didnt win though,

as with young devreux VDW way


Linning wine

This horse should not have been left out of the equation,Running in lower class,I know but finishing second to Cyfor Malta over 2 miles 4fs of the track for a year,But it had enough form to create conflict.

Fulham
If you think you understand what i'm trying to convey,Have a good lok at this horse,If you fail to see what i,m getting at,I give up.

JIB,
Ive reread my post on trainers but I can still find nowhere in it where I actually question Martin Pipe's ability.
regards,

Investor

As regards the 1988 Mackeson, it is possible that any differences between us are, in part at least, due to the order in which factors are considered.

In the way I work, the first stage is to isolate the form horses and thus the c/f. In this case, as far as I'm concerned there were arguably five form horses relative to the class of the race and the runners, of which Jim Thorpe was the clear c/f, some 13 points on the ability rating clear of Pegwell Bay, the 2nd c/f.

Considering the form horses from the perspective of a second numerical picture, Jim Thorpe's claims are strengthened considerably vis-a-vis Pegwell Bay's.

It is only when the conditions of the race are considered that doubts come in re Jim Thorpe, and here VDW's comments are interesting. You'll recall he wrote: "the distance is wrong and he requires much softer ground to perform well", whereas in respect of Pegwell Bay he wrote "has ideal going, over his best distance".

The record entirely supports VDW's view in respect of Pegwell Bay, but for me he was too dogmatic about Jim Thorpe. Yes, Jim Thorpe's record suggested he much preferred softer. But wrong distance? JT ran three times over 2m 4 in the previous season, winning twice and finishing 2nd on the other occasion. Yes, after a layoff and a "freshener" over hurdles his final three runs in the 1987/8 season were over 2m, as was his first run of 1988/9, but I don't see in his overall record enough to justify describing the 2m 4 of the Mackeson as "distance is wrong".

So, for me the position looks more balanced that it evidently did to VDW. A clear and consistent c/f (with the better prior performances) possibly not running over his ideal trip, and certainly with ground firmer than that on which he had performed well, against a less consistent 2nd c/f for whom conditions were ideal who also had the benefit of more experience in handicaps.

As regards the 1.20 Ascot today, in my view Dark N'Sharp was the clear class/form horse and most likely winner. Young Devereaux had not shown a comparable level of ability. With Dark N'Sharp slipping up relatively early in the race, there is no way of knowing whether he would have won if he'd completed.

Fulham/Barney/Investor - Just to say that given Seebald ran YD so close, with more weight than the facts beforehand suggested he could cope with, it is reasonable to assume that had DNS not overjumped at the water he would have made even more of a race of it with YD than Seebald did.

As to the Lingfield race, well there opened up another of those pitfalls I often go on about. When Brilliant red won at 12/1 recently, who was 9/2fav in the race?

BR is a 9yo who had been dropped twice to win and reduced his rating as a consequence. The odds on fav last time ran so obviously below itself that the form didn't really amount to much. Anyway, all bad mistakes in this race on my part but I was unable to spend as much time as usual on racing today. Plenty of time before the holiday racing next week though.

Ah well,I tried But unfortunately,Your missing the point i have been trying to get across,I never suggested Dark n sharp wasn't the c/f horse,I said that Y.D had shown form prior to the years absence,Enough infact to create conflict,It was also getting lumps of weight from both seebald and dark n sharp,And i think this showed over the last when stumbling but still being able to pick up and win,I will try once more,ANATAR don't say this is hindsight because it isn't,i t's all there to be seen before the race,It is now becoming quite hard to explain any further,You know my e.mail,you never know if you use it,There's a possibility the information could be helpful,If you din't think it was vdw,It's definately a very good crosscheck.

I find it rather strange,That I.Mongan who has ridden B.R so many times in the past,Including it's last 3 where it's shown form,Plumped for a horse quoted 20/1 in r/p alarm bells rang for me.

Investor.

Is it possible the jockey I Mongan had no choice, and was claimed by his stable for the ride? I am afraid I am having as much trouble as Fulham trying to work out exactly were your coming from, would it not be possible to give a concise example of one element of what you are talking about

Barney,

I to don't follow your thinking about Certain Justice being out of form, would it be possible to explain? Mr .e.d gave a list of reasons why a horse wasn't in form, which one of them was it, or is it another one? Could you also give me a clue were it says a horse must have won a handicap to be considered when it runs in a handicap? Taking into account the VDW selection Soaf didn't meet that criteria.

Be Lucky

There is NO question in my mind which horse would have won had the ground not gone against him, the class horse in the race and the one that just got pipped, Seebald.
11st 12lb or not, had the ground remained soft, he would have won it, Dark & Sharp may have a lot of potential, but he had never shown himself capable of the same form Seebald had shown. Also, as he showed today, and Chicuelo illustrated yesterday, a horse may jump well in its own class, but will be found wanting against better horses.

Yes i understand the partnership with mr litmodden,But it just added to unease,If mongan had got the ride it might have been a different,A lot of peole seem to think jockeys don't matter, i think that BEHREJAN today indicates to me anyway that they most certainly do matter.

i cannot agree more with your last post,it could have and if you had not posted would have been my comments exactly.
even with a clear round dark and sharp was always going to be up against it compared to seebald.
bearing in mind the weight carried today in desperate ground a cracking race ran by the runner up.

Jim Thorpe,Had run over the distance 3 times prior to meeting Pegwell Bay,Class 10 and winning on soft,Class 60 and winning on soft,Class 30 and coming 2nd on g/f,7 of his 9 wins prior to the mackeson were on g/s soft,The distance may have been o.k but the ground most certainly wasn't,And i think the races after the event reiterate that fact,I don't have to tell you how Pegwell bay had been faring,And also in much better class,And he carried the form on well into the 1990s,Consistent form relative to the rest of the field,Plus ability in better class is a force to be reckoned with.

Investor


Yes, as my earlier post made clear, my only reservation about VDW's view of the race was in respect of his (to my mind) rather dogmatic characterisation of the trip as "wrong" for Jim Thorpe. I'm glad we agree.

Iv'e just re read your post,Vdw actually said.How this horse can be favourite takes some understanding.The distance is wrong and he requires much softer ground to perform well.At this level,Has NO CHANCE.

Investor

Yes, in my view VDW was being unduly dogmatic over the issue of distance - as you've demonstrated, the evidence was equivocal.

Fulham/Investor

Just as a matter of interest
What happened to Jim thorpe after this race
Did he win another race and if so what distance and what sort of ground

I apologise for bombarding you,I shall wait and make a longer post next time,Anyway your still under the impression that jim thorpe was c/f,He wasn't,I'll do this by the book

3 most cons

Townley stone
Jim thorpe
Bishops Yarn
Pegwell Bay

CLASS Ratings

Warner for leisure
Gee a
Pegwell bay
Smart Tar

Where's Jim Thorpe

Comments;Observe that Pegwell Bay is the only one to feature in the most consistent and has the best FORM.Iv'e put two words in capital letters,Plus the other comments about J.T don't bode well.

He had 13 races after and never won one of them.

Investor

I can only suggest that you study the 20 correctly stated c/f examples in the three articles, beginning with the 26/1/85 one, reprinted in "The Ultimate Wheil of Fortune". (The other one mentioned, Bonny Gold, wasn't a c/f, as Guest has pointed out, because due to a mistake in the Sporting Life VDW calculated its ability rating incorrectly.)

Careful study will enable you not to select any more Lord Mooses.