• 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

Handicap Class Droppers

Another piece in the UWOF book caught my eye again whilst scanning to see how many times VDW mentioned class or form post early 80s.

It's a passage I've read many time before but probably not really understood until checking the reference horses from that year's 2000 Guineas.

What VDW seems to be saying here is that whilst the better 3 year olds usually show their best ratings (speed in this case) over 7f or the mile at 2 years, that doesn't mean a horse who only showed their best at 6f at 2 cannot go on to become very good over the mile or further at 3.

He uses Reform and Royal Palace to illustrate that whilst the latter won the 2000 Guineas and the Derby, he was absent with training/fitness issues after that until coming back in October for the Champion Stakes over 10f at Newmarket. Whilst Reform had been winning at all manner of distances all season.

Compared to Mattaboy and To-Agori-Mou with the former having his best 2yo ratings over 6f where as TAM had them over the mile. They finished the 1-2 in the 2000 Guineas but after that Mattaboy's career went south whilst TAM was never out of the first 2 winning major prizes before failing by 4 lengths in the Champion Stakes over 10f in October. Mattaboy had disappeared by then for the season.

This is what he means by favouring horses on what they do on the track.

Screenshot 2026-10-20 at 21.51.25.png
 
Tufnel Tufnel

I think VDW's discussion of the race won by Merce Cunningham is arguably his poorest in some respects.

Yes, he was correct that as arguably the consistent class/form horse MC was a likely winner, but was MC actually the class/form horse? In the light of Gaye Chance, maybe not.

But it is not related to that that I am critical, rather his comments about Ala Hounak and especially Shimshek.

It depends on what VDW was referring to by his "He had not shown anything earlier" comment in relation to AH. If it was to AH's previous run, as I suppose, it was incorrect. AH's run on 16/04/88 was perfectly satisfactory for a first of the year and a "form" run. He certainly didn't build on that next time out and as a result was not a "form" horse for the Merce Cunningham race, but insofsar as VDW meant by "earlier" the 16/04/88 run he was ungenerous to say the least, and I think plain wrong.

It is his comments re Shimshek that are the poorest, though. Shimshek started the season perfectly satisfactorily with a 3rd in a class 77. Then pushed up a long way in class to a 255 and came a close second (0.75l) to a seasonal debutant who, in his last race the year before had been outclassed in a class 419 in France but before that had won the Italian St Leger and earlier in the year the Goodwood Cup. No way was the run on the class 255 "a considerable downturn"; it is a perfect example of "one run better than another", and Shimshek was in my view far more likely to beat Merce Cunningham than Ile de Chypre was Roushayd in the Old Newton Cup. Yes, the race when second to Sergeyevich was slow run, as small field non-handicaps often are, and Shimshek could not get by Sergeyevich, who led throughout, in the last furlong. But so what? Sergeyevich was a markedly better horse, with a very much higher AR and a much higher best sf in 1987. Shimshek was a "form" horse, though not a consistent one, and the key horse in his last race was a markedly better horse than the one in MC's.

A case where the numbers speak a lot more clearly than VDW's comments.
 
JennyK said:
Tufnel Tufnel

I think VDW's discussion of the race won by Merce Cunningham is arguably his poorest in some respects.

Yes, he was correct that as arguably the consistent class/form horse MC was a likely winner, but was MC actually the class/form horse? In the light of Gaye Chance, maybe not.

But it is not related to that that I am critical, rather his comments about Ala Hounak and especially Shimshek.

It depends on what VDW was referring to by his "He had not shown anything earlier" comment in relation to AH. If it was to AH's previous run, as I suppose, it was incorrect. AH's run on 16/04/88 was perfectly satisfactory for a first of the year and a "form" run. He certainly didn't build on that next time out and as a result was not a "form" horse for the Merce Cunningham race, but insofsar as VDW meant by "earlier" the 16/04/88 run he was ungenerous to say the least, and I think plain wrong.

It is his comments re Shimshek that are the poorest, though. Shimshek started the season perfectly satisfactorily with a 3rd in a class 77. Then pushed up a long way in class to a 255 and came a close second (0.75l) to a seasonal debutant who, in his last race the year before had been outclassed in a class 419 in France but before that had won the Italian St Leger and earlier in the year the Goodwood Cup. No way was the run on the class 255 "a considerable downturn"; it is a perfect example of "one run better than another", and Shimshek was in my view far more likely to beat Merce Cunningham than Ile de Chypre was Roushayd in the Old Newton Cup. Yes, the race when second to Sergeyevich was slow run, as small field non-handicaps often are, and Shimshek could not get by Sergeyevich, who led throughout, in the last furlong. But so what? Sergeyevich was a markedly better horse, with a very much higher AR and a much higher best sf in 1987. Shimshek was a "form" horse, though not a consistent one, and the key horse in his last race was a markedly better horse than the one in MC's.

A case where the numbers speak a lot more clearly than VDW's comments.
Click to expand...
I think Ala Hounak's seasonal debut was just ok, though in a higher race he had ever won in but it was still a 6th of 8 runners beaten almost 10 lengths. The next race was only a slightly different class of race that was won by a horse from much lower class LTO as was the 2nd horse home. The fav who finished 3rd was 2nd in the race AH made his seasonal debut and yet instead of getting closer than the 8 lengths Sir Harry Lewis beat AH last time he ran 30 lengths behind him.

So whilst I get the point they were both a higher class race than Newbury, but they were both won by big outsiders coming from much lower class races and form than Merce Cunnigham had shown at that point.

Shimshek has always been an issue on the bare figures. How could it be a downturn when upped in class and running 2nd?
Of course you know my thoughts on that. If VDW said it was a downturn then we have to find out why.
He said it was a slow race and the horse did nothing from the distance. Unlike his previous race when he led 2f out before being passed by both Failiq and Private Audition, who wether we agree with it or not had won a much more valuable handicap race on last start the season before. And whilst that was his last flat run, he was race fit from hurdling including in the best 2 mile hurdle of them all at Cheltenham.
Staying Cup horses on the flat are very often good hurdlers too and mix it up under both codes to often high levels in both. The point for me being is that Private Audition was an improving flat horse for the step up in trip and Shimshek made more of a race with him and Failiq than he did behind Sergeyevich. VDW literally said the horse did nothing from the distance. He just stayed in second where he had been all race and made no ground up on the winner. In the race before he led them in the last 2 furlongs. I think for VDW he saw Sergeyevich having an easy lead and gifted the race whilst the evens fav (who had been 4th in Ala Hounak's first race of the season) seemed to incur trouble in running.

I can't see any other explanation other than what he said and what the data says on the class of races and positions achieved by the opposition before each race. In each of the races he evaluated in the Roushayd chapter and the races mentioned where Billet and Merce Cunningham had shown the classic improvement, they faced horses coming from more valuable races than the ones they were winning or the class of race was way above previous achievements.

Merce Cunningham's last race as a numerical picture beforehand showed he was facing several horses dropping from a recent class 166 handicap including the winner of that race. Compare it to the same picture of MC's previous race.

Billet the same thing at Newbury. Much better opposition by way of the class and form shown compared to the first run of the season was only 2nd.

In Roushyad's improved run it must be because the race itself was so much higher than any of the races the field had run in anyway. This seems to me why he said the class of race is different to the class of horses engaged. I see it as 3 sets of class. Class of the race. Class of the races the horses in the race have been running in. And class of horses in the race by winning achievements.

Of course it could also just be downturns and upturns based on the speed figure as per the speed chapters in Systematic Betting and Betting The VDW way booklets. He describes Desert Orchid and Forgive N Forgets races in those terms seemingly based on speed figure and class of race alone. But I find that too simplistic and I think is just part of the story.

Because if he showed a way of looking at a race result alongside the LTO class, form and distance of each runner in all of Roushayd's races befor the ONC, then why wouldn't he use that for every runner's races. If it's iimportant to note where the class and form comes from then it must be important in every race we look at.
 
Private Audition ran off about 72 when he beat Shimshek (and ended his Flat career off that mark). Shimshek ran off about 93 when going under by 4l, and by 09/07/88 was running off off 103.

Sergeyevich had won two Group 2s in 1987. I can't get an OR for him at the beginning of 1988 via Superform as he had not run in a handicap, though I assume it would have been in the International Classification table in the Racing Calendar. Given that he was rated 110 by 28/07/88, and allowing for a rise for beating Shimshek, I'd be happy to bet that when the two met Sergeyevich was rated 100+.

That a 100+ rated double Group 2 winner could beat a horse rated around 93, giving that horse 6lb, over that kind of trip they raced over is to be expected. I can see no possible case for the view that Shimshek's performance against Sergeyevich was in any sense a downturn from that against Private Audition.
 
Last edited:
JennyK said:
Private Audition ran off about 72 when he beat Shimshek (and ended his Flat career off that mark). Shimshek ran off about 93 when going under by 4l, and by 09/07/88 was running off off 103.

Sergeyevich had won two Group 2s in 1987. I can't get an OR for him at the beginning of 1988 via Superform as he had not run in a handicap, though I assume it would have been in the International Classification table in the Racing Calendar. Given that he was rated 110 by 28/07/88, and allowing for a rise for beating Shimshek, I'd be happy to bet that when the two met Sergeyevich was rated 100+.

That a 100+ rated double Group 2 winner could beat a horse rated around 93, giving that horse 6lb, over that kind of trip they raced over is to be expected. I can see no possible case for the view that Shimshek's performance against Sergeyevich was in any sense a downturn from that against Private Audition.
Click to expand...
Ok but even allowing for the fact that VDW never mentioned handicap ratings other than to point out the often significant discrepancies between official and commercially available private handicaps, the fact remains he said it was a downturn and his method of measuring ability and class was prize money cross checked in several ways by way of class of horse, class of race and using both those measures together to further measure class of horses competing in a race.

He also used speed and/or the difference in a race time compared to the average times. That was the bare situation in both races he said were SLOW in the 2 versions of the Roushayd article involving Shimshek and Greenhills Joy. Also the speed figures he said he used as one way to gauge improvement or downturns were cited in the Roushayd races and Desert Orchid and Forgive N Forget’s.

Now anyone can disagree with his conclusions on using those ratings of class, speed and the clock and the worth of using them but the fact remains he pointed them out as significant enough to mention and even capitalise in his text.

The other thing I would say is that handicap form and conditions race form outside of the very top Group or Grade 1 company doesn’t mix as well as everyone thinks it should. Shimshek was giving significant weight in a faster race in his first run. Then he was receiving weight out of handicap company behind Sergeyevich where he couldn’t get ahead at any stage, unlike his first run.

And the other point is that despite the perceived downturn in performance, VDW still reiterated that on a class basis Shimshek still “had to be respected” in the evaluation concluding it made Merce Cunningham the probable winner a risky bet.

This says to me simply having a 3rd and a 2nd in it’s recent 2 runs whatever the prize money to the winner doesn’t mean the form is exciting enough to warrant it’s selection.

I understand the point you’re making but if we go back to another horse who finished 2nd and it was seemingly deemed a downturn in Beacon Light, it was very arguable that Sea Pigeon was a much better horse than both Prominent King and certainly Drumgora, if not Beacon Light too. It was only class measured by prize money won or competed for that changed those rankings considerably. And in that method of using it for such purposes perhaps VDW was simply fundamentally wrong?

I think it’s ok to pull at the strings on the methods especially as he never clearly laid it out for all to see. But introducing a rating he actually warned was used By many and was the cause by those who used such ratings to be confounded by results, seems at odds with finding out how he used the method.
 
Last edited:
HH bets went wrong yesterday and on review I can see why. Deviating from the basics of the method from an admittedly small sample of just a few races, but even so. Several factors I missed or plain ignored on the lighter weighted runners yesterday and to compound that the one runner that did fit the parts the others were missing went and won. I've said before I see 3 types of profile. Those who won, those who placed and those who didn't do either of those things. When placed into certan scenarios they are the ones to look at. But I let other factors overshadow that.

I even went against a horse I backed last time and said at the time the jockey had panicked by a tear away front runner being so far in front and found himself in front too soon on a horse who needs holding up. Same scenario happened yesterday at Hexham when the donkey I backed tore off in front and a ridiculous pace but this time the jockey on the eventual winner sat and waited before moving on in the closing stages to win as he should have done last week. So that insight on my part last week went against me yesterday and I lost money on a race I could have profited from.

Anyway on to today. Several HH races today but some of them the cupboard seems bare.

Worcester 4:00 Limier d'Arthel and Gaelic Saint look the probables.

Fontwell 3:07 Diamond White and Inion Tiogair.

Fontwell 3:42 Grand Conqueror and Motazzen.

I'm not going to back any of these as I'm going to sit things out today.
 
As I've said, Tufnel Tufnel, I have no issue with VDW's conclusion on the race itself, ie not a betting one. Mainly his comment re Shimshek, about which we will have to agree to differ.

Poor racing today from both our points of view, with for me just the one reasonable sprint handicap (7.30 Kempton). More class droppers than risers, but none with good key horse support. None of the risers exactly excites. I have no difficulty in leaving the race, betting-wise, but will be interested to see how the two consistent "form" horses, Hundred Caps and Initial Blue get on.
 
HH races today.

Carlisle 1:52 Magna Victor and Winds Of Winter look the 2 most likely in this.

Clonmel 2:10 Kelly's Cosmos, Pahlavi and Hashtag Doyen are the 3 probables. This is a QR race though so amateur riders. Wouldn't have been a race to consider, but it will be interesting to see how the 3 probables actually get on.

Ffos Las 2:36 Kilwaughter and One Eye On Vegas.

Carlisle 3:02 Coventry.

Carlise 3:37 Knockeranna Rose and Order Another One.

Having sat yesterday out where 3 of the 2 races were won by one the 2 probables, I'm going to have a go with those in bold above.
 
Newmarket 4:05 I see Yes I'm Mali as the class/form horse dropping in class today. Shows up well in on the Erin figures too, as does Sierra Sands on consistency and Erin. Moore seems to be a big factor with this horse also.

I'm backing them both. Yes I'm Mali and Sierra Sands.
 
Ffos Las 3:46 Legendary Luke is dropping in class and his form looks a shade better then the Curtis runner, who will liley be useful. I prefer novice chasers to go from novice hurdling rather than via the handicap hurdle route and I think it could be the time to catch this one. So I'm backing it.
 
Re Simshek's performance in the Sagaro Stks.

It is very difficult to assess form in a slow run race.
But before I get to the nitty gritty let's look at the VDW data for that race.

Calculated from the Form Book the Ability ratings were;
201 Sergeyevich, 72 Janiski, 32 Pearl Run, 28 Waterfield & Overdrive, 25 Mr Pintips and 19 Shimshek.
VDW did say Shimshek did not have much in the way of class as a horse.

Race Class last time out we have;
418 Sergeyevich (last season), 241 Waterfield, 98 Mr Pintips, 76 Shimshek, 31 Janiski, 25 Pearl Run and 20 Overdrive (last season).

The Daily Mirror betting forecast was;
9-4 Waterfield, 100/30 Shimshek, 7-2 Overdrive, 6 Pearl Run, 9 Sergeyevich, 12 Mr Pintips, 16 Janiski.
Note on present form Janiski has the least chance.

Now to the nitty gritty of form assessment based on Official Ratings.
Shimshek and Janiski are the only two to consider, purely because they are the only ones of the 5 runners where I know their previous handicap marks. Had this race been a handicap they would both be running off their last time out handicap mark. Obviously the weights would be different to reflect this.

Now using their last time out handicap marks we have;
Shimshek 93 and Janiski 82. So with both carrying the same weight Shimshek had an 11lb pull on handicap over Janiski.

Because it was a slow run race there was only 3 lengths separating the winner Sergeyevich and Janiski who finished last.
Shimshek finished 2nd 2 1/4l ahead of Janiski.
If we take 1l = 1lb at 2m then Shimshek finished, say, 2lb ahead of Janiski.

So do we say Shimshek ran to his mark and Janiski improved by 9lb. In which case Janiski would be thrown in on his next handicap engagement, if repeating this form.
Or do we say Janiski ran to his mark and Shimshek ran 9lb below his mark. Which, I guess, would mean all the other runners also ran below their mark.
Or we could say Janiski improved say 4lb and Shimshek deteriorated 5lb. Which is still a downturn.

I don't know if VDW assessed performance this way, but I have noticed that some of his non form horses finished in close proximity to an outsider in the betting in their previous race.
 
Garry said:
Re Simshek's performance in the Sagaro Stks.

It is very difficult to assess form in a slow run race.
But before I get to the nitty gritty let's look at the VDW data for that race.

Calculated from the Form Book the Ability ratings were;
201 Sergeyevich, 72 Janiski, 32 Pearl Run, 28 Waterfield & Overdrive, 25 Mr Pintips and 19 Shimshek.
VDW did say Shimshek did not have much in the way of class as a horse.

Race Class last time out we have;
418 Sergeyevich (last season), 241 Waterfield, 98 Mr Pintips, 76 Shimshek, 31 Janiski, 25 Pearl Run and 20 Overdrive (last season).

The Daily Mirror betting forecast was;
9-4 Waterfield, 100/30 Shimshek, 7-2 Overdrive, 6 Pearl Run, 9 Sergeyevich, 12 Mr Pintips, 16 Janiski.
Note on present form Janiski has the least chance.

Now to the nitty gritty of form assessment based on Official Ratings.
Shimshek and Janiski are the only two to consider, purely because they are the only ones of the 5 runners where I know their previous handicap marks. Had this race been a handicap they would both be running off their last time out handicap mark. Obviously the weights would be different to reflect this.

Now using their last time out handicap marks we have;
Shimshek 93 and Janiski 82. So with both carrying the same weight Shimshek had an 11lb pull on handicap over Janiski.

Because it was a slow run race there was only 3 lengths separating the winner Sergeyevich and Janiski who finished last.
Shimshek finished 2nd 2 1/4l ahead of Janiski.
If we take 1l = 1lb at 2m then Shimshek finished, say, 2lb ahead of Janiski.

So do we say Shimshek ran to his mark and Janiski improved by 9lb. In which case Janiski would be thrown in on his next handicap engagement, if repeating this form.
Or do we say Janiski ran to his mark and Shimshek ran 9lb below his mark. Which, I guess, would mean all the other runners also ran below their mark.
Or we could say Janiski improved say 4lb and Shimshek deteriorated 5lb. Which is still a downturn.

I don't know if VDW assessed performance this way, but I have noticed that some of his non form horses finished in close proximity to an outsider in the betting in their previous race.
Click to expand...
I think the issue is what did VDW consider a downturn in form?

He used speed figures to go through the Roushayd races, though not actually in the Form Class Evaluation chapter but in the Speed Figures chapter. He mentioned speed figures related to class of race for Roushayd, Vouchsafe and Ile De Chypre, though again he dodged mentioning Vouchsafe's speed figure in relation to his previous 42 for "improving" in the Northern Dancer at Epsom. If Roushayd had a 65 at Epsom giving Vouchsafe 20 lbs then Vouchsafe needed to be within 3 lengths of Rousahyd to have achieved the same or better speed figure than his previous run.

He also went through Desert Orchid's races and Forgive N Forget's noting improved speed figures as marking the card when upped in class and half marking when the improved speed was down in class. Downturns were classified as such presumably more so if when dropping in class.

He also said the 2 horses he backed at Ascot in Sept '89 gave the same give away of improvement when upped in class on their previous runs.

Then if you just look at the form and class there are several points. First as you noted Sergeyevich was having his first run. He was also 7/1 in a small field. In Shimshek's last race was his seasonal debut and seemingly the same for the 2 in front of him, but the winner Private Audition had bee running over hurdles including just a few weeks earlier in the Champion Hurdle. And wether it fits in with ORs or not, he had a higher AR and last season final run class rating (which he won) than Shimshek.

VDW never put ORs forward as a way to measure a horse or race's class. Maybe he started using them once they became available but he could have mentioned them for the Roushayd races or even the older late 70s races where handicap races were restricted by handicap ratings.

The problem is VDW often put forward a simple idea such as speed figure related to class being an improvement, half marked card or downturn. Personally I find it's far from an infallible idea that any horse who shows a downturn in their speed figure from race to race has shown a downturn in form every time they do it. But I see how it can be viewed as a negative.

I think I'll test the basic idea and run some tests on a few years results to see how horses who showed a downturn in speed figure last time get on next time and likewise for those going up in class or down.
 
3 Handicap hurdle races today and I've got an interest in all 3 of them, but only 2 of the races are in line with the method and they are both at Kelso.

At Cheltenham 2:20 Idaho Fire is closest to the method and I think this horse has more to offer and a good chance he will emulate some of his siblings who went well at a good level on softer going over a trip. He's got no weight today and clearly saved for a bigger race after improving again for the step up in trip to win a nice prize late summer. But there is also a class dropper in here who also improved last time in a better race, also goes on the ground and hails from a stable in dynamite form so far this jumps season as further demonstrated by Wilful's excellent win on Thursday at Carlisle. And that is Seaniecon. Again a nice weight and surely his best chance of handicap hurdle success on only his 2nd handicap venture. I'm backing them both Seanicon and Idaho Fire.

At Kelso 3:14 The selection is Two Auld Pals. If you compare today's overview (images attached) with his last time out race and the fav Ashdown Forest's (who you have to respect) it seems to me this is a big drop in class for TAP. So I'm backing Two Auld Pals here.

Kelso 4:55 Summergrounds is the choice. I'm also going to stake 20% of my stake on him on Bold Light who is also approaching the well handicapped status and whilst behind Summergrounds last time, it would not shock me to see him be the main challenger.
Screenshot 2026-10-24 at 11.50.23.pngScreenshot 2026-10-24 at 11.49.21.pngScreenshot 2026-10-24 at 11.48.57.png
Screenshot 2026-10-24 at 11.50.23.pngScreenshot 2026-10-24 at 11.50.23.pngNote I can't see the screenshots in the post and whilst they show as attachments they come up blank.
 
Tufnel said:
At Kelso 3:14 The selection is Two Auld Pals. If you compare today's overview (images attached) with his last time out race and the fav Ashdown Forest's (who you have to respect) it seems to me this is a big drop in class for TAP. So I'm backing Two Auld Pals here.
Click to expand...
I have it the class/form horse on my ratings and Dutched the win/place.

Regards
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top