- This topic has 128 replies, 42 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
If Michael O’Leary was being straight when he said he worried about him I would think retirement may be under consideration. If he returns to Aintree he’ll be conceding weight to everything else next time even if he has already peaked
It seems unthinkable that he wouldn’t go for a third National next year. He’s only going to be 10 years old next April.
O’Leary certainly isn’t shy of the limelight so this cross country and we’ll see talk could be a wind up.
Many thanks Joe.
That Munster National win was a “wow” moment for me, and it’s been some ride with him.
No surprise if Tiger was campaigned next year like the ‘best staying chaser’ in the sport that he undoubtedly is IMO.
He will get top weight for the GN next year therefore a campaign that targets the Gold Cup could easily emerge as an alternative that although doesn’t have anywhere near the immortality of winning 3 Nationals it would be an arguably more achievable way of establishing Tiger as an all time great.As a racing fan seeing Tiger win the KG and the GC and maybe then seeing if the GN was within scope in terms of dates,weights and wellbeing would be a privilege to see happen.
Were GHS to run the noble beast in the 2020 GN under 11-10 Davy Russell could be instructed to PU the moment he felt Tiger Roll was not enjoying himself to thus fulfil the responsibility to the wider public that O’Leary rightly acknowledges he now has. Let him have a crack at it.
Ginger, we use slightly different scales of figures so I don’t want to get into a long technical debate but a couple of pieces of food for thought.
Firstly, I don’t think TR idled in either GN. He did not when further clear in last month’s XC. He was all out in the 2018 GN, less so, on much less stamina testing ground, but could not have gone any faster post-Elbow on Saturday, he ‘merely’ kept on well.
Secondly, time is far from everything, however, compare the GNs of 2015 and 2019 both run at a similar pace on very similar going and each with the omission of one fence. Many Clouds ran 4.20s faster whilst carrying 4lb more than TR. Many Clouds’s RPR 170, TR’s 174. Interesting to know what Timeform’s and Mike’s figures are!
For the record, I rated MC 172 in 2015 and TR 171 this year. And TR’s figure allows him 2 (pounds/lengths) for mistakes at the 2nd, 26th and 27th. Allowing for their own errors on Saturday (and visual impression) I have Anibale Fly and Regal Encore running virtually identically to how they did in 2018 and 2017 respectively and the performance ratings I gave them then when replicated fit perfectly for TR receiving 171.
The best winner in at least 46 years:
That should be no surprise considering the horses behind him that ran in the first six.
And his rating of 172 isn’t really his limit, I’d say.It might just be worth sounding a note of caution for those, like me, who’d like to see him in the Gold Cup. It’s more than 2 years since he won over park fences, and 18 months since he ran over them
His massive and consistent form upsurge coincided with the introduction to unconventional fences. I’m told he went to post in last year’s National with a Timeform squiggle against his name
So (see above) the handicapper reckons Tiger Roll ran 5lb better than did Many Clouds!
He is not remotely the best winner in the last 46 years. Most of the fault seems to lie with past ratings, the article talks of relating today’s official figures to a subscription service’s assessment of the 1970s and of meaningful records beginning only in 1973.
I have meaningful ratings going back to 1836. The likes of Crisp, Red Rum and L’Escargot would pulverise Tiger Roll. Crisp, for example, ran to the same time as Tiger Roll over 1/2f further and stiffer fences whilst carrying 7lb more. And Tiger Roll has the benefit of better jockeyship, training methods, nutrition and turf management (all of which having improved over the 46 years).
I’m sorry but the handicapper’s idiotic comments are deflecting from the feat that Tiger Roll really did achieve. Greenwood is stark raving bonkers and so is any person or firm that concurs with him. Those of you who compile your own ratings will enjoy a long period of fruitful investment if this is a true example of his work.
tbh GM, am beginning to doubt your ratings. Can understand if Tiger Roll doesn’t quite top the ratings from 1973 to 2019; that’s just opinion. But for you to say he’s “not remotely the best winner in 46 years”, suggests to me it’s your rating that’s flawed.
There are several horses around the mid-160’s Timeform Rating bracket, there is no doubt Tiger Roll is amongst… Many Clouds, Neptune Collonges, Don’t Push It, even Lord Gyllene…
Give Tiger Roll the credit he deserves.
Value Is EverythingAny direct comparisson of race times shows very little.
Anyone judging how good races are by times, must allow for if the race was truly run or not… And how meaningful analysis of sectionals tell how a horse could’ve bettered the overall time had the pace been an even one. Obvious Saturday’s race had pretty slow early fractions. So of course Crisp’s time (in a strongly run race) is bound to be fast by comparisson.imo The handicapper is not making “idiotic comments”, neither is he “stark raving bonkers”.
You criticise Timeform, you criticise Racing Post Ratings, you criticise the official handicapper. Are you sure it couldn’t be your ratings that are wrong, GM?
Value Is EverythingI have every confidence in my Grand National performance ratings, 1836-2019. Again, official meaningful records began only in 1973 and earlier attempts at National Hunt ratings are exemplified by Timeform’s woefully inflated figures for Arkle and Flyingbolt in the 1960s. Working chronologically from origin provides a more accurate historical perspective.
In some ways one cannot blame the handicapper for his crafty use of words to maximise sexy publicity for racing on the back of Tiger Roll’s effort, however, I continue to believe they deflect from the horse’s actual feat of winning consecutive GNs (for which I have given him due credit) at the expense of denigrating the ability of better animals from the past.
I do agree with you, Ginger, that TR can generally be lumped in a group with several other worthy horses, some of which you mention. Hairs can be split regarding the exact figure appropriate for each creature within this tight band. However, the handicapper is rather gilding the truth by saying “…best GN winner in at least 46 years”. His words are born of a comparison of his acutely specific numerical opinion of TR’s performance arrived at by honed modern methods with faulty ratings arrived at when systems were in their infancy and, furthermore, his utterance excludes better performing beasts who did not win. His statement is akin to a clever counterfeit piece of art.
In fairness, much of the blame can be attributed to mistakes of the past. The handicapper himself, not unreasonably, compares TR with Gold Cup types, Al Boum Photo and Kemboy, however, much better horses have won the GC. L’Escargot, for instance, was a great dual winner and because horses generally become slower and develop more stamina as they age there is every reason to think he ran as well if not better when winning the 1975 GN, at the age of 12, the only year in which he was specifically trained for the race. Simply, he by then needed 1 1/4f further to be at his best. And there is no automatic reason why ratings for GN performances should be lower than those for the GC based upon distance, if anything the GN should be seen as the truer test historically. The demands and challenges of each race are vastly different, the latter being a handicap is part of them. The ratings should be based on merit alone. The trend over the last 60 years has been one of the vast majority of top class horses failing to contest the GN, had Kauto Star or Desert Orchid done so (and stayed) I would have expected them to put up a performance in the low 190s, therefore, consistent with their GC efforts. Horses of that ability rarely come along, however, L’Escargot was of that ilk and his form is closely tied in with Red Rum and Crisp (I have touched upon their form in this and other threads). I strongly suspect that a deliberate or accidental bias based upon distance (i.e. against 4 1/2m) was present by the advent of NH rating services and that has thrown the current handicapper out.
The subject of how pace (whether measured sectionally or by observation and analysis) relates to time and performance is an interesting one. Mike swears by mathematical calculations based exclusively on time to determine merit. I view time comparison not as showing very little but as a vital though junior companion to collateral form (and it plays a bigger role when there is none of the latter). A winning time may be on the slow side if the pace was too fast and collapsed, or if the quality of runners is below average, or if the pace was slow and the race developed into a sprint. I allow for the above but also for the degree to which a fast time indicates above average quality. In the case of Crisp, his time is simply evidence of him putting up a very great performance to be able to run that fast under 12st, leading all the way.
TR could not have gone much quicker and stayed. He is not remotely the best performer during the time span the handicapper refers to because being 20+ below Crisp, Red Rum and L’Escargot IS remote.
I think you’ll do yourself a favour if having a fresh look at how you’ve rated races, GM; before publication of your Grand National site.
If a significant number of horses are 20 lbs plus different to all other ratings organisations – then it’ll run the risk of bringing down what am sure will be an otherwise excellent site. How much have you looked at previous form of each horse – including in other races leading up to the race/s in question?
Value Is EverythingThank you, Ginger, I am doing that as I’m typing up but I doubt there will be massive change and I’ve outlined above why the ratings organisations in their infancy were wildly inaccurate. It’s a fun aspect of the site, there will be far more detailed explanations on each year’s page, and I hope it will stimulate debate.
I have looked at previous (and future) form, especially in major races and have done so through the lens of Grand Nationals – a unique test and often a target race in which horses give their only true running of a season. It stands to reason that if a horse (Crisp) puts up a time 20s faster than a series of times in the 1930s, one of which was the previous record, carrying 12st, the performance should be rated exceptionally highly. It’s not as if donkeys were running in the intervening years. As I said, time isn’t everything and there are many other factors to be taken into account (not least the Firm going in 1973) which I have done. Bear in mind a conservative calculation is 3L per second. 173, I don’t think so!
Going to worry myself sick until I know he’s ok; might be a minor problem but any procedure isn’t without risk….
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.