quote:

Maybe I'm missing something but the answer is surely obvious - Van der Wheil didn't advise folk to make lists of horses without ability. I've read several sections where he referred to lists, the earliest being item 19 of "The Golden Years". There he suggests restricting lists to "good handicappers" and offers several criteria, one of which is a previous speed figure of 80+. Do you know how many handicappers achieved a sf of 80+ in those days - Flat or NH? Very few indeed and without exception they had won or run very well in classy handicaps.

George,

Exactly, but he didn't only recommend listing handicappers

quote:

That seems sensible to me for that purpose, but why should it make sfs achieved a better guide to comparative ability to the rating as shown in item 35 of "The Golden Years"?

I can't see trying to work from an average has any advantage when you work capability into the equation. Which part of the average do you use?

Be Lucky

Mtoto

Agreed Van der Wheil did not suggest lists just of handicappers, but when he recommended lists it seems to have always involved more than one criterion with the sf element tailored to match the purpose, eg the short list of top 2yos in the "Listing Speed Figures" from "The Ultimate Wheil of Fortune".

You ask which part of the average do you use? The answer seems clear - all of it. The March 1981 article tables are helpful here. Having marked off the consistent horses Van der Wheil writes "... do not make any automatic assumptions ... it is now necessary to establish if any of the three probables have good claims for support. Always start appraisals by looking at the horse with the highest ability rating ...", and in the following paragraph he lists a number of pointers to examine. So, for example, in the third table he starts with highest ability rated Fauloon but finds inadequacies in it, and works his way through the top four and indeed other consistent horses before reaching his conclusion.

And I suspect the example to which you drew my attention is highly relevant. Pegwell Bay was 3rd equal on ability, and both the two higher horses - Townley Stone and Jim Thorpe - were consistent horses. Van der Wheil writes off top rated Townley Stone on much the same grounds as Ellen Mavoureen and Fort Belvedere in the Gaye Chance race. The second top Jim Thorpe and joint third Bishops Yarn were however rejected partly or wholly on grounds I suspect Van der Wheil thought of as capability matters - distance and going (two of the issues in that paragraph from the March 1981 article referred to above as listing the pointers for appraisal). Surely not out of the question to think that had the Mackeson been over 2m rather than 2m 4f, and on soft, Jim Thorpe and not Pegwell Bay would have been the selection.

John D,

Not quite sure how, where or why, collateral form comes into it. I certainly never mentioned it.

For what it's worth I'm equally sure VDW didn't use collateral form as we know it.

Form though must have some degree of merit. Beating a high class horse means absolutely nothing if that horse is hopelessly out of form, running over the wrong distance etc. That's nothing to do with collateral form, it's more about taking a measure of that form. If Little Owl's last 3 wins had come in selling hurdles at Sedfefield beating horses who had never made the frame before, do you think he would still have been the certainty VDW thought?

And I suspect the example to which you drew my attention is highly relevant. Pegwell Bay was 3rd equal on ability.

George,

PB was joint 5th for ability.

Jim Thorpe, agreed most of his wins were over 2 miles on soft ground. However he had won over 20f and had won on firmer ground. How does taking an average help sort out if any of those performances are worth taking into account?

For that matter how does working from an average help with any selection? It may just be me, but the whole idea of an ability rating is to gauge a horse best performance and from that ground, distance,etc can be judged against that performance. As I think PK shows, a best performce isn't always a win, so only using them can give a very false impression.

Be Lucky

Mtoto

You are quite right re Pegwell Bay: 5th= not 3rd=, still I think my point holds: one of the higher ability rated consistent horses and the co-5th equal eliminated on the basis of capability issues (the other two higher ability rated not being consistent).


"It may just be me, but the whole idea of an ability rating is to gauge a horse best performance"

I can see that could be an interesting piece of data, but Van der Wheil was clearly more interested in average winning performance as his measure of ability, not best. Had he wanted best performance, he could have easily used win prize money from each horse's highest value win. One can perhaps reasonably assume he explored best win v average winning performance as a means of rating ability, because they are both obvious possibilities and he wrote that "each element was selected after a great deal of research", so preumably he found the average the more useful.

quote:

I can see that could be an interesting piece of data, but Van der Wheil was clearly more interested in average winning performance as his measure of ability, not best.

George,

Another discussion I fear that will just go round in circles. What I'm trying to say is VDW did use the best performance, and not the best winning performance, or average of wins.

Oh well,

Be Lucky

Mtoto

But where is the evidence for your view? I can't see it in the races he discusses in any detail, with the possible exception of the 1988 Old Newton Cup.

But where is the evidence for your view? I can't see it in the races he discusses in any detail, with the possible exception of the 1988 Old Newton Cup.

George,

I'm afraid I'm not going to spell it out in words of one syllable on any open forum. The best I think anyone can hope for is a hint, and even then the posts have to be read carefully. Although I will say I have tried very hard to keep away from the normal cryptic post that are often used.

I say/think VDW didn't use the A/R as shown in SIAO. I have pointed out from the early examples two that don't fit is as much as the selection would have been passed over if the guide lines had been followed. As you have pointed out there are others that came along after SIAO. When/if you find the piece of the puzzle I am 100% convinced you will then see where I'm coming from. I do say if, because I have a slight worry that if your assistants find it they (unless they understand racing) may miss it.

Be Lucky

Mtoto

No fear of that. I've simply used them to gather data and pop it into a spreadsheet to enable me to explore some limits. I'll be doing the detailed work on the examples.

I'm still puzzled, because you are asking me to believe that Van der Wheil not only misled over the ability rating but actually lied, and frankly (though understandably) you provide no evidence whatsoever for that view. However, I'll now bang on looking at the examples in detail and see where that gets me.

ye shall know them by the company they keep,we spoke of that a few weeks ago.4.30 ayr tomorrow inxile looks a nicolls benefit

This message has been edited. Last edited by: les henderson,

Les

Nice to see someone actually prepared to discuss a current race.
A full weekend goes by, with pages and pages on ancient races, and not a single sniff of any appraisal or selections. Says it all about most VDW'ers in my view; all talk and no balls.
In the Ayr race, nothing stands out as a clear selection imo, which should mean a tight finish in a race too close to call. However, Look Busy appears to have a better chance than most, and I couldn't really see her out of the first 4.
Good luck with your bet.

LES
I THINK YOU HAVE A GOOD CHANCE OF COLECTING

inxile beaten by corrybourgh at levels corryborgh secound in group 3 at weekend surely good enough to win this

Nichols record in 3yo+ Handicaps at AYR is appalling

Having said that - Inxiles last run, puts him about 10lbs ahead of the handicapper

hope your on johnd yes i,m going with what i have as far as vdw is concerned all our yesterdays not for me and well done

quote:

Originally posted by les henderson:
hope your on johnd

Not at all Les, though it should be noted that, despite being 10lb worse off (inc wfa allowance), she beat Princess Ellis easier than she did last time they met
There's a reason for that, but it won't be found outside of SIAO!
Let them study their ancient examples, and discuss them till the cows come home, until they understand he did SPELL IT ALL OUT, they're just the dreamers they always were.

Well done on selecting the winner JD

I cant back anything trained by that fecker,may cost me a few winners but should save me plenty

Good luck

RAB
I spoke to Mr Nicoll's a couple of year's back at Chantilly racecourse , he seemed to me to be a nice bloke. I must dig out that photograph i have of him wearing Lady O'Reilly's hat.

Paul

I wouldn't mind meeting him myself and getting to know what tricks he gets up to,
As for A Berry im quite sure the man doesn't even know what day it is going by the amount of winners he's had in the last 5 years,However he is doing a bit better since he was cleared of race fixing or whatever it was last year,
He has a good horse in look busy but i wonder how he will fk it up to win much more,Old habits are hard to get rid of