- This topic has 50 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Ginge – horse wins Hunt Cup showing 21lbs improvement on last race. Would you expect an enquiry?
The lack of an enquiry highlights the arbitrary nature of stewarding. Plenty horses showing less improvement than Arabian Queen will have their running enquired into. What are the criteria for demanding an explanation? Shouldn’t they be clear and defined?You yourself said “there are plenty plausible reasons“ David – why Arabian Queen improved.
Yes, sometimes it is right to hold an enquirey when showing less improvement than Arabian Queen.
I’d expect an enquirey whenever there are few or no plausible reasons to easily see why a horse improved.Value Is EverythingThe running of golden horn and the grey gatsby would suggest they ran true to form and not below form.
I think they both underperformed to a similar degree today. Golden Horn’s best runs have been on fast ground. Likewise The Grey Gatsby.
Golden Horn beat Jack Hobbs by further in the Derby than he had done in the Dante. Some judges had opined that Jack Hobbs may be better suited by the Derby trip than Golden Horn, but the ground in the Dante had been good, whereas it was good to firm at Epsom. Even then, it took Golden Horn a bit of time to get going before he claimed and went away from Jack Hobbs in the Derby. Again, against The Grey Gatsby, it took him a good bit of time to get on top.
There is just a chance that the owner was right, and Golden Horn is a 10f horse, who happened to get away with it on fast ground at Epsom due to his class and perhaps Jack Hobbs not being quite at his best on the faster surface. We have seen that Derby third Storm The Stars is gritty and a good stayer, but his limitations were a bit exposed in the Grand Prix De Paris, when third to Erupt and we know he is a Leger horse now. Derby 4th Giovanni Canaletto has also had his limitations well and truly revealed, so perhaps the Derby form just isn’t as strong as we originally thought.
Jack Hobbs went to The Curragh and romped home in the Irish Derby. The ground that day had a little more juice in it and I just wonder if Golden Horn would actually have beaten him that day at that trip. I have certainly felt, and said, for a while that I think Jack Hobbs was/is the better candidate for the Arc De Triomphe, despite sitting at twice the odds of Golden Horn. Those odds have changed now and I doubt Golden Horn will show up in Paris in October.
As for Arabian Queen, she had been keeping strong company, with four group 1 races in a row now. People still seem to underestimate the impact the ground has on a race and it always sets alarm bells off for me when a horse wins on soft or lightning fast and then runs on the opposite. There is usually value in opposing them.
No, I didn’t fancy Arabian Queen today. I was quite taken with her when she beat odds-on favourite High Celebrity in the old Cherry Hinton last July and made a note that she might be interesting on soft next time. Sadly she ran on soft in the Sweet Solera next time and I though the extra furlong would be right up her street but she made little impact and I marked her off my list. In retrospect she was probably too ambitiously tried at a mile on fast ground before stepping up in trip, again on fast ground.
My best guess to try to explain the race today would be that she might have improved 10 lbs, while The Grey Gatsby and Golden Horn may both have run 10 lbs below their form today. This theory is backed up by the presence of pacemaker Dick Doughtywylie in 5th place.
Dick Doughtywylie is a 99 rated horse and yet, despite doing the donkey-work today, he has only been beaten 5 lengths by stable companion Golden Horn, a horse rated a full 31 lbs higher than him. Into the bargain we have to factor that Dick Doughtywylie was giving Golden Horn 8 lbs today.
I expected Golden Horn to win today but wouldn’t have punted him at all. At the odds I selected The Grey Gatsby each-way antepost at 9/1 1-2-3 in the belief that he would chase Golden Horn home and be a bet to nothing in a likely small field come race day. At the time I also felt there was a small chance Golden Horn might not run. Arabian Queen seemed a complete boil over but if you look back her best form was with soft ground and she been campaigned over patently too short and fast conditions. The evidence was also there that Golden Horn and The Grey Gatsby might not be at their best on the prevailing going today. I think there were enough reasons there to do without a stewards enquiry.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Quite a lot of sense regarding her improvement, taken from The Guardian
“From the off, her chance improved as Dick Doughtywylie, in the race to make the pace for Golden Horn, completely missed the break. Robert Havlin, his jockey, then seemed to overcompensate by racing Dick Doughtywylie into a clear lead, which in turn allowed Arabian Queen, in second, to settle much better than in several races earlier this year.”
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>cormack15 wrote:</div>
Ginge – horse wins Hunt Cup showing 21lbs improvement on last race. Would you expect an enquiry?
The lack of an enquiry highlights the arbitrary nature of stewarding. Plenty horses showing less improvement than Arabian Queen will have their running enquired into. What are the criteria for demanding an explanation? Shouldn’t they be clear and defined?You yourself said “there are plenty plausible reasons“ David – why Arabian Queen improved.
Yes, sometimes it is right to hold an enquirey when showing less improvement than Arabian Queen.
I’d expect an enquirey whenever there are few or no plausible reasons to easily see why a horse improved.Plausible reasons? I suspect plenty of people might disagree. Not surprisingly given your very methodical approach you are clearly trying very hard to somehow justify the winner instead of just rubbing your hands and accepting the huge amount of luck associated with a winner like that.
As I said she ran okay in the Nassau but she ended up being trounced. There was nothing in that performance to suggest that she would take a massive leap forward in a better race. According to the times the ground which has been quoted numerous times was far closer to good than soft. It might have been a plausible suggestion if she had suddenly switched to heavy or even genuine soft ground. That wasn’t the case. The only piece of evidence I can think of regarding the fillies and the colts relative merits was the demise of the Oaks winner in the Irish Derby. So no encouragement there.
Plausible reasons? I suspect plenty of people might disagree. Not surprisingly given your very methodical approach you are clearly trying very hard to somehow justify the winner instead of just rubbing your hands and accepting the huge amount of luck associated with a winner like that.
As I said she ran okay in the Nassau but she ended up being trounced. There was nothing in that performance to suggest that she would take a massive leap forward in a better race. According to the times the ground which has been quoted numerous times was far closer to good than soft. It might have been a plausible suggestion if she had suddenly switched to heavy or even genuine soft ground. That wasn’t the case. The only piece of evidence I can think of regarding the fillies and the colts relative merits was the demise of the Oaks winner in the Irish Derby. So no encouragement there.
Before we go further: Don’t take any notice of the “fillies are better than colts” theory, they aren’t.
As I said earlier Stilvi
“Afterwards there were obvious reasons why Arabian Queen improved. Ground, pace bias, jockeys allowing her too much rope, from a family (dam) which improved as she got older. Oh and the clincher… trainer in fantastic form. Top three in the betting all under-performed on the ground” and/or pace bias.Taking those reasons individually:
Trainer in fantastic form:
Trainers in form is a massively underestimated aspect of “form” and certainly gives me an edge. David Elsworth came in to York with three wins in the previous week, at a much better strike rate than usual. That in itself can explain improvement from Goodwood.Breeding and honesty:
Dam Barshiba improved as she got older and was another genuine front running fighter from the Elsworth yard.Ground:
Looking back at Arabian Queen’s form… First came to prominence with an impressive performance in the Duchess Of Cambridge (Group 2, 6f) on her first start on a soft surface; Arabian Queen’s best 2 year old performance. I was one who said about times on Wednesday suggesting it was really “Good” and not good-soft. But did not realise there was a strong tailwind. This means times are faster and therefore it was probably truly good-soft on Wednesday. This was the first time Arabian Queen had the opportunity of running on a soft surface as a three year old, different ground to Goodwood.As I stated beforehand:
Gleneagles and The Grey Gatsby are probably best on a firm surface let alone good-soft.
Golden Horn and Time Test are not 100% certain to act on this either – although do expect them to. (EDIT: ie Probably will, possibly won’t).
Cougar Mountain acts on it, but Dick Doubtywylie is in there to ensure it’s a test and have severe doubts Cougar will stay a truly run 1m2f on it. Arabian Queen may not stay either if she does not settle, front runner so a pace maker is not ideal. (EDIT: Fact they all let Dick go helped SDS settle and set a slow pace). Strangely, the Australian Criterion is the only one sure to be suited by both ground and distance. Cheek pieces might be a sign not showing his best on the gallops but woth a chance.The Grey Gatsby’s best form is on a firmish surface, let alone good and this was (probably) good-soft. And both Golden Horn and Time Test were also not certain to be as effective on a softish surface. Time Test had only won his maiden on good-soft, impressive on good-firm. Golden Horn only official good-soft run on debut. Rain during the day might have meant the last race at Nottingham was run on good-soft. Other times on the day suggest Golden Horn’s race was not good-soft. His action is one far more of a horse with a liking for a sound surface.
It is not as easy to say had it been heavy or soft you could explain it. Fact is some horses are 10 lbs (or more) better on good-soft than they are good-firm. With others under-performing Arabian Queen did not even have to improve 10 lbs. Although it still remains to be seen whether it was ground that improved her. There are other possible reasons…
Pace Bias / Speed:
At Goodwood she also did better than all the other prominent runners. Although usually a slowish run race (like the Nassau was) you’d expect prominent runners to be advantaged, sometimes prominent racers speed up too much too soon in the sprint for home – favouring hold up horses. So Arabian Queen’s Nassau run may well have been better than it looked.Pace Bias / jockeys allowing her too much rope:
As well as producing a faster time – tail winds favour front runners; keeping them going for longer. Added to that everyone ignored the pacemaker, so apart from Dick Doubtywylie all the other runners went a slow pace with effective leader Arabian Queen getting an easy lead and a head start. Despite the slow pace runners were well strung out in the first half, with Golden Horn not settling fully. Not only did rabian Queen have the advantage of position she also had 6f speed which many of her rivals did not; so slowly run race was going to suit her.Dick Doubtywylie was probably the only one to run at optimal pace, which explains why he was so close at the finish; greatly flattered. Arabian Queen flattered to a lesser extent. Even if dismissing all the “ground” analysis Stilvi (not only about Arabian Queen but also all the other horses. Say it was “Good”… wouldn’t you say – taking the two Pace Bias horses out of the situation – the result looks perfectly “plausible”?
Golden Horn beats The Grey Gatsby 3 1/4 lengths to win International with 1 1/4 lengths back to Time Test.
Value Is EverythingThe only thing that needs an enquiry is Golden Horn’s rating of 130. It’s shameful that this has to go down in history as a fact, when a simple retrospective edit would set everything right and prevent this horse from wrongfully taking a place among the modern greats.
The only thing that needs an enquiry is Golden Horn’s rating of 130. It’s shameful that this has to go down in history as a fact, when a simple retrospective edit would set everything right and prevent this horse from wrongfully taking a place among the modern greats.
Is 130 among the greats TYF?
You’ve had Jack Hobbs and Storm The Stars frank the form in the Irish Derby (and STS in Voltigeur). Golden Horn not only beat Storm The Stars but walloped him 8 lengths. Golden Horn himself beat The Grey Gatsby by 3 1/2 lengths in the Eclipse. Latter would probably have won the Prince Of Wales with luck in running and won Irish Champion last year, beating 2014 Derby winner Australia (who went too soon). Even if rather believing 2014 International form where Australia beat The Grey Gatsby 2 lengths – on a literal reading of form Golden Horn comes out 1 1/2 lengths better than the Irish horse.
Official Ratings (not Timeform):
Treve’s rating was 130 (but you’ve got to add the female allowance on to that for the real rating).
Sea The Stars 136
Frankel 140
New Approach 130Not a “Great”, but rating Golden Horn alongside New Approach seems fair to me.
One, seemingly disappointing run should not take anything away from previously good runs. And like I say, taking the two horses (Arabian Queen and Dick Doubtywylie) out of the race who had positional (pace and wind assisted) advantage – it wasn’t such a bad effort.Value Is Everything130 is certainly well above the median average for a Derby winner in the last 15 years, GT. All I ask is that a full season runs its course before an official ‘historical’ rating is nailed down. A horse’s level of form can vary from season to season, especially in the transient world of flat racing. Who knows whether The Grey Gatsby is running to last year’s form, or if he is running a little flat this year? Golden Horn may well be 130, but it’s too soon to say for sure, especially when there are still so many questions for horses he has beaten to answer. I believe we need a full season to evaluate the worth of various formlines before committing to something that can give a misleading picture of a horse’s ability.
Was Kauto Star a 194 horse really? The one performance which led to that reaction from the assessor will forever be used to evaluate KS in comparison to Arkle, Desert Orchid and co.
This is especially important in flat racing when dealing with stallion prospects. Each lb must equate to thousands of pounds in real money that can be earned from the stallion at stud. To me it seems reckless to make such reactionary decisions on the basis of one or two runs. I understand how these calls must be made in the short-term given handicapping ramifications, but some serious analysis and reasoning is needed when effectively writing the history books.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>edfiggyrock2 wrote:</div>
Dettori had a pacemaker,who did his job correctly,he,Dettori sat off the pace pulling the back teeth out of Golden Horn,he failed badly to settle him that way instead of letting the horse gallop up with the pace. Johnny G said as much and he is one of our top trainers. Dettori never blames himself,always his horse. He does more knitting in a finish than my Grandmother ever did. I should think Johnny G will be fuming over Dettori more likely.Horses pull, that’s not always the fault of jockey and certainly not in this case. Golden Horn pulled in the early stages of the Derby too, but thanks to a strong pace and being able to get in behind horses he settled. It could be that had they not run from the front at Sandown Golden Horn may have settled better with others in front of him at York. That’s again nobody’s fault.
No, Johnny G did not “say as much”. There was no criticism of Dettori by Johnny G, he understands what can happen.
Golden Horn didn’t need a pacemaker. Golden Horn should’ve made the running as he did at Sandown. York is a sharper track therefore it was a sharper test. The Horn only outstayed The Grey Gatsby inside the last half a furlong at Sandown.
I said at the time and I’ll say it again, Gosden messed up this horse by not allowing him to run in the King George, that stamina test would’ve suited him down to the ground. I’ve heard and read many people defending, even praising Gosden’s decision not to run at Ascot but they are wrong. I said so then and I’ll say so now. It was no surprise to me that Golden Horn got beat at York.
In effect, Golden Horn did not have a pacemaker in the International either IB. Dick D eventually went off at a decent pace but he’s not a good enough horse for it to ever have a chance of winning a Group 1 International, so everyone ignored him. Just as well forget the “pacemaker”, it was Arabian Queen that led the field.
Just because a horse settles once, does not mean it will always settle in future. In the Eclipse nothing took him on and in those circumstances horses often settle well. Had Dettori tried to “make the running” SDS on Arabian Queen (likes to be up there) would probably have taken him on. The Horn probably would not have settled, especially alongside another who can pull.
Connections played the percentages, what is usually favourable – it didn’t pay off but don’t see they can be chastised for it. When making the running with a hold up horse it’s possible won’t settle when going back to hold up tactics. Why make a horse whose primary asset is a turn of foot in to a front runner? Although can see he was given too much to do.
Golden Horn is a 10 to 12f horse, not 12 to 14f. So even if acting on the softer ground at Ascot, with a test of stamina – strongly run 12f on a soft surface – doubt it would’ve suited.
Value Is Everything<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>IBRacing wrote:</div>
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Gingertipster wrote:</div>
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>edfiggyrock2 wrote:</div>
Dettori had a pacemaker,who did his job correctly,he,Dettori sat off the pace pulling the back teeth out of Golden Horn,he failed badly to settle him that way instead of letting the horse gallop up with the pace. Johnny G said as much and he is one of our top trainers. Dettori never blames himself,always his horse. He does more knitting in a finish than my Grandmother ever did. I should think Johnny G will be fuming over Dettori more likely.Horses pull, that’s not always the fault of jockey and certainly not in this case. Golden Horn pulled in the early stages of the Derby too, but thanks to a strong pace and being able to get in behind horses he settled. It could be that had they not run from the front at Sandown Golden Horn may have settled better with others in front of him at York. That’s again nobody’s fault.
No, Johnny G did not “say as much”. There was no criticism of Dettori by Johnny G, he understands what can happen.
Golden Horn didn’t need a pacemaker. Golden Horn should’ve made the running as he did at Sandown. York is a sharper track therefore it was a sharper test. The Horn only outstayed The Grey Gatsby inside the last half a furlong at Sandown.
I said at the time and I’ll say it again, Gosden messed up this horse by not allowing him to run in the King George, that stamina test would’ve suited him down to the ground. I’ve heard and read many people defending, even praising Gosden’s decision not to run at Ascot but they are wrong. I said so then and I’ll say so now. It was no surprise to me that Golden Horn got beat at York.
In effect, Golden Horn did not have a pacemaker in the International either IB. Dick D eventually went off at a decent pace but he’s not a good enough horse for it to ever have a chance of winning a Group 1 International, so everyone ignored him. Just as well forget the “pacemaker”, it was Arabian Queen that led the field.
Just because a horse settles once, does not mean it will always settle in future. In the Eclipse nothing took him on and in those circumstances horses often settle well. Had Dettori tried to “make the running” SDS on Arabian Queen (likes to be up there) would probably have taken him on. The Horn probably would not have settled, especially alongside another who can pull.
Connections played the percentages, what is usually favourable – it didn’t pay off but don’t see they can be chastised for it. When making the running with a hold up horse it’s possible won’t settle when going back to hold up tactics. Why make a horse whose primary asset is a turn of foot in to a front runner? Although can see he was given too much to do.
Golden Horn is a 10 to 12f horse, not 12 to 14f. So even if acting on the softer ground at Ascot, with a test of stamina – strongly run 12f on a soft surface – doubt it would’ve suited.
What makes you so sure Golden Horn is a turn of foot horse? It wasn’t a turn of foot that beat The Grey Gatsby in the Eclipse it was stamina. That same stamina won him the Derby beating Jack Hobbs and Storm The Stars two stayers. Golden Horn’s turn of foot has only been evident in lower than top grade races.
He doesn’t have to stay fourteen furlongs to have strong stamina at twelve furlongs. There is no evidence that Golden Horn wouldn’t stay fourteen furlongs anyway.
As for not settling – if he is in front and doesn’t settle it is preferable to being held up and not settling at least he doesn’t have to try and quicken past horses at the business end of the race. Look how many tim,es Ruby Walsh front ran at Cheltenham. He didn’t worry about trying to settle horses in behind. He was on the best horses and he kept it simple.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>IBRacing wrote:</div>
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Gingertipster wrote:</div>
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>edfiggyrock2 wrote:</div>
Dettori had a pacemaker,who did his job correctly,he,Dettori sat off the pace pulling the back teeth out of Golden Horn,he failed badly to settle him that way instead of letting the horse gallop up with the pace. Johnny G said as much and he is one of our top trainers. Dettori never blames himself,always his horse. He does more knitting in a finish than my Grandmother ever did. I should think Johnny G will be fuming over Dettori more likely.Horses pull, that’s not always the fault of jockey and certainly not in this case. Golden Horn pulled in the early stages of the Derby too, but thanks to a strong pace and being able to get in behind horses he settled. It could be that had they not run from the front at Sandown Golden Horn may have settled better with others in front of him at York. That’s again nobody’s fault.
No, Johnny G did not “say as much”. There was no criticism of Dettori by Johnny G, he understands what can happen.
Golden Horn didn’t need a pacemaker. Golden Horn should’ve made the running as he did at Sandown. York is a sharper track therefore it was a sharper test. The Horn only outstayed The Grey Gatsby inside the last half a furlong at Sandown.
I said at the time and I’ll say it again, Gosden messed up this horse by not allowing him to run in the King George, that stamina test would’ve suited him down to the ground. I’ve heard and read many people defending, even praising Gosden’s decision not to run at Ascot but they are wrong. I said so then and I’ll say so now. It was no surprise to me that Golden Horn got beat at York.
In effect, Golden Horn did not have a pacemaker in the International either IB. Dick D eventually went off at a decent pace but he’s not a good enough horse for it to ever have a chance of winning a Group 1 International, so everyone ignored him. Just as well forget the “pacemaker”, it was Arabian Queen that led the field.
Just because a horse settles once, does not mean it will always settle in future. In the Eclipse nothing took him on and in those circumstances horses often settle well. Had Dettori tried to “make the running” SDS on Arabian Queen (likes to be up there) would probably have taken him on. The Horn probably would not have settled, especially alongside another who can pull.
Connections played the percentages, what is usually favourable – it didn’t pay off but don’t see they can be chastised for it. When making the running with a hold up horse it’s possible won’t settle when going back to hold up tactics. Why make a horse whose primary asset is a turn of foot in to a front runner? Although can see he was given too much to do.
Golden Horn is a 10 to 12f horse, not 12 to 14f. So even if acting on the softer ground at Ascot, with a test of stamina – strongly run 12f on a soft surface – doubt it would’ve suited.
What makes you so sure Golden Horn is a turn of foot horse? It wasn’t a turn of foot that beat The Grey Gatsby in the Eclipse it was stamina. That same stamina won him the Derby beating Jack Hobbs and Storm The Stars two stayers. Golden Horn’s turn of foot has only been evident in lower than top grade races.
He doesn’t have to stay fourteen furlongs to have strong stamina at twelve furlongs. There is no evidence that Golden Horn wouldn’t stay fourteen furlongs anyway.
As for not settling – if he is in front and doesn’t settle it is preferable to being held up and not settling at least he doesn’t have to try and quicken past horses at the business end of the race. Look how many times Ruby Walsh front ran at Cheltenham. He didn’t worry about trying to settle horses in behind. He was on the best horses and he kept it simple.
130 is certainly well above the median average for a Derby winner in the last 15 years, GT. All I ask is that a full season runs its course before an official ‘historical’ rating is nailed down. A horse’s level of form can vary from season to season, especially in the transient world of flat racing. Who knows whether The Grey Gatsby is running to last year’s form, or if he is running a little flat this year? Golden Horn may well be 130, but it’s too soon to say for sure, especially when there are still so many questions for horses he has beaten to answer. I believe we need a full season to evaluate the worth of various formlines before committing to something that can give a misleading picture of a horse’s ability.
Was Kauto Star a 194 horse really? The one performance which led to that reaction from the assessor will forever be used to evaluate KS in comparison to Arkle, Desert Orchid and co.
This is especially important in flat racing when dealing with stallion prospects. Each lb must equate to thousands of pounds in real money that can be earned from the stallion at stud. To me it seems reckless to make such reactionary decisions on the basis of one or two runs. I understand how these calls must be made in the short-term given handicapping ramifications, but some serious analysis and reasoning is needed when effectively writing the history books.
Of course it will be easier to see the worth of form after season’s end, with more available information. But people want to know how good a performance is with all the information available at that particular time. Handicappers are not being “reckless to make such reactionary decisions”, they’re just rating a horse’s form on the evidence with “serious analysis”. All available evidence needs to be used. It would surely be wrong to go against the evidence in rating the horse lower than form indicates?
Value Is EverythingGolden Horn comes with a steady gathering of momentum, rather than a sharp turn of foot.
Looking back at the Derby, if we stop the tape at the 3f marker Golden Horn is only 7th at that point and Frankie has been pushing him since slightly before that point. If we let the tape roll from that point and then stop at the 2f marker, you can see that they have travelled a full furlong under the drive and Frankie has just given him a couple of quick smacks, however, they are still only 7th at that point.
It is between the 2f marker and the 1f marker that Golden Horn starts passing horses and some of those are ones who have shot their bolt. If we pause the race at the 1f marker we can see that it is only there that Golden Horn has finally caught up with Jack Hobbs. During the final furlong he then asserts in the style of a horse who has then got the superior momentum in the closing stages. It has taken him a quarter of a mile to get to the front and he seems to stay every yard of it good style. In my opinion, had Frankie pushed him out fully and the race were a furlong longer, he would probably have won by about ten lengths based on the relative visual finishing momentum of the Derby 1-2.
Looking at the evidence of the Derby closing stages, we have to question the potency of Golden Horn’s turn of foot, when it has taken him two furlongs of being pushed along, and then ridden, to catch up with a horse who went on to win the Irish Derby and who probably won’t be dropping to 10f anytime soon.
In the Eclipse I had expected Golden Horn to win by more than 4 lengths and advised the bet for that outcome. However it soon became apparent that the race was too short for him to forge his way clear of The Grey Gatsby by the necessary margin. I have no doubt that he would have won by six lengths or more had the race been a furlong longer and the horse fully committed.
It is my belief that they should have run Golden Horn without the pacemaker. Many times the pacemaker is a waste of time anyway because the pace is ridiculously overplayed. Frankie could have played it by ear and if there was insufficient pace and/or Golden Horn didn’t settle well in behind in a handy position, then he could take him to the front to set his preferred pace and perhaps settle the horse better.
In my opinion there is a general lack of nous from jockeys in races in most races. It seems like there is a one-dimensional set of instructions to adhere to and no contingency plan. I am assuming that the fact that it took Golden Horn as long as he did to get on top of The Grey Gatsby in the Eclipse is what brought the idea of a pacemaker being necessary to the minds of the owner and trainer. I believe that the solution was actually much simpler and that was to make sure you get after the horse plenty soon enough in the race.
We saw in the Dante and The Derby that Golden Horn picks up steadily and relentlessly at the business end of the race. Frankie had said that the horse had never finished tired at the end of any of his work or in any race he had ridden him in, and that included the 12f Derby. The question has to be asked whether the horse was tired after the Juddmonte?
If Golden Horn was tired we have to ask ourselves why this was, when the race was shorter than the Derby? If he wasn’t tired then Frankie has made the cardinal sin of not using the horse to his full potential on the day. Looking back at the race there just seems to me a moment where the jockey on Arabian Queen seems to decide it’s time to set off after the pacemaker and Frankie takes that bit longer to ask Golden Horn to do the same. The horse nearly gets Frankie out of the fire and I am not convinced the ground was stopping him getting the job done. When you have a horse you are convinced doesn’t get tired you should be making ample use of him.
Those are my thoughts on it anyway, no doubt people will argue for years about it.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
What makes you so sure Golden Horn is a turn of foot horse? It wasn’t a turn of foot that beat The Grey Gatsby in the Eclipse it was stamina. That same stamina won him the Derby beating Jack Hobbs and Storm The Stars two stayers. Golden Horn’s turn of foot has only been evident in lower than top grade races.
He doesn’t have to stay fourteen furlongs to have strong stamina at twelve furlongs. There is no evidence that Golden Horn wouldn’t stay fourteen furlongs anyway.
As for not settling – if he is in front and doesn’t settle it is preferable to being held up and not settling at least he doesn’t have to try and quicken past horses at the business end of the race. Look how many times Ruby Walsh front ran at Cheltenham. He didn’t worry about trying to settle horses in behind. He was on the best horses and he kept it simple.
When a top class racehorse has a turn of foot it will be more in evidence against those in lower grades. When two top class racehorses with a turn of speed (Golden Horn and The Grey Gatsby) race against each other, viewers may not be able to see it but it is there. Golden Horn won the Eclipse primarily through speed, not stamina. This can be seen by looking at sectional times. See Simon Rowlands piece about the Eclipse:
https://www.timeform.com/racing/articles/sectional-debrief-special-coral-eclipse-sandown-572015
Golden Horn stayed the truly run mile and a half of the Derby well. But just because there’s not an immediate response when coming under pressure, does not mean there’s not a change of gear. Golden Horn was still accelerating when the rest (bar possibly Jack Hobbs) were decelerating. Again, sectional times tell you that.
I agree, Golden Horn does not need to stay 14f to win a soft surface King George. But it does place an emphasis on stamina at 12f. More of a test than he’s faced before, especially in a race run at a strong pace. Golden Horn’s main asset at 12f is his speed and therefore would not be suited by a strongly run 12f on a soft surface. Of course that does not mean he definitely would not have won, but can understand why he did not run; especially when his action is that of one usually suited by a sound surface.
There is a lot of evidence to suggest Golden Horn will not stay 14f. At 12f his asset is speed and bred to get no more than 10f, so already out-stayed pedigree.
Some horses settle better in front than behind. But if a horse does start pulling whilst in front it is more difficult to stop, some becoming rank. Those not settling in behind have other horses to use as a break. What Ruby Walsh did on horses that settled well in front has nothing to do with it.
Value Is EverythingOf course it will be easier to see the worth of form after season’s end, with more available information. But people want to know how good a performance is with all the information available at that particular time. Handicappers are not being “reckless to make such reactionary decisions”, they’re just rating a horse’s form on the evidence with “serious analysis”. All available evidence needs to be used. It would surely be wrong to go against the evidence in rating the horse lower than form indicates?
Sure, I’m not disputing that people need an educated guess to refer to at the time. What I’m saying is that it is reckless to stick with that guess forever, even if subsequent evidence makes the rating look dubious, or even ridiculous. There should be some sort of separate reflective panel that takes a retrospective view of a horse’s career and issues a much more robust final rating.
Historical ratings are important for business reasons, breeding reasons and argumentative reasons. The comparison of champions produces the most heated debates among racing fans, so it’s important to lowly forum dwellers like us too! I find it frustrating when official ratings (which should be the bastions of integrity and reason) are quite clearly flawed.
Hold on chaps, way to much analysis going on here. Let’s face it, better horses get beaten by inferior horses every day of the week; there are probably too many reasons to mention why that happens and we can all be wise after the event. At the end of the day Arabian Queen won the race and the rest of the field didn’t. I for one considered backing The Grey Gatsby e/w at 10-1/12-1 but backed out once Gleneagles was confirmed a non-runner. I couldn’t have given AQ a second glance on what she’d achieved prior to the Juddmonte even given the change in ground conditions to that which she’d run on previously; after all she’d won at Epsom impressively making all over 1m & change on her first start this year on quickish ground (slight sour grapes here because I’d backed Odeliz).
Horses make fools of us all the time, we just have to accept it and move on; even if we’re shaking our heads in disbelief whilst doing so.A good jockey doesn't need orders and a bad jockey couldn't carry them out; so it's best not to give them any.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.