Once the elements of the main method are understood (as far as is possible from the VDW texts and examples) it is usually easy to identify the class/form horse - the horse which, on VDW's presumptions for the method, is the one most likely to win. But VDW made it clear that only a minority of these should be backed - maybe 20% - so identifying those 20% becomes arguably the main phase of the analysis.
With some research of the examples, it is possible to identify the "winner in the race" characteristics of two types of VDW class/form horse - the highly consistent class risers such as Little Owl (4 March 1981), Wing And A Prayer etc, and the less obviously consistent class droppers such as Roushayd. Two of those characteristics are position in the ability rating ranking - often top (ie the best horse in the race) and always in the top four or five, and what Lee usefully termed "ultra consistency". But we are left with a number of selections which VDW may well have backed which, though being the class/form horses in their races, do not have one or other of those characteristics, and the question for investigation is what "pluses" did such horses have which might have made them backable. This is the question I am currently researching and propose to set out some initial observation in this post (which will consider the 1984 Welsh National, where Righthand Man was VDW's selection) and my next one which will consider the 1978 Erin (Prominent King).
The 1984 Welsh National works out quite easily as far as identifying the class/form horse:
four "automatic" consistent horses (Planetman, Androma, Hardy Lad and Kumbi) and one "discretionary" consistent horse (Righthand Man);
the probables method of rating eliminates Hardy Lad, leaving four probables;
assessing which of the probables are also "form" horses eliminates Androma, leaving three probables with form;
of these Righthand Man, fourth highest on ability, scored over Planetman (13th) and Kumbi (15th), had the best form of the three and no negative capability issues. He was, as VDW specifically stated, the class/form horse.
But was he one to back? He doesn't fit either of the well-established "winner in the race" profiles (for shorthand, Little Owl's and Roushayd's), and there were three higher ability rated horses (ie better horses) in the race: A Kinsman, Androma and Peaty Sandy. How "strong" was Righthand Man?
The pluses are that he was very much a "form" horse, who had won his two races in the 1984/5 season, and he had shown that he could be competitive at the class of the Welsh National (191) by his form run in his last race of the previous season when he came a decent 6th in a class 193. He had also won and come second in two handicap chases of class in excess of 100. So a proven high quality handicapper in form but still to win a race of the class of the Welsh National.
But what about the three better horses?
A Kinsman owed his high AR to a win in a class 229 non handicap. His only form run in a handicap chase above class 100 was a reasonable 6th in a class 128 at the end of the previous season. Although running quite well in his four races in 1984/5 he wasn't in the first six of the Life or Mail's forecast, wasn't a consistent horse for the Welsh National and arguably not a form horse for it either. Difficult to see him posing a serious threat to Righthand Man.
Androma had won the class 193 in which Righthand Man had come 6th, beating RHM by about 11l though getting 21lb. In the Welsh National RHM was 6lb better off, not sufficient for one to be confident of a reversal on weight alone, had everything else been equal. Androma was in the first six of both the Life and Mail's forecast, a consistent horse for the race and a probable, but was not a form horse for the race. However, the race Androma failed on was only a class 26, in which he was carrying 11.07. His win in the class 193 was off 10.00 and he only carried 10.04 in the Welsh National. In the class 26 he made a mistake and was not given a hard race thereafter, not surprising given the low prize money, and in my view could not be completely discounted as a possible winner.
Peaty Sandy had won the 1981 Welsh National but had not put in a form run in a class 100 or better race since, was not in the first six of the Life or Mail's forecast, was not a consistent horse in the National, though arguably he was a form horse for the race. As a 10yo he was arguably starting to decline and the absence of a decent run in a high class handicap since his 1981 Welsh National win makes it difficult to see him as likely to beat RHM.
In sum, in Righthand Man we had a decent class/form horse but one who had yet to prove he could win a race of the Welsh National's class, with arguably one of the better (= higher ability-rated) horses in the race not in my view able to be completely discounted. Was he a bet?
VDW rather suggests he was, in that in the relevant article he wrote ""His [Mr Spier's] first wager after receiving the letter [he wrote to VDW] should have been Righthand Man". He was certainly a reasonable proposition, but picking up a comment of Lee's included in one of the recent posts on this blog, I do not believe one would achieve an 80+% strike rate backing horses with Righthand Man's profile. For a horse going up in class he lacked "ultra consistency", and there was one plausible higher ability rated rival in the race. But a "plus" was the horse's proven ability to win a decent handicap and put in a form run in one of the same class as the Welsh National. And it is that last characteristic that I am currently most interested in exploring.
ps
It occurred to me overnight that, although of course by definition not available for helping one make judgements in a contemporary race, later performances of relevant horses might throw some light on the judgements one does make. Looking at the three higher ability-rated horses than RHM:
A Kinsman ran three times after the Welsh National, showing very little and sadly dying. Nothing to suggest that he was a real threat for the Welsh National.
Androma ran twice more, winning for the second year running the Scottish National (RHM came second) and coming second in the Whitbread. Obviously confirming his performance in the 1984 Scottish National. One could argue that the second Scottish National was his target, and if so that made him less of a threat for the Welsh National. However with both races being of the same value, without specific knowledge that only connections have, that would have been a bold judgement, and my view is that his subsequent performances suggest that he was a genuine threat for the Welsh National.
Peaty Sandy ran several more times, picking up a low class handicap chase of the kind he had won from time to time since his win in the 1981 Welsh National. That rather suggests it would have been correct to think he was probably not up to repeating his 1981 success and was a horse on the decline.
