Horse Antepost
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 852 comments are related to the topic:
War Command
War Command
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 852
|
By:
Figgis
My little study showed me that whilst weight must affect times (can't argue with Newton) it is not always possible to conclude with confidence that a small amount of weight change i.e say 30 lbs has an effect EXACTLY as predicted. As the weight of horses varies considerably then the weight carryinbg ability of horses will vary. Also, the effectrs of weight will be influenced by the nature of the track, the pace of the race and the going as well as jockeys. I like to take weight out of the ratings when assessing a race and separate it out so that I might judge it as an independent factor. That study also indicated to me that manipulation of the going allowances in order to arrive at a "reasonable" figure has its drawbacks as does the built in assumption that any horse that wins must be improving and therefore must be given a higher rating. Dado Mush was beating inconsistent out of form horses and his improvement was an illusion possibly a complete illusion. Southwell is a track where it is possible to have a wide range of going allowance and I agree with your opinion about harrowing effects. I have to use a single rating figure based on the 0-140 scale because that's the common language. I agree with you that the conversion of speed ratings to the 0-140 weight scale is severely flawed, but as I no longer wish to spend hours on doing my own figures I have to use published RPR's and TS figures initially to get into a race. I can only afford the time for in-depth analysis on potentially top-class horses. Unlike you, rather than pursuing ever more accurate final time ratings, I found that pace profiles giving me "how" a final figure was achieved, give me more return, so that's how we can differ in our views. |
|
By:
as does the built in assumption that any horse that wins must be improving and therefore must be given a higher rating
Yes, completely agree that it doesn't always follow. |
|
By:
Just to add, just because I sometimes disagree with your views does not mean I'm completely dismissing some of your ideas, I am just opening things up for debate, which couldn't happen if we all agreed on everything. As I've said before, it's whatever works for the individual. There are some punters who profit from racing while completely ignoring times, I have great admiration for anyone who can do that as it's now completely alien to me and I'd be lost without times.
|
|
By:
Jallota btn 2 lengths in Prix Morny today at 92/1.
Coventry Stks form franked....... again? |
|
By:
Ped, but do you think WC could've finished 6 1/2 lengths in front of No Nay Never, as a literal reading of the Coventry would suggest?
 |
|
By:
Had Jallota improving a fair bit next start after Ascot, so will probably presume he has run more to that July Stks form than Ascot.
So no, not suggesting War Command would have finished that far in front of No Nay Never - but would still have rated him, pre-race, healthy 8-1lbs clear of Rizeena, No Nay Never, Anticipated and Vorda if he had lined up yesterday. Personally have no doubts that he was 14-15lbs below par in the Phoenix. Just a matter of whether we will ever see that Coventry form again? |
|
By:
When horses don't live up to the ratings it can sometimes be difficult to know whether to stick with the rating or assume we got it wrong. Sometimes the error stands out immediately afterwards, like when I overrated Battle of Marengo. I've sometimes looked back at ratings and thought wtf was I thinking. War Command might've been below par last time but there's no real reason why he shouldn't repeat the Coventry form in the near future (I reckon he already did in the Phoenix). He's very lightly raced, didn't have to be too aggressively ridden at Ascot, was given plenty of time to recover form it, no injuries we know of, physically built to withstand his racing. I know that Sandown has used WC's good sectional to enhance his basic rating. Which, in my view, can give very hit and miss results, but I understand the logic. I don't really understand how he can be rated anything more than an ordinary Coventry winner, though, on bare speed figures.
|
|
By:
Which, in my view, can give very hit and miss results,
With all due respect Figgis, unless and until you have developed a rating method based on sectional time evaluation and tried and tested it out over as long a period say as you may have been doing your final time ratings, you may not have the most accurate take on how well this works out in practice  |
|
By:
Sandown
That is fair enough, as I've said before, I'm not commenting on anybody's individual methods as I don't know the nuts and bolts of their methods or their results. I'm just talking about the sectional methods I've seen in print. One of my main arguments, though, is that the sectional evidence I've seen already has basic flaws in the final time ratings, which you have accepted yourself. Without accurate final time ratings the sectional conclusions will be lacking. |
|
By:
Sandown
I can say how accurate final time ratings compare to published ones as I've seen the evidence. The usefulness of any rating system as a betting tool is in the value obtained in the results. One set of ratings may not be as accurate as another on the whole but because of its exclusivity it produces more value, so private ratings in theory have an advantage there. The true test of the accuracy of a ratings system, though, is in the predictive quality of the results and I know that commercially available ones can be improved upon greatly on that score. |
|
By:
don't subscribe to Timeform, so don't know what they had for War Command last two starts.
Racing Post had poor 95 for the Coventry, improved to 100 for Phoenix. Raceform had 6 "points" down in the Phoenix (think a point may be 3-4 lbs over 6f?) Just shows how speed figures cam be compiled dramatically differently |
|
By:
Figgis
The only methods I've seen in print over here are those advanced by Simon Rowlands and as far as I'm concerned he is on the wrong track. They are cumbersome, hard to use and not very practical. There is truth in what you say about the need for as accurate a final time rating as possible, and the same can be said for the accuracy of the sectionals. There is also the complication of having to work out separate course allowances especially for the finishing stretch which just adds to the possible error. That said, even the split at its most basic can be valuable in showing just how the pace profile can affect the final time rating.In fact, the difficulty of doing these shouldn't be under-estimated and haven't spent 20 years or so on this, I don't expect a mad rush anytime soon of others getting into it. It's not perfect by any means, but hit and miss it is not. |
|
By:
having spent
|
|
By:
Yes, I can fully believe the difficulty involved. When I started to do my own final time ratings I thought I knew most of what there was to know. Little did I realise how big a job it was if accuracy was to be achieved, all the nuances and discoveries along the way and finding out that some things I held as true turned out to be false. Tbh I'm not sure I'd have started if I'd known how much work and time it would take. At least the advantage of using someone else's ratings is you have more of a life
 . I'm still sceptical that what holds true for one horse regarding sectionals can automatically be assumed to be the same for another. A bit like I don't like automatically upgrading ratings for what appears an easy win. However, it's very possible my ratings could be improved upon by incorporating a sectional aspect. I just wouldn't have the inclination to undertake the extra work involved and I still think there is so much wrong with commercial speed figures that an accurate set are enough for me to work with. Anybody who can profit from sectional evidence deserves the rewards, as I'm sure it involves a vast amount of work if accuracy is to be achieved. |
|
By:
WC entered Curragh Sunday 25th in Futurity (7f)
|
|
By:
Can't see the race revealing much unless he wins very impressively. It looks a weak Gp2, O'Brien will probably withdraw a few and there doesn't appear to be much else you'd think obviously capable of giving him a race. I think the gelding Exogenesis isn't too far behind him but it's doubtful how much progression he has left and isn't one I'd back.
|
|
By:
He really should beat these today, not that I like using form lines but Exogenesis beat Home School and SJH at Leopardstown and Surdiman had beaten HS easily by 4l before and of course WC has hammered SJH so I think even his Phoenix run would be good enough. After wfa adjustsments I did actually have WC's Phoenix 3lb worse than his coventry run, I'm struggling to see how it could be a whole 14lb worse though pedro.
You'd think the way Mustajeeb beat Freindship he'd have to be the main danger. I think it's a nice little race today and I'm hoping to see some improvement from SJH stepping up to 7f. |
|
By:
I mean WC not SJH
|
|
By:
If I can't get the date right, don't know how I can expect to win
 Still, no excuses today. Must show that Coventry was no fluke for him to stay near head of 2000 betting. |
|
By:
I don't do figures for Galway and have no intention of doing any, but Mustajeeb may be capable of giving him a race. The time comparison with the later handicap doesn't read that great given the weight difference but that could be misleading, as the front two pulled a long way clear and Friendship went on to record a decent figure at Leopardstown. The ideal outcome for me would be a flattering win for War Command then take him on in a Gp1.
|
|
By:
Looked at Galway. It's a very short run-in - front runners bias?- and looks undulating with the dip. Don't do figures for Flat either . The weld horse looks a big improver & trainer has a high opinion so no walk over. Curragh much stiffer track. Not a 2 horse race either.No bet there for me today. Enough to see WC back on track.
|
|
By:
that was impressive enough
|
|
By:
dont understand why you werent betting today, everything you said about the horse able to improve over the longer distances.
|
|
By:
banker material today, nearly top of the tree on 2yo ratings so far this year.
|
|
By:
roadrunner
Have a good A/P bet - so happy enough. After last time there was an element of doubt to be backing odds-on today |
|
By:
goodluck next year, pedigree suggests will need the longer trips, thought was worth chancing today, not really a sprinter
WC imo. |
|
By:
Think the first race can safely be chucked out for time comparison purposes, but the rest, and in particular the Flying Five, provide a good comparison. The Flying Five finishers all running within a pound of their previous marks. On figures I was more impressed with him today than the Coventry and have him 4lbs higher. That would still only peg him as a solid Gp2 performer, though, and below Guineas class, which was pretty much my visual impression too. In his favour, I have him as improving and there's no saying he won't improve another 4lbs or more. Against him, he's still being talked up as already Gp1 class. I thought the pundits today were more enthusiastic than the performance deserved, "brilliant turn of foot" etc, and quick to say he idled, when maybe that's just as good as he is. He's capable of winning a Dewhurst if it's a poor one, we've seen some poor ones recently, Parish Hall, Beethoven, Intense Focus, so I'm not going to say he won't at this stage. I still think his reputation is bigger than deserved, though, so for that reason I'm still against him.
|
|
By:
I'm not getting a great figure for the race figgis. I'm going to have a longer look later. How was the pace compared with the opening 7f race? did you watch that one?
|
|
By:
I cannot see what times have to do with it really. Last time he was against a Group 1 winner and placed and a Group 2 winner and placed. This time by a Group 3 winner, a nursery winner and 2 maiden winners. A no-brainer wasn't it?
|
|
By:
Stevie, both were well run, although a strict comparison between the 2 races would suggest the Futurity was slowly run, it definitely wasn't. As all the other races compare well to each other it's reasonable to conclude the ground slowed after the first race.
Brigust, but how does that tell you if a horse has improved or not? |
|
By:
It only tells me that JOB shouldn't be in his job. He was in the wrong place again but fortunately he was on the best horse. The Coolmore team are screwing up racing and that's a fact.
But Fig how can you judge a race where firstly there are so many unknowns and the winning jockey won by much lass than his superiority? I do agree with you in that if he runs in a strong Group 1 or even a strong Group 2 I will be laying him. |
|
By:
I was happy with that and rate it about the same as his Coventry win although I wouldn't want to say 100% because of the varying allowance required and the difficult camera angles. But using the Corporal Maddox race (rated 77) WC may have done even better. What I would say is that looking closely at his action I think that very fast ground is not what he wants and he will be better with a bit of cut. He is a fine big colt with plenty of scope and can only get stronger. He needs all of 7f and should get 8f standing on his head.
What we are about with these animals is judging their potential to develop and I still say that this is a G1 horse waiting to happen. He is back on track. |
|
By:
Can't say I particularly rate JOB, but didn't see anything wrong with the ride today. The pacemaker went a good pace and in those circumstances jockeyship should be easy and the winning horse generally reveals just how good it is at that stage of its career. Personally I didn't see he had anything in hand or that he'd have won easier if ridden differently.
|
|
By:
Thanks Figgis.
I seem to be getting a rating too high for race 1, then ok for races 2,3,4. and then 5 and 6 slower than expected. anyway if it's just race 1 with you then I guess it's my standards need looking at again. |
|
By:
A strongly run mile at Newmarket will suit him perfectly.
|
|
By:
No it's ok I've sorted it now
|
|
By:
What do you think the next target will be? Would it be the national stakes? I'd love to see a rematch against Sudirman and Big time but over 7f and I think WC would just about beat them but only just imo.
|
|
By:
QUOTES: Aidan O´Brien, trainer of War Command: "The Ascot horse is back. I gave him a good break after Ascot, they ran hard in the Phoenix and it caught him a bit. He was probably a bit ring-rusty in the middle of the race but he was mowing them downat the line; that´s why I brought him back a little early, with a view to the National Stakes. He got 7f well and you´d be very happy. He picked up well. The last day he was just lacklustre - trainer´s error again I´m afraid. I obviously didn´t have him sharp enough or tight enough."
|
|
By:
I usually take O'Brien's self criticisms with a pinch of salt, makes more economic sense to blame himself rather than a future stallion. The National Stakes would be the expected route but again I'm not sure he's going to properly tested until he comes over here. Just had a look back at O'Brien's 3 previous Guineas winners that had run by this stage of the season (Footstepsinthesand debuted later). I had King of Kings 4lbs ahead and George Washington a huge 8lbs ahead. GW had also arguably put up a more visually impressive performance when demolishing the Phoenix field, yet was available around 7/1 afterwards. I think 12/1 War Command is relatively stingy, but that's probably just a reflection of the way ante post Classics betting has gone. I have him 2lbs ahead of Henrythenavigator at the same stage but he was difficult to get a handle on as he ran below par twice on soft ground after the Coventry.
|
|
By:
I also excluded Camelot who had only won his maiden at this stage.
|