- This topic has 174 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
the problem lies with how do you distinguish if it was just an off day for the others or if the ground threw up a shock result as it tends to do being soft/heavy even though 2nd should have handled it
So if I’ve got you right, ham: What you’re saying is Beat The Bank needs to be rated a lot less because in your opinion every other horse in the 7 runner field not only ran a long way below their best, but also a long way below their recent form put up in similar conditions? If – after many subsequent starts by the Joel runners – it transpired that it’s likely all runners were massively below their best… Then I could just about understand…
But subsequent runs of the 3rd and 4th Jallota and Sovereign Debt suggests that is not the case. What is the evidence for your poor evvaluation of the Joel?
It’s not that the second, third and fourth have been increased prematurely in order to rate Beat The Bank 123.
Where is the evidence that Jallota and Sovereign Debt ran to a RPR rating of a lot less than the 106 they were rated for the Joel?
Where is the evidence that Sir John Lavery did not run to a RPR of a lot less than 111 he was rated on his two previous starts?You’re basically choosing to put your hands over your eyes and ignoring the race.
Look at the form:
Beat The Bank beat Sir John Lavery by 5 lengths. (I know you say there was 5 lengths between them at Ascot, but all the other horses/distances mean it is obvious they were both below form on Saturday). There was a further 2 1/4 back to Jallota and 1 1/4 back to Sovereign Debt.
2nd Sir John Lavery ran to an RPR of 111 on his two runs prior to the Joel. Both races at a mile, one on good ground and one on soft. Joel was run on good-soft.
3rd Jallota won at 7f on good-soft, running to an RPR of 112 after the Joel.
Jallota had run to 103 on his run before the Joel at 7f on Soft in France.
Before that Jallota ran to 112 over 7f on Good at York.
Take the Queen Anne out (outclassed) Jallota has run to marks of 109, 112 and 106 in his last three starts at 1m. It’s possible Jallota isn’t at his very very best (stamina stretched) when ground is on the soft side racing at 1m. But the 106 came on the same ground and distance as the Joel. Jallota was rated 106 for the Joel; not 112 but only 106.4th Sovereign Debt was giving 3 lbs more than weight for age. In 9 races for Ruth Carr Sovereign Debt has run to RPR’s of between 106 and 117. Sovereign Debt was rated 106, that’s his equal worst of 9 runs for Ruth Carr.
The rating given for Beat The Bank was if anything a conservative estimate of this form.
For a 1m race on good-soft they will use around 2.5 pounds per length:
There was 5 lengths between BTB and SJL.
2.5 X 5 = 12.5
12.5 + 111 = 123.5Jallota @ 106 was a further 2 1/4 lengths behind:
2.5 X 7.25 = 18.125
18 + 106 = 124Sovereign Debt was a further 1 1/4 lengths behind but gave 3 lbs more than wfa:
2.5 X 8.5 = 21.25
21 + 106 = 127
127 – 3 lbs = 124Value Is Everythingquestion for you GT(other views welcome) would you as a handicapper have given a 123 rating to Beat The Bank and would it still be 123 now? (ie) forgive him his run at weekend
The trouble with Sovereign Debt is that you can almost set your watch that the Ruth Carr stable has their best form in late Spring/Summer and tails off after.
This season they were 12/79 in August but a miserly 1/61 in September.
Did Sovereign Debt magically run to his form when most of the other’s didn’t? The Carr stable is currently 15% for horses running to form in the Racing Post.
Further down the form lines Von Blucher’s last three runs have seen him run to 77 and 75 in the two Handicaps. In the middle, he is supposed to have run to 100 in the Listed race where he was second to Jalotta. Isn’t that very suspicious? What do you trust more? Handicaps or a hotch potch of a Listed race where the favourite had won a handicap off 86 last time out?
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
The trouble with Sovereign Debt is that you can almost set your watch that the Ruth Carr stable has their best form in late Spring/Summer and tails off after.
This season they were 12/79 in August but a miserly 1/61 in September.
Did Sovereign Debt magically run to his form when most of the other’s didn’t? The Carr stable is currently 15% for horses running to form in the Racing Post.
You make a good point Steve. I agree that Ruth Carr has a better strike rate in Summer and more of her horses run to form at that time of year. But Sovereign Debt is an 8 year old and older horses are less suseptable to the vagaries of trainer form… And 3 weeks after the Joel (October) he ran to an RPR of 114. ie Soveriegn Debt is one of those “15%” Racing Post have as “RTF” this Autumn. So it’s difficult to believe Sovereign Debt was more than around 10 lbs below that 114 rating when behind Beat The Bank.
I agree with you Steve, Sovereign Debt did not “run to form”, But he does not need to for Beat The Bank to be rated 123. Ratings for the Joel Stakes do not have Sovereign Debt as “running to form”. Beat The Bank is no Cracksman or Enable; If Sovereign Debt had “run to form” Beat The Bank would need to be rated around 134!!!!!! For Beat The Bank to run to only 123 Sovereign Debt has to be rated as being around 11 lbs below his best RPR. Sovereign Debt’s best RPR is 117, he’s rated as running to 106 in the Joel.
Since Ruth Carr has had the horse Sovereign Debt has run to RPR’s of:
1st April: Kempton, ran to 109.
14th April: Lingfield, ran to 112.
28th April: (Group 2) Sandown, ran to 114.
3rd June: (Group 3) Epsom, ran to 117.
15th Jume: (Group 2) Ascot, ran to 106. (Dropped out in a race Kaspersky dictated slow pace).
26th August: (Group 3) York, ran to 114.
9th September: (Group 3) Haydock, ran to 112.
29th September: 8 1/2 lengths 4th of 8, giving 3 lbs more than WFA to Beat The Bank (Group 2) Newmarket, ran to 106.
14th October: (Group 3) Newmarket, ran to 114.So the Joel ratings have Sovereign Debt as running to his equal worst rating since Ruth Carr has had him. Therefore Beat The Bank’s 123 is a conservative figure. Sovereign Debt could easily have run to around 4 lbs higher 110, ie Beat The Bank on 127.
Value Is Everythingquestion for you GT(other views welcome) would you as a handicapper have given a 123 rating to Beat The Bank and would it still be 123 now? (ie) forgive him his run at weekend
At least 123, nwalton. On Racing Post’s scale I would probably have rated him 124+.
Yes, I’d keep Beat The Bank on that rating for now. Aversion to Ascot, not recovered from the Joel, been on the go since Feb (Jan if allowing for in strong training), and too free in the race (or a combination of any of them) – can all be possible valid reasons for a poor performance… Sir John Lavery running to roughly the same rating on his two starts prior to the Joel and the fact both 3rd Jallota and 4th Sovereign Debt have run to higher RPR’s since… Means imo it’s far too early to reduce Beat The Bank’s rating.
Looks the type for the Sandown Mile before the Lockinge if all is well with him.
Value Is EverythingI don’t have the time to keep listing holes in the form, so I will close with the Strensall Stakes where Sovereign Debt was third.
Mustashry won that one and earned a 114 rating, Forest Ranger was 2nd and rated 112, Sovereign Debt was rated 114 for his effort.
Winner Mustashry went out and ran to 83 next time up and Forest Ranger ran to 94 next time out in a different race.
It’s funny how these horses coincidentally run stinkers next time?
Horse Racing is an inexact science with many variables. If the form were always to work out the bookies would be busted up and crying for mercy.
I’m out.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
I don’t have the time to keep listing holes in the form, so I will close with the Strensall Stakes where Sovereign Debt was third.
Mustashry won that one and earned a 114 rating, Forest Ranger was 2nd and rated 112, Sovereign Debt was rated 114 for his effort.
Winner Mustashry went out and ran to 83 next time up and Forest Ranger ran to 94 next time out in a different race.
It’s funny how these horses coincidentally run stinkers next time?
Horse Racing is an inexact science with many variables. If the form were always to work out the bookies would be busted up and crying for mercy.
I’m out.
“It’s funny how these horses coincidentally run stinkers next time”?
Not sure what you mean by that, Steve.
Strensall was in August; Sovereign Debt ran in and ran well in the Superior Mile between the Strensall and Joel. In fact 4th placed Sovereign Debt ran to a better rating “next time” (after the Joel) in the Darley Club. As did 3rd placed Jallota.What matters if the 114 of the Strensall flatters Sovereign Debt anyway, Steve?
Sovereign Debt is rated as running to only 106 in the Joel. So what matters if the 114 in the Strensall – and what if the other two occasions he is said to have run to 114 – for Ruth Carr flatter him? And what matters if the 117, and the two 112‘s and the 109 all flatter him?In the (it seems to me) unlikely event that all those ratings flatter Sovereign Debt it doesn’t matter… As long as he’s worthy of the worst rating he’s said to have run to for Ruth Carr – 106 – Beat The Bank can be rated 123. 😉
Similar story with Jallota, his best RPR is 115, yet he is only rated as running to 106 in the Joel). So saying he’s over-rated at 115 and/or did not run to 115 in the Joel does not matter. It only matters that he ran to 106.
Value Is EverythingHow many group 1’s have these horses ran in this season….?
They all look overrated to me, I’d go with your lower figures Ginge and knock one off for luck. Sovereign Debt is in human terms for a flat racehorse an old age pensioner yet gets treated like a 4 y/o with the weight for age, that has to stop.Blackbeard to conquer the World
Not my input, but that of Simon Rowlands in his Champions Day preview:-
“The weak link here, from a timing perspective, is Beat The Bank, who is the same price in some quarters as a dual classic winner in Churchill.
Beat The Bank has won all but one of his six races, but his Joel Stakes success last time came in an overall time which was scarcely quicker than that recorded by the winner of an ordinary fillies’ listed race on the same card.
Sectionals show that everything else in the Joel stopped late on, probably through lack of stamina or lack of resolution, enabling Beat The Bank to clear off to score by five lengths. His opposition on Saturday represents a far stiffer assignment.”I thought we all knew how important the sectionals were by now?
No doubt Simon is wrong as well.
Mind you, Simon did have a stinker at Ascot with Quiet Reflection, Al Wukair and Journey as selections. It seems most of us get it wrong now and then but there are infallible walking amongst us.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
It’s farcical that Beat the Bank recorded a better rating then the horse that won the QE11
I really don’t understand that one ginge, if you could enlighten me on that one please.?Blackbeard to conquer the World
the problem lies with how do you distinguish if it was just an off day for the others or if the ground threw up a shock result as it tends to do being soft/heavy even though 2nd should have handled it
So if I’ve got you right, ham: What you’re saying is Beat The Bank needs to be rated a lot less because in your opinion every other horse in the 7 runner field not only ran a long way below their best, but also a long way below their recent form put up in similar conditions? If – after many subsequent starts by the Joel runners – it transpired that it’s likely all runners were massively below their best… Then I could just about understand…
But subsequent runs of the 3rd and 4th Jallota and Sovereign Debt suggests that is not the case. What is the evidence for your poor evvaluation of the Joel?
It’s not that the second, third and fourth have been increased prematurely in order to rate Beat The Bank 123.
Where is the evidence that Jallota and Sovereign Debt ran to a RPR rating of a lot less than the 106 they were rated for the Joel?
Where is the evidence that Sir John Lavery did not run to a RPR of a lot less than 111 he was rated on his two previous starts?You’re basically choosing to put your hands over your eyes and ignoring the race.
Look at the form:
Beat The Bank beat Sir John Lavery by 5 lengths. (I know you say there was 5 lengths between them at Ascot, but all the other horses/distances mean it is obvious they were both below form on Saturday). There was a further 2 1/4 back to Jallota and 1 1/4 back to Sovereign Debt.
2nd Sir John Lavery ran to an RPR of 111 on his two runs prior to the Joel. Both races at a mile, one on good ground and one on soft. Joel was run on good-soft.
3rd Jallota won at 7f on good-soft, running to an RPR of 112 after the Joel.
Jallota had run to 103 on his run before the Joel at 7f on Soft in France.
Before that Jallota ran to 112 over 7f on Good at York.
Take the Queen Anne out (outclassed) Jallota has run to marks of 109, 112 and 106 in his last three starts at 1m. It’s possible Jallota isn’t at his very very best (stamina stretched) when ground is on the soft side racing at 1m. But the 106 came on the same ground and distance as the Joel. Jallota was rated 106 for the Joel; not 112 but only 106.4th Sovereign Debt was giving 3 lbs more than weight for age. In 9 races for Ruth Carr Sovereign Debt has run to RPR’s of between 106 and 117. Sovereign Debt was rated 106, that’s his equal worst of 9 runs for Ruth Carr.
The rating given for Beat The Bank was if anything a conservative estimate of this form.
For a 1m race on good-soft they will use around 2.5 pounds per length:
There was 5 lengths between BTB and SJL.
2.5 X 5 = 12.5
12.5 + 111 = 123.5Jallota @ 106 was a further 2 1/4 lengths behind:
2.5 X 7.25 = 18.125
18 + 106 = 124Sovereign Debt was a further 1 1/4 lengths behind but gave 3 lbs more than wfa:
2.5 X 8.5 = 21.25
21 + 106 = 127
127 – 3 lbs = 124Yes what im saying is the ratings in The joel stakes are all wrong, their all too high, the form has taken too many knocks for it to be correct 118 is a group 1 rating, BTB is NOT a group 1 horse, the joel was a group 2 by name but NOT by field
My opinion before and after the race has been proven correct i dont get what your still rattling on about, like ive said many a time sectionals, their garbage, too many variabls race to race, he had everything his way at the weekend and still got horsed…… ribchester for example had conditions against him and he still proved more than 6lbs superior…..
Sometimes winning distances dont mean as much as you analyse, this being the prime example, you cant assume because he won 5 lengths unchallenged that entitles him to be ex amount of lengths better or worse than ex horse,
As a side note, ribchester has been on the go longer this season hasnt he? Its another invalid excuse on top of many to say BTB has had one too many.
Rprs are giving how they performed in THE race they cant compare how he ran in against other races, so rprs in this discussion are also irrelevent, its more nonsense information, they base the rpr on how close they got to the winner, not how he ran in general…. he was against much better opposition so ovviously getting tanked hes going to get a lower rpr, dosent mean he didnt run to form…
I think this thread and this forum in general is getting carried away with form. It’s getting boring these arguments, back and forth.
yes form is important but trust your own eyes. Beat the bank looked good in the joel stakes- and he looked good for most of the season. He had an off day in the QE2. It happens- horses aren’t machines.
The proof of the pudding will be next season when he bounces back and proves his doubters on this thread completely wrong.
What Simon Rowlands is saying is that Sir John Lavery etc all hit the wall in the Joel and that there may have been a lack of resolve as well. That means he thinks Beat The Bank was flattered by his margin of victory.
Sir John Lavery is a flop as far as I am concerned. Some people refer to him as “smart” but he’s bred in the purple and was intended to be a Classic hopeful. The horse has been on a recovery mission all year really.
Ginger is a champion of Simon Rowlands normally, so why not in this case?
I reckon he has been hoist by his own petard here. Simon Rowlands recommended a place lay on Beat The Bank based on the sectionals and, like myself, it was one of the few things that worked out for him that day.
You can’t preach the usefulness of a tool in analysing races and then ignore it or claim it is flawed.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
How many group 1’s have these horses ran in this season….?
They all look overrated to me, I’d go with your lower figures Ginge and knock one off for luck.The other horses in the Group 2 Joel don’t have to have run in Group 1’s for Beat The Bank to be of Group 1 quality. Because he beat the others by such a long way. Beat The Bank put up a around a 12 lbs better performance than the second horse, 21 pounds better than the third, etc.
Not saying Beat The Bank should’ve been rated as highly as Ribchester, he just went in to the QEII with imo around 4 lbs to find to beat a top form Ribchester – and Beat The Bank was improving.
Value Is EverythingNot my input, but that of Simon Rowlands in his Champions Day preview:-
“The weak link here, from a timing perspective, is Beat The Bank, who is the same price in some quarters as a dual classic winner in Churchill.
Beat The Bank has won all but one of his six races, but his Joel Stakes success last time came in an overall time which was scarcely quicker than that recorded by the winner of an ordinary fillies’ listed race on the same card.
Sectionals show that everything else in the Joel stopped late on, probably through lack of stamina or lack of resolution, enabling Beat The Bank to clear off to score by five lengths. His opposition on Saturday represents a far stiffer assignment.”I thought we all knew how important the sectionals were by now?
No doubt Simon is wrong as well.
Mind you, Simon did have a stinker at Ascot with Quiet Reflection, Al Wukair and Journey as selections. It seems most of us get it wrong now and then but there are infallible walking amongst us.
Just because I think Simon Rowlands is one of the most knowledgeable racing journalists and well worth reading, doesn’t mean I agree with everything he writes, Steve. But there is a lot I agree with him on, even here.
Yes, I entirely agree that “everything else in the Joel stopped late on, probably through lack of stamina or lack of resolution, enabling Beat The Bank to clear off to score by five lengths”…
Of course it was a “far stiffer assighnment” on Saturday – that stands to reason – it was the QEII, a Group 1 on Champions Day. Not an ordinary Group 2 which only one other horse (who’s nowhere near Group 1 class) ran to form. But he did win that Group 2 by 12 lbs, so was within hailing distance of a Group 1 win.
There isn’t much doubt that Sir John Lavery is a tricky horse to win with and doesn’t always find as much as you’d expect (in most of his races not just in the Joel). But I’d point out that although Sir John Lavery is a weak finisher, the actual form he’s shown (up to the QEII) was consistent when racing at a mile. Therefore, I think it is probable Sir John Lavery ran to form… And yes, as I’ve said before – I think SJL was the only other horse in the field to run to form.
And like I’ve said, both Jallota and Sovereign Debt were rated a long way below their best. Jallota’s performance in the Joel 106 is rated 9 lbs below his best RPR of 115… And I’ve already pointed out Jallota’s possible stamina limitations:
3rd Jallota won at 7f on good-soft, running to an RPR of 112 after the Joel.
Jallota had run to 103 on his run before the Joel at 7f on Soft in France.
Before that Jallota ran to 112 over 7f on Good at York.
Take the Queen Anne out (outclassed) Jallota has run to marks of 109, 112 and 106 in his last three starts at 1m. It’s possible Jallota isn’t at his very very best (stamina stretched) when ground is on the soft side racing at 1m. But the 106 came on the same ground and distance as the Joel. Jallota was rated 106 for the Joel; not 112 but only 106.So its very possible Jallota did not finish the Joel Stakes as well as he would’ve done had it been a 7f race. But that too is already allowed for in rating Jallota as being 9 lbs below his best.
And Sovereign Debt ran to 106, which is 11 lbs worse than his best RPR of 117. So it makes sense that he too was flagging at the finish…
So everything else was “stopping late on”… But the ratings already allow for that and sometimes a horse doesn’t get the chance to run a gpod time. In fact Beat The Bank was stopping a bit too. Even his closing sectional was 98%, indicating they hadn’t gone even fractions. Times are not everything.
Where I’d disagree with Simon is that imo Churchill was (perhaps not on time but on “form”) the “weak link”. imo he’s not as good as Barney Roy, his form seemed established at a level worse than Ribchester, with less chance of improvement than Beat The Bank. Later on in the season he was not certain to be as effective back at 1m; and had run below his best last time out in the Irish Champion. Although eased late on was only third best on the day – if that.
Yes, there’s always a chance a stand out performance on form flatters a horse a little. Rated 123 now (I’d still rate Beat The Bank 124). There’s a chance he might be a genuine 122, 121, possibly even 120. But that still makes him a Group 1 horse. Certainly better than some of you give him credit for.
Value Is EverythingIt’s farcical that Beat the Bank recorded a better rating then the horse that won the QE11
I really don’t understand that one ginge, if you could enlighten me on that one please.?The horse that won the QEII was a filly, Nathan. You can effectively add 3 lbs to her rating for the ratings to be under race conditions. 121 + 3 = 124. Beat The Bank was rated 123, so presumably he’d have needed to improve a couple of pounds to beat Persuasive.
Ribchester pulled quite a bit early and unfortunately for us ran below form. Had he ran to form would’ve won. 😥
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.