King George VI Chase

Shadow Leader said:
Absolutely.

Bar must be on another wind-up coming out with crap like 'he was thrashed in his last three races'. Ergo I won't bother pointing out the bloody obvious to him when it comes to assessing the form of those races.
Click to expand...

I was not winding anybody up. Slightly strong language; maybe I should have said "easily beaten".

Which of his last three races did he get close to winnning?
 
Hamm said:
Steve,
You're missing my point! - I know very well the ORs/RPRs/TFs Denman has run to - my point is he is favoured (not diminishing his achievements, just stating what I believe is something he is better built to do than most) by carrying weight in handicaps because carrying weight does not have the same effect to him as it does on most horses.

There is simply no way Denman ran to 182 this time around - he got absolutely destroyed and they are trying to say he ran to his rating?! He looks plain slow to me now, and I think his best days are well past. I would expect he will be outpaced, along with his stablemate, some way out.
Click to expand...

It may be you who is missing the point. The ratings say that Denman ran to his mark, which is something I'd just about agree with. The ratings also say that the two who beat him ran well above their previous marks as up and coming young chasers.

If you disagree with this that is up to you. But it seems about right to me as a reflection of what happened. People don't seem to realise what a task Denman had at the respective weights. It is totally missing the point to say it was the same weight as the previous two times. This would be a fundamental misunderstanding of the dynamics of handicapping.
 
That's his current rating Colin yes. The options were keep him on 191 which I think would be misleading as to what he is capable of these days. He's completed only twice since, so the alternative is to rate him on the better of those 2 efforts which is what he ran to at Down Royal.
 
Steve, I was not saying you are missing the point, more you were missing my point; I wasn't suggesting you were wrong, more you seemed to be misinterpreting the point I was trying to make.:)
 
davidjohnson said:
That's his current rating Colin yes. The options were keep him on 191 which I think would be misleading as to what he is capable of these days. He's completed only twice since, so the alternative is to rate him on the better of those 2 efforts which is what he ran to at Down Royal.
Click to expand...

DJ, how did they rate the KG effort? Presumably it was in the order of 160 or thereabouts?
 
Last edited:
Hamm said:
Steve, I was not saying you are missing the point, more you were missing my point; I wasn't suggesting you were wrong, more you seemed to be misinterpreting the point I was trying to make.:)
Click to expand...

No I was partly agreeing with what you earlier said about Denman in non-handicaps. But only partly. It is wrong to dismiss his handicap performances as anything less than monsterous... if you catch my drift.;)
 
Though perhaps not sober enough.

I can't have it that Nacarat ran to 155 - a mere 3lbs below his official mark of 158 - which in itself is too high (imo).

Nacarat won what looks (in hindsight) an weak Racing Post Chase, and whilst the performance was visually impressive, the resultant mark of 162 he was given looks too high. He has failed to run to within a half-stone of that mark since, and it can reasonably be argued that, as far as yardsticks go, he may be less than reliable - insofar as his chase mark is concerned.

It occurs to me that, because he excelled in that Racing Post Chase, there is an assumption that the track suits and that he can run more-or-less up to his mark. I personally think that point is moot, and if his mark is wrong anyway, the error is ultimately compounded.

As EC has suggested, anyone rating the race through Riverside Theatre is basing it on conjecture, and those rating it through Nacarat, must - by default - have complete faith in his OR.

Ultimately, it boils down to this. Would you fancy Long Run in a handicap off 180, 179 or 178 - the respective marks we are debating here?

As far as I'm concerned, he would have no chance of winning a handicap off that kind of mark - even at Kempton in his ideal ground conditions. I'm interested to hear from those who support these ratings, whether they would actually feel differently if LR was thrown an RP Chase entry, and found himself having to give a stone to the likes of Alberta's Run, or 20lbs to the likes of Punchestown.

Edit: I'm not trying to be nippy about this - I'm genuinely interested.
 
Last edited:
He was beaten on the nod in the RP Chase last year off 158 with 25 lengths back to the third. I'd fancy him to go very close in the race again off 158 if connections go that route. May come too quick if he has had a breathing op though.
 
Fair play, DJ. It's a valid argument.

So, let's say he was able to produce his very best form in that race. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt that the race is robust from a handicapping point of view (questionable, looking at the field and what they have achieved since i.e. fuck-all :D), but let's run with it.

Did he, in your opinion, run to within 3lbs of that effort last Saturday (assuming he ran to around 158 or thereabouts in the 2010 RP Chase)?
 
Therein lies the rub. His Timeform rating for the RP Chase second is 165. In my opinion, and I speak as no more than a casual fan of Jumps racing these days, is that the rating that Timeform came up with for the King George is a positive one. i.e. it's probably as high as you'd want to be on it. Would it surprise me if in 12 months time, a figure somewhere between 1-7 lb less was on it, it certainly wouldn't.

But imo that's what using figs are about, be they Timeform ones, BHA or RPR's. A tool that you can trust, but not necessarilt take merely at face value but be prepared to scrutinise the likely strength behind them.
 
I could not agree more, DJ - though I cannot countenance your position of "no more than a casual fan" of Jumps racing, as it would surely make you a namby-pamby, camel-humping, Classic-gobbling mincer of some description? :)
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
I could not agree more, DJ - though I cannot countenance your position of "no more than a casual fan" of Jumps racing, as it would surely make you a namby-pamby, camel-humping, Classic-gobbling mincer of some description? :)
Click to expand...

:lol::lol::lol: Take it you're not a big fan of the flat G? Looks like you may lose Mr Nicholls to the code shortly by the looks of things.
 
Bar the Bull said:
I was not winding anybody up. Slightly strong language; maybe I should have said "easily beaten".

Which of his last three races did he get close to winnning?
Click to expand...

Not really the point. He was a good second in the Gold Cup, with the third placed horse 23 lengths behind. Can't really slag off that form too much! Punchestown can be ignored as he doesn't do going right handed. In the Hennessy the horse ran a blinder finishing third when the weight stopped him three out, he'd been up disputing the lead until then. It's also worth pointing out he was giving 26lbs and 25lbs respectively to the only two horses that finished in front of him, so arguably he ran the best race of all of them. On that form, off level weights Denman still has the upper hand over both Diamond Harry and Burton Port. I think the Gold Cup is between him and Imperial Commander and I'm very happy with the [admittedly small!] bet I have on him at 10s.
 
Grasshopper said:
I could not agree more, DJ - though I cannot countenance your position of "no more than a casual fan" of Jumps racing, as it would surely make you a namby-pamby, camel-humping, Classic-gobbling mincer of some description? :)
Click to expand...

:D Indeed. Do you think there's enough pace for Chjimes to chase in the 6f handicap at Lingfield tomorrow?
 
Shadow Leader said:
Not really the point. He was a good second in the Gold Cup, with the third placed horse 23 lengths behind. Can't really slag off that form too much! Punchestown can be ignored as he doesn't do going right handed. In the Hennessy the horse ran a blinder finishing third when the weight stopped him three out, he'd been up disputing the lead until then. It's also worth pointing out he was giving 26lbs and 25lbs respectively to the only two horses that finished in front of him, so arguably he ran the best race of all of them. On that form, off level weights Denman still has the upper hand over both Diamond Harry and Burton Port. I think the Gold Cup is between him and Imperial Commander and I'm very happy with the [admittedly small!] bet I have on him at 10s.
Click to expand...

finishing 15 lengths adfrift isn't really running the best of them though is it? you could take that weight off and he probably still would have finished in the same place
 
EC1 said:
finishing 15 lengths adfrift isn't really running the best of them though is it? you could take that weight off and he probably still would have finished in the same place
Click to expand...


It wouldn't be taking the weight off, it would be putting it on Diamond Harry and Burton Port. So that when the former clouted the fourth last he wouldn't have got back on the bridle almost immediately, and the latter wouldn't have been finishing the race with such gusto.
 
I can't quite understand how you can work out the result would have been the same had Denman carried 26lbs less. I believe he would have won the race given such a scenario. Humping huge weights around a gruelling race like the Hennessy is a very hard task and he ran a blinder.
 
Shadow Leader said:
I can't quite understand how you can work out the result would have been the same had Denman carried 26lbs less. I believe he would have won the race given such a scenario. Humping huge weights around a gruelling race like the Hennessy is a very hard task and he ran a blinder.
Click to expand...


i'll say again..it may be hard task only if you aren't built for it..a great big horse carrying weight is less difficult than a smaller horse doing it..to award both horses the same poundage added back to their rating isn't accurate at all
 
Back
Top