The 2017 Grand National

fonz said:
It's a fantastic race and spectacle and always will be and it's great to get the family involved in the game but I've come to the conclusion that for betting purposes the Grand National can kiss my ar*se from now on.
Click to expand...

Can't agree, fonz. It's still one of the easiest races to find the winner of. You just have to back enough of the right candidates!

You need luck in any race. You need a lot of luck in the National but it's still only ever won by a well-handicapped horse.
 
Double J said:
I'm sticking with Vieux Lion Rouge. 66s, 25s, 16s.

Have Cause Of Causes at 33s prior to the Cheltenham win.

One For Arthur at 25s.

Probably stick with them for the day, have a speculative punt on a 100/1 shot as I always do.

Said it for the last 12 months, I believe Vieux Lion Rouge will win this National.
Click to expand...

I didn't do too bad for myself.

Vieux Lion Rouge would have been massive. As it turns out with Finians Oscars win at 3/1 I was massively up for the day.
The great weather also helped what was a fantastic day for me at Aintree.
 
Ignorant question because I don't keep note of ratings or figures of any sort

Phil Smith has put One For Arthur up by 8lb to 156 which he says is the equivalent of 11st 5lb

Why isn't it 11st 2lb ?
 
Yes what I don't understand is the arithmetic behind it. 10st = 140 lb, 11st =154lb so the new rating of 156lb =11st 2lb

The new rating of 11st 5lb = 159lb isn't it ?
 
The rating doesn't have a baseline of zero as a poundage. It's a comparative scale and the top-weight will carry 11st 10lb whether the rating is 164, 154 or 94. After raising the horse 8lb to 156, he is simply commenting that One For Arthur would have carried 11st 5lb with its revised rating.
 
8lbs is bang on what my initial calcs suggested he should go up but there's a sting in the tail, I reckon.

If they put the horse away for a year to protect his mark he'd probably be off more than 156. Probably more like 160. Just because it's this race.

In a year's time I could fancy him to follow up off just 156. I can't remember the last time I was as impressed by the way a horse cruised into contention from the Melling Road. I wouldn't be surprised if he ended up on the fringe of Gold Cup class.
 
archie said:
The rating doesn't have a baseline of zero as a poundage. It's a comparative scale and the top-weight will carry 11st 10lb whether the rating is 164, 154 or 94. After raising the horse 8lb to 156, he is simply commenting that One For Arthur would have carried 11st 5lb with its revised rating.
Click to expand...

Ok thanks Archie, I was sure I read a long time ago a rating of 140 equated to 10st and it stuck with me, wrongly it seems.
 
I think it's meant to with both Timeform and the BHA as well as RPRs etc.

Both DG and archie are correct.

The 'master handicap' is based on 140 @ 10-0 on the flat and 175 @ 12-7 over jumps as an indicator of the par for top class.

But where a lesser race requires handicapping the highest rated horse has to carry the top weight. If that top rating happens to be, as archie says, well below 'top class' it still has to carry top weight, be it 10-0. 9-12, 9-7 [on the Flat] or 12-0, 11-12 or 11-10 [over jumps].

Let's face it, if a Flat race is for horses rated 75-95, the top rated can hardly be asked to carry just 6-11 (95lbs) as jockeys just don't weigh that little and the bottom weight's jockey would have to weigh less than 5st 5lbs just to be able to make the weight!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top