• Hi Guest Just in case you were not aware I wanted to highlight that you can now get a free 7 day trial of Horseracebase here.
    We have a lot of members who are existing users of Horseracebase so help is always available if needed, as well as dedicated section of the fourm here.
    Best Wishes
    AR

Class/form horses

T Tufnel

re Ascenia, I have a note (no source, but I assume from the Life) that he won the first handicap hurdle from 9lb out of the handicap. IF that is correct, it makes the win more impressive. (It is also possible that he was running from out of the handicap in the race for which VDW selected him; the Raceform Form Book does not appear to show out of handicaps in those days.)

That he was the highest ability-rated horse in the field, albeit a poor field, is fact, and I have no doubt whatsoever that VDW regarded him as a "form" horse - fits perfectly the "one performance is better than another" criterion. What is not clear, at least to me, is whether he was a consistent horse. At one level of course he was, depending on the betting forecast used, but I see that as VDW 101 and not actually how he came to his consistent or not judgements.

On the one hand, I am assuming that like all the other 33, VDW regarded Ascenia as a consistent horse, but that is simply a working assumption. On the other, he fails my other working assumption, that VDW regarded horses as consistent if each of their last three runs was a "form" run (with, obviously, a slightly modified test for those horses who failed to complete a run).

I can see a number of reasons why VDW might have assessed each of Ascenia's last three runs as "form" runs, but I don't think it will be possible to judge whether he did from this example alone, and if he did, precisely why. If we can be reasonably sure he did regard Ascenia as a consistent horse, then my working assumptions still hold; if he didn't, the first is clearly wrong as it stands.

So far I have been unable to find any discussion about Ascenia by Guest or Lee; their observations could have been helpful.
 
Last edited:
JennyK said:
T Tufnel

re Ascenia, I have a note (no source, but I assume from the Life) that he won the first handicap hurdle from 9lb out of the handicap. IF that is correct, it makes the win more impressive. (It is also possible that he was running from out of the handicap in the race for which VDW selected him; the Raceform Form Book does not appear to show out of handicaps in those days.)

That he was the highest ability-rated horse in the field, albeit a poor field, is fact, and I have no doubt whatsoever that VDW regarded him as a "form" horse - fits perfectly the "one performance is better than another" criterion. What is not clear, at least to me, is whether he was a consistent horse. At one level of course he was, depending on the betting forecast used, but I see that as VDW 101 and not actually how he came to his consistent or not judgements.

On the one hand, I am assuming that like all the other 33, VDW regarded Ascenia as a consistent horse, but that is simply a working assumption. On the other, he fails my other working assumption, that VDW regarded horses as consistent if each of their last three runs was a "form" run (with, obviously, a slightly modified test for those horses who failed to complete a run).

I can see a number of reasons why VDW might have assessed each of Ascenia's last three runs as "form" runs, but I don't think it will be possible to judge whether he did from this example alone, and if he did, precisely why. If we can be reasonably sure he did regard Ascenia as a consistent horse, then my working assumptions still hold; if he didn't, the first is clearly wrong as it stands.

So far I have been unable to find any discussion about Ascenia by Guest or Lee; their observations could have been helpful.
Click to expand...
I would say in Ascenia's case he would have been well aware how novice hurdlers can be campaigned to get their handicap mark. If you think about a recent example (well within the last 2 seasons) C'Est Different trained by Sam Thomas, this horse was down the field in all of his novice hurdles at big prices including 80/1 in a useful Sandown race prior to going into handicap hurdles and also stepping up in trip. He then ran up a fantastic sequence of easy victories including in higher class than that Sandown novice he was beaten out of sight in.

Obviously that's a fairly rare profile to keep on winning as he did, but the point is when C'Est Different went for his second handicap, like many others he only had the improved performance in his last run with 2 previous races in his 3 race profile showing down the field. Those 2 previous runs don't make a novice hurdler in handicaps inconsistent. It simply says they were being handicapped and were never in those races to win. As the betting usually suggested.

And that's what I mean't about different circumstances and VDW's warning about giving time to look at different types of races and how they work. The other 3 horses from your sub group I mentioned yesterday all had different circumstances that could logically be explained. Parkhouse was clearly out of his depth (as well as the handicap) at Newbury, so 4th was not a let down. Crown Matrimonial had been out of form having won many a race prior to that season. But his last race showed him to have come back to form on his 3rd run of the season winning a better race than the one he was entered for. And additionally on his last run of the previous season had won an even better race than both that Wincanton race and his LTO race. The positioning in the season of the 3 runs has to logically be taken into account. When Ryeman failed to run to form it was after having shown form that season.

I think you are on the right lines with the consistent form idea being different to simply having one of the 3 lowest consistency ratings. It makes sense to me especially in view of what VDW said in the text you pointed out. But I suspect like all things VDW it required what he referred to as "know how' as to how to interpret different scenarios with each runner's form and profile.
 
"Actually I should have mentioned that Ascencia has quite a lot in common with Love From Verona."

I agree, T Tufnel, and to an extent Billet.

nagwa nagwa. Very important in my view. If he had been beaten lto at level weight Prominent King would not have been a "form" horse. Examples like Celtic Pleasure, Nomadic Way and Roushayd should help you re weight.

And not just handicaps; for example Orchestra and Three Tails.
 
Last edited:
re Ascenia, I have a note (no source, but I assume from the Life) that he won the first handicap hurdle from 9lb out of the handicap. IF that is correct, it makes the win more impressive. (It is also possible that he was running from out of the handicap in the race for which VDW selected him; the Raceform Form Book does not appear to show out of handicaps in those days.)
Click to expand...
JennyK JennyK It looks almost certain that Ascencia was running from out of the handicap at Leicester because it had a 6lb penalty yet was still set to carry 10-0. So must have been at least 6lbs OH.

And it looks likely that he was at least 8lbs wrong at Newbury if you look at the card. 19 of the 23 declared were allotted 10-0 and only Woodham could possibly have been running from his correct mark. It's likely Ascencia was indeed around 9lbs OH when you look at how the runner's names are listed alphabetically.

Incidentally Killeshin had gone up in class and won from OH at Taunton before winning at Newcastle again from OH, but with a non claimer on the latter run.

Killeshin had been a very good hunter chaser at major meetings before going down the handicapper route and had fallen right down the weights running over trips too short.

Screenshot 2026-09-05 at 21.38.45.png
 
nagwa nagwa

On reflection, it was not helpful for me to have mentioned Orchestra in connection with weight. Along with Three Tails, two other non-handicap examples where in my view the weights are instructive are Diamond Edge and Wayward Lad.
 
Chesham said:
This is a fantastic example of a classic handicapping trap. If you look strictly at the official handicap and the math, Cossack Guard had every reason to reverse the form at Ascot. Instead, he was thoroughly beaten.

Here is exactly why Braashee was able to defeat Cossack Guard so comprehensively the second time around, despite the conditions appearing to favor the loser.

The Weight Swing Paradox​

At Newbury, these two 3-year-olds raced off level weights (9-5) and identical Official Ratings (95). Braashee barely edged it, winning by a neck.

Just seven days later at Ascot, the weights shifted dramatically:

MetricNewbury (Sep 23)Ascot (Sep 30)
Braashee Weight9-59-4 (carried penalty)
Cossack Guard Weight9-58-11
Net AdvantageLevelCossack Guard (+7 lbs)
Braashee TS (Speed)102114
Cossack Guard TS (Speed)10298

Cossack Guard was handed a massive 7-pound pull in the weights. In handicapping theory, 7 pounds over 1m4f is more than enough to overturn a neck margin. However, the weight swing was entirely negated by race flow and physical recovery.

1. The 7-Day "Bounce" Factor​

Both horses wheeled back on exactly seven days' rest, but they ran very different races at Newbury.

At Newbury, Cossack Guard did the heavy lifting. He pressed prominently (3rd into the straight) and committed early, leading from 3 furlongs out before getting caught late. Pushing the pace over 1m 5½f takes a massive physical toll. Braashee, conversely, was held up and pounced late—a much smoother, less taxing trip.

When they met at Ascot seven days later, Cossack Guard clearly "bounced" (regressed due to fatigue). His Timeform Speed (TS) dropped from 102 to 98, while Braashee moved massively forward.

2. Pace Mapping and Race Flow​

The tactical setup at Ascot was a disaster for Cossack Guard.

  • Newbury (1m 5½f): Cossack Guard was able to comfortably secure a prominent spot and dictate his own rhythm.
  • Ascot (1m 4f): Dropping back a furlong and a half into a chaotic 17-runner field completely changed the pace dynamic. With fast early fractions set by Bay Bird and Roushayd, Cossack Guard was outpaced ("Never near to challenge").
When a prominent runner is denied their preferred tactical spot on the front end—especially when already fatigued from a race 7 days prior—they often throw in the towel. Braashee's closing style, on the other hand, was perfectly suited to sit back, let the front-runners collapse, and pick up the pieces.

3. Trajectory and Class​

Ultimately, Braashee was simply a much better horse rapidly climbing through the ranks. While Cossack Guard had likely hit his ceiling as a handicapper, Braashee was progressing into a Group-caliber stayer. His TS exploding from a 102 to a 114 at Ascot is the signature of a 3-year-old taking a massive developmental leap that no amount of weight advantage from a rival could stop.
Click to expand...
Also see link below

VDW - Just a few thoughts VDW or otherwise.
 
nagwa nagwa

In my view weight is not a factor with Braashee. He was both a "form" horse and a "consistent" horse on the basics, and the only issue needing consideration was whether any of the three higher ability-rated horses in the field were also "consistent form" horses as, if so, they could potentially have been the class/form horse. In all three cases it was easy to come to the conclusion that they were not, so 4th on ability Braashee became the consistent class/form horse. I imagine you are thinking of the weight change with Cossack Guard from their previous meeting. I don't think VDW thought there was any chance of reversal, on ability and trajectory grounds, supported by market positions. If so, he was right, not just in respect of the specific race, but have a look at their respective 4yo careers.

The only doubt in VDW's mind would, I suspect, be whether Braashee could show the improvement needed to win again; in his last race he won a class 204 and when VDW selected him was going up to a class 713. Many lto winners going up in class have the same issue as Braashee; Billet, for example, was going from a class 48 to class 227 in the Northern Dancer Handicap. There VDW wasn't sure he would show the required improvement. An issue for VDWers is what factors prompted those judgements. Extent of rise had to be one; my money would be on age and career trajectory being two others.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top