I don't particular subscribe to this post Cheltenham form analysis stuff Grass though
its not like its a 2000 guineas where horses have run once or twice..with lots more potential
this isn't the case at Cheltenham..we don't need to know subsequent runs because.. we already have a very good handle on the day of what horses are capable of
your post race changing of a race's rating completely ignores the fact that a horse might not be the same horse 6 months after the CH..you are rating a race well after it has been run which is flawed imo.
In a CH or GC..its quite easy to rate on the day..with the horses in that abilty window that they have shown up to that point..what they are rated 6 months later has no bearing on the strength of that race
those ratings just after the race are far more accurate than the ratings being thrown up now here
just because CelestialH isn't the same horse now..does not make him poor in that race..time has passed..things change.
lets say that since Celestial ran in a CH.. his form really nose dived..and he could only win a claiming hurdle..would you then go back and say..well that ChampionH must only be rated 120 now because Celestial is only a claiming hurdler?
it doesn't add up does it really?..not very good logic?
ratings on the day are key..not months afterwards
