While I would agree than in many disciplines, a horse aged 11+ would not be overly inconvenienced we are talking about the top level of NH racing, where they are maintaining a high cruising speed and jumping serious fences for 3 miles. Age does matter for this type of racehorse and I believe it is catching up with KS. He can either go on the downgrade, still race but maybe at the slightly softer levels outlined above, which may well keep him in one piece or he can be retired - it's his owner's choice, obviously. There may hopefully still be another top class race in him but somehow I rather doubt it.
King George VI Chase
- Thread starter Ardross
- Start date
BennyB
Senior Jockey
I think there’s a bit of an overreaction to Kauto’s defeat here.
He finished 3rd in the King George. It doesn’t mean he’s necessarily in decline. Of course he could be, but we don’t know that for sure. If you think back to the days of Desert Orchid, did we think he was finished every time he lost a race? (I appreciate that there are significant differences in the way the two horses were/are campaigned.)
A couple of mitigating factors on Saturday: the poor form of the yard, and the reported bleeding. Don’t forget he has come back from lacklustre runs before. I’d say he’s well worth a shot at the Gold Cup in what looks an open race. I’d also like to see him run in the Whitbread (or whatever it’s called nowadays), perhaps next season if not this. I don’t see the point in mopping up soft G1s in Ireland, but there simply isn’t enough evidence to suggest he’s finished at the top level just yet.
Perhaps that’s wishful thinking on my part, but that’s the way I see it at present. That said, I certainly wouldn’t be backing him at 12-1 for Cheltenham, but if he were mine he’d definitely take part (all being well), and stay in training next season too.
He finished 3rd in the King George. It doesn’t mean he’s necessarily in decline. Of course he could be, but we don’t know that for sure. If you think back to the days of Desert Orchid, did we think he was finished every time he lost a race? (I appreciate that there are significant differences in the way the two horses were/are campaigned.)
A couple of mitigating factors on Saturday: the poor form of the yard, and the reported bleeding. Don’t forget he has come back from lacklustre runs before. I’d say he’s well worth a shot at the Gold Cup in what looks an open race. I’d also like to see him run in the Whitbread (or whatever it’s called nowadays), perhaps next season if not this. I don’t see the point in mopping up soft G1s in Ireland, but there simply isn’t enough evidence to suggest he’s finished at the top level just yet.
Perhaps that’s wishful thinking on my part, but that’s the way I see it at present. That said, I certainly wouldn’t be backing him at 12-1 for Cheltenham, but if he were mine he’d definitely take part (all being well), and stay in training next season too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grasshopper
Which horses in the King George ran their races, Hamm - other than the first two?
Which horses ran their races in Kauto's last King George?
They would have run their races if they had been up against equivalent opposition rather than the most awesome round of power and jumping ive ever seen. It destroyed them
:lol:I confess I am a little amazed, Steve. Far too generous an interpretation from the Halifax mob, imo.
They have been known to get it wrong in the past though (whereas as I'm obviously bomb-proof)
I'd agree it's probably more than a little to do with blind panic revision in light of Saturday's race. They are at least trying to agree with each other now though and for what it's worth I don't think they are too far out as things stand.
davidjohnson
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2007
- Messages
- 3,434
SteveM - Not sure what the foundation for your 'blind panic' assertion is and as to whether Timeform had Long Run's previous form too low, well if that's the case it remains so as I don't believe any of it has been put up retrospectively. To think Long Run ran to anything like 170 in the Paddy Power would suggest that Dancing Tornado will be a good thing in the next handicap he contests whilst Little Josh could have been expected to fare better than he did in the AP Gold Cup.
I can also assure you that whatever the BHA or RP have rated the race had no bearing on the figure Timeform came up, so I'm afraid you are wrong on the point of them at least trying to agree with each other.
Equally the race hasn't been rated through any of the placed horses as yardsticks, far too unreliable a method. The 178 is a figure supported by race standards and also the time comparison with the well-run 3m handicap.
Will be interesting to see what Phil Smith does with Kauto Star's rating, if only from an academic point of view.
I can also assure you that whatever the BHA or RP have rated the race had no bearing on the figure Timeform came up, so I'm afraid you are wrong on the point of them at least trying to agree with each other.
Equally the race hasn't been rated through any of the placed horses as yardsticks, far too unreliable a method. The 178 is a figure supported by race standards and also the time comparison with the well-run 3m handicap.
Will be interesting to see what Phil Smith does with Kauto Star's rating, if only from an academic point of view.
Whatever David... hardly surprising from you though.
Whatever they were on before they at least are quite similar now.
I'm rather of the opinion that the RPRs were closer to the mark on this occasion before the KG. Perhaps Timeform is a little closer now, but they have had to raise him 15lb to get there. The figures can be justified half a dozen different ways... you tell yourself whatever you're most happy with.
davidjohnson
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2007
- Messages
- 3,434
Steve, are you the same Steve M that contributed to a Q&A thread with Jim McGrath on trf that is still viewable in their archives?
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
DJ, a serious question here:
Let's just say that you're right, and "yardstick" handicapping is "far too unreliable".
Presumably race "standards" are based on some algorithm where times are reviewed against ground conditions and a historical context? For example, 'A G1 chase over 3m at Kempton in Good-to-Soft should be run in xxx seconds, based on reliable historical indicators' - something like that?
If so, does it worry you that ground descriptions are probably the least reliable element in racing? Have Timeform taken the going as described at face-value, and generated their view of the KG form against standard from that - all other things being equal?
If that is the approach, how is this any more or less sophisticated than "yardstick" handicapping, given the inherent variations in actual ground conditions that can be covered by "Good to Soft" (or any other description for that matter)?
I know Pru (and doubtless others) has long been an advocate of this approach/method, but it always comes across as somewhat superior and snooty - looking down on the hapless "yardstick handicappers" as if they believe in a flat Earth - without ever really convincing that it is any better or worse than traditional lbs-per-length handicapping.
This view is possibly a reflection of my own ignorance, and I'm consequently genuinely interested as to how these standards - and the allocation of ratings against them - are derived, so would appreciate your bringing the light.
PS. If your reply hints that I need to subscribe to Timeform for the answer, you can fuck off and I'll go back to yard (and pin) sticking.
Let's just say that you're right, and "yardstick" handicapping is "far too unreliable".
Presumably race "standards" are based on some algorithm where times are reviewed against ground conditions and a historical context? For example, 'A G1 chase over 3m at Kempton in Good-to-Soft should be run in xxx seconds, based on reliable historical indicators' - something like that?
If so, does it worry you that ground descriptions are probably the least reliable element in racing? Have Timeform taken the going as described at face-value, and generated their view of the KG form against standard from that - all other things being equal?
If that is the approach, how is this any more or less sophisticated than "yardstick" handicapping, given the inherent variations in actual ground conditions that can be covered by "Good to Soft" (or any other description for that matter)?
I know Pru (and doubtless others) has long been an advocate of this approach/method, but it always comes across as somewhat superior and snooty - looking down on the hapless "yardstick handicappers" as if they believe in a flat Earth - without ever really convincing that it is any better or worse than traditional lbs-per-length handicapping.
This view is possibly a reflection of my own ignorance, and I'm consequently genuinely interested as to how these standards - and the allocation of ratings against them - are derived, so would appreciate your bringing the light.
PS. If your reply hints that I need to subscribe to Timeform for the answer, you can fuck off and I'll go back to yard (and pin) sticking.
Last edited:
davidjohnson
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2007
- Messages
- 3,434
Grasshopper
Prufrock's article here will explain race standardisation techniques better than I'll manage here. In a nutshell the standard is produced through an algorithm taking into account the difference in pounds of the first 5 over the last 5 years.
With regards to the ground, Timeform assess it by analysing race times retrospectively.
Apologies, if I came across as superior and snooty, I hope you know me from posting here and elsewhere for a number of years that wouldn't have been my intention. Even a race like the King George this year shows the problem one using a horse to rate the race around. We can't rate it around Kauto Star who was obviously below form. Equally Riverside Theatre is a second-season chaser having his first start at 3m. There has to be a possibility he has improved. SImilar comments apply to Long Run as just a 6-y-o so don't want to rate it through him either. Nacarat finished a very tired 24l fourth, hardly shaping like a horse to have 'run his race'. Also the yardstick method also depends on your ratings coming into the race. If Steve M is right that Timeform had Long Run's form too low coming into the race, the danger is all subsequent form is underpinned by one performance.
In truth, I don't have a strong view on the race, I don't follow jump racing closely enough to have a view on whether Riverside Theatre is too high at 167 or not. However, I can look at the principles that seem to have been used to come up with the rating and it looks sound enough to me.
Prufrock's article here will explain race standardisation techniques better than I'll manage here. In a nutshell the standard is produced through an algorithm taking into account the difference in pounds of the first 5 over the last 5 years.
With regards to the ground, Timeform assess it by analysing race times retrospectively.
Apologies, if I came across as superior and snooty, I hope you know me from posting here and elsewhere for a number of years that wouldn't have been my intention. Even a race like the King George this year shows the problem one using a horse to rate the race around. We can't rate it around Kauto Star who was obviously below form. Equally Riverside Theatre is a second-season chaser having his first start at 3m. There has to be a possibility he has improved. SImilar comments apply to Long Run as just a 6-y-o so don't want to rate it through him either. Nacarat finished a very tired 24l fourth, hardly shaping like a horse to have 'run his race'. Also the yardstick method also depends on your ratings coming into the race. If Steve M is right that Timeform had Long Run's form too low coming into the race, the danger is all subsequent form is underpinned by one performance.
In truth, I don't have a strong view on the race, I don't follow jump racing closely enough to have a view on whether Riverside Theatre is too high at 167 or not. However, I can look at the principles that seem to have been used to come up with the rating and it looks sound enough to me.
EC1
On a break
I think Pru said that Timeform ratings are 6 higher than OHR's..so LR real rating in my mind is 172..i only take notice of OHR's...RPR's..meaningless to me as the scale is too high
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
DJ, I wouldn't dream of suggesting you sounded "superior" or "snooty" - or Pru for that matter. 
It's just that, in my experience, the standardisation disciples tend to suggest that their method is inherently superior to others, whereas I (a lbs-per-length Luddite) consider form study to be many shades of grey, with no Rosetta Stone available to any of us. For me, all types of form study are fundamentally flawed - and the "best" one is merely that which proves most profitable for the individual.
Of course - for all I know - you, Pru and others who favour the standardisation approach could be jumping in and out of Ferrari's, taking holiday's on private islands, and hoovering charlie from the arse-cracks of statueqsue Russian hookers every evening. In which case, I'll read Pru's article with interest, and hope I'm not too thick to follow it!
It's just that, in my experience, the standardisation disciples tend to suggest that their method is inherently superior to others, whereas I (a lbs-per-length Luddite) consider form study to be many shades of grey, with no Rosetta Stone available to any of us. For me, all types of form study are fundamentally flawed - and the "best" one is merely that which proves most profitable for the individual.
Of course - for all I know - you, Pru and others who favour the standardisation approach could be jumping in and out of Ferrari's, taking holiday's on private islands, and hoovering charlie from the arse-cracks of statueqsue Russian hookers every evening. In which case, I'll read Pru's article with interest, and hope I'm not too thick to follow it!
Last edited:
On The Bridle
At the Start
Official ratings are the only thing to reference IMO also - may glance at RPR is some lower grade races and also Timeform for their opinion but OHR is the bible to me. Everything else is really window dressing!
M
martin
Guest
Of course - for all I know - you, Pru and others who favour the standardisation approach could be jumping in and out of Ferrari's, taking holiday's on private islands, and hoovering charlie from the arse-cracks of statueqsue Russian hookers every evening. In which case, I'll read Pru's article with interest, and hope I'm not too thick to follow it!
davidjohnson
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2007
- Messages
- 3,434
Have you been stalking me clive? I must remember to close the curtains. Oh and you can have your dvd back at the end of the week.
On The Bridle
At the Start
:lol::lol::lol:
On The Bridle
At the Start
:lol::lol::lol:
Not me David... I think there was another Steve M on that trf forum though... I remember asking him to call himself something else on one of the forums in the past. Possibly Steve Mason? ...can't recall.
Last edited:
Timeform ratings do tend to be higher than others, although this is not always the case. Timeform was initially higher than anyone on Harbinger for example while other ratings are somewhere between 135 and 140. It's not just the scales that are slightly different but interpretation at the time.
Last edited:
davidjohnson
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2007
- Messages
- 3,434
Okay thanks Steve.
David I have to retract what I said, I had no idea that you were talking 10 years ago. While there was another Steve M on that forum, the question to Jim about Daylami and the ratings of certain Godolphin horses was indeed from me... I had forgotten about it.
EC1
On a break
yes i understand
tbh - i don't see the point in taking notice of any rating bar the OHR..the whole handicapping system is based on it..not on TF or RPR
its like having a system that gives a 150 to the best horses...whats the point of that?
its either on the scale of the OHR or there is not much point in quoting ratings imo
You have said it. For handicapping purposes ORs are the only ratings that matter. However, for betting purposes we need to know if a horse is likely to reproduce its mark next time in a given set of circumstances, whether the horse is still on an upward curve or whether it has reached a plateau. This is where the ratings agencies can play their part.
The WTRs and Timeform’s Annual ratings, etc also give us an important historical reference, so that we can compare one generation with another – which is why it’s important that they try to get it right and don’t start screwing with 'political' agendas. A rating is a tool. Decide what you want to use it for and select accordingly.
Last edited: