The 2015 Crabbies Grand National

Ricko said:
No, reminds me of Hedgehunter. Looked a non-stayer the year before he won but a year older and a bit stronger, more patiently ridden and he was an easy winner. I think if they are a bit more patient this time around he'll come there swinging and pull clear.
Click to expand...

I know someone else who thinks the exact same. Insisted for a year Hedgehunter had run with the choke out on his first attempt. Did I listen?
 
14/1 Rocky seems very big. I assumed he'd be 8/1 general after that. If there was this massive hype about the price McCoy is going off maybe he would be.
 
Barry Geraghty tipped it, PN apparently said somewhere he had backed it and none of us had the savvy to have a bet on him. :blink:

14/1 is a stonking price....he could be all but half those odds on the day.
 
Rocky Creek is a possible strong contender but not a win prospect for me... yet.

He's obviously handicapped to win a big race since he just did and won't be penalised.

But there might be a few below him in the weights who are equally well handicapped and that might be a factor in the outcome. In the National, I might want to favour the lower weight because it has a greater effect in this race than in any other.

Come the day, it will be all over the ML and other places that he's x lbs well in since he'll go up a good 7lbs for yesterday and once that dawns on people he should shorten up.

It's early yet but I'd want to keep RC onside.
 
Last edited:
Low-weights i.e. poorer horses, have won both editions of the Nash since they amended the course. This suggests the emphasis is much less about jumping, and much more about stamina these days, and weight-carried clearly counts over a marathon trip.

I always used to want to be on something with a shade of class about it, as getting round was the principal concern. I think it's a different race now, and you want to be on something with a low-weight that stays all day. These types tend not to be towards the head of the betting, and there could be value lurking amongst some of the unattractive dour stayers.
 
Last edited:
Agree with just about all of that, Grass. Since they neutered the course, class went out the window and it's become the Queen Alexandra of the jumping season - with about as much interest; for me, anyway.
 
I'm not sure I do agree with it.

It's nearly always been the case that lower weighted horses win, even before the changes but a class horse will win if it is handicapped to do so. The recent compressing of the weights will help and at some point a horse carrying top weight will win and we'll all say it was down to class whereas it will be because it's well handicapped.
 
It, of course, depends on what you define as a low-weight.

The four winners between 2009 and 2012 all carried over 11-stone, so there was a definite trend towards the race going to 'classier horses'. This would cover the period Phil Smith introduced the 'Aintree Factor' into his handicapping, and the weights became more compressed......and before the track was emasculated prior to the 2013 edition.

You have to go back to Hello Dandy in 1984 to find a horse who won it with a lower weight than Aurora's Encore carted, and only 4 horses in the last 30 years carried less to victory than Pineau De Re . To be fair, the sample-size is small, but you have to take a view, and there is definitely evidence to suggest that poorer horses are finding it less of an examination than they once did.

Edit: The one other thing my research threw-out is that you basically want to be on something no younger than 9yo. This was an absolute revelation to me, as I usually side with horses I'm hoping still have a degree of improvement left in them, but it seems you want a battle-hardened handicapper every time. I'm not usually one for a statistical approach, but given there's been two winners under the age of 9yo since 1982, this really has to be significant.
 
Last edited:
I think there's more to it than that, though, Gh.

Once you get down to the 139-137 mark, we're generally talking class 3 horses who might run well in - maybe win if they're well enough in - a class 3.

By the way - wasn't Silver Birch out of the weights before some withdrawals earlier in the week?

By this stage of the season the handicapper tends to have their measure. They've probably been lower earlier in the season but have had to expose their ability at some point to have a chance of beating the cut. But it wouldn't exclude one who was either on a steep curve or dropping down from higher, perhaps having been put away (which is quite a risky business given the cut-off). On the other hand, the steep-curve types tend to be younger than ideal for the test that is the National.

Taking the last few winners:

Pineau De Re - unexposed in this county despite its age therefore was simply well handicapped
Auroras Encore - well in on its previous run in the Ayr National and on earlier form
Neptune Collonges - well in on older form

The previous two winners weren't so obvious on form despite being very well backed:

Ballabriggs - a McCain job
Don't Push It - an O'Neill job

Before that, Mon Mome had run in a Gold Cup and got a fair weight but was still a surprise, the conclusion being that things fell for it on the day, including more fancied horses. Comply Or Die was identified by my brother two years before it won as the type after the RSA proved it wasn't up to Gold Cup class and was set off on a programme of placing to get its mark down ahead of this race. That was a huge win for him, a la Hedgehunter. Did I listen?

Silver Birch had been a very decent horse for PN earlier in its career and came here well in.

Also re the weight, isn't it now the case that not many horses carry less than Auroras Encore? It's round about this mark that the maximum field kicks in.

I could go on... I know... I do...


One last thing. Here's a thought:

How about lowering the weights on the day so that the bottom weight is 10-0. So, if, eg, Auroras Encore had been due to carry 10-3 but was the bottom weight, they could lower its weight to 10-0 and bring the rest down 3lbs and top weight down to 11-7?

Just a thought...
 
Last edited:
Not sure what you mean about PDR, DO.

He had had nine starts in the UK before he won at Aintree, so was hardly under-the-radar, and it takes a stretch - in my opinion - to think he won "simply" because he was "well handicapped".

Aurora's Encore I would concede was possibly well-handicapped to win his National, but then again, he'd had a UR and a Fall in two of his six outings between Ayr and Aintree, and it cannot entirely be discounted that the less exacting jumping test in his Grand National was in his favour too.

As for the other examples, they lack relevance, because they were effectively run on a different racecourse. Remember my point is that the nature of the race has changed since the track was amended.
 
Last edited:
PDR was certainly 'under the radar' or he wouldn't have been a big price.

He was bought after achieving an RPR of 151 (off 125) in a 3m4f chase in 2013. It took him until January of the following year to get back to that level so I'd score out those runs in between as an acclimatisation period and which did his mark no harm. Once he hit that level they put him away for the race, only bringing him out for the Pertemps Final and nearly winning that (arguably unlucky). That confirmed he was at least as good as before and maybe a lot better as he'd been well beaten off 3lbs lower in the race a couple of years earlier.

I wouldn't say he was well handicapped before the race on the basis of what he had achieved and he was some way down my ratings on the day but I did have '++' next to his name as I felt he could be a good 10lbs better again back over fences.

Did I think he would win the race? No. Did I think he was one of a dozen with a better chance than his odds? Yes.

The race itself merely confirmed that he was, as it turned out, very well handicapped. I'm not sure anyone outside the yard could have expected it to win as it did.

Fwiw, I think it has one of the best chances since Red Rum of doing the double. I think it could have won by a lot further than it did last year.
 
Last edited:
DO, do you think every horse that wins a handicap must, by default, have been "well handicapped", and that no other factors come into it?

Serious question.
 
Looking at this race again..........a race I thought the second was a good thing for this Rocky balboa Creek has slaughtered them.

He threatened to go to the top in his younger days but always looked a bit undone to me....Beaten very easily by Dynaste and then by the Giant Bolster

There was no sign of that yesterday he looked like a much stronger horse and probably is.

Last years National may just have come a year too early for him and I could see him going very close in the National.

11stone 3lbs isn't an impossible weight but the weights will go up if none of the top 3 stand there ground which won't help his cause.

That of course is factored into his price or he would be shorter imo. Still worth an ew bet at 14/1 though as he has got a touch of class
 
Horses that fall in Nationals can come back and win it the following year but it's unusual for finishers/placed horses to win. Race seems to be won by first time runners these days. That extra year wil improve Rocky Creeks chance of winning but I'm hoping a newcomer will beat him to the winning post. Just a case of working out which newcomer that will be....
 
Off on a tangent, does anyone know if the intention is to run ShutTheFrontDoor in the handicap chase at Cheltenham?

He's on my shortlist for that. The National is a bit of a lottery, but with a horse of his calibre I'd rather back him for Cheltenham personally. He hasn't run for a long time, could easily be the case that Cheltenham is real target and the National somewhat of an elaborate-afterthought?
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
DO, do you think every horse that wins a handicap must, by default, have been "well handicapped", and that no other factors come into it?

Serious question.
Click to expand...

No, but the higher up the class scale or prize level you go the less likely it is that a badly handicapped horse will win. Why on earth would you try and win a decent race with a horse you knew was in the handicapper's grasp. If events conspired to get you the win you need to write off the next 12 months or sell it to some misguided idiot who doesn't see what's happening.

I remember Arthur Budge shelling out £100,000 for Joint Sovereignty after it won the worst Mackeson of all time. The owner must have been laughing up his sleeve all the way to the bank. I think the price then was about the value of the Grand National itself and there was more chance of me staying the trip with you on my back than JS winning it.

So no, not all handicaps are, by default, won by one that's well handicapped but a good 90% are (for the class of race - a horse that's well-handicapped in a Class 5 race might not be well handicapped in a Class 2 race.

Red Marauder won the National by default. One could argue it actually was well handicapped on its overall form but it only won because it acted least badly in the conditions and ended up only having one exhausted opponent to beat.

Desert Orchid won the Gold Cup because only Yahoo ran its race. Nothing else did. Not even Desert Orchid.
 
Desert Orchid said:
No, but the higher up the class scale or prize level you go the less likely it is that a badly handicapped horse will win.
Click to expand...

Presumably on the basis that the higher the class, the more likely horse's will run to their form? I've no quibble with that.

Why on earth would you try and win a decent race with a horse you knew was in the handicapper's grasp. If events conspired to get you the win you need to write off the next 12 months or sell it to some misguided idiot who doesn't see what's happening.
Click to expand...

The inference here being what? That you try to get it handicapped? Wouldn't you just waste 12 months running it down the field to achieve that, and potentially have to sell it for less than its previous market-value, if it didn't manage to win a race again? Neither approach is really more beneficial than the other.


I remember Arthur Budge shelling out £100,000 for Joint Sovereignty after it won the worst Mackeson of all time. The owner must have been laughing up his sleeve all the way to the bank. I think the price then was about the value of the Grand National itself and there was more chance of me staying the trip with you on my back than JS winning it.
Click to expand...

The relevance of this is lost on me.

So no, not all handicaps are, by default, won by one that's well handicapped but a good 90% are (for the class of race - a horse that's well-handicapped in a Class 5 race might not be well handicapped in a Class 2 race.
Click to expand...

Too simplistic. Other factors must always be taken into account. A "well handicapped" horse might have trip or ground against it, a badly-handicapped horse might rediscover form etc etc.

Red Marauder won the National by default. One could argue it actually was well handicapped on its overall form but it only won because it acted least badly in the conditions and ended up only having one exhausted opponent to beat.
Click to expand...

Again, you could arguably say that any handicap winner was well handicapped, just by dint of the fact that they won. Indeed, you have done exactly that with Red Marauder, yet in the same breath acknowledge the form isn't worth a carrot. Defaulting to a "well handicapped" assessment, excuses doing a deeper post-race analysis, and is (to me, at least) a lazy way of understanding the outcome of a race after-the-fact. Other factors have to be considered and taken into account e.g. was the horse really well handicapped, or did it just have conditions (ground, trip, track, whatever) that allowed it to run to its best, whilst impairing the opposition running to their best.

Desert Orchid won the Gold Cup because only Yahoo ran its race. Nothing else did. Not even Desert Orchid.
Click to expand...

Again, not sure of relevance, given Gold Cup isn't a handicap.
 
Last edited:
Desert Orchid when winning the GC did so against a horse who showed best in those conditions..it was akin to Frankel winning against cirrus..[sorry Grass]...no it wasn't Frankel's best run..but to beat a very good horse in conditions that favour said horse isn't a horse not running its race imo..its a horse at the peak of its abilities..even if AvB handicapping doesn't measure it so.
 
Think it's why racing is so facinating, because it isn't just about handicap form and class; sometimes it's about sheer guts and determination to win and, at times, impossible not to give horses human attributes.
 
Grasshopper said:
Too simplistic. Other factors must always be taken into account. A "well handicapped" horse might have trip or ground against it, a badly-handicapped horse might rediscover form etc etc.
Click to expand...

This, to me, is too simplistic. A well handicapped horse with trip and ground against it is very unlikely to win. It's handicap mark effectively becomes an irrelevance. In this case, a different well handicapped horse will probably win.

A badly handicapped horse will need others to run below their best for whatever reason to have a chance unless it is improving but that's what anyone who reads my figures will recognise at a glance. I'm not afraid to nominate a horse who ran, for example, to 90 on its last run and is now rated 91 if I believe it is a 105 waiting to happen. It might only be a 90 horse on what we've seen but circumstance may lead me to believe it is actually much better than the bare form. If that's the case then I can say I think it is well handicapped.

On the other hand, I might read that 90/91 performance as the best it can do. Maybe it can hit 92 next time but it is most unlikely that it will in an average 0-95 h'cap off that mark. In that case it is not well handicapped.

Apologies for examples. I've spent the last near-40 years exemplifying every point I try to make.
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper, I have no desire to disrespect you so when I say the following it is not meant in that vein.

If you honestly believe that at least 90% of handicaps* aren't won by a well handicapped horse you shouldn't be studying handicaps.

(* I ignore Class 6 handicaps and a lot of Class 5 ones. The former are for horses that can't win in Class 5 or better so are won by the least-badly-handicapped-runner-that-is-also-fit-and-well-and-trying.)
 
I feel the love, DO. :lol:

A well handicapped horse often needs other things in its favour, not just the fact that it's well handicapped, before it will win. Oftentimes there will be more than one well-handicapped horse in a race, but only one of them can win.

The point I've been labouring to make is that not every well-handicapped horse is going to win, but I accept that the majority of winners are likely to be better than their official rating. Whether it's as high as your claimed 90%, I'm not so sure, as it suggests a degree of certainty that rarely prevails in horse-racing.....but I get your point.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top