Number Of 180-plus Horses In Training

It loathes me to defend a handicapper but I don't see how else you are supposed to rate horses than through collateral form, not a view that Denman is better or worse than Best Mate or Arkle or that the old coca-cola was nicer than the new stuff. The handicapper has got to figure out which horses ran to form and anchor the ratings around those horses. He will never get it right all the time as two horses used as anchors could both have disappointed but give the man a break, how else is he supposed to do it.

Similar to the Best Mate post, on another forum there is disgust that VPU is rated the same as Moscow. Yet VPU beat Dempsey who was rated 165 before winning at Sandown subsequently and Schindlers Hunt in his two champion chases. Moscow beat Le Roi Miguel twice in one season, both times by 15 lengths and that horse was rated 155. He beat Native Upmanship seven lengths and NU was rated 167 at best which would put Moscow on 175-177. It's not about who was a legend and who isn't, it's about numbers and coming up with a reasonable assessment.
 
Originally posted by Galileo@Apr 7 2008, 04:17 PM
I cannot believe VPU is now rated within a pound of Moscow on their top RPRs.
Click to expand...
RPRatings officially died when they put VPU that high. They are now as bigger joke as the International Classifications on the flat.

When i read Bar`s initial post i thought he was fishing.


I think 180 is the equivalent of 135 on the flat. That many horses on it or over it in one year is pretty unrealistic.
 
I think Cantoris makes some good points, esp the most important one. So do you.

<< That many horses on it or over it in one year is pretty unrealistic. >>

We also have to the FACT that quite a few horses this season have done what horses are not supposed to do, in terms of age, the race/grade in which they have run and won, etc etc

We may therefore have to face the fact that the old NH form book needs to be chucked out of the window, because the way horses are bought, trained and campaigned these day is changing very fast - faster perhaps than we can keep up with it
 
Originally posted by Bar the Bull@Apr 7 2008, 08:06 AM
We are really lucky to have so many 180-plus horses in training at the moment:

Denman
Master Minded
Kauto Star
Neptune Collonges
Our Vic
Voy Por Ustedes
Click to expand...
According to whom?
 
Not the Official H'capper Desert Orchid!

I believe that only Master Minded & Denman have ratings in excess of 180 "officially"
 
Moscow beat Le Roi Miguel twice in one season, both times by 15 lengths and that horse was rated 155. He beat Native Upmanship seven lengths and NU was rated 167 at best which would put Moscow on 175-177. It's not about who was a legend and who isn't, it's about numbers and coming up with a reasonable assessment.
Click to expand...

At his best, Moscow did enough to win and not much more. He wasn't the kind to cruise away on the bridle from horses and win by miles - although at Aintree he did it once or twice. Instead, he just did enough whether it be Azerty or Rathgar Beau on his tail. The fact is, he did it consistently yet convincingly.

That is why rating him always required a +

Collateral form and distances never did him justice. The fact he beat horses of whatever ability when he stood up was what made him special. He was practically unbeatable.

How a horse such as VPU, who got absolutely pissed on at Cheltenham by Master Minded, could be rated in his parish is quite remarkable. Let us remember that at Cheltenham time, the Walsh/Nicholls camp expressed surprise that MM gave them a much better feel than Azerty, that he could be a better two miler than him. And yet Azerty was no Moscow Flyer. The relative ratings on the basis of VPU's Aintree display just do not add up.
 
Originally posted by Bobbyjo@Apr 8 2008, 12:48 AM
At his best, Moscow did enough to win and not much more. He wasn't the kind to cruise away on the bridle from horses and win by miles - although at Aintree he did it once or twice. Instead, he just did enough whether it be Azerty or Rathgar Beau on his tail. The fact is, he did it consistently yet convincingly.

That is why rating him always required a +

Collateral form and distances never did him justice. The fact he beat horses of whatever ability when he stood up was what made him special. He was practically unbeatable.

How a horse such as VPU, who got absolutely pissed on at Cheltenham by Master Minded, could be rated in his parish is quite remarkable. Let us remember that at Cheltenham time, the Walsh/Nicholls camp expressed surprise that MM gave them a much better feel than Azerty, that he could be a better two miler than him. And yet Azerty was no Moscow Flyer. The relative ratings on the basis of VPU's Aintree display just do not add up.
Click to expand...
So do you think Brave Inca always achieved his highest rating when winning races? No as he is bone idle in front and bar his bumper wins he never won by far, the Hattons Grace he won being a prime example. But you have to rate them with your eyes and the form that is there rather than what you think might happen if he had a different attitude and should have won by 15 lenghts. You have to use collateral form or every flashy winner that won on the bridle would be over rated.

On VPU's run at Cheltenham, I put it down to ground and the fact he wants two and a half now, which is born out by King's desire to step up to King George. When he won last years Champion he was out on his ear the whole way and looked like he needed further there. So not too difficult to see improvement for the extra four fulongs
 
So VPU could give Native Upmanship a stone over 2m4f at their best. Still not buying it. Whatever way I look at it, he is overrated, albeit a very good horse.

Timeform have taken a conservative, and in my view, correct analysis of the cheltenham uberperformances. Who is to say that HG and Knowhere didn't underperform also? Is HG as good over 3m2 or further. Knowhere's season ended with the Pillar. I dont think it is inconvievable that both ran 7lbs below their best.

If there is anything to show that ratings are unreliable guides then its the past month.
 
Knowhere was 32 lengths behind HC in the Gold Cup therefore was obviously a lot more than 7lbs below his best.
 
Originally posted by Cantoris@Apr 7 2008, 09:06 PM
Similar to the Best Mate post, on another forum there is disgust that VPU is rated the same as Moscow. Yet VPU beat Dempsey who was rated 165 before winning at Sandown subsequently......
Click to expand...
Cantoris, for that argument to stand-up, you would have to believe that Dempsey's mark of 165 was accurate - something which I find stretches the credibility of the handicapper even further.

If the rating you are measuring from is patently wrong, further nonsense will surely follow. On all available and reliable evidence, Moscow Flyer would chew VPU up, and spit him, out at any distance between 2m and 2m4f.

For the handicapper to rate them so closely is frankly laughable.
 
But as I said before, you need to anchor your ratings around something or else leave everything unchaged. No-one has actually provided a way of rating MM, VPU, Denman, Kauto and Neptune using reliable anchors. So rather than talk around the subject why doesn't everyone provide a supportable handicap mark for each of these horses using a number of anchors.

I am not saying the handicapper or anyone else is right, I am saying that they have plausible grounds for asessing the form. And I would back VPU to beat Native Upmanship over any trip on good ground, by a good margin. But NU wanted it soft which would inconvenience VPU. On soft ground I would back NU. So how would you handicap these two?
 
Hasn't this ground been covered before?..................and wasn't the general conclusion that it wasn't wise or possible to give a horse just the one figure, and in fact each horse should be rated for different distances and different ground conditions?
 
Originally posted by Cantoris@Apr 8 2008, 09:52 AM
But as I said before, you need to anchor your ratings around something or else leave everything unchaged. No-one has actually provided a way of rating MM, VPU, Denman, Kauto and Neptune using reliable anchors. So rather than talk around the subject why doesn't everyone provide a supportable handicap mark for each of these horses using a number of anchors.
Click to expand...
Provided of course that you choose to anchor a horses performance relative to other horses? You don't of course need to do this, there are other independent mediums you can move through :D (though I'd accept they have servere limitations for jumps racing)
 
One method, one medium, one formula. It's not difficult, and I already do, but as I said, its largely American in origin and tends to work better for the flat rather than farmers racing. norty
 
I had a look at the race last night and concluded that the most likely option is that VPU performed to a level rather similar to his previous best, perhaps a generous interpretation would give him a mark of around 173. This would see everything else in the race underperforming.

That would put the others on the following marks with the following comments
MM 160
T 146
N 138
MM 136
YS 133

Masterminded - not hard to believe that he has run to this mark - perhaps conditions the cause.
Tamarinbleu - mark of 146 is in line with several previous efforts at the course
Newmill - generally consistent with his recent form
Mister McGoldrick - has only run well here once in 6 attempts. Not hard to believe that he has run to slightly under his general recent level of form.
Yes Sir - generally consistent with his recent form.

Of course, an argument could just as easily be made for the higher end mark of 180.

Personally, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that Master Minded ran to his best, thus giving Voy Por Ustedes a new mark of 200. He is undoubtedly the best chaser in training.
 
I don't know why people get so wound up about this in the historical context (well...i can guess abit from some posters). Current ratings against peers are of interest but across generations.... shrug::

Must admit the VPU rating seems very high indeed. I like the horse but hes received this on the basis of beating one that simply stopped at the end of his stamina
 
Originally posted by clivex@Apr 8 2008, 03:03 PM
I don't know why people get so wound up about this in the historical context (well...i can guess abit from some posters). Current ratings against peers are of interest but across generations.... shrug::

Must admit the VPU rating seems very high indeed. I like the horse but hes received this on the basis of beating one that simply stopped at the end of his stamina
Click to expand...
Moscow Flyer was a particular favourite of mine for many reasons, one obviously being his massive ability and greatness. That greatness is diminished or insulted when a horse like VPU is put in the same bracket as Moscow Flyer. That is not being harsh on VPU; clearly he is a high class horse and a model of consistency but when we talk about Moscow Flyer we are talking about an all time great.
 
Fair enough but i wouldnt have any problem putting Kauto, Denman and Master Minded in that category
 
Kauto Star most certainly is. I can live with Denman (though I still have my doubts) and Master Minded though he has to prove it's more than a one off.
 
I'm very happy to see Kauto, Denman and Master Minded mentioned in the same sentence as Moscow Flyer. Once Moscow is at the start of it :D
 
Originally posted by Galileo@Apr 8 2008, 03:47 PM
Kauto Star most certainly is. I can live with Denman (though I still have my doubts) and Master Minded though he has to prove it's more than a one off.
Click to expand...
Yep. The real pis5er is the inflated rating everyone seemed to give Best Mate.
 
Took em a while to get him about right, but they've got there in end :D



From TF Top Ten Chaser List


170 VOY POR USTEDES A King
 
Back
Top