- This topic has 18 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
Message to Mike: would you agree the going was Good not the official G-S?
This from the RP:
“BHA chief handicapper Martin Greenwood was impressed and suggested it could go down as the greatest performance in the history of the great race.
“That was amazing,” he said. “It was possibly the best Grand National of all time. He’s going to be rated in the low-170s. He was only pushed out towards the end, he tanked along for most of the race, he was still on the bridle at the Elbow. He’s going to be Gold Cup-standard.”
It’s scary that someone in his position is so ignorant! I agree TR’s performance was low 170s, however, that will fall about 24 shy of the best GN performances. Nowhere near the best GN of all time.
How many winning performances were better, GM; and who were they?
Am sure the history of the Grand National is not Martin Greenwood’s specialist subject.Value Is EverythingCan’t we just enjoy a fantastic performance from a phenomenal horse ? Sometimes the pedantry on this forum drives me to despair.
It ought to be if he’s going to make comments like that, Ginger.
The short answer is you will have to wait for the launch of my GN history website but that may not be for another 3-4 years. I don’t really want to get into a debate about the historical merits of horses until it’s all finished. It’s very time consuming and I’m working on it constantly which is why I don’t study and invest anymore. So time for debate is at a premium.
There have been many, many better performances (not just winning ones). I’m compiling a Scroll of Merit but to retain exclusivity it’s restricted to best and within 20 of best and I’m only including an individual horse’s best/tied best efforts so I can’t give you an exact figure (of how many) anyway.
The strength of steeplechasing in different eras, allowing for improved equine athleticism (think human athletes), training methods and jockeyship, etc., provides context. The 1960s was a weak decade, the 1930s and 1970s strong, for example. Writing at the time of Arkle’s dominance, the historian Roger Mortimer said “No single victory of Arkle’s equals in sheer merit Golden Miller’s win in the 1934 Grand National in record time”. That record effectively stood until 1973 when the runner up was giving lumps to the winner. So you can guess which two performances are equal best. Tiger Roll is the best part of two stone inferior to Crisp and ‘The Miller’. It made me laugh today when some prat on TV said Red Rum didn’t have much to beat in 70s Nationals. What, apart from a dual GC winner who romped to GN glory in 75!
Amusingly, another thing Mortimer said in 1966 was that the GN was still the supreme test for a chaser “even though the fences are nothing like as formidable as they were”! The foolish remarks by the handicapper illustrate how 99.9% of today’s racing professionals have no sense of perspective at all.
The provisional Timeform performance rating given to Tiger Roll is 166, the Master rating hasn’t come in yet and – if eg they believe he won with more in hand than the actual race distances (seemed to idle again and value for more than winning distance)… Possible (I’d say “probable”)he’ll get a Master Rating of more than 166.
Many Clouds’s performance rating was 164, but with a Master Rating of 168 in Timeform Chasers & Hurdlers 2014/15. Timeform said in that edition: “In the last 40 years or so, only Crisp (when runner-up to Red Rum) 173 and Sunny Bay (runner up to Earth Summit) 171… have earned a higher Timeform Rating in the race”…
And neither Crisp nor Sunny Bay actually won it. If allowing for how easily Tiger Roll won, could well be the best winning performance. Also, far more top quality horses run in the race now that fatalities are fewer. Even I am old enough to remember quite a lot of the field would be out of the handicap. So the overall quality of performances in the whole race are better these days – better standard of race. So in winning Tiger Roll has beaten a greater number of good horses.
Was (the horse) Golden Miller’s performance better? Maybe, but if – as you say yourself – equine athleticism has improved over the years and maybe Mr Greenwood is not going to allow for Golden Miller having today’s training, food and vitamins?… Or maybe he meant living memory/history or jusr can’t remember the 1934 race? Or maybe Golden Miller is biased in favour of Golden Miller and takes everything a little too literally? LOL Personally, if it might be the best winning performance in living memory, I think Mr Greenwood’s words can be forgiven.
Now can we just celebrate an exceptional racehorse in Tiger Roll?
Value Is EverythingMore problematical is the going report and on this we can agree.
Having a going report softer than what the state of the ground actually can encourage trainers to run horses whose actions aren’t condusive to a sound surface. And/or when horses have had leg injuries in the past, they are reticent to run on a sound (good or firmer) surface. Either the ground for today’s race was genuinely GOOD or they must have raced over a distance short of the official race distance. Time actually beat Racing Post Standard by 3 seconds FAST. A time imo impossible to do on true good-soft… We knew the ground was getting firmer throughout today and time of Friday’s Topham (only 10 seconds Slow) indicated that by 5:15 Saturday it would be GOOD! Clerks are stupid not to react to race times. Yes, they can be slower in slowly run races, but a faster time can only be done on a certain type of ground.
Going Reports for big day’s should be taken out of the Clerk’s hands. It is his job to produce good-soft ground and his job to give a going description. It’s essentially marking his own work. What do you think the Clerk is going to describe the ground conditions?
Value Is EverythingI strongly suspect that if the ten best horses to have ever run in the National met at level weights in some imaginary race, Prince Regent would come out the winner.
There can’t be many grand national winners who’s prep include winning a grade 2 hurdle at 2.5 miles …horses who win gn don’t normally win another race , it leaves it’s mark yet with him it’s not left the slightest mark , he may not be the best horse in training but he must be the fittest with God wind …look at minella Rocco traveling to nothing and pulled up in 2 fences , if tiger was a boxer he’d be rocky …what was it drago said in Rocky 4 , it’s like hitting a piece of iron …tiger is iron , athletic and with a will to win
No. Greenwood said what I quoted and you are qualifying what he said. If the chief handicapper is that inaccurate goodness help us. I know you swear by it but Timeform is just as bad. I don’t remotely agree with the ratings it put on Arkle and Flyingbolt, however, if you do it is saying Tiger Roll is about 44lbs inferior. Celebrate his feat of attaining consecutive victories but keep their merit in context. Even this year he did not win easily or even comfortably, he kept on well (as did Magic Of Light).
I am only interested in performance ratings, not master ratings, and use the RP scale which is higher than Timeform and OR. It’s irrelevant how many runners are out of the handicap in a race, most of them were non-finishers, it’s the quality of finishers that counts in GNs. And the performance ratings of all but the top finishers are usually way below the level of ability they are known to have, not a better overall quality of performance compared to the days to which you refer.
I haven’t studied it yet but let’s say I award Tiger Roll a PR of 171 (157 in 2018 and I said pre-race he had improved a stone). Anibale Fly will get around 160 (very similarly below his GC form as he was last year). One For Arthur 141 (compared to 162 when he won). So, you see, the 6th placed horse, who everyone said had run well, didn’t really (only in comparison to his previous runs this season). In his year the 5th, Gas Line Boy, recorded 140.
I rated Many Clouds win 172, Neptune Collonges 171. Don’t Push It is the best very recent winner at 175. Suny Bay got 169 in 1998. Rhyme ‘N’ Reason 175 in 1988 (as good as down at first Becher’s where sustained hairline fracture of hock). Corbiere ran to 175 three times. Red Rum merited 191 when wining his third at the age of 12 by 25L on Good (not Heavy which exaggerates distances) giving 20lb to the runner-up Churchtown Boy. L’Escargot also got 191 for his 1975 victory when (receiving 11lb) he beat Rummy by 15L with Spanish Steps, Money Market and The Dikler trailing in their wake (that’s quality in depth!), L’Escargot had beaten The Dikler (a future GC winner) by 25L in the 1971 GC. Crisp received 195 in 1973, a well known performance, at levels he beat the third by 25L – the third was L’Escargot. And Timeform rate that effort 40 below Arkle? My ratings on my site will all be fully explained and evidenced (as per Mortimer for Golden Miller’s 195 in 1934), set in the correct context back to 1836.
And there is no bias, I adopted my TRF name as a result of what I discovered in an objective process of research.
Gladiateur, I’ve rated Prince Regent 181 for the 1946 GN by which time Tim Hyde felt he was past his best. In his pomp I suspect he may have merited at least 187. Tom Dreaper only conceded that Arkle might be his equal after the latter’s second GC. They didn’t run in the GN but I reckon Arkle and Kauto Star, who are the trendy comparison to make these days, merited 193.
Golden Miller is the best of all time. 5 GCs, only horse to do the double in the same year, in a record time on a course he absolutely hated. There shouldn’t really be any argument, the myths of some horses has grown out of all proportion. In truth, there’s very little between the best of the best.
Message to Mike: would you agree the going was Good not the official G-S?
I had the going at +0.14s/f (good) with Tiger Roll earning a speed figure of 115.
Tiger Roll recent performances have been impressive, on the clock he never seems to produce big speed figures.
With regards to the handicapper, he can blow steam out of his ass, did the runner up Magic of light (SF 106) also improve that much, a 66/1 shot, I don’t think so.
You can check the speed figures for Aintree etc, just use the filters to select a date and racecourse.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1r1FcjEUEFRXIlojKmtcyGH6NIv9nbBdr
Mike.
“I’ve rated Prince Regent 181”
I look forward to reading how you’ve arrived at your figures, GM. You mentioned in an earlier post that you estimate that Corbiere ran to 175 three times; honourable horse that he was, I haven’t seen him run within a stone of that rating even once in his entire career. To say that he was within six pounds of Prince Regent, one of the greatest steeplechasers of all time is, in my opinion, ridiculous- hence my interest in seeing your reasoning.
Thanks very much, as always, Mike. Lol re the handicapper.
RPRs have appeared:
TR 170 MOL 159 RATH 160 WITM 140 AF 160 OFA 142
As I said, Gladiateur, Prince Regent’s 181 was when his jockey thought him past his best – at which he may have merited at least 187.
As for Corbiere, remember I loosely base on RPR scale which tends to be a few higher across the board than some other ratings sevices and the official handicapper. Corbiere’s GN era is a tricky one because during that period there was virtually no cross-pollination between finishers in the GN and the GC. Corbiere was better in the Aintree GN than in other races, a real specialist. When he won on race debut in 1983 the placed horses were also debutants. It was the first time the ground had been Soft since 1966 and the ‘best’ line in to the merit of his performance is a time comparison with that most recent previous GN run on similar going, won by 20L by Anglo, receiving 21lb from Freddie. I rated both Anglo and Freddie 165, based on lines of collateral form in previous GNs involving Freddie, et al. Freddie was beaten only a whisker by Arkle in the 1965 Hennessy. Arkle carried 12-07, Freddie I can’t find but doubt he was receiving more than two stone so that roughly fits with Arkle being 193. Therefore, I think 165 for Anglo is correct enough.
Using a conservative calculation of 2 1/2L per second for Soft ground, Corbiere ran 5.40s faster than Anglo (+13 pounds/lengths better) while carting 18lb more weight = +31. I have reduced this to just +10 better (thus 175), which is the lowest I can in all consciousness get it down to. Some reasons for the reduction are:
17 years of general athletic improvement at a time when horse nutrition, training methods, jockeyship, etc were developing relatively rapidly works unfairly in favour of Corbiere.
Research indicates the ground was softer Soft in 1966.
Corbiere was all out whilst Anglo won very easily so could have gone a fair bit quicker on the day if pushed (I have not allowed for this vis-a-vis Anglo/Freddie because the latter lost a fair bit of ground due to a mistake at the 10th and Anglo was only 2L ahead at the last from which point the earlier exertions of and stone and a half more carried by Freddie on the going exaggerated the final margin, so it balances out).
I only compiled these GN ratings for a bit of fun, they are not a major part or point of my upcoming website so I really don’t want to get into long explanations and debates until the whole thing is finished in 3-4 years time.
GM,
imo You’re conflating the Racing Post’s take on what Mr Greenwood said and what Greenwood actually said:Racing Post:
BHA chief handicapper Martin Greenwood was impressed and suggested it could go down as the greatest performance in the history of the great race.…And then quoting what Mr Greenwood actually said:
“That was amazing, it was possibly the best Grand National of all time. He’s going to be rated in the low-170s. He was only pushed out towards the end, he tanked along for most of the race, he was still on the bridle at the Elbow. He’s going to be Gold Cup-standard.”So if concentrating only on Mr Greenwood’s quote: Where did he say Tiger Roll’s performance was as good as Golden Miller? What he said was “It was possibly the best Grand National of all time”. “Grand National” as in – the whole race’s quality. Not necessarily the best performance by a winner… And also “possibly the best” not definate.
Number of quality horses taking part has gone up significantly in recent years, now the race is SAFER.
In 2019 no less than 22 runners ran off marks of 150 or more.
In 2009 only 9 horses ran off marks of 150 or more.
In 1999 only 7
etc.Yes, I agree very few horses in any Grand National field ever run to their ratings… But when the first and third are first and second favourites and both officially 8 lbs well-in… The probability is they’ve shown their form.
Where as – if the first three were dominated by horses that are both not thought to be well handicapped and outsiders… it is more likely they won/placed because others did not show their form/did not finish…
eg When the fences were hard, producing more fallers/incompletes. Foinavon the only one not to fall/unseat/refuse/pull up… Or given almost unracable conditions – a horse doesn’t even need to stay the trip in order to win. Red Marauder only needed to finish in order to win from Smarty, the second running below form but the only other runner getting around without mishap. That’s taking it to extremes, but to a slightly lesser extent it is true. When far more fancied horses used to fall it meant the rating of performance needed to win was more likely to be lower…
Fact “way back when”… plenty of horses were out of the handicap is relevent. Yes, when (as you say) “most of them were non-finishers, it’s the quality of finishers that counts”. Point is, the fact quite a lot were out of the handicap means a lot more runners didn’t have as good a chance of getting in those finishers. Less competitive for the ones that did.
So – given all the above – Greenwood is entitled to his opinion that this was overall “possibly the best Grand National of all time”. Whether you or I agree with him or not, imo calling him “ignorant” is taking things too far.
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.