King George VI Chase

SteveM said:
:) you do have a point... Ardross does have another way of looking at it. I don't like that way though.
Click to expand...

the thing is though..if you don't look at races like Ardross has laid out...you see races through rose tinted specatacles

we have this discussion a fair bit..ie the KG MUST be a good race coz its the KG..the flat KG MUST be a good race coz its the KG

in a race of any nature where there are just a few runners..its very easy for every horse bar one to be suited to the day...in effect.. wins by default as the others have some reason not to be at their best

actually working out if a race is one of these default jobs..is very difficult..most times

on a forum such as this..if someone backs the winner..then someone suggests the winner has won it by default..all hell breaks lose

what Ardross has intimated was my exact feelings about the flat KG..still believe it as well.

one of the problems with these top ..small field ..races is that you have a about 3 really good horses in them..if just 2 of those underperform then its nigh on impossible to call the actual value of the race re form worth.

i think just because a horse wins a big race..small field job..it doesn't automatically make the horse a certain rating..just because its the KG and we have to give a KG winner x rating

this is where race standardisation can be very misleading..imo

small field big races can be misleading imo
 
Last edited:
when form is in question its definately advantagous to use the clock to try and put a rating on the race in that way..imo when its complete guessing ..as in the case of the KG

if we use the fastest race on the card bar the KG..Polyfast's race..that race was 8.9 seconds slow..or 3.56 slow per mile..the KG was 4.04 slow..or 1.34 slow.

so per mile the KG was 2.22 seconds per mile faster than Polyfast..who carried the same weight

2.22 seconds at a mile is about 33lbs

Polyfast is probably a 130-133 horse on that run..which makes the KG a time performance of approx 166

thats probably a better stab at the worth of the race than any form juggling - guessing ...who ran to what etc

what it does show is that it wasn't an extraordinary performance by the winner....certainly not backed up by the clock anyway
 
Last edited:
Would you tend to use that straight conversion when comparing times for different distances EC1? A top class 3-miler surely won't cover that distance at the same rate that a top-class 2 miler will over his trip.
 
EC1 said:
this is where race standardisation can be very misleading..imo

small field big races can be misleading imo
Click to expand...

But surely the other alternative involves putting a solid number on how much Riverside Theatre has improved or by how far Kauto Star has run below his best, both of which would result in a fair degree of subjectivity being exercised.

I actually think the King George is a pretty strong advertisement of the virtues of standardisation though, like yourself, I would certainly be erring on the side of caution in attaching a figure to Long Run's performance.

Incidentally, does anybody know what the Timeform standard for the last five renewals prior to this year's was?
 
EC1 said:
2.22 seconds at a mile is about 33lbs

Polyfast is probably a 130-133 horse on that run..which makes the KG a time performance of approx 166
Click to expand...

Based on what, EC1? Standard times presumably, if you're talking about the clock?

Aren't standard times based to a certain extent on Going descrptions?

If so, how do they cater for the variations inherent in ground covered by the description "Good To Soft"?

What margin for error (in time, converted to lengths) - if any - is used to compensate for these inconsistencies?

Ta
Grass

PS. If a margin for error exists, doesn't this also equate to "guessing"?
 
Last edited:
Standard times are based on previous performances at the track too. How many top class races are there over 20.5f at Kempton versus 3m? That will also skew the figures.

Standard times converted into seconds per furlong for Kempton.

2m Chase - 14.375 s/f
2m4½f Chase - 14.976 s/f
3m Chase - 14.917 s/f


so the scale you're measuring Polyfast on is not the same one you're measuring Long Run on, which makes it another unreliable medium. What about using the 3m chase won by Rear Gunner?
 
rorydelargy said:
Standard times are based on previous performances at the track too. How many top class races are there over 20.5f at Kempton versus 3m? That will also skew the figures.

Standard times converted into seconds per furlong for Kempton.

2m Chase - 14.375 s/f
2m4½f Chase - 14.976 s/f
3m Chase - 14.917 s/f


so the scale you're measuring Polyfast on is not the same one you're measuring Long Run on, which makes it another unreliable medium. What about using the 3m chase won by Rear Gunner?
Click to expand...


Of course my sums assume that the distances are correct, which is only true to the nearest ½ furlong, making all speed comparisons between different jumps trips nigh on meaningless. Mine's a large malt thanks Grassy.
 
davidjohnson said:
Is there any formbook evidence for this? Riverside Theatre's 2 previous chase wins were also on good to soft. His best run as a noice hurdler was gained in even more testing conditions. I don't necessarily disagree with your point that the King George form isn't solid, but I think it's way off the mark to suggest Riverside Theatre was running on unsuitable ground.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. I said somewhere before the race (might have been on here) that I fancied him to run a big race and I wasn't worried about soft ground as he'd won on it before.
 
rorydelargy said:
Standard times are based on previous performances at the track too. How many top class races are there over 20.5f at Kempton versus 3m? That will also skew the figures.

Standard times converted into seconds per furlong for Kempton.

2m Chase - 14.375 s/f
2m4½f Chase - 14.976 s/f
3m Chase - 14.917 s/f


so the scale you're measuring Polyfast on is not the same one you're measuring Long Run on, which makes it another unreliable medium. What about using the 3m chase won by Rear Gunner?
Click to expand...

it doesn't matter how many top races there are over a distance when calculating standards.

the ones I used are the RP ones..they will take any race run over each trip and then equate them to a 100 horse carrying 9-0...so the races used are irrelevant class wise when compiling the standards.

for instance..you can make standard times for Southwell..then equate them to a 100 horse which is what topspeed does..and what most speed compilers do..not all i'll add:)...so you don't need any races with 100 horses running there to know what the standard time for one would be

the per mile figures remove sthe need for your per furlong calcs....as the standard time for any distance represents a 100 horse at that distance

if a race is 6 seconds slower than standard at 3 miles its 2 seconds slow at a mile..ie 6/3 = 2...this is the same as a 2mile race that is slower than standard by 4 seconds...4/2 = 2

I normally do use same distance times over the sticks but in this instance the other race over 3 miles wasn't a proper test with Rear Gunner having his own way and only 5 finishing..allied to that is the 2m4f race shows that RG's race wasn't close to being true run.

if the other 3 mile race had been similar per mile to the 2.5 mile race and had been a little more competetive i'd agree it would be the obvious comparison vehicle..but the 2.5 mile race is showing it up somewhat

if you think that the KG was a fast run race then that would make the horses in the finish of the 2m4f race all ahead of their handicap mark..which is highly unlikely

Nacarat wasn't hard pressed in the lead eiither
 
Last edited:
out of interest what did Topspeed give Long Run - Polyfast - rear Gunner

i agree that its not conclusive..neither is form rating off RT of KS

its just another view of the race

The KG wasn't a true run race..if it was..then LR isn't that good..its actually in LR's favour that it wasn't true run..as that explains the lowish speed figure

no..i'm not saying it was a crawl..but it wasn't fast enough early to produce anything near a 180 rating for instance
 
On The Bridle said:
I think we need to spend at least another six months or so deliberating over the merits of this race!!!:ninja:
Click to expand...

its very similar to the flat KG..what ran to form..what didn't...not really enough reliable yardsticks involved etc..not saying KS isn't reliable but on this day we all agree he was

thats why bare form rating alone isn't enough..you need to look at all aspects

if you use form ratings and race standardisation i think its slightly misleading..due to the size of field and lack of real competion in the last 5 furlongs of the race.

its a pity the race wasn't a true test time wise..as you could be pretty sure just how good LR is...without the need to guess what rating those behind ran to. speed figures are very useful in these instances when the race is a true test.

at least the flat KG did give a decent time..and that wasn't a 140 either..it was decent but not a 140

i know very few think the time aspect is important..as races aren't truly run..but when they..they are just as key as form ratings
 
Last edited:
Now I hear that Alberta's Run pulled muscles in his back as well in the KG .

So in effect Long Run beat Riverside Theatre- more like a good graduation chase than a Grade 1 .

They may both have improved enormously or the form isn't worth a row of beans - we shall see .
 
This will most certainly be put down to being put to the sword by the blinding acceration and lightning quick jumping of the 179 rated monster that is Long Run!

In hindsight this race is falling to bits!! Bar LR and RT was there a horse in the race who would have passed a junior vets examination before or after the race??:whistle:
 
Oh for God's sake - how many times? How can any rational human being use Riverside Theatre to hold down the form?? He's a progressive second season chaser who could be anything - and who has most probably improved for the step up in trip, as some of us have been waiting for him to do for some time. Jesus, give the horse a chance before slagging him off, won't you? The same goes for Long Run. They both beat Kauto Star remember, not too shabby form. And don't go giving me crap about him having 'an infection' - it was more than likely as low grade as they come. Even a bleeding Kauto Star isn't too much of a donkey and is clearly still capable of coming third in a King George!!!
 
Shadow Leader said:
Oh for God's sake - how many times? How can any rational human being use Riverside Theatre to hold down the form?? He's a progressive second season chaser who could be anything - and who has most probably improved for the step up in trip, as some of us have been waiting for him to do for some time. Jesus, give the horse a chance before slagging him off, won't you? The same goes for Long Run. They both beat Kauto Star remember, not too shabby form. And don't go giving me crap about him having 'an infection' - it was more than likely as low grade as they come. Even a bleeding Kauto Star isn't too much of a donkey and is clearly still capable of coming third in a King George!!!
Click to expand...

too much generalisation for me SL

you seem to form conclusions that don't really tell me much

you say RT could be anything..yes he could be a donkey for all we know..could be anything doesn't really tell us much does it?

rational human..well a rational human would look at what RT has actually achieved and use that rating to rate the race..an irrational one would magic some higher figure that may or may not occur in some future race and use that to rate the race.
 
Yes, RT could be a donkey - but nobody has given him the time to tell, so nobody knows yet how good he could be. He hasn't done a lot to blot the copybook so far; known form would put him as promising yet untapped potential. Ergo how in the name of God anyone could use him to hold down the form??? Only lazy ignoramuses would be tempted to do so - in fact a similar argument would also apply to Long Run.
 
EC1 said:
the thing is though..if you don't look at races like Ardross has laid out...you see races through rose tinted specatacles
But what he has laid out is inaccurate. It is not the case that RT didn't act on the ground (he has made an over-simplification that is false) and it is clear from any common sense appraisal of the race that RT has run to a personal best, as has Long Run. This is far from rose tinted specs. The fact that Kauto Star was beaten is largely irrelevant as he hasn't performed to what we know he's capable of. That doesn't detract fromthe fact that Long Run and RT had the rest strung out like washing in a Grade 1 race and that Timeform, the Racing Post and the official handicapper all rate it about the same. Maybe they are all wrong. Maybe I'm wrong. But I can see no evidence whatsoever that the winner has not won very well and stepped up on what he has achieved in the past.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
SteveM said:
EC1 said:
the thing is though..if you don't look at races like Ardross has laid out...you see races through rose tinted specatacles
But what he has laid out is inaccurate. It is not the case that RT didn't act on the ground (he has made an over-simplification that is false) and it is clear from any common sense appraisal of the race that RT has run to a personal best, as has Long Run. This is far from rose tinted specs. The fact that Kauto Star was beaten is largely irrelevant as he hasn't performed to what we know he's capable of. That doesn't detract fromthe fact that Long Run and RT had the rest strung out like washing in a Grade 1 race and that Timeform, the Racing Post and the official handicapper all rate it about the same. Maybe they are all wrong. Maybe I'm wrong. But I can see no evidence whatsoever that the winner has not won very well and stepped up on what he has achieved in the past.
Click to expand...

With respect, I have not made a false over-simplification . Henderson was plain that Riverside Theatre would not be suited by soft ground , albeit rory is quite right to point out that his particular concern was heavy ground . The second element that appears not to have been considered is that there are grounds for arguing that RT did not stay . He was backpedalling and a struggling Kauto had gone past him before the terrible mistake. Moreover, Henderson is plain he won't be supplemented for the GC and is going for the Ryanair .

As for having a string of injured and sick horses strung out behind him - so what . That means sod all .
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Ardross, why don't you analyse Kauto's last King George win in the same vein and then you will have to come to the conclusion horses behind him didn't run their race as he has done nothing since to justify that preposterous rating?
 
Back
Top