- This topic has 255 replies, 44 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Your choice, Steve, but having wrongly built a substantial part of your case around Topspeed then complained that nobody was seeing your point, you could have stepped out with a bit more grace than that.
Mark, I’m not saying anything is impossible, but there’s a difference in using two sets of data to form an educated guess and declaring that, in effect, horse A is effectively x seconds faster than horse B therefore had horse B run in horse race A’s race he would have finished second.
According to a sectionals guy on twitter (I haven’t checked but have found this fella reliable in the past) Bristol De Mai got to 3 out a shade over 13 seconds ahead of CTS. What we do not know is what tactics CTS’s jockey would have pursued, knowing of Bristol De Mai’s past performances there, but I doubt he’d have been lying well off the pace. To have any chance of catching Bristol De Mai – as the riders on his Betfair rivals demonstrated – you had to try to keep him in your sights. So the question you meed to ask is how would CTS have fared if he’d tried to reach three out 10 seconds (or more) faster than he ultimately did?
And to your earlier question I’d say no, I don’t believe ay horse has gone at the same pace as Bristol De Mai did in ground that was the same as Saturday’s and carrying the same weight. Your comparison word was ‘similar’ and that depends a hell of a lot on the parameters of ‘similar’. In the same ground, with the same weight? No. I think if that had been done we would know all about it.
As to this Arkle thing, we seem to be going round in circles. Nobody has said Bristol De Mai is better than Arkle. I have said that, had Arkle run in the race, he might have beaten Bristol De Mai and he might not have. Do I believe it was a performance of 185? I believe it was much higher. Does that mean I think he’ll reproduce it on faster ground at a different venue? Most unlikely, but I most definitely do not rule out him doing it again in the same conditions at Haydock.
I know you didn’t mention Arkle, but what I am saying is if someone believes Cue Card ran to the same rating as he did in previous runnings of this race; then that person must also rate Bristol De Mai as higher than Arkle. That’s what the form is… It’s impossible to rate Bristol De Mai anything else IF believing Cue Card ran to form.
We are discussing how good Bristol De Mai is, are we not?
In other words, what rating can be given to Bristol De Mai.On the Timeform scale, what rating would you give him, Joe (or anyone else)?
What rating do you think Cue Card ran to on Saturday?
I’ve already said I believe BDM ran to a very similar rating to what Cue Card did in previous runnings.
Point is we are trying to assertain how good Bristol De Mai is, ie how high we can rate him… So although we don’t know that Chase The Spud would’ve run in exactly the same manner as he did in the handicap. What we do know is had he done so he’d have been runner-up, just over 10 seconds behind… And (I say again) we are trying to assertain how good a performance BDM put up, in other wiords how high a rating can we give him… We can not use the other horses that ran in the Betfair, because nothing else was anywhere near their best. So knowing about Chase The Spud’s performance gives us the best idea of what we can rate Bristol De Mai. Of course you can add a “+” or a “p” to the rating, it would be churlish not to. ie BDM might have been able to run even better than the rating we can give him* had he not (if he did (I’m sceptical)) run them in to the ground and paid for it himself late on. But the rating he actually achieved on the day is whatever it is… with the “+” or “p”.
*Running opponents in to the ground is a valid tactic that allows a horse to win, but it does not mean we can inflate a horse’s rating. eg Think Coneygree in the Gold Cup. Nothing could live with his relentless galloping and probably won because it. But we can not rate the performance higer than the actual form achieved just because he ran them in to the ground. Similarly we can not with Bristol De Mai. Form is form and he put up a performance just over 10 seconds faster than Chase The Spud did in very similar conditions. So if rating it a Timeform scale 185 that’s far too high, and if you rate him “much higher” you’re not looking at the available evidence. 175+ possibly, any higher? No, at least not yet.
Value Is EverythingBristol De Mai earned a rating of 145 from Topspeed in the Racing Post for yesterday’s race. Mike has already said his figure was lower on 128. I don’t know what figure Mike gave Cue Card but I do know that Topspeed gave him 95 and that is miles under his best figure of 161 recorded in the same race two years ago. You need to go back to the King George in 2012, behind winner Long Run, to find a race where Cue Card earned a lower figure from Topspeed.
Steve I gave cue card a speed figure of 99.
The reason Dave Edwards ended up with a speed figure of 144 for Bristol De Mai, was simply down to his going allowance of -1.50s/f (heavy), which was way over the top on the day, and in his speed figures he is expected to reflect the over the top RPR of 185 given to Bristol De Mai.
Another problem is the lbs per length figures that the RP uses, 1 pound equals 1 length, over the distance raced on Saturday of 3m1½f, my calculation is 0.51 lbs per length.
When I calculate going allowances I use a variance tied in with the official ratings, which gives me an accurate assessment to the actual conditions on the day.
Mike.
as much as stats are great and accessible nowadays, it can make you rely on them a bit too much and not trust whats right in front of you.
what my eyes saw was a horse win a G1 on the bridle by 57 lengths. I dont buy that every other horse in the race has run 30 pounds below their norm.
of course BDM loves the mud at Haydock, but to try and throw that win out like it was a mere fluke is surely madness. I straight away took some 8’s for the King George after.
As per my previous comments before the race, I was far from a BDM fan and thought he was a bit of a cliff to follow, but that performance has changed my mind.
never understood why people get really angst with ratings of these G1 horses. Not like they are going to be put in handicaps, so really, what does it matter.
Mark, I get it that ‘we’ need to rate the performance in an effort to find out how good Bristol De Mai is, but with complete outliers like that it is finger in the air stuff for everybody and I mean everybody. Even the BHA has no pounds per length measure for races run in those conditions.
But, if you want something, well, Dan Barber, Timeform’s Jumps Editor, responded to my Saturday afternoon tweet saying Cue Card ran about 35lbs below his best. That’s no less conjecture than saying Bristol De Mai ran 35lbs above his best (which was my response to Dan). And what kicked the this whole thing off was my annoyance that racing ‘experts’ invariably have a knee jerk response to races like this and that response is – nothing ran to form! Nothing ran its race!
Don’t they realise how ridiculous and unlikely that is taken at face value? They are saying a field of what were apparently perfectly healthy horses who’d shown no sign of being under the weather as they lined up at the tape had, by the end of the race, all got sick or ran amiss? What was it, some zombie airborne plague that descended during that race only at Haydock and affected all bar the winner?
It’s utterly ludicrous from any point of non-racing logic.
But you and I know that they don’t mean he ‘didn’t run his race’ or ‘nothing ran to form’, what they mean is ‘he was a perfectly fit and healthy racehorse who could not cope with the prevailing conditions or the pace the winner set’. And, further, ‘We are at a loss in how to rate races like this so we will all just stick together and say again “nothing ran its race”‘
That’s a travesty. I know you all need it, you have to stick with convention and append a figure to everything, but that ends up doing a gross injustice to a fabulous performance.
Anyway, if you want a figure, I’d add Dan’s 35lbs to Bristol De Mai rather than taking it off Cue Card – we are talking their official ratings here – and for this race only would give Bristol De Mai a figure of 195.
As to the time comparison with CTS, again, I believe you are being literal when you simply cannot logically be. Had CTS gone the pace of Bristol De Mai what then would his final time have been? If he’d matched Bristol De Mai and got to 3 out 13 seconds than he (CTS) actually did, how long would it have taken him to get home from there? Would he have got home at all? Would he have had energy left to even get over the last three fences?
I’m not sure I have much more to offer here as we’re going over old ground with a slightly different spin each time. In summary, my feelings, which will not change, are that when history is made in racing, applaud it. Don’t disrespect the history maker simply because he’s broken the framework you rely on. It’s the framework that’s at fault here, not the horse.
Your choice, Steve, but having wrongly built a substantial part of your case around Topspeed then complained that nobody was seeing your point, you could have stepped out with a bit more grace than that.
Wrongly built a case? It’s only part of it. The horse’s worst performance on the clock in five years is not good enough for you?
You should bow out with grace Joe, because you are out of your depth here. You admit to not having the grasp of how the figures work regarding time and ratings, yet try to come up with a ridiculous rating of 195 for Bristol De Mai.
The OFFICIAL handicapper awarded Bristol De Mai 173 for the race. Somehow, you think your 195 Figure is more accurate. It’s an utterly ridiculous notion Joe. Instead of insulting other people’s thinking, you should consider that professional people are saying you are not just wrong, but ridiculously wrong.
Trying to err with putting UP Bristol De Mai rather than putting Cue Card DOWN, is fatally flawed Logic. There is no limit on how BADLY a horse can run but we have tons of data on the upper limit of a horse’s ability. That is basic, common sense logic when analysing the data.
I suggested 171 as a more realistic figure for Bristol De Mai and the official handicapper has awarded him 173. I am satisfied enough that I have assessed the performance in line with the person being paid to do the job. If you see yourself as being better than him, and me, then that is your belief to hold.
There is no point in trying to argue with someone who has a blinkered view. There is no lack of grace on my part, just tedium from a clearly ridiculous notion that insults the true great National Hunt horses of our time.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Steve, the OFFICIAL handicapper didn’t award him 173 for the race, he adjusted the horse’s official rating to 173 overall. Between this and your Topspeed assertion, I’ll leave others to decide which of us is out of his depth here.
So are you basing your 195 figure as a performance against other “Officially rated” horses and therefore saying it’s the best performance since the Arkle/Flyingbolt days or would you personally have given say Kauto Star a higher than 195 figure for his 2009 KG performance?
Mark, I get it that ‘we’ need to rate the performance in an effort to find out how good Bristol De Mai is, but with complete outliers like that it is finger in the air stuff for everybody and I mean everybody. Even the BHA has no pounds per length measure for races run in those conditions.
But, if you want something, well, Dan Barber, Timeform’s Jumps Editor, responded to my Saturday afternoon tweet saying Cue Card ran about 35lbs below his best. That’s no less conjecture than saying Bristol De Mai ran 35lbs above his best (which was my response to Dan). And what kicked the this whole thing off was my annoyance that racing ‘experts’ invariably have a knee jerk response to races like this and that response is – nothing ran to form! Nothing ran its race!
Don’t they realise how ridiculous and unlikely that is taken at face value? They are saying a field of what were apparently perfectly healthy horses who’d shown no sign of being under the weather as they lined up at the tape had, by the end of the race, all got sick or ran amiss? What was it, some zombie airborne plague that descended during that race only at Haydock and affected all bar the winner?
It’s utterly ludicrous from any point of non-racing logic.
But you and I know that they don’t mean he ‘didn’t run his race’ or ‘nothing ran to form’, what they mean is ‘he was a perfectly fit and healthy racehorse who could not cope with the prevailing conditions or the pace the winner set’. And, further, ‘We are at a loss in how to rate races like this so we will all just stick together and say again “nothing ran its race”‘
That’s a travesty. I know you all need it, you have to stick with convention and append a figure to everything, but that ends up doing a gross injustice to a fabulous performance.
Anyway, if you want a figure, I’d add Dan’s 35lbs to Bristol De Mai rather than taking it off Cue Card – we are talking their official ratings here – and for this race only would give Bristol De Mai a figure of 195.
As to the time comparison with CTS, again, I believe you are being literal when you simply cannot logically be. Had CTS gone the pace of Bristol De Mai what then would his final time have been? If he’d matched Bristol De Mai and got to 3 out 13 seconds than he (CTS) actually did, how long would it have taken him to get home from there? Would he have got home at all? Would he have had energy left to even get over the last three fences?
I’m not sure I have much more to offer here as we’re going over old ground with a slightly different spin each time. In summary, my feelings, which will not change, are that when history is made in racing, applaud it. Don’t disrespect the history maker simply because he’s broken the framework you rely on. It’s the framework that’s at fault here, not the horse.
Joe,
Of course it’s a difficult job to rate a performance like this, but it’s not “finger in the air stuff”. In this particular race there’s very good reason to believe all the other horses ran well below their form. I effectively said as much beforehand! Actually saying that no horse in this field was sure to stay… And what happens if they don’t stay? They don’t show their form. In this race only one horse stayed.Traffic Fluide couldn’t stay this far in a horsebox and totally outclassed. Was he likely to run to form?
Shantou Flyer‘s good form is at around 2 1/2 miles and had moved stables since that good form, running poorly first start/reappearance for Hobson. Was he likely to run to form?
Tea For Two had won a graduation chase at 3m on soft, but his best form is King George day and Betfair Bowl – on good-soft and good both at 3m. Totally different to 3m1f175yrds on bottomless ground. Had a chance of staying but there was a significant doubt. Importantly after travelling in to the straight better than Cue Card and Outlander, was out on his feet two out and clambered over the last; just as you’d expect from a non-stayer. Did he run to form?
Outlander won the Lexus at 3m on good-soft but didn’t run atall between Christmas and Gold Cup – beaten by halfway. Similar story in Punchestown Gold Cup. Operated on for a kissing spine. Might have needed the race reappearance, but that’s questionable now. Certainly ran well to win JNWine. I thought beforehand he was probably over his problems, but there’s a good chance he’s now a hit and miss sort… And that’s if he’ll truly stay? Yet to prove himself beyond 3m – JNWine was on soft at 3m but 3m1f175yrds on bottomless ground places a lot more emphasis on stamina. Although he was beaten on Saturday before stamina should’ve come in to it. More likely the biggest reason for the below par performance a physical problem, but there is still a question about stamina. Did he run to form?
Then we come to Cue Card. Had come back after a bad fall before, but that’s doesn’t mean he’ll definitely be over the latest departure. We’ve considered the stamina question enough on him; it’s not the main point. You said yourself that Cue Card had not moved with his usual enthusiasm at Wetherby. I thought beforehand there was a good chance (given his record second time up/in the Betfair) would be in better heart – I was wrong. Again at Haydock needed pushing along from an early stage (and this is important) nothing like how he races when on song… And he’s now approaching his 12th birthday. Although evidence on the track of a downward trend wasn’t anything like as obvious as some made out beforehand; fact is most horses are on the downgrade by 11. So even taking stamina out of it – given how he ran and age – what is the likelihood Cue Card ran to form?
There’s every reason to believe only Bristol De Mai ran to form in the betfair. Take the outclassed pair out of it and it only takes three horses to run poorly for BDM to win by 57 lengths. That’s not so “ridiculous” is it? Especially as those three all had reasons to suggest they may under-perform by a significant margin.
Value Is EverythingHomer, in races like the Betfair, the conditions are so unusual that everyone is guessing. I’m happy I’m in the fortunate position of not having to rate that for a living; if forced to, 195 would be my pick and that’s still finger in the air.
In the KG you mention, the going was good to soft and KS went in with an OR of 186. The runner up was rated 1lb higher than Cue Card. So, a 186 horse beat a 169 horse 36 lengths. On Saturday a 160 horse beat a 168 horse 57 lengths. Which was the better achievement? The experts would probably sooner burn in hell than accept the figures there for what they mean within their own framework.
Thinking about that KG and the mighty Kauto, respected by all, I don’t recall one claim that a single horse did not run its race, yet we are to believe on Saturday a whole field bar one did exactly that.
Mark, all laudable and logical stuff but it sets us almost back to the beginning: had Bristol De Mai not been in the field, whatever won it would have stayed absolutely every yard in the eyes of assessors and probably got a rating in the high 160s.
Of course they didn’t stay on Saturday because they used up every ounce of energy trying to catch Bristol De Mai. I’m happy to accept Cue Card is declining, but not (as discussed at some length earlier) that he would not stay every single yard of the Betfair trip in a conventional running of the race, even in that ground.
Steve, the OFFICIAL handicapper didn’t award him 173 for the race, he adjusted the horse’s official rating to 173 overall. Between this and your Topspeed assertion, I’ll leave others to decide which of us is out of his depth here.
I worked successfully in Chemical and Physical analysis for a living Joe. I don’t need your approval.
Mike earlier stated that a figure of 185 for Bristol De Mai was “Brainfarts”, where that leaves 195 is clearly in a whole other level of anal/cerebral emission.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Thinking about that KG and the mighty Kauto, respected by all, I don’t recall one claim that a single horse did not run its race, yet we are to believe on Saturday a whole field bar one did exactly that.
A “whole field” is one way of expressing it, Joe.
Another is “three horses” who all had doubts about them beforehand.Value Is EverythingHomer, in races like the Betfair, the conditions are so unusual that everyone is guessing. I’m happy I’m in the fortunate position of not having to rate that for a living; if forced to, 195 would be my pick and that’s still finger in the air.
Thinking about that KG and the mighty Kauto, respected by all, I don’t recall one claim that a single horse did not run its race, yet we are to believe on Saturday a whole field bar one did exactly that.
As you say the conditions were “unusual” and therefore make it more likely that all the other horses would not run to their mark. Also “all” been much less than in the KG race.
As you say the conditions were “unusual” and therefore make it more likely that all the other horses would not run to their mark.
Back on the merry go round again. They didn’t ‘run to their mark’ because they were exhausted racehorses and the reason they were exhausted was that Bristol De Mai ran too fast.
Steve, I’d hate to think anybody ‘needed my approval’. And I don’t need anything from you either. Some people are inclined to admit when they are wrong or have misunderstood something and some are inclined to try to cover up their embarrassment by insulting the person they deem responsible for highlighting it. You know which category you’re in so, no, I don’t need anything from you.
There’s nothing more I can usefully add here. I respect everybody’s opinion, while disagreeing with a few, and I’ve largely enjoyed the debate. Roll on Kempton.
Mark, all laudable and logical stuff but it sets us almost back to the beginning: had Bristol De Mai not been in the field, whatever won it would have stayed absolutely every yard in the eyes of assessors and probably got a rating in the high 160s.
Of course they didn’t stay on Saturday because they used up every ounce of energy trying to catch Bristol De Mai. I’m happy to accept Cue Card is declining, but not (as discussed at some length earlier) that he would not stay every single yard of the Betfair trip in a conventional running of the race, even in that ground.
If BDM was not in the field then the winner does not need to stay the trip in order to win, all it needs to do is stay better than its rivals. If in a staying race there was a match between a miler and sprinter I’d expect the miler to win; not because it “stays the trip” but because it has more stamina than the sprinter.
Of course BDM running them in to the ground sapped the other horses energy, Joe. The point you’re failing to see is why running them in to the ground sapped their energy. For the answer read my above post. It sapped their energy because of their underlying problems, ranging from a kissing spine/physical problem/inconsistency to lack of stamina and age.
Fine, whether Cue Card stayed is not the main issue as to why he was below form anyway. But I don’t understand you saying you’re “happy to accept Cue Card is declining”, when your handicapping of Bristol De Mai at 195 does not account for Cue Card being on the decline.
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.