The Well Worn Road To The Champion Hurdle (2016)

[Colin Phillips]

Some nice friendly discussions on this thread, well done, informative as well.

 

[Aughex]

EC1 I don't think the nominal rating of chasers and hurdlers really matter and as I've said trying to figure out what kind of difference there is between them is impossible. I know that for outsiders when they read that Don Cossack is rated 180 and is the best NH horse they might think the best hurdler is inferior but on second thought the difference between disciplines is obvious even for them. The slippage, as far as I know, only occurs for the same discipline, I remember when BHA did that flat ratings reassessment and Frankel came on top, even for that they coulnd't accurately measure it, they only counted the number of horses that were beyond 120 and 130 in UK at that time vs the numbers in the world and they basically guessed when the slippage occurred and adjusted the ratings for each year since then. Can you imagine how hard if not impossible it would be to make an unified NH rating system for chasers and hurdlers?

PS. I believe on Matt Chapman program, Phil Smith explained that when a horse jumps between hurdles and fences they simply delete their rating of the other discipline. Correct me if i'm wrong, but I think they do take into account the rating a horse had as hurdler as a guide when going chasing but not the other way around.

 

[Maruco]

This is one of the best debates on here for a long time and I hope it doesn't go in the wrong direction.

I've long since felt that two mile hurdlers at the top end have been underrated compared to staying hurdlers and chasers. It's totally illogical that they should be rated so low by comparison when we know that the pool of talent has increased. For what it's worth EC's view is almost identical to my own. I suspect the handicapper has been under rating them for close to a decade.

 

[Grasshopper]

:lol: what a load of.... yes he was a veteran but so was 11yo Thousand Stars who thoroughly beat Fly at the former's preferred Auteuil course. ROR only got beat by him the following season of winning the CH when he was massively on the downgrade. Marito... Jezki on his spring ground(on which he was at his best and a champion) beat by Fly 3 out of 4 times(he came 2 lengths behind in last season CH but McCoy blamed himself for taking Faugheen on too early). Our Conor was rated 164 for that 1.5 L defeat. Arctic Fire, like Mullins said progressed way passed Fly by the time he got that 169 rating. When Fly beat AF, he was only rated 154 and 157. What is the point trying to hype his form? He had other attributes that other horses rarely have, his form is not great.

You are a complete clown, but I will try very hard to accommodate this fact in 2016.

 

[Desert Orchid]

I've long since felt that two mile hurdlers at the top end have been underrated compared to staying hurdlers and chasers. It's totally illogical that they should be rated so low by comparison when we know that the pool of talent has increased. For what it's worth EC's view is almost identical to my own. I suspect the handicapper has been under rating them for close to a decade.

The thing is, though, if you go back through all the ratings for the past 20 years you'll find that for the last seven or eight at least the ORs have been higher than before so they must have been under-rating them by so much more for the dozen or so years before that.

You'll still see it nowadays. I don't buy the RP so don't know if they include RPRs in the results section the next day but check the Weekender pullouts or the RP online results (I think you'll need membership to access them) and you'll see that very often - probably at least 90% of the time - ORs following novice hurdle races (especially) or class 3 or lower handicap hurdles are higher than RPRs.

Let me give you a couple of examples pretty much at random from this last week:

Lingfield 21/12, race 3196, Class 3
1. Dormouse (OR114) - RPR 118, new OR 120

Fontwell 26/12, race 3217, Class 4
1. At First Light (112) - RPR 116, new OR 118

Huntingdon 26/12, race 3223, Class 4
1. Ballinalacken (103) - RPR 106, new OR 109

Kempton 26/12, race 3232, Class 3
1. Baron Alco (127) - RPR 130p, new OR 134

At Market Rasen the same day all three winners of the handicap hurdles got new ORs higher than their RPRs.

Where the winners were by very wide margins the RPRs tended to shade the new ORs. I suspect it's that the compilers of the ORs are reluctant to go that extra bit, assuming the result shouldn't be taken at face value.

This has been a feature of the results for as long as I can remember. It doesn't happen to the same extent in chases.

Only one of the two, at best, can be right. So it looks, if anything, like either RPRs are going too low or ORs too high. That doesn't bother me but my own ratings are usually, if anything, higher than ORs.

Let's face the facts: handicaps are won because the winner is better than the handicapper thinks so logic dictates that the handicapper, if anything, under-rates horses. But the higher up the class chain you go the more reliable the form, hence the more reliable the ORs are likely to be.

There is another argument, though, that once you move up the classes ORs start under-rating. It's a problem I identified with my own figures a couple of seasons back and started rectifying it. There's approximately 5lbs difference on the scales between the top handicaps and the top conditions races. It also explains why Timeform's higher class ratings are about 5lbs higher than the equivalent ORs and RPRs.

Don't take my word for it. Go check it out yourself.

So I suppose I could bite the bullet and up all my top non-handicap ratings (hurdlers and chasers) by 5lbs or so. That would put Hurricane Fly, for example, nearer the 180 mark but then again it would also put the second-raters like Thousand Stars on close to 170. And can we really consider Rock On Ruby a 175+ hurdler?

 

[Grasshopper]

The argument about Hurdle versus Chase ratings, and any perceived differential between how the two are compiled, is really just esoteric navel-gazing, imo.

What difference does it make if Hurdles marks are lower than those given for Chasers? And is there any concrete proof that this happens anyway? I'm not so sure that there is.

Besides, ratings should be personal to the individual, in my view. I personally CNGAF how a horse is rated officially by the Handicapper......or Timeform......or anyone else. I measure horses on MY scale, which will always vary to some degree from others, based on how I personally interpret a given horses form. The same argument applies in DO's examples above, where there is variance between the OR and the RPR - their methods will vary slightly.

For me, the only time an Official Rating becomes useful, is in trying to identify a horse who is well (or badly) handicapped, based on how I view the race. I certainly don't buy into the theory that the Official Mark is always an accurate reflection of a horses merit; during or after a career.

If you rate horses using your own scale/method. the issue of differential between Hurdlers/Chases tends to disappear too.

 

[Desert Orchid]

Of course how you rate a horse is entirely personal but surely the aim is to strive for accuracy because the more accurately you can assess them the more likely you are to identify winners.

I do envy people with an ability to watch a race and accurately assess what they've just witnessed. One of my brothers has just such an eye but he tends to identify 'types' and wait for them to appear in certain races likely to suit. He only punts to very small stakes, though, so doesn't care whether he wins or loses over a season. He just likes it as a hobby. I can't afford to be that casual when I'm betting five figures per year.

As I say, I'm the type who needs almost everything to be 'measurable', if I can put it like that, and allocating an accurate numerical figure to a performance strikes me as the most effective and efficient way of doing it. It's getting the accuracy consistently that's the hard bit!!

 

[EC1]

The argument about Hurdle versus Chase ratings, and any perceived differential between how the two are compiled, is really just esoteric navel-gazing, imo.

What difference does it make if Hurdles marks are lower than those given for Chasers? And is there any concrete proof that this happens anyway? I'm not so sure that there is.

it makes a lot of difference in discussions you yourself have been having with DO since yesterday for one. you blowing your top when he includes HF in that..but DO is only stating that most hurdlers are only beating 160 odd horses most of time..which under current way of rating is not correct imo..for the reasons i've already gone on about.

the reason this discussion started was that DO said that the last 20 years of Hurdlers are poorish..and on the current way they are calculated..either by pro organisations or individuals..they look that in comparison to chasers

When we discuss ratings..our mindset is based on the chase levels of ratings..so if someone says that looks a poor race if a G1 race winner only gets a 170..then thats how we view a G1 race full stop...we have got used to a decent grade one winner being north of 175..then if we see 180+ ers we know they are above average. That view we have of levels of performance when viewing hurdlers always makes them look inferior..ie Ch average is 170..CC average is 179.

Its a fact that chase races have larger finishing distances between winner and the horse that race will be rated off...as demonstrated in the CC v CH example.

I don't think handicaps or graded races makes any difference...when you make ratings for a full season..treating chasers and hurdlers the same..you are guaranteed to rate the chaser higher...and tahts the same level of horse in each code having 7/8 lb difference in rating.

Any discussion we have about ratings..and we have a lot..whatever anyone thinks about them..its how we judge horses. My point is its a bit silly running down hurdlers for having 7/8lb less ratings than chasers..and thats whats happened just over tha last day re HF on this thread..every rating quoted looks poor by G1 chase standards..."oh HF is only a 172 hoss and thats **** coz even average G1 hosses are about 173-175..really good ones are 180..he can't be that good can he. So that sort of discussion is created just by the chase/hurdle bias..just on its own..so to ignore that bias is sort of wasting your life posting about hurdlers ratings..they are irrelevant to judging just how good the top ones are whilst every hurdler has no chance of ever equalling a same lavel chasers rating

so to say..what difference does it make Grass..is burying your head to the reall reason why hurdlers are always going to get run down..like your HF.

Does anyone reallly think for instance that the best hurdler in last 25 years Istabraq is only rated OHR 175..thats all the Official handicapper gave to him...does that look like a champion rated horse?..its only 6lb more than Menorah ...a G2 chaser. So the very best hurdler in the last 25 years..is just an average G1 hoss in chase terms...does that seem correct?

If we look at the a horse like Denman..who would probably be a fair comparison to Istabraq in terms of "great"..he was OHR rated 182

See the difference in ratings?

Surely its better that we have both codes on the same lines

 

[EC1]

If you rate horses using your own scale/method. the issue of differential between Hurdlers/Chases tends to disappear too.

sorry missed this bit

no it absolutely does not disappear..thats is the whole point of the discussion..are you not seeing that?..its got nothing to do with who rates them..a 1000 people could rate them..and all 1000 would have chasers higher than hurdlers

 

[Euronymous]

Istabraq was rated 180 by Timeform I think, more in line with his standing I suppose.

 

[EC1]

Istabraq was rated 180 by Timeform I think, more in line with his standing I suppose.

but..TF ratings in general are higher than OHR...what did they rate Denman?..so we can see the same comparison.

I'd expect a champion of 25 years to have a higher rating..even by their standards..i'd expect they have Denman at 185/186..again we have Istabraq that bit lower..if thats what they have for denman

 

[Grasshopper]

sorry missed this bit

no it absolutely does not disappear..thats is the whole point of the discussion..are you not seeing that?..its got nothing to do with who rates them..a 1000 people could rate them..and all 1000 would have chasers higher than hurdlers

It absolutely does though!

If you apply the same method (whatever your method might be) consistently across the board, regardless of whether a horse is in a hurdle race or a steeplechase, then your will remediate any bias between disciplines as you go.

DO's original position is that hurdlers are poor in comparison to their steeplechase contemporaries. That is really only true if you use ORs as your barometer.

 

[EC1]

if we talking about TF..these are their ratings rather than looking at one horse

212	Arkle
210	Flyingbolt
192p	Sprinter Sacre
191	Kauto Star, Mill House
187	Desert Orchid
186	Dunkirk
184	Burrough Hill Lad, Moscow Flyer, Long Run
183	Denman, Master Oats
182	Azertyuiop, Best Mate, Captain Christy, Carvill's Hill, Kicking King, See More Business, Well Chief

<tbody>
[TD="class: style17m, colspan: 2"]chasers[/TD]

</tbody>

hurdlers
[TABLE="width: 707"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD]182
[/TD]
[TD]Night Nurse[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]180[/TD]
[TD]Istabraq, Monksfield[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]179[/TD]
[TD]Persian War[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]178[/TD]
[TD]Comedy of Errors, Le Sauvignon[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]177[/TD]
[TD]Lanzarote, Limestone Lad[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]176[/TD]
[TD]Bird's Nest, Bula, Golden Cygnet[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]175[/TD]
[TD]Baracouda, Gaye Brief, Salmon Spray, Sea Pigeon


[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]

just looking at that tells you there is shortfall between chasers and hurdlers ratings..Long Run for instance is 4lb higher than Istabraq..the best hurdler in the last 40 years ..not 25 years..is 4lb less than Long Run..a decent chaser..but is Long Run a better horse than Istabraq?..Isty is 7lb short of Desert Orchid..who is probably a horse we could say..ratings wise..Isty should have a similar figure to

Persian War..a hurdling legend is 3lb inferior to See More Business..SMB.again a decent chaser..is he really better than a hurdler who is in the top 4 hurdlers of all time

this is no criticism of the ratings..all ratings will have these differences between similar level horses

 

[EC1]

It absolutely does though!

If you apply the same method (whatever your method might be) consistently across the board, regardless of whether a horse is in a hurdle race or a steeplechase, then your will remediate any bias between disciplines as you go.

DO's original position is that hurdlers are poor in comparison to their steeplechase contemporaries. That is really only true if you use ORs as your barometer.

sorry..you have missed the whole point..if you apply the same method to chasers and hurdlers..you will always get chasers having higher ratings..due to winning distances being greater..thats a fact

it makes no difference what figures DO quoted..thats irrelevant..OHR..TF..it doesn't matter..hurdlers ratings calculated off other horses will always be lower than chasers..you can't alter that without an adjustment

its not only true with OR's..Timeform have same difference..as will every rating..RPR whatever..they are all based on AvB

 

[Grasshopper]

Chasers & Hurdlers - All-Time highest ratings, in the years since I started watching racing (1991). Hurdlers in italics:

Sprinter Sacre 192p
Kauto Star 191
Moscow Flyer 184+
Long Run 184
Master Oats 183
Azertyioup, Best Mate, Carvills Hill, Imperial Commander, Kicking King, See More Business, Well Chief all 182
Denman 181

All of the above are rated higher than the highest-rated hurdler in that time-frame i.e. Istabraq (180). Next highest rated hurdler is Big Bucks on 176+, and then Baracouda and Deano's Beano on 175. On this basis, the bias appears to exist within the Timeform ratings too.

Could this possibly be down to exaggerated winning distances over fences than hurdles? Honestly not sure.

 

[Grasshopper]

sorry..you have missed the whole point..if you apply the same method to chasers and hurdlers..you will always get chasers having higher ratings..due to winning distances being greater..thats a fact

it makes no difference what figures DO quoted..thats irrelevant..OHR..TF..it doesn't matter..hurdlers ratings calculated off other horses will always be lower than chasers..you can't alter that without an adjustment

its not only true with OR's..Timeform have same difference..as will every rating..RPR whatever..they are all based on AvB

Just clocked this......the key is perhaps indeed the greater winning distances in chases.

Assuming that is the case, then what is the issue? Winning margins rightly count, when it comes to handicapping.

 

[wilsonl]

Really useful posts EC, they make a lot of sense but agreed that they're only really meaningful in a thread like this.

Does anybody really think that Azertyuiop, Best Mate, Captain Christy, Carvill's Hill, Kicking King, See More Business or Well Chief are "pound for pound" on par with the greatest hurdler ever rated ?

 

[Grasshopper]

Kicking King's rating is a total fantasy, based on an interpretation that Azertyuiop got the trip in the King George (which he clearly did not). There is no way KK is worth 180+......no chance. And SMB's rating is equally dubious, imo.

 

[EC1]

Not if it causes a disparity between codes..that people expect to be the same scale..you clearly do..as does DO..DO stated all hurdlers in last 20 years are poor..they are only poor in comparison to chasers ratings

there is clearly a difference between a chaser winning by 20..and a hurdler winning by 20..its easier to win a chase by 20 than a hurdle race..that needs correcting if we want to compare codes..as you and DO clearly do...as we all will at some point

 

[EC1]

Kicking King's rating is a total fantasy, based on an interpretation that Azertyuiop got the trip in the King George (which he clearly did not). There is no way KK is worth 180+......no chance. And SMB's rating is equally dubious, imo.

to me personally..there is no issue..the only reason i brought this topic up..is that hurdlers were getting a hard time re ratings..all i've done is highlight why raters think they aren't very good.

 

[EC1]

they're only really meaningful in a thread like this.

thanks Wilson..that is spot on..how many threads do we talk about ratings on?..its most of em..i think this.."hurdlers are poor issue" needed addressing

i've done that now..so will move on

 

[Euronymous]

to me personally..there is no issue..the only reason i brought this topic up..is that hurdlers were getting a hard time re ratings..all i've done is highlight why raters think they aren't very good.

I don't think any hurdlers have deserved a 180 type rating since Istabraq so agree. Big Buck's dominated a terrible division.

Kicking King and Long Run are outliers in that they were just horribly overrated. Long Run at his best would have maybe finished a couple of lengths in front of Al Ferof last week tops.

 

[Desert Orchid]

..DO stated all hurdlers in last 20 years are poor..they are only poor in comparison to chasers ratings

I'm not sure I referred to them as poor, and certainly not all. I would never rate Rooster Booster as 'poor', and most certainly not Istabraq or Big Bucks'.

Without going back through the thread, I might have not worded something as well as I could have but the gist of my argument is that Hurricane Flay was generally beating horses rated around 160, which is poor for CH class [ie the 160, not HF], and I used those low figures to cast doubt on what HF achieved in racking up his G1s.

Istabraq, probably the highest hurdler I've rated, was the same. he had nothing [anywhere near as good as he] to beat in most of his races.

168 is my benchmark for a Grade 1 whether it's hurdling or chasing.

I think the fact that more of the hurdlers that are not going to win the Champion Hurdle or Stayers' Hurdle are sent chasing and get the chance to improve further has to factored into the debate.

The top hurdlers are far thinner on the ground the the top chasers (because so many of those good hurdlers go chasing) and the fact that there is more money in chasing than in hurdling has to be a factor too.

In the same way that my benchmark for a G1 winner on the Flat is 126, I'm regularly whingeing about Derby winners falling short of that while extolling those that hit 130+.

It's why I get phlegmatic about winners of so-called top hurdles races that only clock 162 or 163 (eg, the likes of The New One), so when they get close in a Champion Hurdle I take a negative view of that race. (Intersky Falcon was 164-ish. How close did he ever get in a Champion Hurdle? Past Master was about 166 yet he got quite close to Night Nurse once. Do we have a problem with consistency?)

It's also why I get excited about something that posts a 168+ hurdles rating, especially away from a championship race as I know it might be giving me an ante-post opportunity.

But there does seem to be more 168+ chasers around.

I think there is maybe more scope for there to be the exceptional chaser than hurdler.

So what kind of perspective do we put the current bunch of 2-mile chasers into?

They're all 170-173-ish, so technically they're all 'proper' Grade 1 horses. But we know other horses of the past 10 years have been a whole lot better.

EC1 has certainly made me think a bit more about this!

 

[Grasshopper]

So......if we agree that the disparity is likely down to winning distances, then we're left with two options.

We either accept that winning distances count when handicapping (and hurdlers are therefore likely to always be rated lower)......or we adjust for that fact, in order to bring parity.

My concern with option two, is that the rating for hurdlers would need to be manufactured to a degree. Simply adding 6lbs (or whatever) as a weighting measure seems a little too arbitrary to me.

And given they are different disciplines, do we really need parity anyway? Isn't it just easier to accept that, due to winning distances being shorter over hurdles, they will always be rated slightly lower than chasers?

This doesn't mean hurdlers are 'poorer' than chasers - which was the original point being made - it just means they are measured on a slightly different scale e.g. an exceptional chase rating might be 180+, but an exceptional hurdle rating might be 175+......but they are both exceptional.

 

[Grasshopper]

This is a good discussion, btw.