Horse Antepost
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
04 Jun 13
12:30
Joined:
Date Joined:
05 Jan 10
http://www.britishhorseracing.com/goracing/blogs/head_of_handicapping.asp
Head of Handicapping's Blog
Welcome to Phil Smith's Blog. I am Head of Handicapping at the British Horseracing Authority and I will be updating this page every so often with my thoughts on key issues in the handicapping world.
You can also check out the weekly handicappers blog for all the latest updates from the team.
4th June 2013: BRITISH-TRAINED THREE YEAR OLDS PUT UP GOOD PERFORMANCES
I have never read so much doom and gloom as during the run up to last week's Investec Oaks and Derby. British-trained horses were going to be blown away by the Irish and French and even the Germans were going to make their Derby debut to rub our noses in it.
As it happens the first three to finish in the Oaks were all trained in Britain. I have rated the winner Talent on 114 basing the race through Moth who my colleague Dominic Gardiner-Hill had running to 107 in the 1000 Guineas. This century only two Oaks winners Casual Look (113) and Was (113 last year) have been rated lower than Talent, BUT do not underestimate her.
Talent Talent won easily on Friday despite not getting the clearest of runs and it was only her fourth ever appearance on the racecourse. Her performance figures have been 80, 82, 96 and now 114 so she is clearly progressive. The last filly to be given a rating of 114 after her Oaks victory was Snow Fairy who ended her 3 year old season on 120. That year's Oaks victory was the eighth run of her career.
Ralph Beckett's filly is clearly improving and it would be no surprise to see her emulate Snow Fairy's figure of 120 by the end of the season. She appears to save her best for the racecourse not the training grounds.
As a result I have Secret Gesture running to 108 which is 3lb below her Lingfield Oaks Trial victory. To my eyes she just seemed to run out of gas in the final furlong and I could see her running a big race in the 10f Nassau Stakes.
Libertarian ran a fantastic race to finish second in the Investec Derby. He fell down the hill, hated the camber in the straight yet finished like a train. It was no surprise to see what happened as paddock inspection showed him to be by far the biggest horse in the field. His performances have been 82, 94, 112 and now 117.
Ruler of the World I have Libertarian on 117 as he has basically run to the same level as Battle of Marengo and that is what I had him running to on both of his starts this year. I have no reason to believe that Battle of Marengo did not run his race at Epsom.
As a result I have Ruler Of The World performing to 120 at Epsom. He went two lengths clear (3lb) and then appeared to idle a little close home. I have agreed this figure with Garry O'Gorman, who is Senior Handicapper on the flat for the Irish Turf Club and it is the lowest immediate after race figure for a Derby winner this century. Sir Percy was the previous lowest on 121 but never improved on it.
HOWEVER just as with Talent, I am sure this will not be the limit of Ruler Of The World's ability level. The first three in this year's Investec Derby had only run a total of eight times previously. This is the lowest figure this century and it would not surprise me if someone researched it and discovered that it was in fact the fewest number of pre-Derby runs ever by the first three finishers.
Certainly they all have bags of improvement in them, particularly Libertarian on a more galloping track and perhaps over a couple of extra furlongs. Of the others both Mars and Ocovango suffered varying degrees of interference yet still managed to achieve superior figures to their pre race ratings while Chopin would have equalled his without also being hampered.
Just because some of the more famous trainers didn't have runners at Epsom didn't mean that British yards couldn't put up some quality performances in this year's Investec Derby and Oaks.
Head of Handicapping's Blog
Welcome to Phil Smith's Blog. I am Head of Handicapping at the British Horseracing Authority and I will be updating this page every so often with my thoughts on key issues in the handicapping world.
You can also check out the weekly handicappers blog for all the latest updates from the team.
4th June 2013: BRITISH-TRAINED THREE YEAR OLDS PUT UP GOOD PERFORMANCES
I have never read so much doom and gloom as during the run up to last week's Investec Oaks and Derby. British-trained horses were going to be blown away by the Irish and French and even the Germans were going to make their Derby debut to rub our noses in it.
As it happens the first three to finish in the Oaks were all trained in Britain. I have rated the winner Talent on 114 basing the race through Moth who my colleague Dominic Gardiner-Hill had running to 107 in the 1000 Guineas. This century only two Oaks winners Casual Look (113) and Was (113 last year) have been rated lower than Talent, BUT do not underestimate her.
Talent Talent won easily on Friday despite not getting the clearest of runs and it was only her fourth ever appearance on the racecourse. Her performance figures have been 80, 82, 96 and now 114 so she is clearly progressive. The last filly to be given a rating of 114 after her Oaks victory was Snow Fairy who ended her 3 year old season on 120. That year's Oaks victory was the eighth run of her career.
Ralph Beckett's filly is clearly improving and it would be no surprise to see her emulate Snow Fairy's figure of 120 by the end of the season. She appears to save her best for the racecourse not the training grounds.
As a result I have Secret Gesture running to 108 which is 3lb below her Lingfield Oaks Trial victory. To my eyes she just seemed to run out of gas in the final furlong and I could see her running a big race in the 10f Nassau Stakes.
Libertarian ran a fantastic race to finish second in the Investec Derby. He fell down the hill, hated the camber in the straight yet finished like a train. It was no surprise to see what happened as paddock inspection showed him to be by far the biggest horse in the field. His performances have been 82, 94, 112 and now 117.
Ruler of the World I have Libertarian on 117 as he has basically run to the same level as Battle of Marengo and that is what I had him running to on both of his starts this year. I have no reason to believe that Battle of Marengo did not run his race at Epsom.
As a result I have Ruler Of The World performing to 120 at Epsom. He went two lengths clear (3lb) and then appeared to idle a little close home. I have agreed this figure with Garry O'Gorman, who is Senior Handicapper on the flat for the Irish Turf Club and it is the lowest immediate after race figure for a Derby winner this century. Sir Percy was the previous lowest on 121 but never improved on it.
HOWEVER just as with Talent, I am sure this will not be the limit of Ruler Of The World's ability level. The first three in this year's Investec Derby had only run a total of eight times previously. This is the lowest figure this century and it would not surprise me if someone researched it and discovered that it was in fact the fewest number of pre-Derby runs ever by the first three finishers.
Certainly they all have bags of improvement in them, particularly Libertarian on a more galloping track and perhaps over a couple of extra furlongs. Of the others both Mars and Ocovango suffered varying degrees of interference yet still managed to achieve superior figures to their pre race ratings while Chopin would have equalled his without also being hampered.
Just because some of the more famous trainers didn't have runners at Epsom didn't mean that British yards couldn't put up some quality performances in this year's Investec Derby and Oaks.
Show More
3 from 3 unexposed
I would be very surprised if by the end of his racing he would still be rated lower than kris kin,sir percy,north light and pour moi.
I would be very surprised if by the end of his racing he would still be rated lower than kris kin,sir percy,north light and pour moi.
this century is a bit harsh as were only 13 years into it. sir percy was the worst in my time and im 40
newsboy reckons if it improves again will prove to be one of the best derby winners ever according to his article yesterday,probably not even in obriens top 20 never mind anyone elses
Frankel the best, and this the worst. They have to make a headline. No point in saying something is the second or third best/worst.
At this stage I'd have to agree. It was certainly the slowest. That's not the winner's fault, of course, but the quality of the form has to be suspect until further evidence. As most people are aware, in an unevenly run race those towards the head of affairs are advantaged, so ROTW could possibly be given extra credit for coming from where he did. However, as James Willoughby has sometimes pointed out, a sprint finish, moreover, favours the horse that can sprint fastest. Often this can be the best horse in the race anyway, but not always. It could be argued that he was the horse who'd best demonstrated his ability for a sprint finish over a longer trip when winning the Chester Vase, although, I have no doubts the best horse on the day won. For me, the overall fastest race he's run so far was when winning his maiden on debut. He may well have improved on that but simply not had the circumstances to run faster.
As he's still unbeaten, not really been fully tested since his debut and obviously open to improvement, it would be foolish to say he's the worst Derby winner this century. Nevertheless, the bare Derby form, as it stands, looks poor,
As he's still unbeaten, not really been fully tested since his debut and obviously open to improvement, it would be foolish to say he's the worst Derby winner this century. Nevertheless, the bare Derby form, as it stands, looks poor,
It was certainly run in a SLOW TIME
Whether that amounts to poor FORM, we need to wait and see before passing judgement, because it ain't necessarily so.
As we must to judge ROTW - as the man said, the first three were very lightly raced. As the saying goes, you don't know how good a horse really is until he gets beaten.
In any event,I doubt very much that by the end of the year ,ROTW will turn out to be the worst Derby winner we have seen even this Century.
Whether that amounts to poor FORM, we need to wait and see before passing judgement, because it ain't necessarily so.
As we must to judge ROTW - as the man said, the first three were very lightly raced. As the saying goes, you don't know how good a horse really is until he gets beaten.
In any event,I doubt very much that by the end of the year ,ROTW will turn out to be the worst Derby winner we have seen even this Century.
A handicapper, whether public or private, while keeping an open mind about what might occur in future, needs to make a current decision about the value of a race. In that respect I can easily see why the handicapper rates it the worst this century. I also rate it below the previous worst, Sir Percy. The difference there was you could be reasonably confident that was as good as Sir Percy was, whereas ROTW might be a bit better than the bare form.
Whether he turns out to be the worst or not, from a punting point of view the thing that matters most is whether in the near future he is likely to be a value bet, the right price, or under priced. Obviously I won't know for sure until his next races, but I expect he'll be priced up on what he might be rather than what he's shown, especially in view of his connections and unbeaten profile.
Whether he turns out to be the worst or not, from a punting point of view the thing that matters most is whether in the near future he is likely to be a value bet, the right price, or under priced. Obviously I won't know for sure until his next races, but I expect he'll be priced up on what he might be rather than what he's shown, especially in view of his connections and unbeaten profile.
Figgis, I think that this is a discussion which is interesting and I don't see us as being too far apart, if at all.
To clarify, if The Derby was run in a slow time, as it was, and as a result there was a bunched finish, as there was, then both on time and collateral form it will get a low rating. On that, I think that we all agree.
Weshould, however, distinguish between races which were slowly run throughout at an even pace and those that were run very slow and then fast. If the former, then you can be pretty certain that the slow time equates with poor form. If the latter, then as you yourself say, the race is won by the horse with the best sprint finish and/or the one with the best postion i.e up on the pace. As both the winner and second came from behind, from worse than ideal positions, we have to credit them with a better performance than the bare rating suggests, even if in orthodox terms we may not want to put a figure on it.
It's quite possible that the result will not be replicated given a truer pace throughout, and given changes in distance even those that finished in the minor placings might turn out to be pretty good. Or not.
Whether ROTW will be overbet in the future is an unknown. I expect that because of connections he will be given the benefit of the doubt by the betting public and will be made favourite whilst up against other 3 yr olds but possibly not if he meets older horses.
I think that I'm right in saying that many times in recent years the Derby contenders have not won many G1 races between them apart from when the very top class winners like STS, Workforce have been involved, and the same may be true this time. Even if ROTW goes on to win more G1's the race this year can't be rated more highly than it has been so I guess on that we are all agreed. Where I differ is that I wouldn't want to write down any of the placed or close-up horses just yet. I read that Richard Hughes believes that BOM might turn out to be the best of the bunch which no doubt would give you some comfort should that turn out to be correct.He might be right but personally I believe that ROTW has maybe has another 5-7lbs in him and will go on to prove to be better than 120-123. We shall see.
To clarify, if The Derby was run in a slow time, as it was, and as a result there was a bunched finish, as there was, then both on time and collateral form it will get a low rating. On that, I think that we all agree.
Weshould, however, distinguish between races which were slowly run throughout at an even pace and those that were run very slow and then fast. If the former, then you can be pretty certain that the slow time equates with poor form. If the latter, then as you yourself say, the race is won by the horse with the best sprint finish and/or the one with the best postion i.e up on the pace. As both the winner and second came from behind, from worse than ideal positions, we have to credit them with a better performance than the bare rating suggests, even if in orthodox terms we may not want to put a figure on it.
It's quite possible that the result will not be replicated given a truer pace throughout, and given changes in distance even those that finished in the minor placings might turn out to be pretty good. Or not.
Whether ROTW will be overbet in the future is an unknown. I expect that because of connections he will be given the benefit of the doubt by the betting public and will be made favourite whilst up against other 3 yr olds but possibly not if he meets older horses.
I think that I'm right in saying that many times in recent years the Derby contenders have not won many G1 races between them apart from when the very top class winners like STS, Workforce have been involved, and the same may be true this time. Even if ROTW goes on to win more G1's the race this year can't be rated more highly than it has been so I guess on that we are all agreed. Where I differ is that I wouldn't want to write down any of the placed or close-up horses just yet. I read that Richard Hughes believes that BOM might turn out to be the best of the bunch which no doubt would give you some comfort should that turn out to be correct.He might be right but personally I believe that ROTW has maybe has another 5-7lbs in him and will go on to prove to be better than 120-123. We shall see.
Sandown
I agree with most of that. The Derby is still my favourite punting race. I'm not into making a book, I'm a punter who likes to have one shot (occasionally 2) at a race and for me the Derby is ideal. All the horses are going into the race either at peak form or on the verge of peak form. While I enjoy the Arc, it's very different as a punter, many of the British and Irish runners go there at the end of a tough campaign. It's often easy to narrow the field down to the best horses but guesswork becomes involved as to how runners will perform who have had a busy time. A look through past Arcs shows many very good horses finishing down the field with some relative plodders making the places. Usually, though, the winner is at least pretty good.
As you say, many Derbys don't contain horses that go on to win many more Gp1 races, and I think we'd both agree the main reason for that is the distance comes quite early for most 3yos. Some people deride the Derby when the winner doesn't go on to fulfil expectations, but I think they miss the whole point of the race. Steve Mellish spoke on the matter last week and I completely agreed.
As to Richard Hughes' point regarding BOM, he could be right but I have no plans to back the horse in future. Sometimes when a horse doesn't quite live up to your expectations in a particular race you keep the faith. When Sky Lantern was defeated in the Nell Gwyn I didn't know for sure that she would turn the form around next time but I had absolute belief in my ratings that she had the ability to do so and RH thought she could to. On other occasions I can see that it was entirely my fault for overrating a horse, which was the case with BOM.
As for ROTW, I have his maiden win a couple of pounds faster than his Derby win. Personally, I don't believe he was capable of bettering that on the day first time out. He won the Chester Vase more impressively but because of the way the race was run it was impossible (for me anyway) to know if he'd really improved on his already decent debut. Again, the way the Derby was run makes it impossible to nail a confident figure on him. Looking at the second horse, Libertarian, I have him running 5lbs faster in the Dante. I know there has been talk about him being an improving horse but, in my view, he was all out in the Dante, I'd be very surprised if he improved on that soon. The way the Derby unfolded he didn't really need to.
I agree with most of that. The Derby is still my favourite punting race. I'm not into making a book, I'm a punter who likes to have one shot (occasionally 2) at a race and for me the Derby is ideal. All the horses are going into the race either at peak form or on the verge of peak form. While I enjoy the Arc, it's very different as a punter, many of the British and Irish runners go there at the end of a tough campaign. It's often easy to narrow the field down to the best horses but guesswork becomes involved as to how runners will perform who have had a busy time. A look through past Arcs shows many very good horses finishing down the field with some relative plodders making the places. Usually, though, the winner is at least pretty good.
As you say, many Derbys don't contain horses that go on to win many more Gp1 races, and I think we'd both agree the main reason for that is the distance comes quite early for most 3yos. Some people deride the Derby when the winner doesn't go on to fulfil expectations, but I think they miss the whole point of the race. Steve Mellish spoke on the matter last week and I completely agreed.
As to Richard Hughes' point regarding BOM, he could be right but I have no plans to back the horse in future. Sometimes when a horse doesn't quite live up to your expectations in a particular race you keep the faith. When Sky Lantern was defeated in the Nell Gwyn I didn't know for sure that she would turn the form around next time but I had absolute belief in my ratings that she had the ability to do so and RH thought she could to. On other occasions I can see that it was entirely my fault for overrating a horse, which was the case with BOM.
As for ROTW, I have his maiden win a couple of pounds faster than his Derby win. Personally, I don't believe he was capable of bettering that on the day first time out. He won the Chester Vase more impressively but because of the way the race was run it was impossible (for me anyway) to know if he'd really improved on his already decent debut. Again, the way the Derby was run makes it impossible to nail a confident figure on him. Looking at the second horse, Libertarian, I have him running 5lbs faster in the Dante. I know there has been talk about him being an improving horse but, in my view, he was all out in the Dante, I'd be very surprised if he improved on that soon. The way the Derby unfolded he didn't really need to.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539