- This topic has 156 replies, 39 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
If you watch the race again, Murtagh starts to make his move around the same time in the race (Although he does it with hands and heels whereas Dettori barely needs to ask Authorized) and from that point on Authorized doesn’t actually put that much additioal relative distance between him and Eagle Mountain. If EM had been better positioned he may well have got closer, but whether he would have beaten Authorized is a completely different matter. I believe EM will prove slightly better over 12f than the rating he has been given.
Yeah, I think Eagle Mountain takes a bit of stoking up. Having Fallon back on in the Irish Derby will be interesting.
Had EM been alongside Authorized all the way around, I suspect he would have finished a bit closer but he wouldn’t have been able to respond when the winner went up through the gears.
Agree with much of what has been said – I don’t really see how anyone could rate this is anything other than a well above average Derby winner. Visually very impressive, fast time (Mordin rating excepted no doubt…), and some good enough placed horses to suggest solid form. I don’t think comparisons with Motivator are valid – Motivator seemed to me to be more of a front runner. I’d have thought the winner would have a good chance when up against the older horses, who seem to me be mediocre this year.
btw – first time poster – lurked for a few weeks!
Welcome to psychosis !
tdk – I was thinking the same thing about the Motivator sentence!
(Mordin rating excepted no doubt…)
"AUTHORIZED (42) is clearly an above average Derby winner judged by the time of the race. So it looks likely that he is going to end the run of losses suffered by the last four Derby winners in all their subsequent outings."
But that’s typical Mordin … he makes up his mind about a horse and sticks with it ….
After the RP trophy last years, he said the horse was "clearly a proper classic candidate" and, after the Dante he wrote:
"AUTHORIZED (39) earned the biggest speed rating I’ve given the winner of a Derby Trial this year when taking the Dante. And he did so despite the slow early pace that has sadly become the norm in such races.
The way that Authorized cruised throughout the race and sprinted clear so rapidly when shaken up was impressive"
More evidence of Mordin’s "desperately hanging onto a position" was the Oaks.
Last month he wrote:
"[Passage of Time] looked unimpressive to me, only scrambling home from horses that looked less well suited to the sprint than she did.
I honestly thought that Cecil’s other filly Light Shift won her Oaks Trial in much better fashion. She certainly ran a whole lot faster."
And, after the Oaks:
LIGHT SHIFT (40) clocked an exceptionally good time to take the contest.
Typical!
How can we take the man seriously???? ;)
Steve
To be fair to the man, I think he’s right on the Light Shift/Passage of Time thing – Passage of Time was considerably less impressive, and in a slower time than Light Shift was in her trial.
I realise the man has a bad press round these parts, not least because of his crabbing of George Washington and Kauto Star, and bigging up of Detroit City, but in terms of the Oaks and the Derby this year, he’s been spot on as far as I can see
I don’t agree with Mordin’s methodology but I do think that, if you have a methodology, you should use it.
With George Washington, Mordin hadn’t given him a big speed figure, so surely he should have opposed him.
And, after the Guineas and until the QE2 where Mordin gave him a big figure, opposing GW would have been profitable:
Curragh lost @ 4/7<br>Googwood lost @ 5/6<br>Ascot won @ 13/8
Obviously, he got it massively wrong last season with Kauto Star … and he’s been wrong about quite a few horses … but that’s just his methodology which, as I said before, I don’t agree with.
There seem to be people on here that get their knickers in a twist everytime Mordin doubts a talking horse and slag him off for it (usually mixed with a poor pun on his surname).
Yet, when he’s proven to be right, they’ve nothing to say.
Personally, despite his excesses, I’d rather have a freethinking Mordin than a (Timeform) Jim McGrath – who’s also slave to a methodology, only his methodology is more accepted – who’s got nothing interesting to say beyond the "you could argue that, on a line through … "
Steve
Agree with what you’re saying steve – Mordin’s key fault to most people is that he has strong opinions, which is a lot more than most racing pundits. The fact that his tipping line is one of the worst going could have something to do with it as well…:biggrin:
Why don’t you agree with his methods btw?
Why don’t you agree with his methods btw?
A couple of reasons:
Firstly, I’m not convinced by speed figures (long story, let’s not get into that). And, in particular Mordin’s theory that "if a horse hasn’t hit a big figure within his first X races, he’s slow".
Secondly, I think that speed figures (and collateral figures) have to come second to what you see with your own eyes.
IMO, Mordin’s approach is "numbers first" and, while it can identify some outstanding horses (eg Falbrav, Westerner, Rakti, Bago or Rail Link), it can overrate a lot of horses and underrate a lot of the stars (eg Kauto, Dalakhani, George Washington)
Steve
Firstly, I’m not convinced by speed figures
In the old days these innocent sounding words would have whirled up a hurricane of protest and a spat lasting for days if not weeks.
Perhaps we’re all growing emotionally
<br>(Edited by EC at 11:10 am on June 6, 2007)
(Edited by Aranalde at 11:13 am on June 6, 2007)
Is there a legacy of speed figure arguments on here???:biggrin:
Have to say, I’m a fan of speed figures, and used to compile some myself (having a life…er…family and kid now kinda put the stop on it). Still maintain that they’re the most consistently useful tool available to inform betting decisions, because of the basic fact that fast horses beat slow horses (although I accept that "slow" horses may not have had a chance to run a good speed figure due to pace of races).
Mordin does seem to be the straw man for anti speed figure folks though – though does he really claim that if a horse hasn’t run fast in it’s first X outings, then it never will? And didn’t he end up giving Gay George a good figure for his QEII run?
Is there a legacy of speed figure arguments on here???
Just a bit, but the main culprit is gone now.
does he really claim that if a horse hasn’t run fast in it’s first X outings, then it never will? And didn’t he end up giving Gay George a good figure for his QEII run?
His argument, and you’ll find examples of this in the archives of his weekly reports, is that a fast horse will usually run a fast time during it’s first few races (first 3 I think).
And, if a horse fails to do that, it is very unlikely to do it later in its career.
While it’s not true, it’s possible that this is a profitable "betting belief".
And maybe if he said "they tend to be overbet" I’d be more willing to take it on board and give it some consideration.
And, yes, after the QE2, he was raving about GW.
Though, to be fair, he didn’t have a lot of choice.
Steve
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.