- This topic has 92 replies, 34 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
I think Electrocusionist will run a big race in the Breeder’s Cup classic if he aviods injury between now and then. He has the tools required to run a big race there as he acts well on the dirt and is as tough as they come. Other than Bernardini there isn’t any 1m 2f horse in the states that I would say is outstanding so I think the Godolphin horse would have a fine chance.
Of course, Sheikh Mohammed owns both Bernardini & Electrocusionist so if they both make it there in one piece he may want to keep them apart. In which case Electrocusionist would probably go for the turf instead.
Hi, Librettist. I can only go by my own figures which are, admittedly, limited as far as Electrocutionist is concerned. I have him running to 127 on dirt but no better than 122 (including, I imagine, yesterday) on turf. Maybe the coincidence does relate to the nature of the track so thanks for your input. I’ll keep it in mind.
As for Electrocutionist having a go at HC, I noticed his head turned towards him in the head-on replay and that went through my mind. At the time I thought it might explain why HC seemed to slow up – intimidated. they showed another angle, though, which made the incident look entirely innocent and there was certainly no biting involved. If HC was simply intimidated by E’s proximity, I wouldn’t want to be on the Japanese horse in any G1!
Quote: from The Market Man on 1:57 pm on July 30, 2006[br]Gus I don’t know where you’re going to go with this but if you’re going to persist in trying to justify Celtic Swings 138 rating you’re going to go round in circles it just isn’t justifyable. Celtic Swing was a good two year old and probably should’ve been given a rating of around 121. When you look at his best rating achieved as a three year old 127 it makes perfect sense.
138 is a rating on a par with Nijinsky and above the likes of Montjeu, Troy, Dayjur, El Gran Senor ……………………………………………
It’s not just innacurate it’s plain silly. <br>
I think Timeform’s figure for Celtic Swing was a little on the high side but if you think that he was just a "good" two-year-old then I wonder what a horse would have to do at that age to be described by you as "outstanding".
On his second start, he won the Hyperion Stakes over 7f in a canter, breaking the juvenile track record and giving an eight length beating at levels to Singspiel with a further ten lengths back to the rest of a useful field. Allowing 2lbs a length, he gave a 16lb beating to Singspiel, a 34lb beating to Winners Choice (rated 88), a 41lb beating to Jadwal (rated 90) and a 44lb beating to Captain’s Day (rated 88). His timerating by my calculation was 125. I’m not arguing, by the way, that Singspiel as a two-year-old was anything like the force he later became but he was very useful nevertheless.
In the Racing Post Trophy on good to soft – hardly the "bog like" conditions suggested by prince regent – he thrashed a decent field by twelve lengths and upwards. Second was a very good horse in Annus Mirabilis who had won the Somerville Tattersall Stakes last time out and third, beaten thirteen and a half lengths, was Juyush who had been beaten under two lengths into third in the Royal Lodge (also run on good to soft) on his previous run. Fourth, beaten twenty two and a half lengths was Don Corleone, impressive winner last time out of the 28-runner Houghton Sales Stakes although he clearly didn’t give his running. My timerating for Celtic Swing’s Doncaster run was 132, the fastest figure ever earned by a two-year-old on my scale and Timeform’s timefigure, according to "Racehorses of 1994", was 138 which was by a margin of 27lbs the best timefigure by a juvenile that year.
Celtic Swing was an outstanding two-year-old. To say he was "good" at that age is like saying Tiger Woods is a "good" golfer. Subsequent disappointments as a three-year-old can’t detract from his merit at two.
Where, incidentally, does your figure of 121 come from? It would appear that you’ve just plucked it out of thin air. Why does it make "perfect sense" given his three-year-old rating of 127? Are you saying that a horse can never earn a rating as a juvenile higher than his rating as a three-year-old? And if you’re going to trot out the old arguments about the weight-for-age scale be careful – you might find yourself struggling to justify the ratings you’ve quoted (and apparently accept) for Shergar, Dancing Brave and Nijinsky.
By all means, take the view that Timeform over-rated Celtic Swing – I agree with you – but to describe their figure as ludicrous or ridiculous or a sacking offence for its compiler is, well, ludicrous and ridiculous.
Quote: from The Market Man on 10:01 pm on July 29, 2006[br]
the most ludicrous rating ever a few years back when Celtic Swing was awarded a Timeform rating of 138 as a two year old (whoever gave that rating should’ve been sacked its so ridiculous)
Celtic Swing’s 2yo Timeform rating of 138 was franked/influenced/coloured (take your pick) by an equally impressive timefigure in the RP Trophy. They weren’t alone in awarding such stratospheric figures; the RP gave an RPR of 133 and Topspeed of 135 at Doncaster.
Prior to the RP Trophy he broke the track record Ascot in the Hyperion Stakes, beating Singspiel by 8l.
That he failed to emulate these figures/performances as a 3yo doesn’t necessarily mean they were wrong nor should it detract from them, particularly as CS didn’t get the chance to run again on the soft going he relished at Donny.
There is more than a little evidence that CS was not fully fit during his 3yo campaign despite winning the Jockey-Club and being second in the Guineas. No lesser judge than Vincent O’Brien commented (words to the effect) ‘the way he threw his forelegs out’ when pulling up after winning in France was a sure sign he was feeling the ground, despite it being officially ‘good’. Which if true makes his second in the Guineas on GF all the more meritorious as the experience in all probability jarred him up. That he failed abysmally in the Irish Derby (GF) and was never seen again would seem to add credence to him having a chronic leg problem.
So it might be concluded that for a not entirely healthy horse CS did very well indeed as a 3yo and it was far from a "sad mad bad" decision not to run him on firm going at Epsom.
<br>
Apologies for the repetition Gus. Posted my reply prior to receiving yours.<br>
(Edited by Drone at 9:25 pm on July 30, 2006)
Quote: from guskennedy on 8:50 pm on July 30, 2006[br]
Quote: from The Market Man on 1:57 pm on July 30, 2006[br]Gus I don’t know where you’re going to go with this but if you’re going to persist in trying to justify Celtic Swings 138 rating you’re going to go round in circles it just isn’t justifyable. Celtic Swing was a good two year old and probably should’ve been given a rating of around 121. When you look at his best rating achieved as a three year old 127 it makes perfect sense.
138 is a rating on a par with Nijinsky and above the likes of Montjeu, Troy, Dayjur, El Gran Senor ……………………………………………
It’s not just innacurate it’s plain silly. <br>
I think Timeform’s figure for Celtic Swing was a little on the high side but if you think that he was just a "good" two-year-old then I wonder what a horse would have to do at that age to be described by you as "outstanding".
On his second start, he won the Hyperion Stakes over 7f in a canter, breaking the juvenile track record and giving an eight length beating at levels to Singspiel with a further ten lengths back to the rest of a useful field. Allowing 2lbs a length, he gave a 16lb beating to Singspiel, a 34lb beating to Winners Choice (rated 88), a 41lb beating to Jadwal (rated 90) and a 44lb beating to Captain’s Day (rated 88). His timerating by my calculation was 125. I’m not arguing, by the way, that Singspiel as a two-year-old was anything like the force he later became but he was very useful nevertheless.
In the Racing Post Trophy on good to soft – hardly the "bog like" conditions suggested by prince regent – he thrashed a decent field by twelve lengths and upwards. Second was a very good horse in Annus Mirabilis who had won the Somerville Tattersall Stakes last time out and third, beaten thirteen and a half lengths, was Juyush who had been beaten under two lengths into third in the Royal Lodge (also run on good to soft) on his previous run. Fourth, beaten twenty two and a half lengths was Don Corleone, impressive winner last time out of the 28-runner Houghton Sales Stakes although he clearly didn’t give his running. My timerating for Celtic Swing’s Doncaster run was 132, the fastest figure ever earned by a two-year-old on my scale and Timeform’s timefigure, according to "Racehorses of 1994", was 138 which was by a margin of 27lbs the best timefigure by a juvenile that year.
Celtic Swing was an outstanding two-year-old. To say he was "good" at that age is like saying Tiger Woods is a "good" golfer. Subsequent disappointments as a three-year-old can’t detract from his merit at two.
Where, incidentally, does your figure of 121 come from? It would appear that you’ve just plucked it out of thin air. Why does it make "perfect sense" given his three-year-old rating of 127? Are you saying that a horse can never earn a rating as a juvenile higher than his rating as a three-year-old? And if you’re going to trot out the old arguments about the weight-for-age scale be careful – you might find yourself struggling to justify the ratings you’ve quoted (and apparently accept) for Shergar, Dancing Brave and Nijinsky.
By all means, take the view that Timeform over-rated Celtic Swing – I agree with you – but to describe their figure as ludicrous or ridiculous or a sacking offence for its compiler is, well, ludicrous and ridiculous.
<br>Celtic Swings first major win was when beating Singspiel by 8 lengths at Ascot. After that race Singspiel was rated 82. Nevertheless a good performance. Celtic Swings 138 rating was given him on the back of his Racing Post Trophy win over Annus Mirablis who before the race was rated 107 and 109 after the race.
The ground conditions were funny. Officially good to soft (time suggests thats about right) but horses were finishing strung out. Look at that race alone. There was 12 lengths to the second, then 1 1/2 lengths, 9 lengths, 4 lengths, 5 lengths, 3 1/2 lengths, 20 lengths. In other words the ground was tiring, distances between horses were exagerated. Timeform didn’t take that into account at all obviously. Based on that run and the conditions Celtic Swing should’ve been rated early 120’s in my opinion – the rating of a good two year old. The "so and so finished x amount of lengths behind another" argument is flawed, it doesn’t work like that no two races are the same. 138 is absolutely plain barmy.
As a three year old Celtic Swings best performance was when chasing home Pennekamp in the Guineas for which he was given a RPR of 127. Please don’t try and convince me that that performance was eleven pounds inferior to his Racing Post Trophy performance.
138 is a rating given to all time greats. Celtic Swing is not an all time great because of one performance on dodgy ground where horses finished strung out. Based on that rating Celtic Swing must’ve been about a stone better as a two year old than George Washington was ????????? Also he must’ve not just failed to improve but actually got significantly worse at the beginnng of his three year old career. It’s not just crazy it’s laughable. Fact is Celtic Swing was a very good two year old but didn’t really improve at three and wasn’t helped by injuries to be fair. He certainly didn’t just suddenly become an eleven pounds inferior horse did he?
Timeform are well respected organisation not least by me but whoever reached that 138 figure must’ve been drunk on his winnings.
Quote: from guskennedy on 9:33 pm on July 30, 2006[br]Where are the ratings from that you quote in your first paragraph, The Market Man?
Look on the Racing Post website. Type in Celtic Swing then search all the info is in there. The ratings are RPR ratings. Incidently they gave CS 133 (from memory) for his Racing Post Trophy win.
It is my view that people over-react to visually impressive performances there is usually a reason if a horse wins by a big margin. From a punting point of view its easy to get taken in and burn your fingers from my experience, have done it myself a few times. Nowadays I ignore hype, ignore comments from trainers, owners and so called experts and just use my eyes and brain. Works much better for me anyway.
(Edited by The Market Man at 10:08 pm on July 30, 2006)
It’s interesting that you accept the RPR for Celtic Swing’s Guineas run – presumably because it suits you to do so – but refuse to accept the RPR for his Doncaster run and substitute your own some 12lbs lower.
Quote: from guskennedy on 10:17 pm on July 30, 2006[br]It’s interesting that you accept the RPR for Celtic Swing’s Guineas run – presumably because it suits you to do so – but refuse to accept the RPR for his Doncaster run and substitute your own some 12lbs lower.
<br>No I accept the figure because it’s far more logical than it is to accept a 138 or even a 133. All his other figures make sense that one doesn’t.
I remember at the time Celtic Swing was evens I think for the Guineas, me and my mate went and backed Pennekamp because we took the view that although Celtic Swing had been impressive, he’d been massively over rated and overhyped particularly by those on Channel 4 who have a habit of doing things like that.
Celtic Swing actually ran a very good race in the Guineas and that for me is definately his best performance.
It’s all about opinions mate, I respect anyones right to their own.
(Edited by The Market Man at 10:24 pm on July 30, 2006)
Quote: from The Market Man on 10:21 pm on July 30, 2006[br]No I accept the figure because it’s far more logical than it is to accept a 138 or even a 133. All his other figures make sense that one doesn’t.
You’ve lost me. You clearly don’t accept the figure.
Quote: from guskennedy on 10:28 pm on July 30, 2006[br]
Quote: from The Market Man on 10:21 pm on July 30, 2006[br]No I accept the figure because it’s far more logical than it is to accept a 138 or even a 133. All his other figures make sense that one doesn’t.
<br>You’ve lost me. You clearly don’t accept the figure.
<br>I said I don’t accept the figure. I don’t accept the 132 the RPR gave Arazi as a two year old for a win in the Grand Criterium over Rainbow Corner, Seattle Rhyme and St Jovite either. Interestingly the first four home in that race were allocated RPR of 132, 127, 127, 126 respectively. What is the liklihood of four two year olds in one race running to a higher level for example than Electrocutionist has? Or for that matter Deep Impact, Hearts Cry.
My own opinion is the industry went through a stage of over hype and over-rating as far as two year olds are concerned. Now we’ve possibly gone the other way and are a bit conservative. Lessons learned more than likely. Arazi’s dirt performance in US I haven’t counted. He got 134 for that but I don’t do dirt racing.
Again as a three year old Arazi rather like Celtic Swing disappointed. He won his first three year old race by five lengths  but then struggled winning only one more race. A very good turf two year old that later maturing types caught up IMO.
(Edited by The Market Man at 10:40 pm on July 30, 2006)
Quote: from RobinFromIreland on 10:41 pm on July 30, 2006[br]Off topic
True but it’s a good debate. ;) :biggrin:
(Edited by The Market Man at 10:43 pm on July 30, 2006)
EC – Apologies, only just read your posts got caught up with Gus’s. You make some good points.
Fantastic debate…really enjoyed reading it and no nasty comments either!
Personally I think Celtic Swing is the best 2yo i’ve ever seen (only been watching since 92) and arguably one of his best 3yo performances was in beating Bahri over an inadequate 7f. Shame we didn’t see more of him really and also that we don’t see much of his progeny (is he still alive? or abroad?).
It was the ratings I was finding myself giving Celtic Swing that made me start to question my 2yo figures. His time ratings were pretty much off the scale (after weight for age) and it was about then I started to wonder about how much quicker than other some horses develop. I  reckon CS was simply a bit of a freak of nature – a 2yo in a 3yo’s body. The relevant books will be stored in the loft but if I remember correctly his unadjusted time ratings as a 3yo were pretty much same as his 2yo ones, suggesting he was already mature as a 2yo.
He did, however, have well-documented problems with his knees and we probably never saw the real horse after his juvenile season. On the other hand, you’d like to think he could have gone on to be a brilliant sire but has he really produced aything of note apart from Six Perfections (peaked at 3yo but below form at 4yo) and Takeover Target (which we wouldn’t really know if he’d stayed in Australia and falls short of true G1 par anyway)?
(Edited by Maurice at 8:21 am on July 31, 2006)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.