Road To The 2014 Derby

Desert Orchid said:
I'm looking at a going allowance for Saturday of -0.24spf for the round course and -0.29spf for the straight course.

This gives Australia a time rating of 126 (after wfa). I can see where the handicapper is coming from in going as low as 123. The ones that finished 3rd to 6th respectively were on ORs of 107, 108, 95 and 104. Those are the ratings you'd expect of good handicappers and would be reasonable grounds for pegging back the form, something I might have been inclined to go along with had we ended up with a moderate time (as we did in Oath's year).

As you know, I'm fond of (and ridiculed regularly on here for) the 'take X out' approach. Take Australia out and Kingston Hill would have looked a decent winner. Take KH out and Australia would have been a wide margin winner. As it is, he was over eight lengths clear of the fourth. If I get time I might trawl back through recent years to see how often that has happened and how it reflected on the winner.

It was unfortunate that those with ratings in excess of 110 appear not to have run their race for various reasons.

True Story (114) did fire, according to Fallon.

Fascinating Rock (113) tried to come from the rear, was then trapped wide and got involved in a running scrimmage with a couple of others from the top of the hill, which wouldn't have helped.

Ebanoran (113) reportedly didn't stay. Orchestra (110) had a nightmare of a race as did Geoffrey Chaucer (112).

So, it could be that the race rather fell into the hands of the front two but the time suggests it was at least a proper G1 (ie 126) winner.
Click to expand...

apart from the going allowance you got...i got 126 for Australia as well..i don't time rate the 5f track at all here.

i did say Timeform timerated True Story to high a few weeks didn't I?....i gave a 113 i think when he won at Newmarket..TF gave 120 something i believe
 
Last edited:
Bar the Bull said:
Just as a matter of interest, did the rating of either Motivator or Authorized get downgraded later on in their 3yo career? By either the official handicapper, RPR or Timeform.

I just wonder how often it happens.
Click to expand...

It does and it doesn’t happen much depending on exactly what you mean. Individual ratings by the Official handicapper, Timeform, RPR, etc are sometimes subtly ‘retro-adjusted’ throughout the season supposedly to square the circle in terms of subsequent reflection on form. This shouldn’t really happen and when it does is usually only a pound or two one way or the other. But in another sense the process of comparative assessment goes on all of the time in an individual's active career. Then of course the International Classifications review official ratings and a panel decides on whether individuals should be higher or lower in relation to others. Authorized was given an RPR of 130 for winning the Derby, which he subsequently improved on at York (131), before scoring a 108 in the Arc. His best OR was 128 (after 126 for the Derby). As far as I remember his original Derby rating wasn’t ‘adjusted’ in hindsight, but I can’t be sure without checking the figures at the time with what stood at the end of the season.

The one that stands out as being significantly downgraded was Hawk Wing’s Lockinge. As DO will tell you, he recorded a massive initial rating that was chopped a fair bit after a short period and downgraded again at the end of the season, after his flop in the Queen Anne at Ascot. Some argue that this was unfair on the astonishing performance seen at Newbury, others that on the balance of his form Newbury was overestimated. This instance of course has nothing to do with 3yos or the Derby.

I suppose the answer is that while it does happen it doesn't happen very often and when it does they often are not keen on drawing attention to it.
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
could you explain this Steve?

i'm just a northern thicko
Click to expand...

And still they gazed, and still the wonder grew
That one small head could carry all he knew.

Oliver Goldsmith, The Deserted Village

Far be it for me to put words into AC’s mouth but I think he’s saying he’s astonished (and no doubt secretly impressed)... at least that's a generous reading of it.
 
Last edited:
i'd rather know something like that than be able juggle a few figures Steve;)

literature is not a strength for me as you can see

he's a very cryptic man is An;)
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
i'd rather know something like that than be able juggle a few figures Steve;)

literature is not a strength for me as you can see

he's a very cryptic man is An;)
Click to expand...

...'cryptic' is just one of the words used of him.;)
 
SteveM said:
It does and it doesn’t happen much depending on exactly what you mean. Individual ratings by the Official handicapper, Timeform, RPR, etc are sometimes subtly ‘retro-adjusted’ throughout the season supposedly to square the circle in terms of subsequent reflection on form. This shouldn’t really happen and when it does is usually only a pound or two one way or the other. But in another sense the process of comparative assessment goes on all of the time in an individual's active career. Then of course the International Classifications review official ratings and a panel decides on whether individuals should be higher or lower in relation to others. Authorized was given an RPR of 130 for winning the Derby, which he subsequently improved on at York (131), before scoring a 108 in the Arc. His best OR was 128 (after 126 for the Derby). As far as I remember his original Derby rating wasn’t ‘adjusted’ in hindsight, but I can’t be sure without checking the figures at the time with what stood at the end of the season.

The one that stands out as being significantly downgraded was Hawk Wing’s Lockinge. As DO will tell you, he recorded a massive initial rating that was chopped a fair bit after a short period and downgraded again at the end of the season, after his flop in the Queen Anne at Ascot. Some argue that this was unfair on the astonishing performance seen at Newbury, others that on the balance of his form Newbury was overestimated. This instance of course has nothing to do with 3yos or the Derby.

I suppose the answer is that while it does happen it doesn't happen very often and when it does they often are not keen on drawing attention to it.
Click to expand...

Thanks, that is a very interesting answer.
 
The take "X" out approach I like.
The rest of the mathematics can be quite baffling.
I must admit I am a " feeling in my water " type of ratings man myself !
Thanks for trying to educate us all the same, it is enjoyable and at least the Bruce Savage "pace" graphs are for e- archaeologists to dig up !
 
edgt said:
The take "X" out approach I like.
The rest of the mathematics can be quite baffling.
I must admit I am a " feeling in my water " type of ratings man myself !
Thanks for trying to educate us all the same, it is enjoyable and at least the Bruce Savage "pace" graphs are for e- archaeologists to dig up !
Click to expand...

the reason i don't like the take X out approach is because of race standardisation...on average over time there will always be another x at a similar level to win the race...otherwise you could take it to an extreme and say if you took the first 3 out then the 4th would be an easy winner
 
Another concern I have about the BHA ratings for the Derby are that they were compiled by Dominic Gardner-Hill, one of the original RP ratings compilers.

For me, his ratings are always conservative.

From memory, when he was doing the RP jumps ratings, he appeared to rate the winner as running to its OR and then rating the rest of the field from there, only occasionally rating the race via the runner-up. I actually think the whole slippage issue is likely to have occurred as a result of his approach. Maybe he has since changed or has been asked to adopt a common [to all BHA handicappers] approach by Phil Smith.
 
...rating a race by the runner-up makes a lot more sense to me, allowing a bit of wriggle room to rate the winner a little more than its exact running (as and when appropriate of course).
 
Last edited:
My own view is that the very nature of a handicap dictates that whatever wins is 99% likely to be better than its rating. I work on the premise that the higher class and more valuable the handicap the further ahead of the handicapper the winner is likely to be, hence a horse used to running in Class 2 handicaps is probably likely to beat one that runs in Class 5.

I do recall, though, coming across a Class 6 maiden handicap at Ayr one sad afternoon and realising that every single runner had struggled to get near the frame in any of its outings. The winner of that race probably ended up getting a hike in the ratings despite not running to its own mark.

In valuable big field handicaps, it wouldn't be unusual for something as far back as tenth to have run better than its OR.
 
Desert Orchid said:
I work on the premise that the higher class and more valuable the handicap the further ahead of the handicapper the winner is likely to be, hence a horse used to running in Class 2 handicaps is probably likely to beat one that runs in Class 5.
Click to expand...

Not always
Some horses win handicaps before going on to run in valuable ones with more in hand, because they have been running to classfied or being non triers and they need a higher mark to make the cut in the big meeting ones.
 
Not always, no. I was talking in broad general terms.

As you know, I like trying to spot handicappers on a nice upward curve.
 
Joseph O´Brien, rider of Australia: I´d love to ride him over 1m2f on fast ground. I think that would really be his thing.


reet hard said:
:D
Click to expand...

He'll probably wind up in the Irish Champion stakes with three other stable mates.

Hard to believe there is not a 3yo middle distance colt to be found in the UK with a rating of around 105. That was Kingfisher yesterday who collected almost 200K for running around the track. I just don't get it.
 
Slowest run race of the day yesterday and wasn't much of a test for the horse with the only possible danger FR not going a yard on the ground.


I worry when an O'Brien makes a statement like Joseph did Reet.

The horse wins 2 Derby's over 12f and he says 10f would suit him better.

The King George and the Arc are the toughest to win and his statement could be more to do with keeping him unbeaten until the end of the season than which trip suits him best. tbh I reckone he's as good at one as he would be at the other but the'll miss the King George as we know and the Arc looks unlikely and they'll go International Stakes Champion with him.

Sir Henry did the same with Frankel despite the fact he'd probably have won the Arc but why take the risk of getting beat when The Champion Stakes is a much safer option and less likely to come up with some loud one to spoil the party.


If he were to lose over 10f then and only then would they go for the Arc imo
 
Makes perfect sense to me, Fist, and I agree completely that he'll be a better horse over 10f.
Can't ever remember Coolmore ducking a challenge to retain an unbeaten record, either?
 
Back
Top