The home of intelligent horse racing discussion
The home of intelligent horse racing discussion

Cockney Rebel is a plater!

Home Forums Tipping and Research Trends, Research And Notebooks Cockney Rebel is a plater!

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 70 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #58294
    empty walletempty wallet
    Member
    • Total Posts 1631

    Vital Equine didn’t get as much a lead tis time,  AoB stated his would come on for run before Guineas and DoM punted accordingly

    Overall  time also suggests a better than average race

    <br>All this adds up to a better performance than people are suggesting imhaho

    #58295
    sberrysberry
    Member
    • Total Posts 1801

    i get the impression this horse could win it’s next six G1 races and if it then lost a race some people here would pop up like rabbits saying ‘i told you it was no good’

    #58296
    empty walletempty wallet
    Member
    • Total Posts 1631

    Quote: from sberry on 10:40 am on May 27, 2007[br]i get the impression this horse could win it’s next six G1 races and if it then lost a race some people here would pop up like rabbits saying ‘i told you it was no good’

    <br>Indeed Simon, big test imo is against older horses, bring on Georgeous i say

    #58297
    Prufrock
    Participant
    • Total Posts 2081

    Basing the winner’s rating on what has happened in the last 5 years in the race can only have limited relevance. It gives a guide as to how strong the race is likely to be, but doesn’t tell you anything about the horses that have actually taken part.

    It tells you that if Cockney Rebel’s bare form yesterday was worthy of in excess of 121 then this year’s Irish 2,000 Guineas was the strongest of the last 15 years and probably of all time.

    The "standard" figure for the winner of an Irish 2,000 Guineas with that field size, run in that overall time, with those margins between the principals based on RPR ratings in the previous 14 runnings has been (latest first):

    119/121/121/117/115/119/120/121/117/121/117/119/111/117.

    (standards further back tend to have decreasing relevance).

    Standardisation is an exceptionally useful benchmark to use before more subjective measures start being thrown around.

    You would, of course, be perfectly entitled to argue that Cockney Rebel ran to 125 in this year’s race, but in order to make your case you’d have to convince me that the strength in depth of this year’s field was truly exceptional.

    #58298
    cormack15cormack15
    Keymaster
    • Total Posts 8795

    George against the Rebel –

    I’m afraid that I think it’d be man against boy. (well, sort of ‘man’ in George’s case!)

    #58299
    empty walletempty wallet
    Member
    • Total Posts 1631

    Quote: from Prufrock on 10:55 am on May 27, 2007[br]Basing the winner’s rating on what has happened in the last 5 years in the race can only have limited relevance. It gives a guide as to how strong the race is likely to be, but doesn’t tell you anything about the horses that have actually taken part.

    It tells you that if Cockney Rebel’s bare form yesterday was worthy of in excess of 121 then this year’s Irish 2,000 Guineas was the strongest of the last 15 years and probably of all time.

    The "standard" figure for the winner of an Irish 2,000 Guineas with that field size, run in that overall time, with those margins between the principals based on RPR ratings in the previous 14 runnings has been (latest first):

    119/121/121/117/115/119/120/121/117/121/117/119/111/117.

    (standards further back tend to have decreasing relevance).

    Standardisation is an exceptionally useful benchmark to use before more subjective measures start being thrown around.

    You would, of course, be perfectly entitled to argue that Cockney Rebel ran to 125 in this year’s race, but in order to make your case you’d have to convince me that the strength in depth of this year’s field was truly exceptional.<br>

    <br>I agree standardisation is a good benchmark, but i would not use RPR’s as IMO they are unreliable

    I’d be interested to see what TF’s previous numbers were  or your own  and then work out the standard

    #58300
    seabird
    Participant
    • Total Posts 2924

    Not nice, Cormack!:o

    What has George ever done to you?;)

    Colin

    #58301
    empty walletempty wallet
    Member
    • Total Posts 1631

    Dubaw’s RPR = 126 and there were less runners, race was run 3.6 secs slower than RP standard

    <br>An example of "Yardstick"  handicapping at it’s best

    (Edited by empty wallet at 11:37 am on May 27, 2007)

    #58302
    Maurice
    Participant
    • Total Posts 355

    I think you also have to look beyond the bare result.

    I thought Peslier was over-confident yesterday and wanted to win without giving Cockney Rebel a hard race. You can only do that on a top-notcher.

    #58303
    Prufrock
    Participant
    • Total Posts 2081

    I cited RPRs because not many people (including myself these days) have easy access to Timeform ratings, though they would be preferable.

    Interesting what you say about the time of yesterday’s race. Topspeed has gone for a figure of 114 (RPR 121), but similar caveats apply as far as I am concerned, and that’s before you get into the accuracy of the data in Ireland.

    Historically, the Dubawi figure was quite a positive one – about 2 lb higher than par – but not totally out of line with the usual standard for the race.

    It was a small field (which means it needs to be marked down, but not by as much as some imagine) but he did string most of his rivals out.

    If Dubawi had been rated 130 you could identify it as being out of line in exactly the same way you could point to a rating of 125 on Cockney Rebel’s bare form in yesterday’s race as being out of line.  

    #58304
    Prufrock
    Participant
    • Total Posts 2081

    I’m looking forward to watching the race so that I can apply some subjective judgements to the stark facts!

    #58305
    Maurice
    Participant
    • Total Posts 355

    I’ve never been entirely convinced by this approach. I can see how it could be useful in probably a majority of situations but only as a starting point. After that I think you have to look at all the form lines and times and go with your best judgment.

    I don’t think I rated BM’s Gold Cups particularly highly but I rated the horse himself very highly on other form.

    Even Dessie was only about 160 in his Gold Cup when he was capable of 190 on a real going day elsewhere.

    #58306
    empty walletempty wallet
    Member
    • Total Posts 1631

    If we all analysed races same way and came to same conclusions there wouldn’t be much point or much fun to this Great game

    It would be very boring imo

    (Edited by empty wallet at 4:58 pm on May 27, 2007)

    #58307
    Prufrock
    Participant
    • Total Posts 2081

    I can see where you are coming from, but it is exactly this approach that leads to rather irritating "Best Mate" scenario ~ whereby a horse is consistently overrated due to handicappers rating him based on the prestige of the race they have won (and preconceived idea of how good such a winner of a race should be), rather than the opponents they have actually beaten.

    Best Mate’s half-length win of a 10-runner Gold Cup and his one and three quarter lengths win of a 17-runner Gold Cup (ignoring non-completions other than pulled-ups) would not be rated highly for the race on standardisation.

    His 10-length win of a 14-runner (ignoring non-completions other than pulled-ups) Gold Cup would have been rated more highly, but not to anything like the degree that some have claimed for him.

    The fact that he won three Gold Cups would not be used to inflate any one of those individual ratings on standardisation.

    I have never rated the Best Mate performances, but I suspect standardisation would have made the exact opposite point to the one you suggest it does in that instance. It might well have shown that a rating in excess of 180 was highly questionable based on the one Gold Cup in which he actually did wipe the floor with the opposition and that none of his other form was better than that of an "ordinary" Gold Cup winner.

    #58308
    Prufrock
    Participant
    • Total Posts 2081

    One of the reasons why I used RPRs earlier is that the Racing Post seems not (judged on some of their handicappers’ utterances) to use the tried-and-trusted approach of race standardisation.

    As a result, their ratings can not be accused of being self-fulfilling in making the point about race standardisation.

    And yet, in the case of the Irish 2,000 Guineas 12 of the last 14 runnings of the race suggest a figure between 117 and 121 for Cockney Rebel in this one.

    Most races, or types of races, turn up the same sorts of overall strength of field once allowance has been made for field size, win time, margins between the horses and so on. And the exceptions are usually not that difficult to spot.  

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 70 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.