Big Bucks for the National

5 Unseated yesterday, 2 fell. Great for racing that all horses and jockeys came back safe and sound and it didn't take away anything from the drama and spectacle of the race. 

As for Big Bucks, I can't see it myself.  He will surely go for regaining his title at Cheltenham and will be schooled accordingly.  It's likely to be his toughest test yet with the younger horses coming through so I would guess the decision will have been already made whether he's going hurdling or chasing and it'll either be one or the other rather than a mix of both.

I can't see it either, but I'd love to.

Take your point about the fences but I should think it's 50/1 about him ever running over fences again let alone in the National.

Probably. But he should, shouldn't he?. And the National is the race, because he's so well handicapped he would only have to complete to win, and can still go for the WH. I tend to fantasise a bit at this time of year, with nothing much to look forward to for 6 months apart from the Ashes.

Those fences looked a lot easier than fixed brush hurdles so why not

if Long Run gets pointed at the race I'd go for him.

Seeing the requirement now is just and out and out stayer...Back In Focus ought to command a fair degree of respect. Might see a throw back to really old days when the 4miler at Cheltenham was pretty good pointer to the race.

Do you think the weight stat has any relevance again or was it just a freak year? Only teaforthree ran with any credit from those above 11 stone.

You couldn't conclude that from this year's race, no. Most of the horses over 11 stone jumped or ran appallingly and wouldn't have made the frame with a stone less.

The way I see it, the handicap used to be based on the same 1lb per length basis as normal, and that favoured lighter weights because 1lb has to make more difference over 4.5 miles and 30 big fences than over 3 miles and 19 smaller ones.

The handicapper has attempted to address this by compressing the weights, but has done so in a bizarre and ham-fisted way, by knocking about 8-10lbs off the best horses in the race, but doing nothing to help those slightly below them. So this year Imperial Commander and What a Friend were well handicapped, but neither jumped well enough for that to matter, whereas horses like Tea for Three, big fella Thanks & Seabass were actually badly weighted - but t43 improved sufficiently over the course to counteract that.

So much though depends on where horses are in their careers. A lot of the horses over 11 stone this year were on the decline, or just ran bad races. Of the few that were arguably still moving forward in terms of abaility, they mostly didn't stay or didn't jump.

GCW
Freak year,i don't think so.In last years race only 2 out the first 10 home above were above 11 stone.
When you get well handicapped National(welsh/scots ect)specialists you should expect to find them going close.
Since Comply or die won,these kinds of horses have been scarce.

"In last years race only 2 out of the first 10 home were above 11 stone"

20%

As only 10 horses carried above 11 stone (25%) that is hardly conclusive one way or the other.

Well it was 2 out of 11,or for place purposes 4 out of first five home.
Same again this year 1 out of first 10 home carried above 11 stone,and 1 out of first 5.
Not conclusive,but please do not ignore.

And the year before the winner carried 11-0 and the third 11-10. In 2010 the first 2 home and 5 of the first 10 had over 11 stone. With respect, I think you are picking statistics out selectively to try and support a pet theory rather than really analysing.

The historical bias against higher rated horses has been addressed by the compression of the handicap, and it is absolute folly to look at long term trends of winners weights and draw conclusions, because the race and the method of handicapping it have changed beyond recognition.

You are missing my point
I have no pet theory,i don't care what weight a horse carries.
It is a fact of saturdays race.