The Well Worn Road To The Champion Hurdle (2016)

Grasshopper said:
It's utter nonsense.....especially the bit about Vautour "struggling" to beat anything.
Click to expand...

right.. you could take that with Ruby who was the one who said it and also Patrick Mullins. I believe they were talking about Western Boy and Josses Hill who Faugheen previously demolished. You could also listen to Mullins interview after the CH in which he said Ruby was right and he was the one who insisted Faugheen should remain hurdling based on his turn of foot which Vautour lacked.
 
Why are we even debating this? Mullins trains his horses to win so that owners keep them in his yard and consequently he makes more money. It's as simple as that. How much or little Willie rated Faugheen two years ago couldn't be less interesting or relevant.
 
granger said:
Right, to get this thread back on track

Faugheen is best priced 4/6

on the day am sure some firm will go evens as part of a day 1 promotion
Click to expand...

Agree.. think he could come back close to evens if Peace and Co puts up a great performance in his next race.
 
Grasshopper said:
WTF, DO?

You mention Our Conor and totally ignore Hurricane Fly??

Come on.
Click to expand...

I got my excuse in early, GH. I'm doped up these days.

Hurricane Fly was a good one (didn't I mention him in an earlier post?) but I wouldn't say he was better than Faugheen. It takes us back to the old argument about what he actually beat in those so-called Grade 1s in Ireland. He was beating ordinary types in the same way that Istabraq had nothing much to beat.

I have this theory that connections of the other horses made more money from the race by backing HF or laying their own. It is to HF's credit that he was able to win over here despite not being at his best, probably.
 
Firstly, if you're going to refer to quotes, you better start showing your homework.

Secondly, even if Walsh did state Faugheen had a better turn-of-foot than Vautour - so what?

You appear to have built an elaborate conspiracy-theory around this, suggesting that WPM has wilfully treated Faughen like a second-class citizen in his own yard. You haven't presented any "facts" to back this up - just a series of straw-man arguments, none of which make any sense.
 
Desert Orchid said:
I got my excuse in early, GH. I'm doped up these days.

Hurricane Fly was a good one (didn't I mention him in an earlier post?) but I wouldn't say he was better than Faugheen. It takes us back to the old argument about what he actually beat in those so-called Grade 1s in Ireland. He was beating ordinary types in the same way that Istabraq had nothing much to beat.

I have this theory that connections of the other horses made more money from the race by backing HF or laying their own. It is to HF's credit that he was able to win over here despite not being at his best, probably.
Click to expand...

You don't win 22 Grade 1's by beating ordinary horses, DO.

There are no-hopers and make-weights in nearly every top-class race, but HF was beating Champion Hurdlers, champion novices and champion juveniles his entire career. The suggestion that he had nothing but moderate horses to beat, is simply not supported by the facts, imo.
 
Last edited:
Something I've mentioned a few times down the years is the fact that with ratings, whether they be ORs or commercials, or even my own, the ratings seem influenced by some kind of distribution curve.

The highest Flat ratings tend to be awarded to 8-12f horses rather than sprinters or stayers. Logic dictates that sprinters are the quickest therefore they should have the highest ratings.

The highest chase ratings tend to go to the 3-milers or those a couple of furlongs either side. You get the odd 2-miler like SS and, going back, Badsworth Boy, with very high ratings but they tend to be exceptions, like Dayjur as a sprinter. The majority of the better 2-milers - the Sire De Grugy types - tend to be in the 170-175 category with the marathon stayers much lower.

It's really only in hurdles that the line is more even. Most of the best 2-milers are rated around 170-175 but the Barracoudas and Big Buckses of the stayers were also well up there. I don't know the ORs off the top of my head but I don't imagine there will be much between the likes of The New One and Saphir Du Rheu or Cole Harden, for example.
 
Grasshopper said:
You don't win 22 Grade 1's by beating ordinary horses, DO.
Click to expand...

Quite the opposite, imvho...

You only win 22 Grade 1s by having nothing to beat most of the time. Look at that Aussie sprinter Caviar whatever her name was.

That AW 27-times winner Estrella something must be pretty special. :)
 
DO

You are summising that Hurdlers aren't very good compared with chasers due to the ratings..but i think its the way all ratings are compiled that is misleading.

The fact is when horses are handicapped they tend to be based on winning superiority..and there is a difference between chasing race finishing distances and hurdle finishes. Chasing finishers are larger..and over the period of any season that means that chasers will always get higher ratings than similar ability hurdlers

Using the last 10 Champion Chases and last 10 Champion Hurdles.

Champion Chase
Average winners RPR = 179
Average distance back to 3rd horse = 14 lengths

Champion Hurdle
Average winning RPR = 170
Average distance back to 3rd horse = 5 lengths

Lets say our hypothetical handicapper rates on average from 3rd horse in races..at the end of every season he will always get Chases higher than Hurdlers

Its also interesting that in the above example..the CC winner is on average a 9lb "better" horse than the CH winner,,but that coincides with the difference in finishing distances..9 lengths

Imo..hurdlers need about 7/8lb adding to their ratings to make them comparable in a historic sense with similar ability chases.

Once you do that..there are no decades of poor hurdlers..its the way ratings are affected by the stretched out distances that occur in chasing compared with hurdling
 
Last edited:
Desert Orchid said:
Quite the opposite, imvho...

You only win 22 Grade 1s by having nothing to beat most of the time. Look at that Aussie sprinter Caviar whatever her name was.

That AW 27-times winner Estrella something must be pretty special. :)
Click to expand...

Try comparing apples with apples.

The list of G1 winners in their own right, who were beaten by Hurricane Fly, is endless - I don't need to list them here. In fact, Hurricane Fly faced at least one other (or subsequent) Grade-1 winner in every single hurdle race he ran in outside novice company.

History will be kinder to his record, than those churlish types still feeling the sting of being on the wrong side of him, or who only consider his Champion Hurdle runs, when wieghing-up his career......because the facts are undeniable.

Not sure which camp you're in. :)
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
Imo..hurdlers need about 7/8lb adding to their ratings to make them comparable in a historic sense with similar ability chases.

Once you do that..there are no decades of poor hurdlers..its the way ratings are affected by the stretched out distances that occur in chasing compared with hurdling
Click to expand...

Shortly after he came into the job, Phil Smith recognised the issue and labelled it 'slippage'. He went about attempting to correct it so that hurdlers' ratings were artificially inflated by six or seven pounds at the start of two or three seasons in succession. His approach to handicapping (he eventually caught up with me :)) means slippage is no longer an issue but if he hadn't implemented it we'd be looking at the Hurricane Flys and Faugheens of this world being rated about 160 and discussing hurdlers being in terminal decline.
 
slippage doesn't make the difference up betwen chasers and hurdlers..slippage can happen in both codes

all past ratings will have about about 7/8lb difference..just due to chasers winning by further than hurdlers do due to nature of the effect of chasing v hurdling

basically..all hurdlers need 7/8 adding to them..so a hurdler rated 171..is more near 179

Istabraq would be what..182/183
 
Last edited:
on RPR's..Isty is 181 RPR now actually..probably more near 187 once chaser/hurdle bias is corrected..HF 173 RPR is probably 179 in reality

these are fair comparisons with chasers now that bias is built in

even if its only 5 or 6lbs..its an error that should be allowed for..because when a G1 chaser wins by x lengths he gets rated on that..a hurdler cannot beat his oppo the same amounts..its just how it is
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
The list of G1 winners in their own right, who were beaten by Hurricane Fly, is endless - I don't need to list them here. In fact, Hurricane Fly faced at least one other (or subsequent) Grade-1 winner in every single hurdle race he ran in outside novice company.
Click to expand...

Black Caviar regularly beat G1 winners but they were sh1te.

I know you don't need to list what HF beat but or the sake of those who are just getting into the game, these are his last 10 G1 wins and what came second to him with their ORs. The * is for a Champion Hurdle:

Arctic Fire 154
Jezki 169 x2
Our Conor 161
Jezki 161
Marito 138
Thousand Stars 163
*ROR 170
Thousand Stars 163
Unaccompanied 155

The only ones that count as proper races are the ones against Jezki and ROR. The others were racecourse gallops. Not his fault, I accept. He did win against the best of the rest when they bothered to turn up.

I'd be very disappointed if Faugheen couldn't give anything rated 138-163 at least as easy a doing as HF did.

As for which camp I'm in, I'm not trying to ally myself to any camp. I'm just trying to get a handle on the value of the current crop and maybe try and get an idea of where they stand in the pantheon.

HF is in the Istabraq, Comedy Of Errors, Night Nurse, etc, class but I'm far from convinced he was better than them.

I think Faugheen could be too.

Everything else around at the moment is a glorified handicapper.
 
you can add 7lbs to all those hurdler ratings on that list though DO

you are ignoring the chasing winning distance bias that clearly exists

to ignore it is to automatically downgrade all hurdling form from year dot
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
slippage doesn't make the difference up betwen chasers and hurdlers..slippage can happen in both codes

all past ratings will have about about 7/8lb difference..just due to chasers winning by further than hurdlers do due to nature of the effect of chasing v hurdling

basically..all hurdlers need 7/8 adding to them..so a hurdler rated 171..is more near 179

Istabraq would be what..182/183
Click to expand...

The slippage thing was only ever applied to the hurdlers as far as I recall.

The argument about being assessed on winning distances shouldn't really be relevant. A one length win at 5f will be equated to 5 or 6lbs. A one length win at 4m will be equated to about 0.5lbs so the stayer would need to win by 10 lengths for them to equate. That's already built into the system.

I think the difference is that NH horses improve through their careers and hurdlers, for whatever reason, tend to improve for switching to chasing. It's counter-intuitive to me but it seems to be how it works, so a 150 hurdler could easily end up being a 170 chaser but put in back in a hurdles h'cap off 160 and it will be gubbed out of sight.

But the better they are as a hurdler, the less improvement they seem to make as a chaser. I don't know why that should be so but it is.
 
If you were to do the same sort of list for Rooster Booster, it would be the likes of Hasty Prince and Intersky Falcon (and plenty others) that would be bostering his case for greatness. Would'nt it?
 
EC1 said:
you are ignoring the chasing winning distance bias that clearly exists
Click to expand...

I presume you're talking about racing at the same distance here.

I think it's more a case of the good hurdlers being much of a muchness. The difference between the better chasers is more pronounced and that's reflected in the extended distances, rather than the extended distances dictating the difference in ratings.

But go back through all the form and they all make sense.
 
i'm not talking about different distances..i'm talking about the same distances..the CH and CC are over the same distance..the 10 year averages show how the CC winner will always get better ratings...due to the chase/hurdle distance bias

its simple really..handicapping is based on superiority..chasers can put more distance between themselves at teh end of races..hence..will get bigger ratings
 
HawkWing said:
If you were to do the same sort of list for Rooster Booster, it would be the likes of Hasty Prince and Intersky Falcon (and plenty others) that would be bostering his case for greatness. Would'nt it?
Click to expand...

I thought we went over all that at the time. If I get a bit of time I'll go up the loft and check all the figures.

But bearing in mind the average winner of the TGT gets an RPR somewhere around 12lbs higher than its OR RB's effort off 166 speaks for itself.
 
Desert Orchid said:
I presume you're talking about racing at the same distance here.

I think it's more a case of the good hurdlers being much of a muchness. The difference between the better chasers is more pronounced and that's reflected in the extended distances, rather than the extended distances dictating the difference in ratings.

But go back through all the form and they all make sense.
Click to expand...

i'm not even talking about the better chasers..all chase races on average have greater winning distances than hurdles races..so if you handicap..then at every distance...chasers will get on average 7lbs higher ratings due to that
 
EC1 said:
i'm not talking about different distances..i'm talking about the same distances..the CH and CC are over the same distance..the 10 year averages show how the CC winner will always get better ratings...due to the chase/hurdle distance bias

its simple really..handicapping is based on superiority..chasers can put more distance between themselves at teh end of races..hence..will get bigger ratings
Click to expand...

I think this crossed with my previous post.
 
Or even what rating would you give Westender and would you have any champion hurdler in the last 20 years losing to him in that Champion Hurdle?
 
Grasshopper said:
Try comparing apples with apples.

The list of G1 winners in their own right, who were beaten by Hurricane Fly, is endless - I don't need to list them here. In fact, Hurricane Fly faced at least one other (or subsequent) Grade-1 winner in every single hurdle race he ran in outside novice company.

History will be kinder to his record, than those churlish types still feeling the sting of being on the wrong side of him, or who only consider his Champion Hurdle runs, when wieghing-up his career......because the facts are undeniable.

Not sure which camp you're in. :)
Click to expand...

Regardless what camp anyone's in, the form book never lies, thankfully. Jezki on his spring ground, always beat Fly, about 3-4 times. He only beat ROR in his declining period when that one failed to even measure up against Zarkandar earlier in the same season. He beat Solwhit by an average of 2 lengths whose best form over 2 miles is worse than TNO. And finally he beat Go Native in their novice season who in turn won arguably the worst Supreme renewal in recent history just beating Medermit by a whisker and Somersby by a further 2 lengths. These are the champs he beat. I think I forgot he also beat Peddlers Cross by an outstanding margin of 1 length.. you know Peddlers who beat the mighty Starluck also by 1 length. Numbers are what matters 22 G1s, mmokay.
 
Back
Top