Handicap Class Droppers
- Thread starter Tufnel
- Start date
First stat I wanted to see on Handicap Hurdle races was how often a race is won by a horse being unraced in any code by days.
Across almost 11,800 such races the number of winners gradually rises up to a peak of 21-22 days and doesn't really fall significantly until around 50 days since a last race outing.
So that tells me the arbitrary 28 days cut off on these races is just as I thought. Of no real significance as to if a horse is fit enough or not.
Next I'll start checking races using a top X group based on most recent races, so see how often that captures the winner.
Across almost 11,800 such races the number of winners gradually rises up to a peak of 21-22 days and doesn't really fall significantly until around 50 days since a last race outing.
So that tells me the arbitrary 28 days cut off on these races is just as I thought. Of no real significance as to if a horse is fit enough or not.
Next I'll start checking races using a top X group based on most recent races, so see how often that captures the winner.
Hi T Tufnel,
Allow me to respond to your post properly.
Lets say there were only 6 Handicap Hurdles during the week in question. That means you would be comparing the commonalities of all 6 winners with all the other runners in all 6 races.
In effect you would be looking for a system. But it is absolutely certain that the commonalities would apply to other runners in the races, making it impossible to solve the puzzle.
If there were 7 races then you would be comparing the commonalities of the 6 winners VDW gave with the other winner. The chances of solving the puzzle then are only slightly better.
Basically the more races you have for comparing the 6 with the other winners, the better the chance of solving the puzzle.
That is what my first line was implying. Nothing more.
I agree with you that VDW would not normally bother with the Selling Handicaps. But that is irrelevant when solving the puzzle.
I know for certain that dropping in class, using prize money, is not one of the factors because Windbreaker was going up in class and also the winners not mentioned by VDW were also dropping in class.
But it is your method, your rules. Good luck with it.
Thanks for elaborating G Garry I understand the problems with only have a few examples and more would have been preferable, though to be fair VDW gave several dozen examples of his other methods over the years and few seem to have solved those puzzles.
But throwing in races that would not even have been considered is not useful at all. Why didn't VDW name the other races that would have been considered? The answer is one of three ways being 1- He didn't find a selection in those races, 2 - He did but they lost and he didn't want to mention them or 3 - He made it all up with back fitting.
Class dropping alone is not a factor to go to war with, that's an obvious thing I looked at first.
Windbreaker was going up in class at Lingfield, but look what he did in his last race. He went up in class and improved.
Mithras went up in class last time and ran down the field. But was dropping for his Hereford victory.
There's patterns runners fit into depending on how they've been placed by their trainer in previous races.
Think about this point as an example. How often do horses who seemingly disappoint last time go and win a handicap next time when they are not in the top few weights?
I'm not approaching the solution to the puzzle as looking for a system, but looking for a methodical solution to narrow down the field of vision, which is the basis for everything he presented to us.
It doesn't matter how many distance winners or course winners are in the race. And it doesn't really matter how many days they have been away from the races either. Yes, recent form is a nice to have, but it's not essential.
VDW said in that same letter/article that basic research into different types of races was necessary. In those days that was a mammoth task for anything other than a fairly small sample. Today we can check these things in often as little as seconds if you have the data stored.
It took me about 10 minutes to get the code to check almost 12,000 recent handicap hurdle races that shows me the number of days off the track just really affect the rate horses win these races at until you get to about 50 days since last race. And even then it takes a horse to be off for considerably longer to affect the strike rate to low numbers.
For me there's another filter that helps exclude runners on something even simpler than days since last ran.
Perhaps VDW was making it all up based on filters that happened to show things in a good light on a particular day. If he did then it would seem strange that without me having all the answers, I'm able to find winners using what answers I have found so far.
That may not continue going forward, and it certainly won't if I stop trying to find all the answers.
JennyK
Mare
I am glad you raised Asa Spades again,
T
Tufnel, though I am not sure where it leaves me.
At first sight, it looks as though Asa Spade's performance on 15/11/86, beaten 16.5l in a class 18, having previously been beaten 6.5l in a class 27, was a downturn. and on VDW's "One performance better than another ...." approach, not a form run.
However, VDW was explicit that AS was a "form" horse, so that must be taken as a given. At first I thought it had torpedoed my understanding of the Direct Line example, and it may have, but thinking further, maybe not. I think particular considerations with AS were, first, that he has met the winner of his last race a fortnight earlier, and second the general weight rises with both races.
On 01/11/86, there was a 6lb general weight rise. Jimpanze (the winner two weeks later) was scheduled to run off 9.08 and AS 10.02. In the race the actual weights were 8lb in Jimpanze's favour, reduced to 7lb because he carried 1lb overweight. So AS gave Jimpanze 7l and was beaten 5.5l. Neither horse, relative to the other, was disadvantaged by the general weight rise.
They met again on 15/11/86, and this time the weight difference was 19lb in Jimpanze's favour (10.02 v 11.07), in small part due to AS's official rating being adjusted relative to Jimpanze's but mainly due to the differential effect of the much larger general weight rise of 15lb; that worked in Jimpanze's favour.
Thus a fortnight later AS gave Jimpanze 12lb more and was beaten by an additional 11l. Given that when they met a fortnight earlier, Jimpanze was having his first run of the season while AS had already had two, I think VDW would have regarded AS's performances in both races as much the same, maybe a touch better in the later one.
At first sight, it looks as though Asa Spade's performance on 15/11/86, beaten 16.5l in a class 18, having previously been beaten 6.5l in a class 27, was a downturn. and on VDW's "One performance better than another ...." approach, not a form run.
However, VDW was explicit that AS was a "form" horse, so that must be taken as a given. At first I thought it had torpedoed my understanding of the Direct Line example, and it may have, but thinking further, maybe not. I think particular considerations with AS were, first, that he has met the winner of his last race a fortnight earlier, and second the general weight rises with both races.
On 01/11/86, there was a 6lb general weight rise. Jimpanze (the winner two weeks later) was scheduled to run off 9.08 and AS 10.02. In the race the actual weights were 8lb in Jimpanze's favour, reduced to 7lb because he carried 1lb overweight. So AS gave Jimpanze 7l and was beaten 5.5l. Neither horse, relative to the other, was disadvantaged by the general weight rise.
They met again on 15/11/86, and this time the weight difference was 19lb in Jimpanze's favour (10.02 v 11.07), in small part due to AS's official rating being adjusted relative to Jimpanze's but mainly due to the differential effect of the much larger general weight rise of 15lb; that worked in Jimpanze's favour.
Thus a fortnight later AS gave Jimpanze 12lb more and was beaten by an additional 11l. Given that when they met a fortnight earlier, Jimpanze was having his first run of the season while AS had already had two, I think VDW would have regarded AS's performances in both races as much the same, maybe a touch better in the later one.
Last edited:
That's pretty much the way I saw it. Even disregarding the weights raised issue, it seemed a big disadvantage to AS that it was beaten by Jimpanzee giving it 8 lbs but just a few weeks later it was then giving him 19 lbs.
But when you apply the same logic to Burrough Hill Lad's last 2 races it doesn't follow. BHL beat West Tip half a length giving it 8 lbs. Then at Ascot BHL was giving West Tip 28 lbs and was beaten 3 lengths by that horse. Doesn't that imply that BHL's run at Ascot was a 16 lbs better performance than Chepstow?
And then there's the fact that Wayward Lad was 8 lbs worse off with BHL at Kempton for a 3 length beating at Chepstow, a course that WL had won at 3 times before.
JennyK
Mare
T
Tufnel
When looking back to Asa Spades' last run, VDW's concerns were his usual ones of class of race and class of the runners, for the latter of which the evidence is that he looked to the key horse [he never used that term but it is a useful one]. The conclusion he reached with the King George a year earlier is of course part of the evidence, the first piece of which was Drumgora.
Speculative, of course, but VDW's throwaway about "associates who ought to have known better" may well indicate that others he knew had taken the view you've suggested.
When looking back to Asa Spades' last run, VDW's concerns were his usual ones of class of race and class of the runners, for the latter of which the evidence is that he looked to the key horse [he never used that term but it is a useful one]. The conclusion he reached with the King George a year earlier is of course part of the evidence, the first piece of which was Drumgora.
Speculative, of course, but VDW's throwaway about "associates who ought to have known better" may well indicate that others he knew had taken the view you've suggested.
Last edited:
Drumgora? I suspect you meant Door Latch?
Ok. But that still leads me to the class and form of the key horse. Both key horses in PK and BHL's last races dropped in class having been 3rd in that previous higher class race. The only difference I can see is that perhaps given the weights and distances involved at Newbury, DL's one paced effort after losing the lead 3 fences out was not considered a form run when also given his previous races before that reappearance.
JennyK
Mare
"But that still leads me to the class and form of the key horse. Both key horses in PK and BHL's last races dropped in class having been 3rd in that previous higher class race."
You, but not I think VDW, for whom on my reading neither mattered.
"The only difference I can see is that perhaps given the weights and distances involved at Newbury, DL's one paced effort after losing the lead 3 fences out was not considered a form run when also given his previous races before that reappearance."
DL in this context?
ps
Sorry, being a bit dense. You clearly mean Door Latch. But the answer is the same.
You, but not I think VDW, for whom on my reading neither mattered.
"The only difference I can see is that perhaps given the weights and distances involved at Newbury, DL's one paced effort after losing the lead 3 fences out was not considered a form run when also given his previous races before that reappearance."
DL in this context?
ps
Sorry, being a bit dense. You clearly mean Door Latch. But the answer is the same.
Last edited:
Door Latch in the context of the SGB at Ascot. His previous 3 races suggest to me he was not a form horse at Ascot. He was not giving weight to the 2 in front of him at Newbury and was beaten 17 lengths albeit a higher class race on seasonal debut. He was dropping from the Gold Cup run back in March and a 2nd before that in lower class in January to West Tip.
If you compare that to how Drumgora arrived at the Ticknock handicap, yes he was 3rd in higher class previous run also with a low weight, but he was only beaten under 3 lengths arriving late in the race, not leading 4 fences from home and fading 17 lengths behind the front 2.
So if on your reading neither mattered to VDW then what else could he have measured the form of the key horses in those races?
Two things Lee posted a long time ago spring to mind. The first is that "VDW’s ability rating was given to measure class, class of horse and class of race, both very important."
and the second:
"VDW said at one point quite early on, "rating and ratings - two different matters". As usual so many have bypassed one of his statements without understanding what he was trying to convey. I said that Harnour was not a form horse for "much the same reason" as Beacon Light. In hindsight I should have added "though not exactly the same reasons." This is because every race is different and the exact circumstances rarely come up again. And so it follows that Celtic Pleasure had little in common with Beacon Light. Running in lower class than both his 2nd in November and his win first time out in March, but higher penalty value than his subsequent 2nd at Doncaster over 2f more with 13lb more and giving 12lb to Amber Valley going down by a length. The Sandown race was back over 1m 2f with less weight and back on easier going this time against largely out of form horses. This was all early season stuff, not after a hard campaign and not at the top level. Very different surely then than Beacon Light. They even ran their races in a totally different way when beaten."
The 2 sections I've highlighted in bold seem pertinent to me. It can't just be horse A was beaten 10 lengths therefore that equals, because that does not take into account how a horse performed in the latter stages of the race as opposed to where it finished in terms of placing and lengths won or beaten by.
Lee obviously took into account "how they ran their races" which makes sense to me. VDW phrased it as "what a horse does or does not do" in the last few furlongs or at the distance.
We've been here before with this issue and to me it seems kind of obvious that saying note what a horse does or does not do in the 2 furlongs in each of their last 3 races is different to saying what was it's finishing position and how many lengths did it win or be beaten by, the latter factor by the way he said to note in a different part of his "To confirm what the figures say.." sentence which he ended with "and most important how they performed in the later stages of each race".
Why would the last statement include factors he had already addressed to look at earlier in the same sentence?
Lee clearly had a long jump on us in sorting things out, though interesting he said he didn't go the whole way with all the methods VDW mentioned. You've clearly done extensive work and study of most of not all the examples.
I've also done a lot research and study of the examples, but still everything doesn't quite hang together. There is only a fairly small amount of variables or data fields if you like to look at in race to be run or race result. I would be amazed if part of VDW's method did not include something he specifically told us was "most important". It simply doesn't seem logical to dismiss it as not important on that basis.
Last edited:
I can't remember who mentioned the Ability Ranking factor recently, though I think it might have been
Chesham but I think it's an interesting factor to look at.
Looking at the 4:07 Handicap Chase at Worcester today for instance looking at the last 6 races of the runners placing related to their AR rank in those races tells a tale.
Kykorock Has won 3 of his his last 6 and never been top on AR. In fact his wins have been 5th, 7th and 6th rank. He was getting weight from the runner up last time who was 2nd ranked in the race. That runner up had won a 10k chase the run before as fav winning it's first race.
Park Annonciade has been top on AR in 5 of his 6 races and 2nd rank in the other (as he is today). And only won once from those 6 races byt 2nd 3 times.
Tour Avalie has been top ranked twice and won on one of those occasions. Also won as 3rd ranked. But been 2nd, 5th and 3rd ranked last 3 runs and not finished closer than 4th.
Jasmin De Cotte top ranked in 3 of his 6 races and won once when top ranked. But not won in last six other than that.
Authoceltic has not been top ranked in any of the last 6 races but has been 2nd rank once and 3rd rank twice winning on none of those occasions.
Siam Park has been top ranked on last 3 runs and 2nd ranked on the previous 3 runs but not won a single one of those races but finished 2nd twice and 3rd last twice.
So what does this tell us?
You could say Kykorock has won 3 of his las6 races (including 2 of his last 3) where he was down the list of AR rankings and today is in a race where he is top. Could it be this is a drop in class on that measure?
Park Annonciade is a largely consistent horse but has only won once in the last 6 races despite being top ranked in 5 of them and 2nd ranked in the other.
Tour Avalie only won when top ranked. So a good record with 2 from 2 on that score. But 4th ranked today, Last 3 races when ranked lower doesn't bode well given fin positions in those races.
Authoceltic did win when 7th ranked never been top ranked last 6. Carried 11-10 in a handicap when winning as 7th ranked. So that seems unusually decent. Last time out was a better race than this and just failed when 3rd ranked to the 2nd ranked winner receiving just a pound in weight. That winner ran a blinder back over hurdles yesterday when 2nd in an 11k handicap.
Siam Park seems to be a bock as top ranked AR. You have to go back to last November at Plumpton when he ranked 4 of 5 runner for his last win when fav beating the 3rd ranked runner up.
On this basis the race clearly looks between Kykorock and Authoceltic.
Which one? Or back em both at 2s and 3s.
Chesham but I think it's an interesting factor to look at.Looking at the 4:07 Handicap Chase at Worcester today for instance looking at the last 6 races of the runners placing related to their AR rank in those races tells a tale.
| Horse | Today's AR rank | Prev race AR rank - Pos | |||||
| Kykorock | 1 | 5 - 1st | 10 - 3rd | 7 - 1st | 6 - 1st | 2- 3rd | 2 - 8th |
| Park Annonciade | 2 | 1 - 2nd | 1 - 2nd | 1 - 1st | 1 - 2nd | 1 - 3rd | 2 - PU |
| Tour Avalie | 3 | 2 - 8th | 5 - 10th | 3 - 4th | 1 - 3rd | 3 - 3rd | 1 - 1st |
| Jasmin De Cotte | 4 | 1 - 4th | 2 - 3rd | 1 - 1st | 2 - 6th | 3 - 9th | 1 - 12th |
| Authoceltic | 5 jt | 3 - 2nd | 4 - 5th | 7 - 1st | 4 - 2nd | 3 - 5th | 2 - 4th |
| Siam Park | 5 jt | 1 - 3rd | 1 - 3rd | 1 - 2nd | 2 - UR | 2 - F | 2 - 2nd |
Kykorock Has won 3 of his his last 6 and never been top on AR. In fact his wins have been 5th, 7th and 6th rank. He was getting weight from the runner up last time who was 2nd ranked in the race. That runner up had won a 10k chase the run before as fav winning it's first race.
Park Annonciade has been top on AR in 5 of his 6 races and 2nd rank in the other (as he is today). And only won once from those 6 races byt 2nd 3 times.
Tour Avalie has been top ranked twice and won on one of those occasions. Also won as 3rd ranked. But been 2nd, 5th and 3rd ranked last 3 runs and not finished closer than 4th.
Jasmin De Cotte top ranked in 3 of his 6 races and won once when top ranked. But not won in last six other than that.
Authoceltic has not been top ranked in any of the last 6 races but has been 2nd rank once and 3rd rank twice winning on none of those occasions.
Siam Park has been top ranked on last 3 runs and 2nd ranked on the previous 3 runs but not won a single one of those races but finished 2nd twice and 3rd last twice.
So what does this tell us?
You could say Kykorock has won 3 of his las6 races (including 2 of his last 3) where he was down the list of AR rankings and today is in a race where he is top. Could it be this is a drop in class on that measure?
Park Annonciade is a largely consistent horse but has only won once in the last 6 races despite being top ranked in 5 of them and 2nd ranked in the other.
Tour Avalie only won when top ranked. So a good record with 2 from 2 on that score. But 4th ranked today, Last 3 races when ranked lower doesn't bode well given fin positions in those races.
Authoceltic did win when 7th ranked never been top ranked last 6. Carried 11-10 in a handicap when winning as 7th ranked. So that seems unusually decent. Last time out was a better race than this and just failed when 3rd ranked to the 2nd ranked winner receiving just a pound in weight. That winner ran a blinder back over hurdles yesterday when 2nd in an 11k handicap.
Siam Park seems to be a bock as top ranked AR. You have to go back to last November at Plumpton when he ranked 4 of 5 runner for his last win when fav beating the 3rd ranked runner up.
On this basis the race clearly looks between Kykorock and Authoceltic.
Which one? Or back em both at 2s and 3s.
JennyK
Mare
T
Tufnel
I'd need to see the Lee quote in context, but I suspect he was simply repeating what VDW wrote in "Introduction to VDW Update", ie "You should not need to be reminded that the class against which a horse runs is not the same as the class of race in which they compete".
As to "how they performed in the later stages of each race", it is indeed most important, but what happens in the later stages of any race is always the same, the finishing order is decided. It may seem a repeat of material earlier in the sentence and to the extent that it is, that in itself tells us something. You mentioned Lee is another context; as per a post of his I reposted not long ago, he had no truck with the idea that VDW meant race readers' comments. And don't forget, sometimes there were no comments, at least in the Form Book: consider Prominent King and Son Of Love, for example.
Whether or not Door Latch was a "form" horse, or even a consistent "form" horse, coming into the race on 14/12/8 is very relevant if one is analysing that race but in my view not to VDW when he analysed the King George. There, in regard to BHL, the point of interest is that BHL finished (from a VDW perspective) unacceptably behind Door Latch, with the consequence we know.
I'd need to see the Lee quote in context, but I suspect he was simply repeating what VDW wrote in "Introduction to VDW Update", ie "You should not need to be reminded that the class against which a horse runs is not the same as the class of race in which they compete".
As to "how they performed in the later stages of each race", it is indeed most important, but what happens in the later stages of any race is always the same, the finishing order is decided. It may seem a repeat of material earlier in the sentence and to the extent that it is, that in itself tells us something. You mentioned Lee is another context; as per a post of his I reposted not long ago, he had no truck with the idea that VDW meant race readers' comments. And don't forget, sometimes there were no comments, at least in the Form Book: consider Prominent King and Son Of Love, for example.
Whether or not Door Latch was a "form" horse, or even a consistent "form" horse, coming into the race on 14/12/8 is very relevant if one is analysing that race but in my view not to VDW when he analysed the King George. There, in regard to BHL, the point of interest is that BHL finished (from a VDW perspective) unacceptably behind Door Latch, with the consequence we know.
Ok thanks. The Lee quote is in context below. I'm sure you would have seen it before, but I post it again to save you looking for it.
Lee did kind of back track on the comments after posting a glossary of fairly well known race comments we all see.
VDW also suggested publications, giving such comments and post race observations to a reader who specifically asked him about being able to check how a horse performed in the later stages of a race when it involved Irish or overseas races as both PK and Son Of Love did. Both those horses were mentioned in the letter VDW wrote. It seems strange to me that he would suggest those sources if he didn't mean for readers to check what a horse does or does not do in the last few furlongs of the race using that further information. We have as I say had this discussion before and I still see no logical reason for VDW to point out the last few furlongs when surely everybody knows to look at those who ran 1st, 2nd or 3rd and who dominated the finish anyway?
When VDW went through the Derby example, he cited as one of the positive points that Quest For Fame "quickened" in his last race at Chester.
He could have taken that from only one or both of two sources at the time. His own eyes through watching the race or the official comments in the form book which said "Held up, quickened to challenge 5f out, led entering straight, headed 1f out, kept on". There was certainly no RaceIQ or sectionals in the UK at the time to tell him anything.
In his expansion of the Roushayd article printed in Racing In My Systems he said about Roushayd "Put back to his best distance, pushed still further up in class, he ran better making headway 5f out, but was one-paced final couple of furlongs in this class gaining a rating of 65."
Again the official form book comments say "Headway 5f out, 3rd straight, hung right, one pace final 2f".
If you look at the likes of Ahoy, etc he again quotes almost directly from information found in the form book comments. Why would he do that if it played no part in the important factor he suggested of taking note of what a horse does or does not do in the last 2f of each race?
Every horse does or does not do something at that stage of the race if they finished the contest. And those involved in the finish would have certainly have done more, that's just obvious otherwise they wouldn't have ended up where they did.
Another quote from one of his reminders on this issue is this below:
Again, he says over the last two furlong of each of their three previous outings. That seems a very strange way to simply point readers to who was involved in the finish of the race.
And with Ahoy he again quotes the form book comment "Always behind, lost touch 4f out, 4th straight" in this clip:
I honestly think that with all due respect you could be wrong on the the importance of noting how a race developed and how the horses actually ran in the race in full conjunction with the numerical data.
VDW said it was important to note what a horse does or does not do in the last few furlongs. The only way you can know that is via the help of experienced race reader's comments in the form book or by watching the race yourself. Only then will you be able to note not only genuine effort but how the race unfolded to produce the finishing order. A horse just clinging on after making all and getting first run is an inferior or less convincing performance to the same class of horse making headway in the last few furlongs to overhaul the same class of horses as in the former scenario.
The Lee quote is below in full:
"
Don’t get me wrong, I am a long way from being as successful as VDW appeared to be with such priced horses as Desert Hero, but if there is one thing that I’m 100% positive about, it is that weight was a factor to consider where VDW was concerned, he said so many times, and more importantly it is evident in a great number of his examples.
People continue to ask many questions on all aspects of VDW because presumably there are parts of the method that they don’t understand (and non of us ever will, fully)? They are asking questions but at the same time refuse to use the basic tools that he gave to assess class, which in turn leads you to the final answers on form. Particularly in handicaps OR’s cannot be used as a guide to class where VDW is concerned. The reason for this is down to VDW’s view on weight and it’s effects, which again is not conventional. The fact that he had a view on weight, which is undeniable to anyone who has read the books, means that those who chose to ignore it should concede that they will never move forward where HIS methods are concerned.
VDW’s ability rating was given to measure class, class of horse and class of race, both very important. The driving factor in racing is prize money, whether it is win or place prize money. Every race has contestants that are aiming for the win money and those that would be content with the place money. A recent example of this would be Castle Prince having earned over 5k in his last 3 runs and won none of them. No good to us though, as we are looking for winners. Yes there is a transition period with the spread of prize money, and the introduction of the showcase race etc, but it soon becomes apparent to what the form in these races amounts to with the aid of the factors that VDW gave us. He himself admitted that racing would change over the years, but he was shrewd enough also to state that his methods would carry on winning.
Surely unless the tools that VDW gave us are used it is impossible gain a full understanding of how he used them. The use of Official Ratings as a guide to class, and the decision to ignore the effects of weight may well be successful but the method devised from these views cannot be attributed to VDW.
I started my last post by implying that NO ONE will ever fully understand the methods that VDW used. Obviously some will understand more than others which will in most cases be down to the amount of research time that has been put in and most importantly experience. Other than the ability rating that VDW gave, and the OR that is the opinion of the handicapper, how else can we judge the ability of a horse? I have yet to come across one that will do the job. However, one thing that I think we all have in common on this thread is that we must be able to rate a horse’s ability in the first instance. If we do this using OR’s then weight has to be thrown out of the window, as the two are directly affected, as we all know.
Not only did VDW not mention weight in his Spells it Out article or the Roushayd example he never once annotated the weights that horses carried in any of the examples that he gave. But he mentioned it often enough for us not to pick up on. Had Prominent King been carrying level weights instead of the massive (his word not mine) 12-7 he carried close to Drumgora (in receipt of 19lbs), do you think VDW would have made PK a good thing? Not a chance.
Also Roushayd, who showed up well in the Northern Dancer Class 227, behind Billet, the most likely winner in that race (and confirmed in the result), giving him 6lbs in weight. Next time Roushayd goes down in class to 170, is top weight, but only 1lb higher in actual physical weight, though this time here are no Billets to worry about lower down in the weights. That coupled with the improved performance in the Northern Dancer VDW considered him a good thing. VDW never mention weight at all, but once a few things are spotted he shouldn’t have needed to.
I 100% appreciate that there are other ways to skin the cat and it was here that I was trying to make the point that these ways are indeed OTHER ways. If we ignore the weight issues and throw out the ability rating as a measure of class/form, then how can we possibly call it the VDW method?
There were a few things that weren’t exactly spelt out in that article and others that he wrote. Also from the man himself,
“Weight is a great leveller, but my personal view is that there is a distinction between dead and live weight. Although I do not wish to press the issue, I feel excess lead in the saddle is more of a brake than a heavier jockey. Consider also that a trainer will leave a high weighted horse in a race to prevent another charge suffering from raised weights.
This suggests that additional weight even in proportion is something undesirable. A study of the situation will reveal that the majority of horses falter when shouldering above a certain weight even though it may be in direct handicap proportion”……..
“Horses have INDIVIDUAL weight limits beyond which THEY do not perform. If a horse is set to carry more than they have previously performed well with, it is reasonable to assume that the day will not be theirs, irrespective of other factors.” (CAPABILITY)."
Last edited:
Thanks
Chesham You can't beat the feeling of having your dutch selections coming to the last with the others beat. Amazing SP on Kykorock. Made for a near even money bet on what I was happy to take 1/2 for.The Bowen winner had been top on AR rank in it's last 2 wins. The presence of the Skelton horse helped with a more than fair 7/4 SP.
At the risk of losing the 100% record today and a little run of 5 winners on the trot, I'm having one more bet in the Kempton 6:45.
Spell Master is dropping in class here and AR rank 2. And he won his only AW start this time last year when also dropping in class as AR rank 1. The race he was 3rd in 2 runs back at York was a 77k race was won by the 5th ranked with the 3rd ranked in 2nd. SM was 6th ranked and 14/1.
There's no horse like The Lost King or Bullet Point in here really today. Harry Vigors has his 5 lb claim and Oli Rix small string is running well without quite hitting the jam stick first.
I also am backing two longer shots who I think could be interesting in Racingbreaks Ryder and my old friend Fantastic Fox. Both in form and capable of taking a hand in these type of races.
Spell Master, Racingbreaks Ryder and Fantastic Fox in a 3 way dutch bet.
Spell Master is dropping in class here and AR rank 2. And he won his only AW start this time last year when also dropping in class as AR rank 1. The race he was 3rd in 2 runs back at York was a 77k race was won by the 5th ranked with the 3rd ranked in 2nd. SM was 6th ranked and 14/1.
There's no horse like The Lost King or Bullet Point in here really today. Harry Vigors has his 5 lb claim and Oli Rix small string is running well without quite hitting the jam stick first.
I also am backing two longer shots who I think could be interesting in Racingbreaks Ryder and my old friend Fantastic Fox. Both in form and capable of taking a hand in these type of races.
Spell Master, Racingbreaks Ryder and Fantastic Fox in a 3 way dutch bet.