Road To The Champion Hurdle

EC1 said:
well..its ok doing your own..but i will use Grassy's example..he said Celestial H was only a 160 when 2nd in a CH..so we now have CH winners rated 161?

some very questionable stuff going off i think:p
Click to expand...

Why would a Champion Hurdler necessarily be rated any higher than 161? Would you be doling out 168+ to the likes of Sublimity, Katchit and Hors La Loi III, just because they each won a Champion Hurdle - despite the fact that the form of their respective races isn't worth a carrot?

There is no way on God's green earth that Punjabi ran to a mark of 169 when winning his Champion Hurdle. That makes the OR of 168 given to Celestial Halo a lot of cobblers too. Anyone extrapolating Celestial's worth from that OR - or subsequently his current one - is therefore working with fundamentally flawed data.

As Rory said, sometimes the OH is a "bawbag". Look no further than the rapidly revised mark he gave Mahogany Blue after his run in the 2009 Connaught Chase. It went up by a stone, and then dropped by a stone, in the blink of an eye and a single outing - the OH just hoped that no-one was looking at the time.
 
Grasshopper said:
Why would a Champion Hurdler necessarily be rated any higher than 161? Would you be doling out 168+ to the likes of Sublimity, Katchit and Hors La Loi III, just because they each won a Champion Hurdle - despite the fact that the form of their respective races isn't worth a carrot?

There is no way on God's green earth that Punjabi ran to a mark of 169 when winning his Champion Hurdle. That makes the OR of 168 given to Celestial Halo a lot of cobblers too. Anyone extrapolating Celestial's worth from that OR - or subsequently his current one - is therefore working with fundamentally flawed data.

As Rory said, sometimes the OH is a "bawbag". Look no further than the rapidly revised mark he gave Mahogany Blue after his run in the 2009 Connaught Chase. It went up by a stone, and then dropped by a stone, in the blink of an eye and a single outing - the OH just hoped that no-one was looking at the time.
Click to expand...

its funny - coz when i question Timeform speed ratings..i get..oh you know better than them then lol?..but you are saying you are a better handicappper than the official handicapper?

where's Bobbyjo when you need him?

Now then Bobby..you were quick to rubbish my view on HF..so lets see what you make of this new handicapping idea..where you give a horse a rating..not on where it finishes in races..but based on what class of race it will win next time out

if thats not biggest load of nonsense i've read in a while then i don't know what is

or..is it that daft posts are only daft when you go againt one person?:)..ie runinning with the pack:)

not one person here has pointed out what a stupid idea this is...amazing
 
Last edited:
You're putting words in people's mouths EC1. You've suggested that CH is a good marker horse, and Luke has made an oblique point to advertise the opinion that the horse is regressive. That may or may not be so, but it doesn't amount to what you've said in the post above. Horses like CH are poor markers imo for the reason that they retain plenty of ability, but not to the degree they had before, so there will be slippage in performance which make treating them as reliable yardsticks dubious. The tangent about CH's next win was just that, and understood by most accordingly.

You're one of the most original thinkers on the forum, and I'm sure most of us echo that, but you're being a tad precious here.
 
rorydelargy said:
You're putting words in people's mouths EC1. You've suggested that CH is a good marker horse, and Luke has made an oblique point to advertise the opinion that the horse is regressive. That may or may not be so, but it doesn't amount to what you've said in the post above. Horses like CH are poor markers imo for the reason that they retain plenty of ability, but not to the degree they had before, so there will be slippage in performance which make treating them as reliable yardsticks dubious. The tangent about CH's next win was just that, and understood by most accordingly.

You're one of the most original thinkers on the forum, and I'm sure most of us echo that, but you're being a tad precious here.
Click to expand...

i think a few people on here have made comments about what class of race CH would win next..that suggests to me that his rating is in question due to that line of thinking..its not putting words in mouths..no more than people saying i said that HF wasn't good enough ...just to run in the CH..which i didn't

i'm not being precious really..i just think that when any race has been rated up on here..not once has it been mentioned that a horse is unreliable due to what class it will win in next

its quite possible that a horse like CH can run many times without winning..but still be a good marker..the will to win is different from running to a level..I agree..he isn't a winner..but that doesn't stop him being a marker

it is just a case of jumping on my use of him I'm afraid..there are many horses used as markers that are like CH..but never once have i read that they aren't to be relied on because they don't win anymore

I don't mind being challenged about an opinion..but some of the replies on here have just been made to ridicule i'm afraid

i'm just returning the ridicule because the idea that a horse is only rated on what class of race it will win next ..is fookin ridiculous:)

i can take the ridicule..but people have to understand..that works both ways..if i read nonsense..i'll highlight it

seems fair to me
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
it is just a case of jumping on my use of him I'm afraid..there are many horses used as markers that are like CH..but never once have i read that they aren't to be relied on because they don't win anymore
Click to expand...

Getting back to the pure debate - don't you think a horse who has forgotten how to win is an inherently unreliable marker? I'm not sure that's necessarily the case with CH, but it's an obvious question to ask.
 
rorydelargy said:
Getting back to the pure debate - don't you think a horse who has forgotten how to win is an inherently unreliable marker? I'm not sure that's necessarily the case with CH, but it's an obvious question to ask.
Click to expand...

no not really

if he keeps running near his mark I can't see the problem as far as his use to someone rating.

look at Youmazin..1 win from last 22..but folk last season were regularly using him as a marker..never once read..what class of race is he going to win next?

so the answer has to be..why not?

i'm not saying CH is the same horse that ran second in the CH..but he is still of worth as a rating pool..same as Youmzain is..his rating has dropped from his best..but they haven't started calling him a 90 horse because he don't win much
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
no not really

if he keeps running near his mark I can't see the problem as far as his use to someone rating.
Click to expand...

But how do you determine if he's running to his mark in defeat, unless you have a better method of analysing form than the use of marker horses? BTW, plenty of people have questioned Youmzain here - you must have noticed. :blink:
 
Bar the Bull said:
I think that Celestial Halo should be rated a lot lower than 160.

And I am not part of a conspiracy.
Click to expand...

its not a matter of conspiracy..its a matter of ridiculing for the sake of it

like i said..i love chatting about horses and what have you..i can have a laugh..and i can take a bit of piss taking..but a few on here definately cannot...

but there is a bit of trend here to demean for no reason whatsover...and its always same target

i respect your view that he may be lower than 160..but its fook all to do with what class of race he can win next
 
EC1 said:
its funny - coz when i question Timeform speed ratings..i get..oh you know better than them then lol?..but you are saying you are a better handicappper than the official handicapper
Click to expand...

Well, that's kind of the point of the game, isn't it? What's the alternative? Believe everything he says?
 
rorydelargy said:
But how do you determine if he's running to his mark in defeat, unless you have a better method of analysing form than the use of marker horses? BTW, plenty of people have questioned Youmzain here - you must have noticed. :blink:
Click to expand...

well..you might as well say its impossible to rate any horse if you use that argument..in any race...how do you know what mark any beaten horse has run to?

to single one horse out..and say..oh well you can't possibly know his mark anymore..but then go and rate another race..because all those are reliable markers..you don't who is and who isn't reliable to the nth degree

you could argue that any beaten horse is an unrelaible marker quite easily

i know people have questioned Youmzain..but they were quick to use him to pull down the last 2 arc winners that beat him...and a few tried to use him to bolster up the KG last year

even though he doesn't win now..he isn't automatically an average handicapper though
 
Grasshopper said:
Well, that's kind of the point of the game, isn't it? What's the alternative? Believe everything he says?
Click to expand...

the game isn't just about putting ratings on horses though is it?..you are talking as if when you do your own handicapping it will give you an adge over people..that isn't necessarily true in respect to winning money

you could rate animal X at 100..the handicapper only rates it at 90..so you back it because its well in in your opinion...it then gets beat 3 times for a variety of reasons totally unrelated to handicapping..you still lost..you no better off. You are backing the right horse on the wrong day...when it does win its 2/1 and you still lose overall..the only edge you had was knowing how good the horse really was..doesn't always equate to having an edge

so to me its not the whole point of the game..its a very small bit of it..because knowing how good a horse is does not tell you when its going to win..thats what the game is about
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
well..you might as well say its impossible to rate any horse if you use that argument..in any race...how do you know what mark any beaten horse has run to?

to single one horse out..and say..oh well you can't possibly know his mark anymore..but then go and rate another race..because all those are reliable markers..you don't who is and who isn't reliable to the nth degree

you could argue that any beaten horse is an unrelaible marker quite easily

i know people have questioned Youmzain..but they were quick to use him to pull down the last 2 arc winners that beat him...and a few tried to use him to bolster up the KG last year

even though he doesn't win now..he isn't automatically an average handicapper though
Click to expand...

Simplest point being the one espoused by Timeform and others, that yardstick handicapping is fundamentally flawed, but that's not my drum to beat.
 
rorydelargy said:
Simplest point being the one espoused by Timeform and others, that yardstick handicapping is fundamentally flawed, but that's not my drum to beat.
Click to expand...


it could be argued that any form of handicapping is fundamentally flawed though Rory

you can go through a variety of ways of rating a horse..they all have flaws

Speed Figures
Earnings Per Start
Yardstick
Race standardisation

when i use yardstick form with a horse like CH..I am playing by the rules of the forum in a way..its not my preferred way of rating horses..but most of you guys use this way of rating horses so its just a conversation point for me tbh

i don't think anyone can be 100% confident they know how good a horse is..the game is too variable to ever have your judgement conclusively proven.

best we can do is have a good stab at it

when i mentioned Celestial H..i mentioned him purely in the context that although he isn't what he was..he isn't easy to beat a long way..and only two have done this

my whole point was.. not being pedantic about what his actual rating is..but trying to show that Oscar Whiskey has done what only Binocular has done..which i daftly thought were a bit smart:)

i'm not saying its a completely sound way to compare the two horses..but it may be another insight into how good OW is..or it might be bollox:)..then again..we all might be talking bollox..maybe the whole gme is 50% random:)
 
Last edited:
I don't disagree with any of that, EC1. I think you should be free to rate Celestial Halo as a "yardstick" horse if you so choose.

The argument here - not that I feel like I'm arguing with you - is not about method, it's about application.

You view Celestial Halo as a reliable "yardstick" of a 160 horse, and draw conclusions from that basis which lead you to believe Oscar Whisky has a genuine chance in the Champion Hurdle. Fair enough.

It's the assertion that a) 160 is a true reflection of his present ability over hurdles, and b) that he is a reliable indicator anyway, that are the contentious points.

If you argue that he was a 168 horse, and that he is now a 160 horse two seasons later, then you are de-facto aknowledging that there has been some level of decline. You appear to consider what decline there was to have been arrested, and that he can now run consistently to 160 - despite everything else pointing to the horse remaining in decline.

If you genuinely believe that he is capable of a 160 performance, your perfectly entitled to hold such an opinion, and I don't think anyone is suggesting it's otherwise. You have an opinion, conviction, and are prepared to argue your point. Exactly what a forum like this needs. But you do hold some avant-garde positions too (your faith in Celestial Halo a qualifier on that score, imo) and it's a matter of fact that avant garde positions are going to attract a lot of 'interest'. But don't confuse that interest with personal attacks or "ridicule" - it's not the case.
 
Last edited:
Don't give it up EC - how do the others he beat in that race support the theory - Any Given Day, Karabak etc. Who actually knows how good CH is after his aborted time over fences - visually he has folded tamely enough his last two runs but maybe we are being over critical here.

Let's be fair here - we all have used our take on a piece of form to back up a horse we fancy that may not be the most obvious selection. I admit I have. :rolleyes:
 
Grasshopper said:
I don't disagree with any of that, EC1. I think you should be free to rate Celestial Halo as a "yardstick" horse if you so choose.

The argument here - not that I feel like I'm arguing with you - is not about method, it's about application.

You view Celestial Halo as a reliable "yardstick" of a 160 horse, and draw conclusions from that basis which lead you to believe Oscar Whisky has a genuine chance in the Champion Hurdle. Fair enough.

It's the assertion that a) 160 is a true reflection of his present ability over hurdles, and b) that he is a reliable indicator anyway, that are the contentious points.

If you argue that he was a 168 horse, and that he is now a 160 horse two seasons later, then you are de-facto aknowledging that there has been some level of decline. You appear to consider what decline there was to have been arrested, and that he can now run consistently to 160 - despite everything else pointing to the horse remaining in decline.

If you genuinely believe that he is capable of a 160 performance, your perfectly entitled to hold such an opinion, and I don't think anyone is suggesting it's otherwise. You have an opinion, conviction, and are prepared to argue your point. Exactly what a forum like this needs. But you do hold some avant-garde positions too (your faith in Celestial Halo a qualifier on that score, imo) and it's a matter of fact that avant garde positions are going to attract a lot of 'interest'. But don't confuse that interest with personal attacks or "ridicule" - it's not the case.
Click to expand...

thanks Grass

what an eloquent post:cool:

not sure about avant garde position like:)

thanks
 
Philip Hobbs in an interview today stated that in stepping up Menorah's work due to his putting on condition he did a "brilliant" piece of work. He also stated the he felt Peddlers was the biggest danger. Always thought he was a wise man!!:cool:
 
On The Bridle said:
Philip Hobbs in an interview today stated that in stepping up Menorah's work due to his putting on condition he did a "brilliant" piece of work. He also stated the he felt Peddlers was the biggest danger. Always thought he was a wise man!!:cool:
Click to expand...

:)

on paper it doesn't look the highest class CH of all time but we have an interesting contest nonetheless

PC
Menorah
Binocular
Oscar

oh and HF;)

there is enough there to keep us interested isn't there?
 
Back
Top