The home of intelligent horse racing discussion
The home of intelligent horse racing discussion

Clarence House 2022

Home Forums Big Races – Discussion Clarence House 2022

Viewing 17 posts - 154 through 170 (of 170 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1579593
    Mike007
    Participant
    • Total Posts 4388

    Zamo i saw that interview as well i dont recall Mullins saying he didnt travel well quite the opposite as yesterday he said he travelled over fine. He just said it was the first time he had travelled over. He had a hard race so any weight loss post race is understandable.

    #1579598
    Zamorston
    Participant
    • Total Posts 1139

    Mike I never said he didn’t travel well?

    Mullins said “He lost a lot of weight ya know coming back, well over the whole trip”

    And that is pretty much what I said in my post, nothing about not travelling well?

    #1579600
    Mike007
    Participant
    • Total Posts 4388

    Ok no worries it was just your post wording.

    #1579618
    Gingertipster
    Participant
    • Total Posts 29168

    Hmmmmm, Celtic Swing again as an example of Timeform supposedly getting it wrong. If you’ve got to go back as far as 1995, then Timeform can’t be too bad and Timeform Ratings (in conjunction with analysis) enabled me to give up work. imo Lots of people focus too much on ratings, what conditions a horse needs is the most important thing.

    Of course no ratings organisation or person will get it right every time.
    However, there are many reasons (valid excuses) for Celtic Swing not running to the 138 given for his 1994 Racing Post victory.

    Vital to remember the Timeform Master Rating any horse gets is a reflection of what Timeform think it’s proven capable of given ideal conditions. 138 was put up in a two year old truly run mile race on soft ground.

    A mile is a test of stamina for a two year old (very few race over further at that age) and the Racing Post Trophy was devised as a group 1 two year old race for prospective Derby horses.

    Then you’ve got the going. Soft ground places more emphasis on stamina…

    As did the pace of the race being truly run…

    Put the Racing Post distance, going and pace together and you’ve got a real test of stamina.

    On three year old reappearance in the Greenham Celtic Swing wasn’t impressive; despite Racing Post comments of winning “ridden out” and “eased close home”. CS was over 10 lengths clear of the third but got a lot of criticism because the 1 1/4 lengths second was a 14/1 shot, Bahri. Celtic Swing’s Greenham wasn’t near the Donny form. That said, it was better than some gave it credit for at the time. Bahri going on to be placed third in the Guineas and won the St James’s Palace and QEII… And this was back at 7 furlongs on good ground. Much more of a speed test than Donny. Not a bad performance all things considered.

    2000 Guineas: If 7f on good ground as a three year old wasn’t enough, a mile run on good-firm wasn’t much more of a test of stamina. Nothing like what the Racing Post Trophy gave… And there’s also the fact it was on a firm surface – well, good-firm. When a horse puts up his best performance on soft ground there is obviously a doubt about him reproducing the form on good-firm. Just as there would be if running on soft when a horse’s best is on good-firm. It is strange that people see a higher rating for soft and seem to immediately think its been over-rated when failing to reproduce it on firmer. Yet the opposite is rarely mentioned. Difference in what a length is worth in lbs is allowed for in ratings. A length is worth less on soft than on firm. Anyway I digress…

    It’s true that Celtic Swing put up a really good performance on similar ground to Newmarket on his second start at two. Beating the course record against Singspeil (before that horse improved into a Group 1 animal)… But Donny was better. Also had sore shins which kept him off for a time at two. Before the Guineas connections had expressed ground concerns, saying if it was firm he may not run. Dewhurst winner Pennekamp came with a late run, passing Celtic Swing but with the latter coming back as stamina came into it to only go down by a neck, with this time 2 lengths back to Bahri.

    Derby and French Derby: Connections now even more concerned about firm ground said CS may go for the French Derby (then also at 1 1/2 miles) if it was thought too firm at Epsom, but they really wanted to run there. Conditions were on the firm side and connections got a pasting in the press for taking him out. Officially “good-firm”, but Timeform’s assessment was “firm” and if I remember right winner Llamtarra beat the track record… With favourite Pennekamp finishing lame with a career ending injury. imo Considering Celtic Swing’s best was on soft and being a tall sort without the archetypal firm ground action of the likes of Llamtarra, imo connections were 100% vindicated… Especially as he won the French version. From Newmarket the further they went the better Celtic Swing looked and the distance appeared sure to suit. True, he again wasn’t impressive on good ground, Beating Poliglote half a length with Winged Love a further short head away in third. Again, not the soft ground Celtic Swing was so impressive on at two… and a slow early pace meant not a particular stamina test either.

    Irish Derby: If only connections had made the same decision for the Irish Derby as the English. Form of the French Derby held up, Winged Love winning. Indeed, form of the Racing Post Trophy held up, Annus Mirabilis 12 lengths second at Doncaster; beaten less than a length here. CS sent off favourite on good-firm going. Eighth, 7 1/2 lengths behind the winner.

    Not seen again. Vets diagnosed concussion of the knee on his near fore and torn ligaments. They thought it could have been picked up in the Guineas.

    Natural Physical Progression: Horses need to show around 7 lbs of natural progression from two to three to remain on the same rating. Possibly Celtic Swing did not make much if any natural physical progression and therefore ran below his two year old form? Although Celtic Swing had physical attributes at two that you’d think he’d make a better three year old – described in Timeform as “Tall and unfurnished”.

    But – just another possibility I thought of… his head. Even on his best day the Racing Post analysis says about Celtic Swing “idled”. At the beginning of his three year campaign his trainer Lady Herries announced all her runners (not just CS) would wear nose bands. Was this because Celtic Swing no longer wanted to go clear of his vastly inferior stable companions? Was the reason for his “turn of foot” going missing at three more to do with no longer wanting to go clear of his opposition? … And that in turn meaning he was more vulnerable to a horse with speed?

    Horses usually need a set of circumstances in order to produce their very best:
    So there are several possible valid reasons for Celtic Swing not showing his best at three:
    1) No race provided the stamina needed.
    2) No race produced the ground conditions needed.
    3) Injury – possibly sustained before able to run over longer distances.
    4) No or little natural physical progression.
    5) Laziness developed from two to his three year old seasons that left him vulnerable to speedier types.
    6) Mixture of any of the above.

    However…
    Timeform Rating 138 in Racehorses of 1994.
    129 in 1995.
    Was Celtic Swing over-rated at two? Probably. Timeform themselves state in Racehorses of 1995 “It is possible to argue Celtic Swing was over-rated, but if so, it wasn’t by much”.

    imo It wasn’t by any more than 4 lbs. Just – for whatever reason – he wasn’t as good at three.

    Value Is Everything
    #1579630
    Gladiateur
    Participant
    • Total Posts 2268

    “Vital to remember the Timeform Master Rating any horse gets is a reflection of what Timeform think it’s proven capable of given ideal conditions.”

    That’s wrong for a start.

    The Timeform master rating reflects what the horse has actually achieved, not what they think it’s capable of doing. The +, p and P are used if they think the horse is capable of more than it has already shown on the racecourse.

    #1579641
    Gingertipster
    Participant
    • Total Posts 29168

    That’s what I said, Glad’, only in different words.

    I said “what they think it’s PROVEN capable of”; ie – As you say – “what the horse has ACTUALLY ACHIEVED””.

    The “p” or “P” has not been “PROVEN” on the racecourse yet so is not included in the Master Rating.

    The p or P is what’s to come, and they do not know how much is to come because it is not PROVEN..

    Value Is Everything
    #1579643
    Gingertipster
    Participant
    • Total Posts 29168

    Am being a bit pedantic but I’d say you have the “+” wrong, Glad’.

    The “+” is different to the “p” and “P” because in Timeform words: “The horse MAY be capable of better than rated” (I’ve capitalised the “MAY”).

    That is usually used not – as you say – “if they think the horse is capable of more than it has ALREADY SHOWN ON THE RACECOURSE”.

    It is usually used when the horse HAS put up better ratings on the racecourse, where they think it may or may not be capable of that rating. So they’ve instead used a Master Rating that they think the horse IS still capable of… only with a “+”. eg If a horse returns after injury and puts up a couple of performances 10 lbs below its best… for the next race they might use the more recent rating but with a plus attached. ie The horse is not going to “improve” (as such) like it would a “p” or “P”, just that it has better ratings further back in its form so “may be capable of better than rated”. :rose:

    Value Is Everything
    #1579647
    Gladiateur
    Participant
    • Total Posts 2268

    Life’s too short to argue about Timeform symbols. 😂

    #1579650
    The Tatling Cheekily
    Blocked
    • Total Posts 2722

    Professor Robert Langdon is required to resolve this one.

    BUY THE SUN

    #1579651
    Cork All Star
    Participant
    • Total Posts 3262

    I wonder what the banned poster Shipithollabolla – who kept telling us Shishkin was no good – made of Saturday’s race? 😉

    #1579671
    JJMSports
    Participant
    • Total Posts 2033

    Some performance that. Henderson’s conveyor belt of Champion Chasers never ceases to amaze!

    #1579731
    mickeyjp
    Participant
    • Total Posts 1049

    Is it just me ir does energuames running style remind you of dessie. Relentless galloping and jumping. I’m sure he will be kept to two miles for a couple of seasons but I’d love to see him in the King George on boxing day in a couple of years. Nobody bar David Elsworth thought he would stay 3 miles. As for timeform they are all just opinions and everybody’s is valid to a certain extent. They do tend to misread soft ground wins though as with hawk wing. My bugbear last season was the eclipse. Sm basilica absolutely hammered them but got an average rating. He could have won by double what he did and should,IMHO got a rating in the high 120s.
    Opinions eh.

    #1579734
    The Tatling Cheekily
    Blocked
    • Total Posts 2722

    “They do tend to misread soft ground wins though as with hawk wing.”

    I’ve read this quite often over the years from loads of different sources Mickey. Hawk Wings remarkable Lockinge was on ‘Good’ ground. I’m not sure where this racing myth has come from.

    BUY THE SUN

    #1579738
    Gladiateur
    Participant
    • Total Posts 2268

    Just looked at the essay on Hawk Wing in Racehorses of 2003 and Timeform say that the ground “was good to firm- officially good- but there was a heavy downpour during the race.”

    John Dunlop, trainer of the distant third, Olden Times, blamed “false ground” for his colt’s effort. Maybe that’s where the myth that the race was run on bad ground originated.

    #1579744
    The Tatling Cheekily
    Blocked
    • Total Posts 2722

    Quite possibly Gladiatuer, thanks.

    BUY THE SUN

    #1579771
    Gingertipster
    Participant
    • Total Posts 29168

    “As for timeform they are all just opinions and everybody’s is valid to a certain extent. They do tend to misread soft ground wins though as with hawk wing. My bugbear last season was the eclipse. Sm basilica absolutely hammered them but got an average rating. He could have won by double what he did and should,IMHO got a rating in the high 120s”.

    Hmmmmm.
    Again not true Mickey.

    St Marks Basilica got a rating of 132 for winning the Eclipse.

    132 is an excellent rating for a three year old so early in the season…

    And am sure there’d have been a “p” added because – as you imply – there was a probability of showing a better rating in his next race/s. However, as he was injured and doesn’t run again can only be rated on what he’s achieved on the racecourse.

    Even at the end of the season no three year old had bettered it. St Marks Basilica rated Timeform’s top three year old… over any distance.

    …And only 4 lbs short of Hawk Wing’s 136 rated Lockinge in May of that four year old’s season… ie With St Marks Basilica’s 132 coming so early in his career, SMB had plenty of time and probably would have gone on to “eclipse” Hawk Wing’s rating had he not got injured.

    Value Is Everything
    #1579910
    mickeyjp
    Participant
    • Total Posts 1049

    Didn’t realise that was the ground when hawk wing won the Lockinge. Irrelevant of the ground there’s was massive distances between horses strongly suggesting that hawk wing thrived on that ground whereas all bar where or when didn’t cope with it. It could of course be hawk wing was brilliant that day and the rating was justified. Loved the horse so will give him the benefit of the doubt.

Viewing 17 posts - 154 through 170 (of 170 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.