of a horse who came through the hard way to the top table, Edwardstone has done something similar so deserves huge plaudits for doing so.
Amazing what a freeze does to some of us; we end up thinking about things we otherwise would not be bothered with.
 
Desert Orchid said:
That's probably true but it shouldn't preclude the idea of a late developer ultimately posting figures that puts him in the same level of ability.

Hardly Useless's peak OR was 170 and his top three RPRs were 170, 168 and 168.

Rooster Booster's were 170, 173, 173 and 170.

I know which one I think was the better.
Click to expand...

Hardy eustace was one of my favourites. All guts.
 
Desert Orchid said:
That's probably true but it shouldn't preclude the idea of a late developer ultimately posting figures that puts him in the same level of ability.

Hardly Useless's peak OR was 170 and his top three RPRs were 170, 168 and 168.

Rooster Booster's were 170, 173, 173 and 170.

Logic would dictate the 3 time Grade 1 festival winning dual Champion Hurdler who won his last Grade 1 aged 11.The £1.05 million in prize money is bonus.Or maybe you decided not to be logical.

I know which one I think was the better.
Click to expand...
 
Grasshopper said:
I probably wouldn't disagree, if we're speaking about a top-ten based on overall record, but there are plenty of Champion Hurdle winners in that period that he was better than - measured either on career performances or his CH win, imho. Off the top of my head, I'd be thinking Flakey Dove, Collier Bay, Make A Stand, Hors La Loi III, Brave Inca, Sublimity, Katchit, Punjabi, Binocular, Rock On Ruby, Espoir D'Allen, Epatante.

Rooster Booster was campaigned differently from your usual Champion Hurdle type horse. He was somewhat of a late developer, and took some figuring-out as to his optimum conditions (undoubtedly helped by the switch to Hobbs), but I don't think that necessarily drags him down, tbh. Nobody has claimed he was a true great - just that he was a top-class animal on his day, in the admittedly relatively-brief window when he was operating at full capacity.
Click to expand...

I think Brave Inca is the only name on that list that I would disagree with.
 
Outsider said:
Hardy eustace was one of my favourites. All guts.
Click to expand...

I seem to remember that right up to when he ran in the Ch H everybody just assumed he was going to run in one of the handicaps? I thought he was lovely. As with L’Escargot he kind of got overlooked because of his blinkers but he’s such a pretty little horse imo. ( not saying that he was up there with L’Escargot by the way who is still so underrated). I’m a bit bemused by the obsession with Constitution Hill: I don’t see how everything can revolve around one horse in a sport where anything can happen. I suppose it’s because, as the world’s biggest pessimist, I always think something bad will happen. I remember the morning of Istabraqs third ChH win when I got to the track only to find that there were rumours that he wouldn’t run because he’d had a nose bleed or something like that.
 
Logic would dictate the 3 time Grade 1 festival winning dual Champion Hurdler who won his last Grade 1 aged 11.The £1.05 million in prize money is bonus.Or maybe you decided not to be logical.
Click to expand...
[Luke]

Surely it's logical to consider seriously the evaluation of figures arrived at via masses of computer data and man hours of labour?

Prize money won is a seriously flawed approach considering how valuable some handicaps are compared to conditions races.

And Hardy Eustace was beaten in each of his last eight races by an aggregate of 151.5 lengths, average 19 lengths, and saw his OR drop from 162 to 150. That wouldn't be top weight in a normal Saturday Class 2 handicap hurdles these days. So it's surely illogical to proffer RB's later defeats as evidence of his inferiority when the same approach makes out HE to be even more inferior.

He was obviously very good in his day but so was Rooster Booster. I don't know how Timeform rated them but I'd be surprised if they had HE ahead.
 
G-G said:
That race, Cheltenham, is over 10 days away...why would you scope now? Was he so bad on the gallops? If yes why scope? I know scoping is routine, don't necessarily agree with it ( I was awake all night with runny nose, daytime nothing ) but , hate to use the word, but this is getting really predictable and boring now, and if so bad on the gallops then clearly has another issue. The horse may change with the seasons but, and again is it me, or is is just Henderson horses who have these issues?
Click to expand...

You are arguing with yourself....could be blood count maybe he didn't eat up...It's not predictable or we would all make fortunes laying them that don't turn up.
 
You Rooster Booster fans are dragging the bottom of the barrel. Aoart from Sublimity I doubt a less talented horse ever won a Champion Hurdle.

Jonjo said prior to the race if Rhinestone Cowboy win the Champion Hurdle it will go down as the worst renewal in history and I beleive he started favourite?
That's saying something coming for a man who once said to me there's no such a thing as a bad Champion Hurdle. Rooster Booster for me came close.

Both of Jonjo's reversed placing with him later and he had more second prizes than a one armed boxer.

Make all the excuses you like he was not what you expect from Champion Hurdler.

Most of us remember the Gold Years when Night Nurse Monnksfield and Sea Pigeon.

However if you think they were taking each on every other week think again.

Night Nurse and Monksfield did clash once when they were both in their prime
but all 3 never did. Sea Pigeon won his champion Hudle starting the year they changed the course and Monksfield retired to stud.

Probably Timeform got it right but whether Night Nurse deserves 182 is debabteable

I doubt if any of them would have lived with Constitutioh Hill's burst of speed or Istabraq's for that matter.
 
I don't think any of us RB fans are arguing that it was a strong race he won but he beat them by a street without being asked a serious question.Okay, his main rivals under-performed but he was already rated rated 167 by then.

That's the same mark as the current second-favourite and horse who would be odds-on if Constitution Hill were't around, State Man.

If Rooster Booster was duffing up diddies back in his day, what is State Man doing these days? In my head I'll always have Istabraq as a 180+horse but he never beat anything either. (French Holly was rated 172 in one of the Champion Hurdles but that was based on his defeat by Isty the time before, when Isty was only rated 164 and beat him without coming off the bit. I never believed that rating for FH. 164-ish was his level but that itself would put him not far behind State Man.)

The Champion Hurdle these days isn't really that big a deal with almost all the best novice hurdlers going down the chasing route.
 
Not your best effort Dessie

State Man is kicking 160+ horses into touch and you could bet your life if it wasn't for Constitution Hill being around he'd be rated 5 lbs higher and be hailed the next comimg.

The horse has won 8 Group 1's Rooster won the grand total of one and apart from 2 rivals the horses he beat into 2nd were sub 150 horses.

He never put up one performance you could say was a classic..look down the list of horses who finihsed 2nd to him and not one is remembered by anyone.

I don't know which horses you think would have wona champion hurdle but went chasing. Sprinter Sacre is one but apart from him you could argue Altior but considering
Buvi won the year he won the Arkle and his 1st QMCC it's unlikely.

IMVHO Rooster Booster isn't worth a mention when it comes to the best Champion Hurdlers but get a huge plus as the worst.
 
Back
Top