Class/form horses
- Thread starter JennyK
- Start date
Buckbe presents a perhaps small issue though.
The 5th placing beaten almost 13 lengths with 10-13 at 4/1 was when upped a long way in class (99) at Ascot in a G2 2m Novice chase from an 8/11 victory on chase debut at Exeter in a class 18 nov chase over 2m 1f with 10-9 by 5 lengths.
The victory before Kempton was a class 55 race following a fall when making headway in the race prior to that.
The Kempton race was a class 64 race which is obviously lower than the Ascot race and not much higher than her last time out win. Could it be that VDW expected a LTO winner to do better when raised in class given it was a 4/1 chance in that Ascot race? Because if not then the inconsistency award doesn't seem fair given it was a 50% higher class race than the Kempton one.
One thing I noted was that Buckbe's jumping during her LTO victory was cited as "slip shod" by Spotform in the Mirror and perhaps that was one of the other factors VDW might have had against Buckbe.
Last edited:
JennyK
Gelding
T
Tufnel
I've had a couple of exchanges on the forum over the last three years on the Roushayd example, and posters have identified why they disagreee VDW's conclusion that he showed improvement on his last run before the 1988 Old Newton Cup and judgement that he was a certainty in the race. The points raised are, from their point of view, perfectly valid. But from my point of view as someone trying more fully to understand VDW's approach they are irrelevant.
It is the same with Buckbe. One can perfectly reasonably have different views about Buckbe's performances, including runs before the 3rd last before 27/12/84 and one might reach different conclusions than VDW did. But from the perspective of trying to understand his approach more fully, we simply need to take his comments re Buckbe's class/form status not being consistent as givens and work out why. With ability, we use all a horse's last wins, however long ago. But for "form" and issues such as what constitutes class/form status and consistency, all the evidence suggests that VDW considered just the thre most recent races. From that perspective only one was a "form" run as I understand it, and explains the "form" part of class/form. I think that the other two were not "form" runs explains the not consistent comment.
I've had a couple of exchanges on the forum over the last three years on the Roushayd example, and posters have identified why they disagreee VDW's conclusion that he showed improvement on his last run before the 1988 Old Newton Cup and judgement that he was a certainty in the race. The points raised are, from their point of view, perfectly valid. But from my point of view as someone trying more fully to understand VDW's approach they are irrelevant.
It is the same with Buckbe. One can perfectly reasonably have different views about Buckbe's performances, including runs before the 3rd last before 27/12/84 and one might reach different conclusions than VDW did. But from the perspective of trying to understand his approach more fully, we simply need to take his comments re Buckbe's class/form status not being consistent as givens and work out why. With ability, we use all a horse's last wins, however long ago. But for "form" and issues such as what constitutes class/form status and consistency, all the evidence suggests that VDW considered just the thre most recent races. From that perspective only one was a "form" run as I understand it, and explains the "form" part of class/form. I think that the other two were not "form" runs explains the not consistent comment.
Last edited:
I'd agree with the last 3 runs conclusion but for the fact that non completions were dealt with by going to the last completed start and Buckbe fell in her 2nd last race. Surely her last 3 runs to check the form on were her 2 wins and the 5th in between?
I can't see how anything else but that 5th placing in class 99 over the shorter distance of 2 miles could be the reason for him labelling her with lack of consistency.
But usually, an unplaced run in higher class than the race being contested can be forgiven, especially if surrounded by form runs. Perhaps it wasn't forgiven because she was just 4/1 in that class 99 and he viewed that as let down in finishing 5th by some 13 lengths? Had she been a 33/1 shot (as Gaye Chance was when down the field in much higher class) then that would have been a run to expectations?
So what I'm saying is, if VDW says she was not consistent and we have to accept that, we still need to be able to define why along the same lines as Ryeman for starters.
With Ryeman he actually tells us it was the race where Ryeman was dropped in class and finished last of 4 when the race, in his words "should have been no problem".
With Buckbe he didn't give us much to go on. Other than a similar (unintended) red herring that it was to do with the consistency figures, despite both being a reasonable total of 7 but not being the top in a field of 3 or 4 runners.
At the moment I tend to think her failure when just 4/1 in the class 99 race was considered below par. And interestingly Cistus was just 5/1 3rd fav in that much higher class race at York when she finished 9th of 10. And with that between the 2 wins would make her not consistent or consistently in form.
Incidentally, whilst going through those 84/85 and the March 81 Spells It All Out examples, it finally dawned on me that the points gap between the class horses from the first 3 or 4 in the betting and indeed the first 5 or 6 in the betting, is not necessarily the same as the point gap between the class/form horse and the 2nd class/form.
For example the gap between Stray Shot and the 2nd on class/form is not 3, but 8.
And in the Spells It All Out letter the gaps between the class/form and 2nd class/form in the 4 shown examples are:
Little Owl to 2nd class/form is 13
Sunset Cristo to 2nd class/form is 5
Gaye Chance to 2nd class/form is 3
Kenlis to 2nd class/form is 1
Maybe there's something in that from the choosing of which ones to take/wager on and which ones to leave?
For example the gap between Stray Shot and the 2nd on class/form is not 3, but 8.
And in the Spells It All Out letter the gaps between the class/form and 2nd class/form in the 4 shown examples are:
Little Owl to 2nd class/form is 13
Sunset Cristo to 2nd class/form is 5
Gaye Chance to 2nd class/form is 3
Kenlis to 2nd class/form is 1
Maybe there's something in that from the choosing of which ones to take/wager on and which ones to leave?