Road To The Champion Hurdle

[EC1]

Officially my hole.

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.

the whole point is that on the day of the race..whatever ratings you use..you rate the race then..from the placed horses..not 6 months later when the chance of any horse being the same as on CH day is remote

i've put my case forward Grass..subsequent form is bollox when there is plenty of "run up" form to go on. What happens to horses after they run in the CH..is in the lap of the gods..and has no bearing on the races before the CH at all.

using your method.. totally devalues Istabraq's wins

this same back rating method was used to destroy Best Mate's credibility on here as well

 

[Grasshopper]

If you think KK has run up to his Cheltenham form at Aintree, good for you.

What about the others who filled the first six though? Have they also gone on to uphold the form? Or are you happy to hang your faith in the form on Binocular and Khyber Kim alone?

 

[EC1]

If you think KK has run up to his Cheltenham form at Aintree, good for you.

What about the others who filled the first six though? Have they also gone on to uphold the form? Or are you happy to hang your faith in the form on Binocular and Khyber Kim alone?

I'll just ask a question

when a race is run ..and then the placed horses run again..how do you know they have run the same..and Upheld..or let down the form.

they are different races..horses at different parts of form cycles etc

there isn't really such a thing as upholding or letting the form down...in reality

they are just ideas invented by peopleto try and justify horse x's fiurther runs

logically..the races are not connected

hence..back rating..is even more illogical

 

[Grasshopper]

using your method.. totally devalues Istabraq's wins

That's a strong statement coming from someone who clearly doesn't understand my "method".

And besides, it's one guys opinion - hardly "devalues" anything, let alone "totally".

What I think really isn't all that important, and no matter how hard I argue it's otherwise, it won't change a given horse's Official Rating or it's Chasers and Hurdlers mark. But it's good fun to argue.

You're being melodramatic. Istabraq's legacy is safe regardless.

And for the record, I was destroying Best Mate's credibility long before he retired.

 

[Grasshopper]

I'll just ask a question

when a race is run ..and then the placed horses run again..how do you know they have run the same..and Upheld..or let down the form.

they are different races..horses at different parts of form cycles etc

there isn't really such a thing as upholding or letting the form down...in reality

they are just ideas invented by peopleto try and justify horse x's fiurther runs

logically..the races are not connected

hence..back rating..is even more illogical

So....on the one hand you're saying horses are inherently unmeasurable from race to race. And on the other hand, you're suggesting that you can ignore all of Binocular's form except last year's Champion Hurdle?

If, logically, one race is not connected to the next, isn't your argument that Binocular can confidently be measured from last year's Champion Hurdle not therefore.......illogical?

You are back-rating yourself, and you don't even realise it. You have just come to the conclusion that the 2010 form doesn't need changing, whereas I have come to the conclusion that perhaps it does. Don't kid yourself that you're doing anyhting different - you've just reached a different outcome.

 

[EC1]

That's a strong statement coming from someone who clearly doesn't understand my "method".

And besides, it's one guys opinion - hardly "devalues" anything, let alone "totally".

What I think really isn't all that important, and no matter how hard I argue it's otherwise, it won't change a given horse's Official Rating or it's Chasers and Hurdlers mark. But it's good fun to argue.

You're being melodramatic. Istabraq's legacy is safe regardless.

And for the record, I was destroying Best Mate's credibility long before he retired.

Best Mates wins were devalued after his wins in exactly the same way you and others are devaluing Binoculars

and yet..when its displayed using the same method that Isty don't looks so good using that method..you dismiss it..Isty is a legend you basically say..even though your flawed back rating method shows that his ratings are a lot lower using your that method

what i am saying is that any horse can retospectively be made to look poor using this idea

thats why I can't be accepting it has much relevance..it makes no sense.

here is what you are saying in a hypothitcal situation:

3 horses meet in the cH...all rated 170 before the race

1 of them beats the other 2 by 5 lengths on the day..when all 3 are 100% and run their race

after the race the winner is rated 175

subsequently the two beaten 170 horse run below par for a number of reasons in their next 3 outings and both get dropped to 160

using your reasoning the race where they were all 170 horses then gets pulled down by 10lbs..and yet on the day the two beaten horses ran to their 170 mark

so you then denegrate a true 175 winner down to a 165 run..purely on subsequent runs where the two beaten horses have not run to same level they did initially


doesn't reflect reality to me i'm afraid

 

[clivex]

What about the others who filled the first six though? Have they also gone on to uphold the form? Or are you happy to hang your faith in the form on Binocular and Khyber Kim alone?

are you happy to hang HF's form around just solwit ?

 

[EC1]

So....on the one hand you're saying horses are inherently unmeasurable from race to race. And on the other hand, you're suggesting that you can ignore all of Binocular's form except last year's Champion Hurdle?

If, logically, one race is not connected to the next, isn't your argument that Binocular can confidently be measured from last year's Champion Hurdle not therefore.......illogical?

You are back-rating yourself, and you don't even realise it. You have just come to the conclusion that the 2010 form doesn't need changing, whereas I have come to the conclusion that perhaps it does. Don't kid yourself that you're doing anyhting different - you've just reached a different outcome.

what I am saying is that if you are using yardstick handicapping..then the ratings going into a race are far more important than 6 months later..unless you are talking about 2 or 3yo races where vast improvement afterwards is most likely

see post with hypothetical race

 

[Grasshopper]

and yet..when its displayed using the same method that Isty don't looks so good using that flawed method..you dismiss it..Isty is a legend you basically say..even though your flawed back rating method shows that his ratings are a lot lower using your that method

Right, I've been quite patient so far, but I'm not standing for this.

This is just a complete misrepresentation. There's no point in continuing if this is the shite you're going to come out with.

Have a word with yourself, EC1. I note your pretty quick with the replies, and I can only reason that you don't actually take the time to read what people write, before you fire-off your response. It does you absolutely n o credit.

 

[Grasshopper]

what I am saying is that if you are using yardstick handicapping..then the ratings going into a race are far more important than 6 months later..unless you are talking about 2 or 3yo races where vast improvement afterwards is most likely

see post with hypothetical race

Correct. This is something that very-much applies going into the next Champion Hurdle.

 

[EC1]

Right, I've been quite patient so far, but I'm not standing for this.

This is just a complete misrepresentation. There's no point in continuing if this is the shite you're going to come out with.

Have a word with yourself, EC1. I note your pretty quick with the replies, and I can only reason that you don't actually take the time to read what people write, before you fire-off your response. It does you absolutely n o credit.

I read posts ok

thats why my answers are filled out with logic and do actually clearly respond to what is put forward to me.

if you are getting angry coz i've put a better case..then leave it

what I usually do if I think the other person is right..I just admit it

 

[EC1]

Correct. This is something that very-much applies going into the next Champion Hurdle.

but you are quite happy to discard the ones that went into last years

 

[EC1]

I'm right tired now after all this back and forth Grass - getting old

we'll have to agree to disagree on this one..i'm right though

 

[On The Bridle]

After 15 rounds of blow for blow action the referee couldn't seperate the protagonists - so I call for a rematch tomorrow night!

 

[davidjohnson]

when a race is run ..and then the placed horses run again..how do you know they have run the same..and Upheld..or let down the form.

they are different races..horses at different parts of form cycles etc

there isn't really such a thing as upholding or letting the form down...in reality

they are just ideas invented by peopleto try and justify horse x's fiurther runs

logically..the races are not connected

hence..back rating..is even more illogical

I can't allow this to go unchallenged. Using this logic makes your argument of rating any race around any horse impossible. If you can't use a single past performance as a guide to a horse, you're just plucking numbers out the air.

Using this theory, how can anyone be expected to give credence to your assertion that Celestial Halo is a 160 horse in the CH or whatever you are claiming and the same horse months later, because the 2 races are unrelated.

It is completely logical to make a link of patterns and levels in a horses form when granted similar conditions.

I'll leave it here, or any chance of the mods locking this topic for 6 weeks

 

[clivex]

I think Ecs point is spot on . Especially with jumpers taht may or may not lose their appetite for the game and often have long periods between runs

 

[swedish chef]

After hours of studying these horses I have come up with.

Celestial Halo 155 -last run
Binocular 172 at his best - 2010 CH
Oscar Whisky 168+(penultimate run 2 1/2m) but only had to run to 159 to win the Welsh Champion Hurdle.

If the above is true then Takari ran to a mark of 143 so therefore should have an outstanding chance in the totesport trophy off 132 this is somewhat backed up by the fact he was finishing to good effect before falling at the 3rd last in the greatwood hurdle.

 

[EC1]

I can't allow this to go unchallenged. Using this logic makes your argument of rating any race around any horse impossible. If you can't use a single past performance as a guide to a horse, you're just plucking numbers out the air.

Using this theory, how can anyone be expected to give credence to your assertion that Celestial Halo is a 160 horse in the CH or whatever you are claiming and the same horse months later, because the 2 races are unrelated.

It is completely logical to make a link of patterns and levels in a horses form when granted similar conditions.

I'll leave it here, or any chance of the mods locking this topic for 6 weeks

out of all that you find something of mine to challenge..but let nonsense a plenty from others go unchallenged

..where are your queries re people who rate a ChampionH 6 months afterwards?..off the marks the placed horses then hold..wtf

no question about..well ..you rate a horse on what class of race it will win next..wtf is that for an idea?

for those two ideas to go unchallenged is unreal on a forum like this..and a bit scary really

thanks Clive..you start to think you are going a bit daft here when all these zany ideas are thrown forward and not one person challenges them.

its pretty clear that you can make any comment you want on here and silence supports it..depending on who posts the silliness.

 

[EC1]

After hours of studying these horses I have come up with.

Celestial Halo 155 -last run
Binocular 172 at his best - 2010 CH
Oscar Whisky 168+(penultimate run 2 1/2m) but only had to run to 159 to win the Welsh Champion Hurdle.

If the above is true then Takari ran to a mark of 143 so therefore should have an outstanding chance in the totesport trophy off 132 this is somewhat backed up by the fact he was finishing to good effect before falling at the 3rd last in the greatwood hurdle.

good post Chef

nice to see someone who knows what he is talking about

 

[Bar the Bull]

I think the reality is somewhere in between.

If a horse wins what looks like a normal to good Champion hurdle by say 4 lengths, and every single horse in the race looks gash in their subsequent runs, then you would downgrade it. Well I think you should.

If a horse wins what looks like a normal to good Champion hurdle by say 4 lengths, and every single horse in the race goes on to exceed expectations in their subsequent runs, then you should upgrade the CH run. Well I think you should.

However, I am not sure that the performances of Celestial Halo, Zaynar, Khyber Kim, Binocular or Starluck is definitive enough to downgrade the form of last year's CH.

Or if it is, only by a pound or two.

 

[Grey]

I think you have to assume that at least some trainers have managed to get their horses to a race like the Champion Hurdle in the form of their lives, and you should be very reluctant to downgrade the form. It's not the same thing as an early season event like the Lockinge, which can turn out to have been cheaply won because horses are not going into it at their peak.

 

[Bar the Bull]

That is a very good point. I thought of that last night. One should expect that horses will struggle to repeat a CH run in subsequent races, as trainers will have them bursting out of their skins.

 

[EC1]

I think the reality is somewhere in between.

If a horse wins what looks like a normal to good Champion hurdle by say 4 lengths, and every single horse in the race looks gash in their subsequent runs, then you would downgrade it. Well I think you should.

If a horse wins what looks like a normal to good Champion hurdle by say 4 lengths, and every single horse in the race goes on to exceed expectations in their subsequent runs, then you should upgrade the CH run. Well I think you should.

However, I am not sure that the performances of Celestial Halo, Zaynar, Khyber Kim, Binocular or Starluck is definitive enough to downgrade the form of last year's CH.

Or if it is, only by a pound or two.

but whether the placed horses do well or badly..it doesn't really affect CH day form itself..and the only way to weigh up a race is before..unless its full of lightly raced 2yo's or 3yos' obviously

look at all Isty's CH's..he were awesome..but you would have to devalue all of them using the after the event rating

I don't understand why..when horses have got plenty of form in the book..we need to look afterwards..anything could happen to those horses after the CH

is it really so hard to put a rating on all the CH contenders this year for instance..before they run in the race...why wait until next January to have to confirm if March's race is decent?

i'm going have to pack up on this..i've said my piece enough times

 

[Grasshopper]

I think the reality is somewhere in between.

If a horse wins what looks like a normal to good Champion hurdle by say 4 lengths, and every single horse in the race looks gash in their subsequent runs, then you would downgrade it. Well I think you should.

If a horse wins what looks like a normal to good Champion hurdle by say 4 lengths, and every single horse in the race goes on to exceed expectations in their subsequent runs, then you should upgrade the CH run. Well I think you should.

I agree with every single word of that. Summarises what I was trying to say nicely.

 

[Bar the Bull]

I think every single handicapper in the land retrospectively reassess races.

For instance, you are not going to be able to realistically rate the Wood Ditton until a few months have passed. A Southwell 6f race with grizzled veterans crossing swords for the fourth time in two months might be easier to rate on the spot.

It seems like Grasshopper is far more lenient in his criteria for when you need to reassess a horse. Too lenient for me, as it happens. But let's not get too upset over it.

In other news, let's talk about Mille Chief.