Boozer,

if i put a fat bloke and a thin bloke at the top of the hill near our house and said first one to the bottom there would be far less a difference in finshing distances than if i started them at the bottom and i said first one to the top.

In these cases i think the actual mechanical process of moving their legs that fast is more of a problem, plenty will get their legs tangled up at epsom when trying to move faster than they are physically able to.

i take your point though and i always look for brighton, yarmouth and epsom horses that have recently been running up hills

Nah you missed it Barney

Enough of concrete rollers,fat blokes thin blokes
It was a subtle dig at VDW’ers not liking horses dropped in class and humping weight as a result
You wont back em
I will
All I was saying was its easier to carry weight down a hill than it is up it
There again as I said before I arent as good as Fulham ,JIB,Sasatatajack,Guest and others ,(sorry if I left anybody out) at getting my point across.

I cant resist another simplistic example (its my level)
If 2 people had to carry a big weight after being dropped in class
Who would it affect most
Arnold swartzey whatsit or Charles Hawtrey

Barney don’t answer
This will get me laughed out of here

Barney

And I should have said I no longer work for a living

quote:

---

If 2 people had to carry a big weight after being dropped in class
Who would it affect most
Arnold swartzey whatsit or Charles Hawtrey

---

shoudn't think it would affect him at all as he's well brown bread!

boozer,

thats where your wrong in your assumption, i will back a horse down in class with top weight as long as its done it before and its form is comparable in relation to the runners, i also will back bottom weight even if its not done it before, will you?

its getting like a psychiatric ward round here with all the multiple personalities.

you have to keep throwing that in dont you.... LOL


its not whos the strongest its who runs best with it

Having spit the dummy out over the riding of Scotts View I thought I should go back and look at the race to see what

I could learn from the result. Many will pass over the following as backfitting but I
will go through the form of the winner from an angle that VDW advocated and this puts a totally
different perspective on the race, AND ONE THAT WAS NOT EVEN TOUCHED UPON BY ANY of the contributors to this forum.

SUPREMACY

1st Race Newcastle 10f E maid auct, Headway over 2 out,led ! out, soon clear.
Note the stifness of the track and the way the horse ran in the closing stages of the race.

2nd race Ascot 10f Lstd . Behind, ridden 3 out,
stayed on final furlong, not reach leaders.
Note the class suggests that the trainer is not entertaing an angel unawares. Also the stiffness of the track and the way the horse ran in the
closing stages.

3rd race Windsor 12f Condtions C. Led 2 out, soon joined, ridden over I out, stayed on well to draw clear inside final furlong.
Note Ran in this much lower class only 4 days after previous run,possibly to see how he perfomed over this greater distance.( *See Footnote).Once again the way the horse ran gives clear indication that he would be better over
further

4th race 12f Goodwood Gp3. (Slowly run) Held up
pushed along and struggling 3f out. no chance final 2f.
Note Pushed up still further in class, the horse ran abysmally, The reasons for this are not at all
clear but the slow pace on this sharp track could not have helped judged on the way he hed run previously.

5th race (Yesterday) Droppedin class over 13f.
WON!!!!

Yes it is backfitting, but is also very educational when viewed in this way, and who can argue that this is not pure VDW. NOTE THE CLASS IN WHICH THEY RAN, ETC.ETC. wATCH HOW THE TRAINER PLACE HIS HORSES ETC. ETC.

Twice I have posed the question DOES ANYONE KNOW WHEN A HORSE IS REALLY OUT TO WIN ? and the absence of any cogent response suggest that if they do they don't contribute to this forum.
Easy after the event I know, BUT DID THE TRAINER TELL US THAT SUPREMACY WAS REALLY OUT TO WIN, and where we to busy analysing races from decades ago
to see it? I suspect that it would not have passed un=noticed by Che Van Der Wheil.

Footnote. VDW referred to conditions races in his
epistle A METHOD NOT RULES NEEDED ( 1981 35) and my understanding of this is that trainers would often run a lower class horse in a high class conditions race because they Knew there would be a chance of nicking a useful prize as the higher class horses would often be running as a sighter
for a future race.

Guest,

I have to admit I though you would make Scott's View the c/form horse, and a bet subject to the price not being ridiculously short.

I also think we are very close in our understanding of vdw. The only thing we disagree on is the measurement for class. You have been very helpful in showing how vdw used his ratings and thought patterns. I thank you.

I have be trying to work out the Swiss Maid example, and I can't do it your way. So could I ask you a couple of questions?

I make Cistus the c/form horse is this right? Highest on ability, in form, and passing all the filters for the consistency method. As she started favourite I can only assume she was in the first 5 in the forecast. Does she fail in one of the cross checks?

Any thoughts Barney OR ANYONE ELSE?

Be Lucky

I did back COALITION but not through VDW methodology.
I have followed closely how Mark Prescott places his horses and the way he has placed this one
strongly suggests that he thinks that it is better than
the class it has run in so far, including yesterdays race!

to save time give me a clue

what race number, what year?

JohnD

That Supremacy won on Saturday was no shock: as far as I was concerned he "poses the biggest threat to SV" (extract from my analysis of the race posted to several other contributors to the thread just after noon on Saturday). But if one excused SV's last run (which personally I did on the ground of one run too many too quickly) SV was the clear class/form horse, with a big pull over Supremacy on the ability rating, proven at well above the class of Saturday's race, and proven over the distance. He was thus very much a potential "winner in the race".

Whether or not SV was a bet at the price available is another matter, requiring different judgement. Against the pluses one had to take account of a number of issues, including the rise in the relative weights by 12lb since SV's classy performance; the degree of confidence one had as to whether one was right to excuse his last run, and the possible threat from Supremacy.

As Statajack has said, the bet/not bet decision is a matter of balancing risk, and on this occasion I reached the same conclusion as him. But with something as strong as SV in the field, I would suggest that to have backed anything else would, from a VDW perspective, have been a gamble rather than an investment.


Mtoto

Cistus was the 5/2 forecast favourite in the Sporting Life, with Swiss Maid the forecast 2nd favourite at 5/1. It seems inconceivable that she wouldn't have figured in the first five of any betting forecast for the race.


Barney

The race to which Mtoto is referring was one of Mr Hall's four - 2.55 Sandown, 7 October 1978.

mtoto,

if you think VDW would have ignored a horse that can break the course record you are mistaken.

VDW said to pay special attention to horses that had not run as a two year old, if they then turn up in a group race it shows how highly regarded that horse is, 2770 showed that they were not imagining it and from there it got better when upped to the right trip.

All hindsight of course

For various reasons this is going to be my last post although I will still be looking in and I would just like to take this opportunity to thank Fulham, Mtoto, Barney etc and indeed everyone on this thread and the whole gummy board for what has to be the best racing web site about. A particular vote of thanks goes to Guest who has probably saved me countless hours of frustration by his contributions.
However, none of us knows it all and judging by Scotts View, Golan and Noverre even he has either not spotted or discounted the so-called "Missing Link". It does exist although without proper form reading skills as exemplified by Guest its usefulness is limited. This is why in 1988 VDW wrote about the "myth" of the missing link - without the hard work aspect of his equation the missing link will not be much use. Even without these skills it can however, help avoid bets which superficially appear to be good things such as the above mentioned three. If it is used correctly as part of the consistency method you will as he put it "have the same horses as myself" and the 80-90% success rate he refers to in Golden Years can be a reality.
Both G. Hall and F. Chester found the link as he himself acknowledged, although obviously he knew it was not the key to the whole methodolgy that G. Hall thought it to be. "In reply to G. Hall (11-1-79) can I first say that it was a method not a system, a point as I recall that was stressed. However, I congratulate him on "spotting the key" as he describes it."
In his "No magic formula" letter he remarks that F. Chester has "gone a long way towards the ultimate conclusion" although the very title of the letter and the first paragraph make it clear that it is not a magic shortcut. The two above letters, together with the PK letter, "Spells it Out" and the April 85 "Missing Link?" letter in Ultimate Wheil of Fortune offer the best clues. Some of my posts over the last 2 weeks or so will also be of help, especially the list of good things. You only have to compare the selections with the other runners in their respective races and certain things should become apparent. He was always exorting people to find the "winner in the race, not of the race" and that is a telling quote which also reveals a sense of humour. Two recent examples are Esatto which Barney spotted and which had all the form credentials to match and Mamounia yesterday which didnt. Two final quotes which may help:
"...temperament plays a big part in sorting out the winners and losers. You dont HAVE to bet but using this elementary method your field of vision will be restricted to a narrow area full of potential and if you fail to achieve a minimum of 80% success evaluate your reading of form."
Lastly, "It is there for you to see and was not covered up, but until you approach the problem in the right way the odds are it will remain obscure. Once you find it everything will be so clear and you will have the same horses as myself."
If anyone wants a chat sometime they can email me on statajack@yahoo.com
regards,
Jack.

Johnd

What a party poooper

You have spoilt the Party with a serious Post
You said
Nobody touched on Supremacy (before the race )
I did,
Read My previous post
Ill stand by what I said (if I can even remember what I said)
But its easy to be right in this case (No credit to me at all)
When it turns out that way
Analysing the result be it back fitting or what ever
How the hell do you assess such a lightly raced horse (it is a risk backing against them)
You have tried but I don’t know if you are Right
As its all too easy after the event

Barney

Will have to answer you you later
Just ordered a smelly indian take away
But whats this

You have to keep throwing this in don’t you LOL

its not whos the strongest its who runs best with it
I agree with you there
Same thing re Charles Hawtrey

Very funny IMP

only god knows why it was 3/1 in 1406 they must have known nothing back then!

hope that everthing is ok.

a personal thank you for your previous support.

best wishes

Barney

good luck and be careful out there.
youre a nice bloke.

Statajack

I agree with Max

And I think you are one of the best posters on here
So whats wrong
I hope it wasnt me

Johnd.

I started to answer you yesterday, but I thought I would wait and see the race again. You say you aren't happy with the way the horse was ridden. I thought the jockey did a good job, he put the horse into the race with every chance of winning. If he had been good enough he WOULD have won. There is a world of difference between being in the race to win, and being good enough to win. That is what we are trying to do, find out if the horse is good enough. I didn't think so, based on what he had done up till now. The only class horses he had beaten, were a stable mate who ran as a pacemaker for him and one that was badly out of form. The next good to fair horse he races against beat him. I think he was running to win on Saturday, I think he ran his best race ever. You can't ask for much more than that.

It is always a good idea to go through the race afterwards to find out why a horse won or lost. Then you take the findings and work out which horse will improve, and go on to better things. For what it's worth I think the winner, and second are well capable of going on. Depending on the opposition. I think Scott's View will always be beaten when he meets class horses that are in form.

Trainers placing their horses to win. I think there is a lot of nonsense talked about this, I don't think any trainer stops a fit and ready horse from winning. What's the point? the right opportunity may never come again. The going, draw, injury and a host of other things could go wrong. I suppose it depends on the class of the horse, but I would say no trainer would turn down a prize of over say £10,000 just to try for a bigger prize. Most of the fiddles are in the smaller races. I think that is one of the reasons vdw stuck to the bigger races.

Be Lucky

Mtoto

VDW said
The method works under both codes and at all levels
No doubt somebody will pull me up if Im wrong
and My memory aint that good anymore