time for rupert 27s to place on here !

If he came 5th in that Gold Cup he'll be 10th next year. He couldn't place in an utterly shockingly bad gold cup. Not even a slight chance he'll place next year. None.

FW - In a few months I may well be tempted with that quote for the frame as it's in with a shout and there's plenty of mileage in trading TFR, especially if he gets off to a flyer in the Charlie Hall.

I do however agree with CVB in that as a win bet, his prospects are remote, as if he couldn't get closer in a bad renewal, then next year is really gonna be a mountain to climb, when a few second season novices will almost certainly have too many guns for him.

Then again...I'm sure CVB thought The Giant Bolster was a waste of an entry fee, and anything can happen in this game - at the big prices TFR is, I'd rather be a backer (for a few quid) than a layer

yeh,CV does tend to get a tad carried away

utterly shocking?? i know you dont rate the race mate,thats clear,but thats way too strong.

i would agree with Foyles,thats not the worse price ive seen to place,especially for a horse that i feel is capable of better than hes shown.He steadily improved last season and that could well continue.
Not one to dismiss for a place at that price imo

not sure it was a shockingly bad gold cup this year, people have it in thier mind that because the "handicappers"( not my words by the way )synchronised and the giant bolster finished 1st and 2nd it must be a bad gold cup ,but long run put in probably the best round of jumping i have seen him deliver in this country  could it not be that he has run somewhere near his best !think its too early to say it was a shockingly bad gold cup this year, time will tell .  off the top of my head we have had a graded winner already come out of the race  and the win part of the bet at 170s was taken as a " just in case thing  " as anything can happen in horse racing and i would have been mad to just back him place and something happened and he were to win the race! and at 170s you only need to put peanuts on to win big , although i am not putting up tfr as a win bet, more a place option .  the 2nd season novices although they look good and "sexy"  on paper they have got to prove they can make the transistion stepping out of novice company ! not always as easy as it looks ! look at quito dela roque and bostons angel this time last year as an example .of course the 2nd season novices may well dominate next season but how do we know yet  how good this bunch are.at the prices 27s a place time for rupert appeals to me at this stage !

I can only give my opinion guys, it may be a bit of an agressive opinion but I'm not one for sugar coating my opinions.

With, Sir Des Champs, Bobs Worth, Flemenstar, First Lieutenant, Grand Crus, Last Installment, Invictus all arriving on scene along with Burton Port, Long Run and TGB who all beat him last year. Plus Riverside Theatre, Al Ferof, Silviano Conti and Huntball.

I'm very very confident Time For Rupert is not going to place in next years Gold Cup.

As for TGB this year, he didn't win did he

If Long Run ran to his best or near best this year then 4 horses go up 10-20lbs on Gold Cup run. It's clearly obvious that he ran well below par as if you remove him from the race the order makes sense.

Sorry bud, the Gold Cup was utterly shocking imv.

Kauto injured and Long Run well below form. That leaves Synchronised to out stay TGB to win, Burton Port bounced slightly, Barry said he didn't get the same feel from him and he didn't pick up. He's only a 160s horse anyway. Then Time For Rupert running up to his best in the high 150s.

If Kauto was a n/r and you take Long Run out my eyes bleed at how bad that Gold Cup was.

China Rock now that he could breathe was 13l clear of Rubi Light last week. Synch beat him 8.5l. Wherever you look it's as clear as the light of day it was a shocking gold cup.

I'm confident only Long Run from that field can ever feature in the finish next year given the sheer amount of new staying talent on the scene.

we shall just disagree then my friend

Suppose TGB and TFR are the two who we can rate the race through this coming season. They both ran up to their best in the Gold Cup. So once they're stuffed then we can have some form lines

you ol rascal

Couldn't help myself

TGB won't ever be stuffed round Cheltenham, other courses maybe.  He is certainly too small to cope with the big open spaces of Newbury.   

Long Run ran to around his best for sure, but is best isn't as good as CVB continues to claim it is.  The 2011 CGC was the shocker, Denman had regressed and the official idiot missed it and CVB quotes the official idiot's ratings in every third post.  Rate Long Run at 174 on all his starts last 2 seasons, except first time out each year, and everything else falls into place.

*his best, apologies for typo

You have your opinion, I have mine. Long Run has well beaten every horse he has fased bar Kauto Star in his past 5 runs. He was not himself in the Gold Cup, of that I'm sure. You take him out of the race and you can see it was a poor race, bunched finish can never mean a quality race.

TGB has utterly zero change, none what so ever, of winning next years Gold Cup. Utterly none. That's the end of the matter.

can see TFR being a Grand National horse next year.

CVB
What do you think of Hidden Cyclone as i see he wasn't in your list of next years challengers and i rate him quite highly,Just i do wonder if he'll ever make it across the pond and how he'll handle Cheltenham
Thanks in advance for your reply..

Firstly I'd qualify the post by saying only bet chases and have won 18% to stake on them for a period of 10+ years. I have a ratings system which I think is way better than RPR etc. Also my opinion is that people who use lines to assess form are first grader punters.

Now the Gold Cup - I had Synchronised doing 4 less than Long Run the previous year. So Long Run 6 below his best. That is backed up by BP closer proximity weight adjusted to previous run. Also I had TFR 6 below his best but that is on account that he doesn't stay the GC trip.

Now this does not mean I rate Synchronised 4 below whatever Long Run was given rating wise in 2011 but that I believe he is 4 behind LR at their best.

LR, Kauto, Denman have done zero to warrant their 180+ ratings ever.

Only 2 horses in my lifetime that have ever come close to warrant those ratings in my lifetime (on a performance) are Master Minded's QM win in 08 and Carvills Hill welsh in 1991.

Masterminded beat voy por ustedes ( who was a different horse to his previous efforts ) on soft ground.

Kauto has won king georges by half the track ffs so how can you say he's never deserved a rating of 180+?

Just watch the KG where Kauto wins by a distance - just focus on the other horses and watch how they jumped. Barbers, Nacarat don't stay and Imperial had a bad one and just look at Madison Du Berlais run and jumping that day. If anyone thinks he ran remotely to form they need their head examined. Not saying Kauto etc weren't good but 180+?? REALLY??

As for VPU didn't he run well in soft ground of a 173 in the Old Roan and it wasn't that soft that year - slow by 3.8 - it wasn't bog to be making that excuse. Sure MM never did it again but that was a special run.

Every once in a while a race produces a huge margin winner.

Hawk wing in the lockinge comes to mind.

Kauto won tingle creeks, king georges and cheltenham gold cups by a fair few lengths.


Master minded won one race by a distance and you rank that one performance better than anything kauto did.

I find that very hard to believe.

I rate that performance better than anything Kauto did. Sure Kauto more versatile and better by his consistency, volume of work etc but for me if a performance is outstanding for me it has to be backed up by the field, did they run their race, times, relative times and most importantly the ratings I assign.

Don't get me wrong Kauto has been a great horse for a number of years and would never won't to knock him but he's never astounded me with an out of the world performance or anything that had me dumbfounded when rating the race. Master Minded and Carvills did. Further just knocking the official handicappers ratings of the top horses - they are bizarre.

What did you rate Kauto at when he won the 2009 King George by 36 l (OR 193)? If he ran to less than 180, i.e. 179-, no other horse ran to 143 or better. Seems unlikely.

What about his 2009 Gold Cup when he ran an OR of 186 and beat Denman, Exotic Dancer, Neptune Collonges, Madison du Berlais, Albertas Run and others by 13 l+?

Denman spanked two good Hennessy fields (i.e. a Handicap) carrying top weight.

I accept recent ORs may be high on the historical side, but I suspect Timeform + RPR + the official handicapper are probably closer to the mark here. It's also worth noting the breed is supposed to improve over time - that's what it's bred for. I can quibble with the absolute numbers and with Long Run's rating. I can't agree that Denman or Kauto didn't run to 180+ at least twice each.

Firstly my ratings are a little different to that given by the official handicapper (lower). For me the higher the class of horses go the rarer they run to their handicap mark if that makes sense as the top rated horses rarely can win off their handicap marks (170+). Kauto's last handicap run was off 180 in 07 where he would have been a well beaten 3rd of 4 had Ashley Brook stayed up and Ashley Brook, Monets Garden were hardly well treated animals ie don't see them being able to win off top weight down in grade. What I am basically saying is there is lot less difference between a 180+ horse and a 120 horse than the handicapper would have it. In fact much much less. So for me to talk of 180 ratings means nothing to me as I haven't had a horse do remotely close to that for years.

However lets put it this way Kauto's 09 King George I have rated 2 higher than this years GC and 2 behind Long Run's GC last year. Also I only have Bob's worth RSA win 4 behind this years GC. Kauto's 09 GC win I had 1 more than the 09 King George 09 - ie one behind LR's 2011 win.

Denman I had running slightly higher ratings than KS in his Hennessy wins (2nd one wasn't truly run) and his GC win. His GC win I have as the best GC win in recent times (one higher than LR 2011 win).

My point is NOT that these horses were not the best of their time but to give them 180+ the handicapper is saying they could 60 lbs+ to a 120 horse. Absolutely laughable IMO. Just imagine in todays racing

Long Run 182 v Rey Naccardo 128(pretty exposed horse) in a truly run race - say 10 runners. Rey Naccardo 11 stone, Long Run 14 st 12. What the betting be of the relative 2? People wouldn't be able to give LR away which to me shows what a farce those type of marks are.

OK, I take your point. Your first paragraph is right - it's not a linear scale even though it's presented as such. Curiously, I think the problem is in the middle - the 130-165 sort of ratings. There appears to be compression at the top (i.e. in level weights races a 180 rated horse generally appears to be more than 15 lbs better than a 165 rated horse - that sort of class differential really tells at the top level).

It's also a fallacy that there's any simple relationship between weight and distance (i've seen persuasive arguements that the effect of an extra lb is somewhere between 1/4 and 1/2 of the "distance" officially recognised). Speed also comes into this (for example, your hypothetical 120 rated horse almost certainly wouldn't be able to live with your hypothetical 180 horse, even in receipt of 60 lbs, because the 180 horse would just be much quicker - though the extra weight might tell if stamina came in to play). Finally, some horses are physiologically better at carrying large weight - so the same horse might do well carrying 10 st but poorly carrying 11st 12 off the same mark. The best (i.e. top Grade 1 winning) horses always carry a large weight and must necessarily be capable of doing so (so, for example, "top weight" may be less of an issue for such horses if they do run in a handicap).

All that said, with the systems and scale the offical handicapper, racing post and Timeform use, I'm convinced both Kauto and Denman each ran 180+ more than once. However, ratings are slippery beasts, rather subjective, subject to medium-long term drifts and frequently flawed.

I'd disagree with conclusion of my hypothetical race. I believe my ratings and to that point if there was an end to end gallop I just don't think the 180+ horse would have a prayer assuming proper NH ground. Anything goes in the summer hence the reason I don't play it.

I'd guess I disagree with your comment "in level weights races a 180 rated horse generally appears to be more than 15 lbs better than a 165 rated horse - that sort of class differential really tells at the top level" having had one of my biggest bets of the year based on my ratings before the GC that said Synchronised was 2 below Long Run.

I do agree with class factors however and they do show when races are not strongly and evenly run. This does happen a lot and is one of the big reasons the top horses end up with the crazy OR's.

I do show my best profits in the big field handicaps generally where there is an end to end gallop where I feel my ratings will prove right but recognise these type of races are not the rule so there are a lot of other factors to consider when pace is not guaranteed ie: more to betting horses than ratings.

Re the 180 v 120 race run at an end to end gallop on proper NH ground - that's exactly where stamina would become key and the weight would matter, so I expect you might be right in those circumstances. Though in an end to end gallop the 180 horse should be miles ahead at some stage.

For your second paragraph, I'm not sure what "2 below Long Run" means. What are the units of 2?

Sorry to follow up my own post but I think your post highlights something rather interesting - what we use ratings for. I'm generally much more interested in Grade 1 races - i.e. level weights races, whereas you hint your ratings work best for handicaps. The two types of race can be very different and that's reflected in the value and significance of ratings (and different rating systems and how ratings can be used).

Im on

When I said 2 I meant 2 ratings which distance wise depends on distance of race, ground, pace of race etc. I think ratings are completely transferable from handicaps to graded races else they'd be no point having them.

I wouldn't say ratings are more valuable in handicaps per se but more in truly run races whatever type that may be.

That's the theory, but it assumes that weight can be readily equated to distance and that different horses carry weight equally well. To an extent it also assumes that weight is the same irrespective of trip and ground and that the speed of the horses is irrelevant. None of these things are likely to be true.

That's the theory, but it assumes that weight can be readily equated to distance and that different horses carry weight equally well. Yes and pretty much.

To an extent it also assumes that weight is the same irrespective of trip and ground and that the speed of the horses is irrelevant.Not at all but the ratings are not gonna have much relevance if there is no pace in the race. Common sense that its easier to give 2 stone in a 6f sprint than a 4m chase. If the 4m chase is run at a dawdle no doubt IMO the top weights are seriously advantaged.