The way I work strongly suggests Roushayd's target had been the Epsom race. It certainly should have been.

When he went to the ONC he was not 'coming to the boil', he had already begun to vapourize! Indeed his subsequent career shows that the finest performance of his life was Epsom and that after that each successive effort was worse than the one before. As I think was VDW'S want he spotted a lot of these horses after they had run.

By studying Roushayd's win the real lesson is being lost, however if Epsom is understood as the real objective then the example becomes more focused.

Think he ran a decent race at a course that was not suitable for him John so vdw thought aye! aye!.

RE

Papal Bull wouldn't be as good on soft ground imo, and if it remains so, might find it difficult against the likes of Anna Pavlova and Lucarno, even though they both concede him penalties.
In the 2.35, I have Dr Faustus as the likely winner.

JIB

You are wrong about Roushayd on a number of counts, and there are strong indications that the ND was never his target.
Most of them are tied in with the placing of the horse, which I'm not about to discuss, but suffice to say that a trainer of FJH's calibre wouldn't have been 10l out in his calculations, nor would he have had a horse of his nature ridden from the rear.
As for his subsequent career, only twice after the ONC did he race in anything near his optimum circumstances, (Neither of them ideal), on one occasion being obstructed, the other a good 4th to Brashee in a 71K.

JD

Interested in how you make Dr Faustus the likely winner, are you saying his 9th to Collection is the key line of form? I'm not saying your wrong just trying to educate myself further.

I see the race as full of conflict and identify Dream Desert and Lazy Days as having the best form so interested in how they run but a race to leave alone imo

Defo worried about ground for Papal Bull but I believe his class will see him win.

Just noticed the Mirror have the SF symbol at side of Dr Faustus STRONGLY FANCIED.

RE

What I'm saying is that Dr F's last run was much better than it may appear. That, allied to his previous run, suggests him as the probable winner.

Well that's rather strange as you're such a fan of speed figures, which rely totally on standard times.

Until I read SB I had little or no real interest in s/f, and although I use them now they are not used in the conventional manner. I'm not looking for the fastest horse in a race, very often the selection is far from being that. Yes all s/f are based on a standard time, but there are other ways of finding it without resorting to hypothetical horse carrying imaginary weights. It can be arrived at using ACTUAL times run by REAL horses.

As explained when grading course I look at the course layout only, and use only the last few furlongs as the marker. You may not agree with that, but it works for me. Out of interest I did look up the standard times used by the s/f compiler I use and they disagree with the figures you put up.

Newmarket (Rowley) 1m 38.60
Newmaket (July) 1m.40
Ascot (Straight) 1m 40.60
Ascot (Round) 1m 40.80

Pipedreamer/Garsonf

Are you saying without the Ascot win R wouldn't have been the selection? I look at that win and it fails to register for/in the instruction VDW gave when looking at performances to use as a guide. So although it was a valuable prize to win was it a good performance?

Be Lucky

Mtoto

As you've clearly given a lot of attention to courses, may I ask whether in your experience many horses are markedly better on right handed tracks compared with left handed ones, or vice versa?

I ask because I have been reading another Van der Wheil booklet that arrived today - "The Ultimate Wheil of Fortune" - and there is a comment (page 25) that he would not have backed Wayward Lad at Cheltenham though did so at Kempton. Obviously Cheltenham is hilly whereas Kempton is pretty Flat, but Cheltenham is left handed whereas Kempton is right handed. I rather assume that Van der Wheil's reason would be the former, ie Cheltenham too testing for Wayward Lad, but I'd be grateful for your view, both about the quote and in general.

George,

I think with Wayward Lad it is safe to assume it was the stiff course rather than the hand that VDW was looking at.

Many horse can handle the different types of courses, but that isn't what I'm looking for. I'm looking for a horse that consistently shows its BEST form on a certain type of track. Whether or not a horse handles going one way or an other is usually quite easy to pick up, it is finding the track type where it performs best. Just because a horse wins, even a big race doesn't show it can handle the track though. This is were VDW's instructions for reading form comes in. Especially that little word PACE.

Apart from the hand, there are bend, undulations, and the stiffness (or otherwise) of the final few furlongs. Right or wrong, I think some horses are power horses others are speed and they can't perform to their best if the course doesn't suit. In the type of races I look at horses need to be able to perform to their best to win as it is unsual that a horse can win them on sheer class. VDW said what they do in the final 2f is worth looking at, I think that is because thats where class kicks in.

Punjabi is best on right hand stiff courses. He can handle going left handed on a stiff course, but is far better going right.

Be Lucky

Mtoto

Thanks.

Garstonf

glad someone agrees with me,but it just shows how diverse opinions on the subject can be when Mtoto doesn't give it any credence in respect to the ONC.

JIB

Do you really think VDW was at best an aftertimer,or how would you assess what he wrote.I can honestly say that I would not have backed Roushayd in the ONC.

Pipedreamer

Just a point of clarification, are you saying that you wouldn't have backed Roushayd as things actually were, or do you mean in the hypothetical situation that he had not won the class 642 handicap at Ascot in 1987?

Pd,

Your question is short but the answer is long.

I feel a certain hesitation in replying because whilst I feel comfortable in my opinion I could not provide hard evidence to support it.

As an example, this morning I asked Fulham to ask Maths, (Mathematician of the eponymous betting service), who is a good friend of his, to provide the course statistics for Mr R F Johnson Houghton, trainer of Roushayd. They arrived this evening, but contrary to what I had fancifully hoped, they do not confirm that Mr Johnson Houghton had a preference for Epsom. Mr Johnson Houghton had an almost identical record (1986 - 2007) at both Epsom and Haydock, and as such, evidence that I hoped would exist to support the supposition, outlined in my previous post, does not exist.

In spite of this confession I am adamant in my opinion, now knowing VDW's true identity and circumstances, that he was all too similar to ourselves to be trusted as the 'guiding light of reason'.

Like you and me he had flashes of true brilliance,but also like ourselves he confused himself, and from lack of intellectual ability made remarkable errors.

I am sure that like VDW, both me and you have momentarily thought that we have cracked it. It is at this time that the temptation to support our theories lends us to research past results and short cut to a false appraisal.

I am 100% certain that VDW made this same mistake and that we all suffer the result of poor methodology. Only a realistic acceptance of harsh reality and sincere humility can help us make sense of so much emotional chaff.

JIB

So VDW isn't the Messiah, nor is Fulham, now it's Mathematician?
For God's sake, it has nothing to do with the trainer or his preferences, neither has it anything to do with the trainer's record at the track.
It is the horse that shows the trainer where to run him, good trainers take note and place them accordingly, not the other way round!

Jd,

I find it hard to put any faith in your interpretation of this subject when you demonstrate such poor reading comprehension skills.

Either that or your reading comprehension is fine and your real motive is to indulge in 'risk free' hostility.

Either of these two possibilities makes your continuing contributions either worthless or dishonest.

I am sure you can do better than this, and if not thoroughly disillusioned I believe you must still want to learn how to find winning animals, but to do so you will need to refashion your relationship to the other members of this forum.

Dream on, Jib, dream on!

Mtoto

The answer to your question would have to be, no he would not have been a selection. In the chapter on speed figures VDW said Ile De Chypre and Vouchsafe were both going up beyond what they had shown they could achieve. Vouchsafe's last race, which he won, was a 0-115 Hcap, the same as the ONC but it was a class 116 compared to class 170 of ONC. So if Roushayd hadn't won the Ascot race he would definitely be going beyond what he had shown he could achieve with his best win now only being a class 39.

Mtoto

You certainly know your Van der Wheil examples!

Having received several more booklets (though one still awaited) and found quite a few more examples, I diverted some staff time to helping collate some basic data and, subject to double checking, we have found 17 examples where Van der Wheil actually states he backed the horse in question (or referred to them as either cases where one's "betting boots" should be on, or his correspondent Mr Spiers should have backed them). Among these, only the one you mentioned, Pegwell Bay, was below 4th in the ability ranking and he was 5th.

Of the 17, 11 were going up in class on Van der Wheil's win prize money measure, and all were highly consistent (highest aggregate 8), and all had won last time out except for Wayward Lad.

Of the 6 going down in class, again all were highly consistent (10 the highest aggregate) and all were in the top four on the ability ranking.

To my way of thinking, the next most interesting grouping of Van der Wheil's selections are those that, without saying he backed them, he described in highly favourable terms - "certainty", "almost a certainty" and "outstanding". We have found 16 of these, 10 going up in class and 6 going down.

Of the 10 going up in class (one was actually running in the same class), some of these had double figure consistency aggregates but all but two had won last time out and the two who hadn't, like Wayward Lad, had finished 2nd. All but Pipsted were in the top four on ability, and she was 5th.

Of the 6 going down in class, some of these too had double figure consistency aggregates, and had been down the field last time out, such as Roushayd, but all were in the top four on the ability rating.

I can't quite square Pipsted and Pegwell Bay with the instruction to mark off the top four on the ability rating in the March 1981 article, but from the 75 examples we've tabulated details for so far, the strongest ones all seem to have met Van der Wheil's consistency requirements, were high in the ability rankings in their races (no lower than 5th), and if going up in class had won, or in a small number of cases come 2nd, last time out.

fancy a couple of vdw type bets today stevie thunderin the 1.30 at newmarket andtiffennatiin the 4.55 at newmarket come on boys lots of good racing today come on put up something for today be a devil ye know ye want to

your doing a great job george how about weight movement for us plebs without the formbooks