Barney,

I agree 100% with everything you say. There are countless ways a trainer can improve his charge, as VDW amply demonstrated through his examples.

There are also other reasons why trainers place horses in races where they have a difficult task. Not least with an eye on the future handicap mark.

With some examples such as PK, a creditable run with a stiff task would have no adverse effect on prospects for the 'target' race, that race being a non handicap. With other races where we are considering handicap to handicap, I don't think the picture is always so clear cut.

Often the horse under consideration proves up to shouldering the extra burden as in the case of Zingari. In these situations the picture is much more straightforward. The difficulty for me comes when the horse fails with this extra burden. In this situation we must make a decision as to whether the defeat was an 'acceptable' one in our opinion. The dilemma for me with CP when trying to rationalise the last defeat in lower class when a clear C/F horse is why? Was the task faced a difficult one or has CP been harshly penalised by the handicapper for his Roseberry win (remember he was 'all out' there). Had the past form of CP shown that 12f was out of the scope of the horse, again things would have been more straightforward but that clearly isn't the case given his 'ran on' 2nd in the November handicap.

Of course things were made considerably easier in later years with must easier access to OR's and commercial handicap ratings to help make those decisions a little easier, as in the case of Canny Danny. We can immediately see by looking at the SL form ratings the severity of the task he faced.

Let me put it another way using your example of Zingari. Had Zingari failed when 2/5f at Pontefract last time when asked to shoulder his burden up the 'ponte' hill then would you have viewed yesterday's race in the same light and still seen him as a good bet (assuming you did so yesterday).

All of VDW's examples are much easier with hindsight of course but I think it important that we try to analyse them in a dispassionate way much as we would have done at the time of the races in question. Your input is appreciated though

Cheers

[This message was edited by Crock on October 09, 2002 at 09:45 AM.]

[This message was edited by Crock on October 09, 2002 at 09:46 AM.]

If you know that then guests pointer should sort it for you. Many times Guest has stated that there are actual weight barriers that the horse cannot overcome. Y U NO RISSEN?

Zingari- if he had failed but remained a form horse he would still have been a bet for me, if however he failed (I would have assumed he failed through being asked to much) I would still have had him as a likely back at yesterdays trip, but with two other likely winners in the race as well.

I did put the race forward for discussion.LOL. but no one took the bait although I hoped some looked in anyway.

Johnd
Thank you for that. In your opinion how, as this thread's most influential poster, did Guest manage to miss Beauchamp Pilot despite making three selections?

Fulham
Having re-read Statajack's post I think it's quite clear that the missing link is nothing to do with either class or form. This from Statajack's statement that G.Hall found the link without access to ability ratings and from his remark that a person such as Guest with profound form reading skills can find horses stronger than those highlighted by the link.

Generally
The more the theories of VDW are discussed the more one is presented with material that seems of very limited or even dubious usefulness. In effect all the components other than form reading take on the aspect of "guides".

330L SURELY WE CAN FIND A BET IN THIS?

Crock


Its worth bearing in mind that, when evaluating the Sandown Cup, in addition to the bare facts of Celtic Pleasure's run on 7 April, VDW also had available to him Amber Valley's later run, on 17 April. Then, when carrying a very high weight, he convincingly beat the winner of a class 25 handicap dropped to class 15, which is suggestive of a horse well and truly in the pink. And, although of course VDW wouldn't have known it at the time of the Sandown Cup, Amber Valley confirmed the clear impression of being a horse in peak form by going on to win its next two races.

I think what the Celtic Pleasure race indicates is what VDW regularly pointed out: the numbers are a useful point of departure, but not themselves the whole story.


Epiglotis

That there is more than one interpretation of what VDW described as the "missing link" is both clear and unsurprising. Anyone interested has the choice of accepting someone else's opinion or, by referring to the texts and examples, forming their own from the primary sources.

It`s

...Monty Python's Flying Circus

Barney,

I DU RISSEN, but I don't always accept at face value

On what do base your assumption that CP was carrying a weight 'outside of the range he could overcome'. Prior to the defeat in the race under discussion, Celtic Pleasure had never been asked to carry more than 9:00 in any race.

If we had evidence that CP had tried and failed with a big weight in lower class before then the position would be clearer.

How can you be sure that CP's defeat was down to the weight carried and not to the handicapper 'getting his measure'?

Cheers

Thanks for the reply. I take it you consider any attempt at definitive understanding of the methods as employed by VDW himself to be futile endeavour.

Dear Sir, (RN)

I regret to inform you that a sense of humour is neither required nor appreciated on this thread, please refrain.

Yours sincerely
Stuffed Shirt

3:30, is the time just coincidence? Put one up and let's take a look.

III

It is good to see (here and on the general thread) that you are reflecting on what I showed you yesterday.

I cant, its a conclusion I came to after looking at numerous examples and with the help of pointers from others more versed than I and their boundless generosity in helping light up the dark paths.

Fulham,

Thanks for your response on Celtic Pleasure. With hindsight I do agree that Amber Valley's subsequent easy victory over Battlement puts the form of CP in race 260 in a different light.

Are you suggesting that CP's defeat by Amber Valley was more down to 'catching a flier, way ahead of the handicapper' rather than the individual weight that CP was asked to carry? If so I have less of a problem accepting this theory than the automatic assumption that CP would'nt perform when humping 9:07.

Cheers

I haven't got a clue!

BARNEY
I haven't got a clue! (3.30l).

Is there anyone else I can help?

Epiglotis

On the contrary. I think its clear that Guest and others (including me) who have undertaken, or are undertaking, serious study of VDW's writings and examples are seeking to achieve exactly that.

There are, however, formidable difficulties, which may or may not be surmountable by diligent research and careful scholarship. Time alone will tell.

In the meantime, I think its evident that decent results can be achieved with a less than total understanding of VDW's thinking.

Epi,

I am sorry if the race time conflicts with a selection you may hve made in that race. I am sorry if that is the case and please belive me when I say it was not a deliberate attempt to undermine yours or anyone elses probable selection. I will now leave it alone.

johnd,

LOL

Crock

The problem as I see it is this.

Had Celtic Pleasure gone straight from his win in the Rosebery (class 68), when carrying 8.6, to contest the Sandown Cup (class 30), where he carried 8.8 over the same distance, all those who apply the VDW approach would see him as a potential good thing, subject to examining the competition in the latter race. But he didn't, and we have to judge what significance, if any, to put on the intermediate run.

At first sight, it was disappointing. CP was dropped a long way in class (to 20), and was beaten into 2nd place as favourite, over a trip he had proved, as a 3yo, he could manage comfortably.

However, CP was carrying a lot more weight than he had done in the Rosebery, or was scheduled to in the Sandown Cup (or indeed that, as far as I can see, he had successfully carried before). He was relatively narrowly beaten, by another well fancied horse (CP started at 7/4, AV at 2/1, the third fav. at 6/1), who subsequently went on to win his third handicap in a row - no mean feat.

Taking all the circumstances together - distance, weight, competition, margin of defeat - what conclusion are we to reach? This is obviously a matter of judgement, but to me the conclusion is, yes the 2nd was a little disappointing, but understandable. GIVEN that in his next race, CP was contesting a much lower class race than he had won when succeeding in the Rosebery, to me he looks like a horse in form, and due to his ability rating, the class/form horse. Had he, instead of the Sandown Cup, been contesting a 1m 2f handicap of markedly higher class than the Rosebery, then one might have reached a different conclusion.

Personally I do not believe that any particular weight - especially one well within normal limits, like 9st 7 - represents an insuperable barrier. Like everything else, weight needs to be considered in context, and principal elements of the context are the class of the race and the opposition.

to add to that IF I remember correctly he had carried more weight than this, and won, in higher class not too long ago.

WHAT ELSE COULD HE DO BUT WIN?

Fulham,

Many thanks for your detailed response which has helped a great deal.

I now concede that I gave too little attention to the subsequent performance of Amber Valley after race 260 and now view the race in a slightly different light.

The problem I have (and I suspect many others) when examining past VDW examples is not in seeing them as selections but in seeing them as 'definite bets' or 'good things' in the VDW parlance.

I am 100% sure that viewing CP's race at the time then I would see him as a clear selection in the race but would I have seen him as a definite bet? With the words 'temperament' and 'the slightest doubt should be enough to leave well alone' uppermost in my mind then I'm not convinced I would have seen him as a selection to wager on rather than one to let run, given that I couldn't be sure that the handicapper hadn't been too harsh after the Roseberry victory.

Then again I have to concede that the private handicap ratings that would have been available to VDW (but not me now unfortunately) may have had some influence in formulating an opinion and reaching the decision to wager or not

Cheers