Les

Yes, going is one of the factors that Van der Wheil said needed checking (March 1981 article, 2nd para. under the Little Owl table). He showed its use in action in his discussion of the race won by Pegwell Bay.

The "vital factor" referred to in the quote included in Johnd's post is, in my current thinking, form which Van der Wheil mentions breifly and ambiguously in the March 1981 article. If I am right about that, Johnd's response to Black Cat is incorrect and Black Cat is right to take seriously the comments about the horses Sunset Cristo beat, bearing in mind that Sunset Cristo was a three time winners. With losers, the letter about the 1978 Erin (item 8 in "The Golden Years"), and particularly the discussion about Prominent King, suggests it is the winners of the races they lost that we should be interested in.

see steve belsamo

or where the race was ran

[quote]With losers, the letter about the 1978 Erin (item 8 in "The Golden Years"), and particularly the discussion about Prominent King, suggests it is the winners of the races they lost that we should be interested in.
....................................................

In what way George?.

if your right george we have a good thing in mad rush on wedensday?

quote:

Originally posted by George Johns:
Les

The "vital factor" referred to in the quote included in Johnd's post is, in my current thinking, form which Van der Wheil mentions breifly and ambiguously in the March 1981 article. If I am right about that, Johnd's response to Black Cat is incorrect and Black Cat is right to take seriously the comments about the horses Sunset Cristo beat, bearing in mind that Sunset Cristo was a three time winners. With losers, the letter about the 1978 Erin (item 8 in "The Golden Years"), and particularly the discussion about Prominent King, suggests it is the winners of the races they lost that we should be interested in.

Wrong, GJ?
On the contrary, VDW was quite detailed and specific about how he read form in SIAO.
He also warned us about taking collateral form literally in his article A METHOD NOT RULES NEEDED: "Before throwing any more light on the above...........................".

Walter

quote:

id thought it was a different way to read the form?.

Precisely!

Les you mean to say you know what Georgie Boy is talkin about ind your no tellin me? some pal you are btw.

LES
TOP SPEED RPR AND OFFICIAL RATINGS ALL HAVE MAD RUSH AS IMPROVING + 5/2 FAV LTO IS THIS HORSE IN FORM BECAUSE OF THESE REASONS OR IS THERE MORE TO IT.

Les

I have yet to look any any of the York races and if the going is heavy probably I probably won't bother.

But generally speaking from what I've done so far I have no doubt whatsoever that Van der Wheil's approach was as he summarised it in item 36 of "The Golden Years", "Readers who fully understood my previous letters will know it is the balance between class, form and the other factors which show the good things". If I am right in thinking, contrary to Johnd, that what a horse beat or was beaten by is material to the assessment of its form, it is just that - part of one part of a greater whole.

Van der Wheil re-emphasised this bringing the various elements together aspect in the March 1981 article, eg "This [ability] rating gives one of the most reliable assessments of a horse, but always remember it must be used as a guide in conjunction with the other factors. It can be used methodically as the basic factor and when all the other elements line up in support the horse concerned is seldom beaten".


Walter

With regard to Prominent King, Van der Wheil emphasised that his last run (in a race of, from the win prize money point of view, very little class) was good because of whom he finished behind (Drumgora) and the weight he was conceding. In his previous race Drumgora had framed in the high class Irish Sweeps Hurdle.


Johnd

The mention of form in the March 1981 artcile to which I was referring is the phrase "what is form if it is not that one performance is better than another?". I think ambiguous not an unfair comment.

If as you say Van der Wheil was "quite detailed and specific about how he read form in SIAO" perhaps you'd draw our attention to the relevant passage.

Thanks George what would really be interesting now is to see how this 3rd of Drumgora (previous race) is noted numerically for future ref.So are you saying there is not one vital factor George that you or anyone could say right Walter here it is that vital factor ( in a vdw sense) NOW GO AND DO SOME DAMAGE SON a deadly weapon for the punter?.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: walter pigeon,

GEORGE
In his previous race Drumgora had framed in the high class irish sweeps hurdle.

Could you pleae explain more of what you mean by HAD FRAMED

Thank you

Paul

quote:

Originally posted by johnd:
He also warned us about taking collateral form literally in his article A METHOD NOT RULES NEEDED: "Before throwing any more light on the above...........................".

Pace: The warning is there for races that are "not true run".

However, surely collateral form is valid where races are true run (and where courses suit both/all the horses being evaluated).

Paul

Sorry if the term is not in general use - I use it interchangeably with placed, ie that Drumgora had got into the placings.


Walter

It would be arrogant to say no, there is not one secret weapon, as it were, but I'd be very surprised if there was.

The two quotes in my reply to Les are not isolated examples but two of numerous instances where Van der Wheil makes clear that his is a methodical approach with several elements and the "good things" emerge when all the elements come together.

Some elements are harder than others to find. Van der Wheil gave us ability on a plate, and I think I've made a lot of progress with consistency/probables. But I'm still rather bogged down with form, and haven't really got anywhere at all with his crosscheck ratings (though he does imply they are not crucial to the method.)

Paul

All I can do is reprint VDW.s statement

Then he was once more running against Roushayd in the Northern Dancer Handicap over 1 1/2miles, but this time finishing behind the latter but once again we have the classic example of a horse pushed up in class and improving. So Vouchsafe marked his card for you. Next time out in much lower class Vouchsafe scored at 12/1.

Looking at the racing post website it seems hard to beleive that Vouchsafe's 7 of 9 on the 3rd of june 88 amounted to improvement

Unless I have made a mistake or the Racing post has made a mistake

Can anyone enlighten us as to why Vouchsafe marked the card
before scoring at 12/1 in his next race


- "

This message has been edited. Last edited by: boozer,

quote:

Originally posted by George Johns:
Les

I have yet to look any any of the York races and if the going is heavy probably I probably won't bother.

Truth is GJ, that you're all wind and p*ss like most of your ilk. Have you ever put up a selection anywhere?

BC

What VDW was actually indicating was that pace is important - whether it is true or not!

Johnd

As I said in my recent response to Walter, I am happy as regards ability and consistency/probables, but am still bogged down with form, so all I do at present is look to see whether horses meet, or don't meet, what I think are the requirements Van der Wheil set in those areas I understand. That allows only for a partial analysis of a race and as yet no confident selections.

For example, in relation to the big race at Ripon on Saturday I posted as follows:

"I can't get anywhere near a bet in the Great St Wilfred. The three consistent horses are well outside the top four on ability."

What I had learnt to that point led me to believe that the winner was most likely to come from the three consistent horses (which it did); that none of them was up to standard for a bet (first and foremost because of their ability rankings); and that Van der Wheil would not have considered any other runner as a bet.

Had any of the three consistent horses been ranked within the top five on ability (five rather than four in case one was a Pegwell Bay type where giving some margin would be reasonable), I'd have had a look at their form. But as I said in my comments on the races won by Sixties Icon and Paco Boy, I'm not clear enough about that aspect, or the trade off with ability, to be confident about my conclusions.

take a wee chance george stick your neck out whats the worst that can happen?

johnd how to make friends and influence people thats the book you must write

if you look at vdw its not what it done thats important but how its ranked in the race it now races in?

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