Road To The Champion Hurdle

I have picked a random CH

Istabraq beat Hors La Loi by 4 lengths in 2000

Isty got rated 176 for that

but by Febrary 01 Hors La Loi was only rated 155

by your reckoning..that was a poor CH because it makes Isty only a 159 horse by Feb 01

its just a totallly misguided way of race rating imo
 
Grasshopper said:
I'm sorry, but I find this quite unbelievable, mate. Sorry.
Click to expand...


see my post re Hors La loi

you talk as though the GC and CH runners are totally under raced and we have no idea what they rated when they run in the CH & GC

if others here judge NH races 6 months after the race by using ratings from that point..then its me thats flabbergasted..in fact its fookin unreal imo
 
Last edited:
Euronymous said:
He was going best in the Triumph before seeming not to stay if anything. I reckon a fast pace and a big field doesn't suit him.
Click to expand...


any excuse will do

i'll tell you something..i got some right stick re HF..but this post race stuff is beyond belief

but again..no one will support the logical argument..its easier to run with the pack and support any nonsensical argument

Are you there Bobbyjo..reading this stuff?

i'm sure this stuff is trolling..I thought you guys knew your stuff:blink:
 
here is another example of this method


2006 Brave Inca was given an OHR of 167 for beating Macs Joy 1 length

but by November 07 just 6 runs later..as Macs Joy was then only rated 158

we have to downgrade BI's CH win by 8lbs..so BI's CH win is now rated 159

:blink:
 
Last edited:
this one is a shocker

Istabraq beats Theatreworld 12 lengths in 1998

Theatre World gets a 162 rating for this run behind Isty..but in his next race loses by 40..OHR drops down to 148 just a few weeks later..which makes Isty..just a 160 for his win in the CH..using retrospective ratings

according to this method..Isty was a worse CH winner than BM was a GC winner
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
Khyber kim hasnt let the form down
Click to expand...

you need to conveniently forget him in all this Clive..it doesn't support the downgrading of a none Irish winner;)

his win at the stamina sapping 2.5 flat track Aintree shows he wasn't really suited to the speed trip CH race;)

this back rating system seems to have stunned people into silence

i wonder why :)
 
Last edited:
Hmmm yes

For that not to have been a very impressive CH win, the whole field had to be very seriously under par or just no good at all.
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
this back rating system seems to have stunned people into silence

i wonder why :)
Click to expand...

Timeform have never rated Binocular at or above 170. Kyber Kim is a smashing horse but I think over the CH trip he's at his best with cut in the ground.
 
Euronymous said:
Timeform have never rated Binocular at or above 170. Kyber Kim is a smashing horse but I think over the CH trip he's at his best with cut in the ground.
Click to expand...

but isn't making your own ratings more accurate than relying on Timeform..so I'm told...how come TF ratings are valid only when it suits an argument?

KK .. another horse not suited to the race..but officially rated 169..another error by the handicapper

what a lucky horse Binocular was to meet all these overrated horses who ran in the wrong conditions
 
clivex said:
Khyber kim hasnt let the form down
Click to expand...

Kyber Kim finished 10L further behind Binocular at Kempton, than he did at Cheltenham. His only other run was over 2m4f, which is of limited consequence for the reasons given earlier.

EC1, no-one is saying it's an exact science. But the closest approximation we have had to someone claiming it is, is your apparent assertion that the handicapper cannot be wrong.

Also, I find it hard to accept how you can accuse others on here of attempted "ridicule", when I look at the timbre of your recent posts - littered as they are with examples taken so far out of context, that the only potential motivation behind them is to make them look ridiculous.

You see my dilemma, I'm sure.

As for Timeform ratings, you again miss the point. I argue against Timeform ratings all the time. Just ask DJ how easy it is for me to have him in tears when I remind him that he put his own name - his own name - to an annual which supported the laughable theory that Kicking King was a 180+ yoke. :D

The point I'm trying to make is that Timeform are all right by me, when they rate within a lb or two of my own rating. Anything either side of that, and I think they're clowns - because I have misguided yet absolute faith that I know best.

Why else would I get involved in the game at all if I believed any different. And why else would I get in circular, rambling and thoroughly enjoyable arguments with Internet half-wits like yourself? :D
 
Last edited:
Yes, but KK hasnt "let the form down" has he? If he hadnt run at all he wouldnt have let the form down either> its probable he is better over further and/or cut, but not a given
 
Last edited:
A moot point, but I'll concede.

Let me use the phrase: "Khyber Kim has failed to run to his Champion Hurdle mark in his only relevant outing since".

They key is not to look at this outing in isolation, but in the context of what all the other runners have achieved too. Again, when you look at all of the horses in the first half-dozen finishers last March, there are zero horses who have subsequently run to their purported handicaps marks post-Cheltenham. None of them - not even Binocular.

I'm not saying that this makes last year's Champion Hurdle a poor race, but it does make me question the level that was achieved in it - and by extension, re-evaluate how much horses like Hurricane Fly, Peddlars Cross and Menorah have to find.
 
Grasshopper said:
Kyber Kim finished 10L further behind Binocular at Kempton, than he did at Cheltenham. His only other run was over 2m4f, which is of limited consequence for the reasons given earlier.

EC1, no-one is saying it's an exact science. But the closest approximation we have had to someone claiming it is, is your apparent assertion that the handicapper cannot be wrong.

Also, I find it hard to accept how you can accuse others on here of attempted "ridicule", when I look at the timbre of your recent posts - littered as they are with examples taken so far out of context, that the only potential motivation behind them is to make them look ridiculous.

You see my dilemma, I'm sure.

As for Timeform ratings, you again miss the point. I argue against Timeform ratings all the time. Just ask DJ how easy it is for me to have him in tears when I remind him that he put his own name - his own name - to an annual which supported the laughable theory that Kicking King was a 180+ yoke. :D

The point I'm trying to make is that Timeform are all right by me, when they rate within a lb or two of my own rating. Anything either side of that, and I think they're clowns - because I have misguided yet absolute faith that I know best.

Why else would I get involved in the game at all if I believed any different. And why else would I get in circular, rambling and thoroughly enjoyable arguments with Internet half-wits like yourself? :D
Click to expand...

I'm sorry about the ridiculing..I just can't believe anyone can seriously back rate a NH race in which runners have numerous runs on the board and their level at the time of the race is known..and those examples I gave are no more ridiculous than whats being layed down here.

I do find it annoying that people are soon posting ..oh EC thats the oddest/daftest posting I've ever seen on a MB..but don't post fook all when they read other postings that are actually far less logical and in my view ridiculous....because they don't want to offend certain people.

Like i said..back rating NH is complete silliness to me and has little relevance to the reality of what happened in those past races

like said..taken to its extreme you could back rate a CH on a claiming win ..its not real to me.

but if all bar Clive and myself rate races like this then i'll always be wrong..mind you..I haven't seen anyone back rate Isty's races and call him a low grade CH winner..so there does seem inconsistency in which horses this sort of rating is done with;)
 
Let me use the phrase: "Khyber Kim has failed to run to his Champion Hurdle mark in his only relevant outing since".
Click to expand...

And he was beaten by who exactly?

I think the last line is fine though.
 
Grasshopper said:
A moot point, but I'll concede.

Let me use the phrase: "Khyber Kim has failed to run to his Champion Hurdle mark in his only relevant outing since".

They key is not to look at this outing in isolation, but in the context of what all the other runners have achieved too. Again, when you look at all of the horses in the first half-dozen finishers last March, there are zero horses who have subsequently run to their purported handicaps marks post-Cheltenham. None of them - not even Binocular.

I'm not saying that this makes last year's Champion Hurdle a poor race, but it does make me question the level that was achieved in it - and by extension, re-evaluate how much horses like Hurricane Fly, Peddlars Cross and Menorah have to find.
Click to expand...

his run at Aintree was officially 2lb less than his CH run..looks like upholding the form to me..he fookin sluiced in at Aintree

i'm no Binocular fan..and even I can see that his win was well up to the standard last year.

I wonder what his race standardisation rating was as well

i will have to look at last years thread just after the race..i wonder what people's views were then..and that is the most important time with these big NH races.
 
Last edited:
Beaten By Binocluar.......10L further than the time before.

Has Binocular improved 10lbs in the interim? Or does Khyber Kim perhaps need further than 2m on a sharp track like Kempton, and he as run below his Champion Hurdle awarded mark?

Which, in your opinion, is the more likely scenario - given you yourself think that KK might perhaps needs further?

The only other logical position is that you think Binocular has improved 10lbs on his Champion Hurdle run, and whilst it's not entirely impossible, the limited evidence we have seen so far this season (defeat behind Peddlars and Starluck) would tend to suggest it unlikely.

It's this uncertainty which causes one to question whether the level Binocular's achieved in the Champion Hurdle - expressed as poundage - was as high as it first appeared.

Surely it's legitimate to question it, given how moderately the placed horses have fared since?

EC1, if it makes you happy, Timeform awarded a 180 that season, I think, and it is the hardest one to justify. I think there are holes in that particular rating, but largely agree with those awarded the previous two years. In this case, the Official Handicapper is closer to the true mark, than Timeform....in my opinion.

And, no - I can't be arsed having a look at the race and rating it. :cool:
 
EC1 said:
his run at Aintree was officially 2lb less than his CH run..looks like upholding the form to me..he fookin sluiced in at Aintree.
Click to expand...

Officially my hole. :D

That's the wholepoint of this flannel! Who give a monkeys what his "official" mark was?? It's no more right or wrong than any other mark.

You're not a robot, are you? Phil Smith says it's a 168 and you think it's inherent that there is some sort of supernatural accuracy about it?

Say it ain't so, Champ. :D
 
Rubbish. he acts at cheltenham (won there before) and aintree. thats not so unusual. Both left handed for a start

i was talking i terms of pure stamina and speed
 
Back
Top