The Well Worn Road To The Champion Hurdle (2016)

there is another way to judge whether we are in a good or bad era for each code..we are supposedly in a bad one for hurdlers which is what started the discussion..so just benchmark from a known and agreed champion in each code

I'd say a fair benchark for a champion chaser is Desert Orchid..and obviously Istabraq is the benchmark for real Champion over hurdles. Desert Orchid..OHR at best 185..Istabraq = 176

I think we all agree..we are in a very good era for chasers..fair comment?

looking at the market for the Gold Cup is

Djackadam = 168 = 17 below benchmark
Don Cossack = 175 = 10 below benchmark
Cue Card =175 = 10 below benchmark
Don Poli = 167 = 18 below benchmark
Vautour = 175? = 10 below benchmark

Average = -13 compared to benchmark

Champion Hurdle

Faugheen = 174 = 2 below benchmark
Nichols Canyon = 160 = 16 below benchmark
Arctic Fire = 169 = 7 below benchmark
Identity Thief = 158 = 18 below benchmark
Peace And Co = 159 = 17 below benchmark
My Tent Or Yours = 168 = 8 below benchmark

Average = -11 compared to benchmark

the fact that measured against proper benchmarks we have our current hurdlers nearly the same levels shows that hurdlers at the moment are not poor ..just 2lb different on averages..and thats in a year when we judge it a very good chase division

are hurdlers not that good?..that shows otherwise imo
 
Last edited:
Desert Orchid said:
168 is my benchmark for a Grade 1 whether it's hurdling or chasing.
Click to expand...

Maybe I should go 168 for hurdlers and 175 for chasers?

I might play around with that for a while but I can tell you right now it's going to bring my already moderate opinion of Best Mate down by another 7lbs! :D
 
just read above posts ..DO..you have brought up a very important thing with this..i don't think you were alone in thinking hurdlers aren't all that looking at ratings..probably most raters agree

you say HF was only beating 160 hurdlers..but using that benchmarking way from my above post....thats beating -16 horses compared with the benchmark champion Isty..which in a benchmark comparison is like a chaser beating -16 chasers.....-16 chasers are rated 169

that puts HF into a chasing perspective..

benchmarking is probably a fair way of looking at this
 
Last edited:
These numbers only work if you agree that HF was beating 160-rated hurdlers, and if you are using ORs to benchmark, then Hurricane Fly was beating horses rated a lot higher than that.

Lets be consistent, please.
 
I don't follow that point..i assumed that DO said was beating OHR 160 horses..well the benchmark is -16 for 160 hurdler..which when equated to a chasing level is actually 169 horses he was beating

seems consistent to me
 
The point is that HF was beating horses rated a LOT higher than the 160 DO suggests. Even as an 11yo he was beating the 168-rated Jezki, and he was beating the 161-rated Our Conor 6L giving him weight, as he was rising 10yo.

Using just the bare numbers doesn't tell the full story, and using 160 as a measure of the horse's beaten by Hurricane Fly, only exacerbates the error.
 
Last edited:
Desert Orchid said:
Maybe I should go 168 for hurdlers and 175 for chasers?

I might play around with that for a while but I can tell you right now it's going to bring my already moderate opinion of Best Mate down by another 7lbs! :D
Click to expand...


168 and 175 seem fair

I always think of 160 being a good mark for a decent grade 2 chaser

Chasers have more prestige which is shown in the bigger prizes, far greater handicap options open to them and that majority of horses use hurdling as a stepping stone for fences.

There is a disparity between figures but as Grassy said the simple factor of winning distances could be a predominant factor behind this and add a few lbs for a possible bias between the codes.

Poor Hurricane will always be a horse to divide opinion largely imo for a blip when he was well below best
 
if you look at the figures EC posted for this year's Champion Hurdle market

Champion Hurdle

Faugheen = 174 = 2 below benchmark
Nichols Canyon = 160 = 16 below benchmark
Arctic Fire = 169 = 7 below benchmark
Identity Thief = 158 = 18 below benchmark
Peace And Co = 159 = 17 below benchmark
My Tent Or Yours = 168 = 8 below benchmark

What is clear is that second season hurdlers are rated significantly below those with proven open race form, thus Faugheen, MTOY and Arctic Fire having significantly higher ratings than the others in most likelihood due to prior Champion Hurdle runs.

so the fact that Hurricane Fly was beating 160+ rated horses such as Jezki and Our Connor the year after their novice campaign is clearly misleading. Once Rock on Ruby reached a mark of 170 Hurricane Fly still beat him comfortably in the Champion.
 
Grasshopper said:
The point is that HF was beating horses rated a LOT higher than the 160 DO suggests. Even as an 11yo he was beating the 168-rated Jezki, and he was beating the 161-rated Our Conor 6L giving him weight, as he was rising 10yo.

Using just the bare numbers doesn't tell the full story, and using 160 as a measure of the horse's beaten by Hurricane Fly, only exacerbates the error.
Click to expand...

i only quoted DO..i wasn't saying HF only ever beat that level

stop being so defensive..i'm actually in your corner here..i'm putting hurdlers where they should be..if HF beat 168 hoss which he did..then that is a benchmark -7 horse he beat

HF has an OHR best of 175..thats only -1 off the benchmark Isty..looks decent to me
 
EC1 said:
i only quoted DO..i wasn't saying HF only ever beat that level

stop being so defensive..i'm actually in your corner here..i'm putting hurdlers where they should be..if HF beat 168 hoss which he did..then that is a benchmark -7 horse he beat

HF has an OHR best of 175..thats only -1 off the benchmark Isty..looks decent to me
Click to expand...

I'm genuinely not being defensive. I'm just giving my perspective on the quality of Hurricane Fly's opponents. In my view, DO's rating of them is too low for your bench-mark comparison to be accurate. Nothing more than that - honest, injun. :)

If we are striving for some degree of accuracy..........and what would be the point otherwise?.............everything is spun around the input ratings you give the beaten horses. Simply brushing-aside Hurricane Fly's opponents as "160 horses" is misleading and inaccurate, based on the freely-available form-lines - hence the need to challenge it, because your analysis thereafter is based on incorrect input information.

All of this is prefaced by three things.

This is just my opinion, and I'm no more right (or wrong) than the next guy. Others will view it differently, I freely concede, and good luck to them.

Two, interpretation still plays a core part in everything we do to generate our input rating, and there is a lot of subjectivity involved. No matter what we do with numbers, it can always be argued the other way.

Finally, I will continue to be first out the trenches, whenever I see Hurricane Fly's record undersold. This has been well-advertised, and should not come as a shock to you. :ninja:
 
Last edited:
It's certainly a discussion for the purists this one! The discrepancy you have highlighted only really has a practical use if a hurdler goes chasing does it not? Or maybe I'm missing something. Even then a number doesn't really help when the variable of jumping a fence rather than a hurdle comes into play (Peddlers Cross, Rock On Ruby).

Putting a single number on something with so many variables is beyond difficult, in fact it's so incredibly difficult that I believe the figure means very little. I'd rather just remember the great races and the superb performances in their own time Rooster Booster being a prime example. Ultimately his OR for that Champion Hurdle win won't be the best but visually it was one of the most stunning performances I can recall. The stars just aligned for him on that day. I kind've understand why people would like to compare that to other 2m hurdlers but what's the point in trying to compare that to what Moscow Flyer or Denman did? If an atheltics forum exists do they have 5 page discussions trying to compare Usain Bolt to Ed Moses? I doubt it.

I guess this post will be lost in the larger conversation here but I reckon it's the view of the average racing fan so it deserves a voice.
 
Last edited:
TheBear said:
It's certainly a discussion for the purists this one! The discrepancy you have highlighted only really has a practical use if a hurdler goes chasing does it not?
Click to expand...

Agreed, The Bear.

It's like I said earlier; does it really matter?

Definitely one for the purists, as you say! :lol:
 
the purpose of it is that Hurdlers haven't been shite for 20 years..in fact they've been as they should be..and even this year they up to to the level of the chasers..bar 2lb

not sure why it has to have a purpose really..if it makes the level of hurdlers more understandable to people ..then its useful
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
About 7 minutes before me, I think.

I always come away with a silver-mdeal in discussions with you, EC1. :lol:
Click to expand...

when i compared the CH with the CC beaten lengths yesterday, post 360...was when i said thats why it was happening..you don't read posts properly..keep up lad:)

7 minutes..phaa:)
 
Last edited:
I suppose it has been useful in terms of dispelling the notion that the hurdlers are comparatively weak....which is kind of where it started.

Let's have no talk of fishwives. I don't harbour any grudges, EC1, and I'd need to be a basket-case to mention it again. Whilst the result was obviously gutting, I shawl never again, make any such references.

:whistle:
 
Last edited:
I know what you're saying EC but why put a number on it in the first place? Nobody on here thinks that a horse inherits 7lbs worth of ability just because it jumps a fence. Ratings are there for a current practical purpose, to handicap a horse. I don't look at them as a means to compare a champion hurdler today to a champion chaser 20 years ago and the system isn't designed to do that either.

I'm probably going to get shot down for this because my knowledge isn't where yours is, but doesn't the fact that current horses in training are essentially operating off separate handicap marks (hurdles & fences) tell you that the two disciplines are not meant to be compared?
 
Think there is a lot of truth in that, TheBear.

I think what EC has produced is an attempt to allow that comparison to be made, though.
 
Grasshopper said:
Simply brushing-aside Hurricane Fly's opponents as "160 horses" is misleading and inaccurate, based on the freely-available form-lines - hence the need to challenge it, because your analysis thereafter is based on incorrect input information.
Click to expand...

That remark, though, was in the context of the argument that HF racked up so many Grade 1s it automatically made him an all-time great.

I just happen to think that he was mopping up decent prizes because there wasn't much around to test him. He could win them while still only half-fit. However, when he took on the very best of what was around he still beat them, including at Cheltenham. That's what made him a top hurdler in my opinion. I always said the same about Istabraq. (Yet didn't Copeland or something like that beat him one day?)
 
Back
Top