- This topic has 67 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
- Total Posts 17716
Quote: from dave jay on 8:04 pm on May 14, 2007[br]I wouldn’t suggest anything RH .. except this, horses that have outstanding 2YO records don’t always have always have outstanding 3YO campaigns and a degree of uncertainty has to be allowed for horses and their peers as they mature and for conditions for which they have not yet encountered.
DJ
Which is precisely the point I’m trying to make.<br>Ratings, no matter how established, sophisticated, or accurate, are only of use when other factors, that often turn even the better ratings completely on their head, are properly accounted for.
Okay, I can go along with that.
But you also have to concede that no matter what you do you can’t overcome a degree of uncertainty and you will always back more losers than winners, it’s the nature of the game.
Then why, do you suggest, did George Washington, possibly the easiest horse of all to rate last season, run at least a stone below his best, on 3 separate occasions, and for 3 totally different reasons???  <br>
RH,
If any weight rating was of any worthwhile accuracy they would not need to keep adjusting them up, level or down after every race. By the time a horse gets its "true" rating it is about time for it to be retired.
You are absolutely right a horse wins /loses a race because the conditions and fitness on the day suit. Change the conditions, tactics and pace shape and the whole finishing order changes and absolutely none of that is taken into account by "3 pounds per length".
I believe that both the Preakness and the Belmont were races where class beat competence. In the first the winner came back to beat the Derby winner. In the Belmont the winner would not allow the second horse to pass. Both were clear examples of class.( I have a friend who claims that The Belmont was a clear example of the colt submitting to the fillie<br>which he said colts do until they leave the herd!)Bull?
i dont know about the filly – colt thing. Im not sure I understand your argument regards class. your saying curlin beat street sense because he had more class even though he was less competent and rags to riches beat curlin for the same reason? or have I misunderstood you completly?
Slight tangents, but whilst we’re on the subject(kind of)…
1. If weight is not an issue, wouldn’t horses at the top of the handicap have a massive advantage?
2. There are tons of variables to take into account to try and generate more and more accurate ratings, but is there any research into apprentice/conditional jockey claims? It must be a nonsense to assume that the weight allowance accurately reflects the ability/proficiency of the rider, n’est-ce pas?
bendbd Exactly . Class is the ability to rule over other horses.<br>However that is just my opinion. In both examples that is what won out. Both winners refused to be beaten in their victories. And both beat better horses.That is my definition of class.
Racing Research – http://www.racingresearch.co.uk/about.asp – has long looked into the jockey issue.
In my view, class and ability are essentially interchangeable. Where instances arise that seem to identify a horse’s inability to rise through a certain class threshhold when its ability otherwise suggests it should, I believe the fault is with the method of assessment. Horses who curl up when things get competitive are another matter altogether, however.
How do we know that the US winners "beat better horses"? By beating them most people would imagine that they have shown themselves "better", or at least "gamer", on the day in question.
Prufrock I think you put your finger on it. Class and gameness are exactly my point.
Quote: from non vintage on 1:11 pm on June 27, 2007[br]<br>1. If weight is not an issue, wouldn’t horses at the top of the handicap have a massive advantage?
A topical point seeing as the first nursery is at Windsor on Sunday. What are the other factors that give those at the top of the weights in nurseries an advantage over those towards the bottom. Weight doesn not seem to be an ‘equaling’ factor like in more exposed older horse handicaps.
Having looked at some ‘trends’ relating to horses running first or second in good flat races, I think there is a tendency for good horses to show significant ability very early on in their career, often on their first or second starts.
My thinking would be that those horses who show good form early on in their juvenile career will mostly be much better than the majority of those who don’t show very much at all (accepting that there will always be a handful of freaky late improvers or horses who may not have been trying very hard).
By and large, I would expect the horses with significant ability to be capable of the greater improvement as they develop physically, and thus the gap between the good horses and the poor horses will be at least maintained and may actually grow as the season progresses.
By the time the nurseries are upon us, this would then mean that those at the top of the handicap in these events might have more in hand over their less talented rivals than the weight adjustment allows for.
- Total Posts 17716
Quote: from andyod on 1:17 pm on June 27, 2007[br]bendbd Exactly . Class is the ability to rule over other horses.<br>However that is just my opinion. In both examples that is what won out. Both winners refused to be beaten in their victories. And both beat better horses.That is my definition of class.<br>
Then how do you explain horses like Notnowcato?<br>In the Tattersall’s Gold Cup he showed the ‘class’, (In your definition), to hold off a determined challenge from Dylan Thomas, yet in his next race, on identical terms, he didn’t have the ‘class’ to get within 4 lengths of him.
im afraid im with RH on this one andyod. you cant say the horses outclassed the 2nd placed horses in those american races. what you are effectively arguing is that street sense is the best horse but isnt classy enough? I can’t accept that. if you were to say curlin were classier and improved and had more ability then ok but not he was inferior in physical terms but classier.
Reethard<br>I do not believe that DT was fully fit the day that NNC beat him. Which leads to the using of the track to train the Ballydoyle horses; a pet peeve of mine.
Ben I feel that superior class becomes apparent when two horses go eye to eye. Was it Rock of Gibraltar or Giants Causeway I have forgotten which, that refused to be beat if he could see his challenger, but was beaten by a horse who stayed out of sight.
Thats fair enough and in that case I can see the merits of the class argument. but I would still say the horse has to be as competent or more so than the other animal. it may only choose to show its full potential when challenged head on in such a situation but it must have the raw ability there to start with!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.