Punchestown 2023

Grey said:
If Fastorslow hadn’t been in the race, we’d all have been saying that Bravemansgame and GDC had served up a thriller. Most of us would also have pointed to the 14 length gap back to the next horse, Envoi Allen, as evidence of the strength of the form.
Click to expand...

Grey, you know you are not allowed to do that sort of stuff don't you?:D The old.. if that hadn't run then the second would have been this or that.

It is at that point where you take the winner out, you then check the time of the race, I know you NH fans hate that sh*t. But, on most occasions, the second horse has run below a decent time figure. Not always obviously.

If you removed Kauto Star from Exotic Dancer's form, what would you rate ED for instance? Without a time check you wouldn't know if ED had run to form or below form.

It is like, you watch a race, coming to the last, the leader by 10 lengths, going easy, falls, the second horse wins by 10 lengths itself from the correct 3rd horse. The "winner" has probably run lbs below its best but "wins" by default and then gets rated off the 3rd horse who has run even further below form.

Hope that makes sense, I'm tired;)
 
Last edited:
You’re quite right, of course.

The win by Fastorslow is surely a difficult puzzle for the ratings people. His official mark has gone up a stone, from 154 to 168. The RPR people have him at 175, 10 lbs better than when trying to give weight to Corach Rambler at Cheltenham.

The RPRs also have Galopin Des Champs running 12 lbs below his Gold Cup performance. But how would they have rated him if Fastorslow was not in the race? The time of the race was slow, and GDC sat off the pace, but I doubt they would have dropped him by 12 lbs if his effort to get up to beat Bravemansgame had also won him the race.
 
Last edited:
Grey said:
You’re quite right, of course.

The win by Fastorslow is surely a difficult puzzle for the ratings people. His official mark has gone up a stone, from 154 to 168. The RPR people have him at 175, 10 lbs better than when trying to give weight to Corach Rambler at Cheltenham.

The RPRs also have Galopin Des Champs running 12 lbs below his Gold Cup performance. But how would they have rated him if Fastorslow was not in the race? The time of the race was slow, and GDC sat off the pace, but I doubt they would have dropped him by 12 lbs if his effort to get up to beat Bravemansgame had also won him the race.
Click to expand...
Time is often a useful indicator of class, but not in slow races.
It's clear from your post that the raters have ignored this aspect, rendering the ensuing ratings useless, as a guide to the form.
 
Grey said:
You’re quite right, of course.

The win by Fastorslow is surely a difficult puzzle for the ratings people. His official mark has gone up a stone, from 154 to 168. The RPR people have him at 175, 10 lbs better than when trying to give weight to Corach Rambler at Cheltenham.

The RPRs also have Galopin Des Champs running 12 lbs below his Gold Cup performance. But how would they have rated him if Fastorslow was not in the race? The time of the race was slow, and GDC sat off the pace, but I doubt they would have dropped him by 12 lbs if his effort to get up to beat Bravemansgame had also won him the race.
Click to expand...
Little doubt that GDC ran below form, but WM probably decided not to give him another hard race after Cheltenham, and bottom out a horse with the potential to win another couple of CGC's for a race lower on the pantheon of top chases.
If 1st and 2nd were to meet in next year's CGC, there's little doubt which would be the shorter price.
Fastorslow's win was undoubtedly fortuitous, and (imo) is best recognised as such.
 
Last edited:
Speaking entirely with the benefit of hindsight, the Sagaro Stakes at Ascot just now showed again how difficult it is to rate races where the main protagonist underperforms.

Alan King said before today's race that he had been very disappointed by Trueshan's Nottingham run last time out in the Further Flight Stakes and wondered if the lights were going out for him. But then King thought he might have been overreacting, especially when he had seen the RPR of 118. It is now clear that King was correct and the Nottingham race was rated too high.
 
Grey said:
You’re quite right, of course.

The win by Fastorslow is surely a difficult puzzle for the ratings people. His official mark has gone up a stone, from 154 to 168. The RPR people have him at 175, 10 lbs better than when trying to give weight to Corach Rambler at Cheltenham.

The RPRs also have Galopin Des Champs running 12 lbs below his Gold Cup performance. But how would they have rated him if Fastorslow was not in the race? The time of the race was slow, and GDC sat off the pace, but I doubt they would have dropped him by 12 lbs if his effort to get up to beat Bravemansgame had also won him the race.
Click to expand...

Grey, you are now describing the utter jigsaw puzzle of if a horse ran to his best, did the pace skew that result anyway? It is a mind boggler. That is why knowing the pace is important in any race. If that is decided, say it was a slow pace, then any rating is in doubt because the ideal race at any distance is a true test. Once a race is a true test we know that only the good horses will contest the finish.

Ideally, we get a true run race, so when we compare the times to other races and have an idea that the race in question was a fair test, we can be pretty confident of the rating given.

Just using final time speed ratings for every race on a card can be misleading, what if every race was a jog and sprint job? Not one of those races will truly represent the true ratings in each race. Then you get a racecard where every race, bar one, is a jog and sprint. The one race that wasn't looks like it is a superb time, when it actutally isn't.

Sectional analysis, even over the jumps, helps to spot those days. They do crop up a lot, and the days when just one race is truly run, can make you think, Oooh this is exceptional.

That has always been the main flaw in final time speed figure making without sectional analysis. Sectional analysis is the key, hand in glove with final time ratings.

If you can spot the slow run races on a card, remove them from making your going allowance, you are heading in the right direction. If all of them are slow run, and you have no pace analysis, you will over rate the the fastest slowly run ones on that card.

Hope that makes sense.
 
Last edited:
Grey said:
Speaking entirely with the benefit of hindsight, the Sagaro Stakes at Ascot just now showed again how difficult it is to rate races where the main protagonist underperforms.

Alan King said before today's race that he had been very disappointed by Trueshan's Nottingham run last time out in the Further Flight Stakes and wondered if the lights were going out for him. But then King thought he might have been overreacting, especially when he had seen the RPR of 118. It is now clear that King was correct and the Nottingham race was rated too high.
Click to expand...
You're judging on a steadily run race again (the Nottigham race wasn't)and it's far too soon to be writing Trueshan off,in my opinion.
 
From Hollie's blog on ATR
TRUESHAN ’s defeat in the Group 3 Sagaro Stakes at Ascot on Trials Day in midweek was obviously disappointing, but I’m not prepared to write him off, even though he’s run below his best in two starts this season.

The pace was so slow it was ridiculous so I was happy to let him slide on when he did. He travelled into the race so effortlessly and pricked his ears but when push came to shove had nothing more to give.

We all know he’s much better than he showed but hopefully he can head back to Ascot in better form next month to prove he still has the class that won him a third Long Distance Cup there back in October - soft ground permitting, of cours
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top