- This topic has 25 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
In any race there are very few horses who run to form or improve – for many different reasons.
In the Gold Cup all but four horses were below their best to varying degrees, because Coneygree got them out of their comfort zone.
Anyone thinking Coneygree put up a Denman like rating should think again. So should anyone thinking Silviniaco Conti ran anywhere near his best form.
Do you look at sectionals at all TBB?
I am a fan of all types of speed ratings, including overall times and find your ratings interesting and informative. But imo Speed ratings themselves can not on their own tell how good a horse is unless it is run in even fractions. ie Exceptional horses can do bad times if the race is run in uneven fractions. Therefore, speed ratings alone can not be used as an accurate guide to every horse’s chance; unless that speed rating takes in to account pace of the race. Using sectional times to make an allowance for slow sectionals.Also, a going allowance (and therefore ratings) can be difficult to evaluate, particularly when chase and hurdles courses are so different like they were Friday. ie Having even fewer (only half the races on a card) to judge a going allowance. Without knowing sectional times it could be only one race is truly run; so even when a race is truly run it could still get a skewed time rating.
Value Is EverythingNot sure how you come to those speed ratings but purely on the clock Coneygree must come out the best?
Comparing times to last year Thursday’s first 4 races read roughly…
Vautour (10 seconds quicker)
Call the Cops (8 seconds quicker)
Uxizandre (8 seconds quicker)
Cole Harden (8 seconds quicker)So a fair bit of consistency there and nothing out of the ordinary…
On to Friday and comparing those to last year shows…
Peace And Co (3 seconds slower)
Wicklow Brave (7 seconds slower)
Martello Tower (10 seconds slower)
Coneygree (2 seconds quicker)
On The Fringe (9 seconds slower)
Kilultagh Vic (5 seconds slower)
Next Sensation (8 seconds slower)Given that he’s a novice on only his 4th start over fences and doing it tough in the hardest race of them all then surely that beats all others on any ratings?
It always amazes me, even after all the years I have posting on the forum, I still get ask questions whether or not I know what I am doing when it comes to subjects like speed handicapping, going allowances and standard times etc.
Classics like do I know whether or not a race was run slow or fast, the answer is yes, I use a combination standard times, my lbs per length figures and a deep understanding the subject of going allowances.
I put together the only complete set of standard times available from anywhere, which includes what nobody else has ever done, a set of French standard times, and after spending 6 months of your time on the project, you get some idiot asking do you know what your doing?
Standard times:
https://web.cloud.virginmedia.com/?shareObject=710a3bc2-69dc-20e2-ec82-8a6bfb882b0bMy problem is I am too transparent, and not like the racing hacks who talk about “fractions” when they know nothing about the subject.
When I get depressed, I think about sectional timing at Ffos Las, where once I had the going allowance at -2.75s/f (deep), and my immediate thoughts were sh*t they will need a calendar not a stopwatch.
I feel better now…
Mike.
I wasn’t questioning whether you know what you are doing by the way…
I was just intrigued at how you came to rate Uxizandre and Coneygree the same when you look at the time comparisons from last year and the other races, as I posted above?
I wasn’t questioning whether you know what you are doing by the way…
I was just intrigued at how you came to rate Uxizandre and Coneygree the same when you look at the time comparisons from last year and the other races, as I posted above?Doing a comparison from year to year doesn’t work, last year the going might have been soft and this year good.
If you want to check the way I do it, here is my file of every going allowance I have calculated back to 2013.Column H – going allowances (see notepad file for the going tables)
Column N – column is hidden, raw speed figures prior to any adjustment.Speed Figures:
http://tinyurl.com/lad34psMike.
Mike – I think people are just looking to ask questions to develop a better understanding, I don’t think anyone is questioning whether you know what you’re doing. (It’s very clear that you know exactly what you’re doing!)
Btw – do all your old posts on that thread now look OK? We’ve been trying to get rid of some of the text formatting mis-matches that occurred during the migration.
Not sure if I’m one of the idiots but I don’t think the Handicapper is going to base the new ratings on the time of the Gold Cup.
I am not a stopwatch man and wouldn’t argue with someone who specialises in that area of racing.
I just find a 20lb rise somewhat unlikely.
Looking at the race you can raise the 1st four home but one we reach 5th horse On His Own it is pretty much impossible to suggest he has run a career best at his age.
Coneygree and Djakadam probably came in the two biggest potential improvers, with Road To Riches and Holywell also open to higher ratings than so far able to show.
Quite a few in the Gold Cup field had form with Road To Riches from the Lexus chase and all those that did have run poorly in relation to the winner of that race in this instance. 5th Horse On His Own was beaten a length and a half in The Lexus but was beaten 20 lengths this time, Boston Bob was miles behind, Sam Winner, Lord Windermere and Bobs Worth were all pulled up. Carlingford Lough went on to win The Irish Hennessey after his Lexus effort, and, at the time, people got excited about his Gold Cup prospects and even speculated that runner up Foxrock was worth supplementing for The Gold Cup. As it turned out Carlingford Lough was no factor in the Gold Cup, along with those who had run behind him in the Irish Hennessey. Foxrock went to the Ryanair and was unsighted, nearly 60 lengths behind the winner. The Irish Hennessey is looking pretty awful form wise and is not paying much of a compliment back to The Lexus before it. My suspicion is that Road To Riches won that Lexus without being at his best on the ground. He and Djakadam have probably run better than their previous runs due to the better ground this time.
Looking at Silviniaco Conti, you can only conclude he hasn’t raced anywhere near 174.
Looking back at the King George on Boxing Day, the form of it looks a whole lot less exciting than it did at the time. There are a few horses there who could be on the downward path, even worse is The Betfair chase, where 14 subsequent runners have yielded 1 place and 13 unplaced efforts.
As it stands, the only horse to have competed in either The King George, or The Betfair Chase, to have won since is Champagne Fever, who won at 8/15F beating Texas Jack. That is from 23 runs combined from the two races. Perhaps it’s not the greatest shock that Silviniaco couldn’t cope with the new kids on the block, as much as not liking the track.
Racing is all about opinions and I am not questioning your time figures in any way, nor the way you go about compiling them. I just don’t see how Coneygree could possibly go up 20lbs.
I thought I’d do a bit of Googling to see what others thought and I found this on the Daily Mail website:-
Chief handicapper Phil Smith intends rating Coneygree 171, the highest for a novice this century and 1lb higher than given to Willie Mullins’ Vautour after his spectacular JLT Novices’ Chase win.
That’s a 5lb increase.
I may well be an idiot but it’s nice to know I’m not a complete idiot.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
I agree with most of your assessment Steve, until your questioning of Silviniaco Conti’s Betfair and King George. It’s true subsequent wins have been scarce. However, taking a look at how far horses were beaten in those two races compared with subsequent races shows the “form” working out very well indeed.
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.