- This topic has 291 replies, 53 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
- Total Posts 17716
Nashwan won the 2000 Guineas, Derby Eclipse and King George but the question was raised what did he beat? As a result he has done poorly at stud.
Have alook on U-tube at "Eclipse winners" see how much more impressive hewas yet no one wanted to know.
DOM won 6 Group 1’s and he’s forgotten already.
Great achievemt I grant you that but great horse?. Not in my book I’m afraid…….Forgetting other classic winners Sea the Stars is winning these races by a couple of lengths from horses who we have no idea how good they are.
He will be judged on what he does from here on in and on others he has beaten. That is the way of the world I’m afraid
H
Can I ask you "H" in all honestly where would you rate Sea the Stars in your top 10 of Derby winners?
Difficult to say at this stage, Fist, but although no Sea Bird II, Nijinsky, or Mill Reef ( my top three Derby winners), I do rate Sea The Stars quite highly, and I’m certain the horse has even more improvement left in him, and I believe that if he maintains his fitness, he will finish his three year old career undefeated. Put it this way, I wouldn’t put any Derby winner in the last twenty years above him.
He has a very high cruising speed – an essential component in all high class horses and he can quicken – and can battle, if asked. Would I be right in thinking that he posted the highest recorded time for an Eclipse ? He’s not the sort who’ll win by great margins; but nevertheless, he gets the job done – and it’s hard to quibble with that.
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
Don’t buy that Fist – beating Youmzain two lengths recieving 11lb doesn’t look fantastic on paper, but not too many would argue Zarkava wasn’t a great filly.
- Total Posts 17716
I am struggling here to put this into words as it’s a visual thing but Zarkava’s win in the Arc was done in such a way no matter what was ahead of her it was gong down. Had it been Sea of Stars she would have gone past him in exactly the same way as she did them.
That is just the type of filly she was. They come once every zillion races.
Try to imagine replacing Fame and Glory or Rip Van Winkle with Zarkava and tell me Sea the Stars could have coped with a finish like hers.
I know Sea the Stars is doing it well but not in the fashion of the truly greats. It is that extra gear these horse found that separate good from great.
He does quicken and runs on but he hasn’t meta horse yet with a power packed finish and if something like Zarkava came flying at him I can’t see what he could possibly do.
He may not look like he’s in top flight but can anyone imagine him really sprinting away from the opposition?
What you have to remember is when a horse is high profile like him and the whole world is watching it’s a jockey’s job to sell the horse to the breeding watchers. If he can win by 5 lengths you don’t win by 1 length.
I think we saw everything Sea the Stars had to offer at Sandown. That’s him IMO, there no other hidden gear that is going to propel him forward at a rate of knotts if a real horse comes at him.
"it’s a jockey’s job to sell the horse to the breeding watchers. If he can win by 5 lengths you don’t win by 1 length. "
Sorry, I’m relatively new on here so I don’t want to be accused of flaming or trolling but, what???
Since when is it the jockey’s job to sell the horse to breeders? Sorry, can’t agree with that. The jockey’s job is to ride the horse so that it runs at its best and finishes in the highest position possible.
On the STS issue. He has a lot of doubters, amazingly. This horse has won the 2000 Guineas, Derby and Eclipse. No matter what else he does, he has proven himself to be a great horse.
Would he beat off a Zarkova finish? Maybe,maybe not? But one thing I am sure of is that he hasn’t had to. He has done everything he has had to do and done it very well, off different paces too. Another sign of his ability and versatility. He can only do what he has been asked to do and nothing more. Isn’t winning enough anymore?
He has never looked in danger in any of his victories except when RVW challenged, but that challenge was dealt with in an instant. The horse, according to a very good jockey, idles in front. He won’t ever win by five lengths, and one reason is that he will never have to.
- Total Posts 17716
Since when? I don’t want to get into the politics of racing nor mention names on an open forum.But you are a bit naive to say the least.
You can bet your backside many jockeys have had a financial stake in Classic winners.
How many times in a top jockey’s lifetime does he say "he’s the best I’ve ever ridden"
Piggot at one time or another said it about Nijinsky Roberto and Sir Ivor. Probably a few others as well.
A certain Champion Jockey owned a 5% share in his "best I’ve ever ridden"
Praise from a top jockey is all part and parcel of adding value to a horses stud value.
You are sold racing every day of the week whether it be a jockey praising a horse or some journalist saying "Demman is the best since Arkle"
It’s a buisness not a game.
As far as Sea the Stars is concerned he has proven he can beat Rip Van Winkle. That does not make him great at ths time.
Nashwan won those races and he won the King George. Despite the fact Dick Hern said he was up there with the best he had trained and Carson saying he was the best he had ever ridden, he is still not considered by many to be a great horse.
Why? because those he beat never boosted him high enough so it went down as a bad crop.
Sea the Stars will end up the same way unless he wins either the King George or the Arc. Or Fame and Glory wins the Arc in a hack canter.
So steady on with the great stuff you don’t know the meaning of the word.
Great is when you come round the entire Arc field and leave classic winners from all over europe behind like a bunch of selling platers.
Great is when you change hands and you think you have gone onto ordbit.
Like Geoff Lewis said of Mill Reef.I can’t believe you have to even think when wondering how he would cope with Zarkava. That like saying Rip Van Winkle is as good as she was. If you can’t work that out you should stop betting now.
Imagine Sea the Stars being challenged by her at that stage instead of him. What would he have done with that whirlwind coming at him……. friggin sprouted wings?
His wins in the 2000 and Derby were no more than what you would expect of any winner of those classics
You want to see a really great 2000 guineas winner you won’t have long to wait.
When Canford Cliffs storms home next season Sea the Stars will be no more than a distant memory.
Your opinions are so coloured by the bets that you’ve had it’s not funny. How anyone can pigeonhole a horse who has won the Guineas, Derby and Eclipse at this stage of the season as being ordinary defies belief. He has already achieved far more than Zarkava at the same stage and who knows what he’ll do between now and the autumn?
What are the chances of you ever taking up the challenge of a Lays and Plays thread where you post your bets beforehand instead of listing them ad nauseum afterwards on here? That would prove your status as a self-proclaimed punting god for once and for all. Then at least we’ll know your strong opinions are worth listening to.I’ll still bet you a monkey you’re not in front after six months!
I think for sure she would have been made to work if she ran in the Eclipse who knows who would have won all relative, the form of the Eclipse is outstanding, fast by 3.75 seconds was pretty unreal, none of the older horses could live with the sheer speed of the first two.
I think Rip Van Winkle is really good who is unlucky to be fighting it out with Sea The Stars who is just too good.
- Total Posts 17716
How you can state, with any degree of volition, that Zarkava would have breezed by Sea The Stars is completely beyond me, especially when you appear prone to such rapid changes of opinion. You label many clueless and naive, yet base much of what you say on little more than your betting history – profitable or otherwise.
Let’s take the Eclipse, for the third time, as an example.
Before the race you had Conduit as unbeatable, Rip Van Winkle as a progressive superstar and Sea The Stars as ‘one of the greats’ as a potential winner. After the race, however, with your financial interest a relatively remote third, you suggested that Conduit didn’t run to form, Rip Van Winkle hadn’t improved from the Derby and Sea The Stars had achieved less than **** all.
It’s b*llocks, isn’t it?
So let’s take the Oaks and Irish Oaks.
Sariska scrapes home from Midday at Epsom and, if memory serves, you rubbished my claim that she had won in spite of not handling the track. You went on to say that she wasn’t an Arc filly in any way, shape or form, and that any thought Michael Bell had of sending her for the race shouldn’t even be entertained. Then she canters to victory at the Curragh, achieving nothing by your own standards, yet was your pre-race selection for Longchamp and goes there with a better chance than Stacelita.
How does that make sense?
You have one set of rules for horses you have backed, another set for those you haven’t and for those that actually beat the horses you have backed then there’s literally no hope. We all know Zarkava (as an example) was a brilliant filly, but a two-length defeat of an under-achieving nutter does not a great filly make. With your ‘Sea The Stars head’ on you could pick any number of holes in her form, yet you choose not to because you made a killing backing her.
So, I have to ask, who is naive?
i think that sea the stars is a top class horse but the eclipse form is flattered by the fact that stoute horse was 5 lengths behind , but i think conduit is a handicap horse over 1m2f , dont forget that older horses are giving a lot of weight to the 3 years olds
i think sea the stars isnt zarkava but he is a very very good horse
zarkava would have beaten rip van winkle on the bridle
i think that sea the stars is a top class horse but the eclipse form is flattered by the fact that stoute horse was 5 lengths behind , but i think conduit is a handicap horse over 1m2f , dont forget that older horses are giving a lot of weight to the 3 years olds
i think sea the stars isnt zarkava but he is a very very good horse
zarkava would have beaten rip van winkle on the bridleCan’t agree with any of that, ok his race last year at 1m2f was a handicap but he destroyed that field totally so too say he is only a handicapper even giving 7lbs to rivals and just failed to hang on in a G3 is a koad of ****.
And the bridle quote
Well I’m without doubt the biggest Zarkava fan on here (unless someone else went to live in France to see her in the Grotte, Pouliches and Diane?) and I have absolutely no idea whether Zarkava would beat Sea The Stars or not. Absolutely none.
Yet Fist states categorically that STS would have won. Incredible.
I don’t remember saying that STS would have beaten Zarkova or vice versa, for that matter. All I said was that he hasn’t had to. That is, he has only had to beat what turned up and that’s what he has done so far. Very nicely too, over different distances and off different paces.
Yes, racing is a business. I never said it wasn’t. I am quite aware that jockeys get a part of a horse but, to say that a jockey’s main responsibility is to sell the horse to breeders is, quite frankly, ridiculous. Sorry, you can call me naive, stupid, whatever, it won’t convince me that you’re right.
As for Piggott saying Roberto, Sir Ivor and Nijinsky was "..the best I’ve ever ridden", well, that looks okay to me, chronologically anyway. (Might be wrong in the order they came.)
In fact, Mick Kinane has said the same of STS from day one, I don’t see him pushing and scrubbing to increase the winning distance to give breeders a hard on.- Total Posts 17716
How you can state, with any degree of volition, that Zarkava would have breezed by Sea The Stars is completely beyond me, especially when you appear prone to such rapid changes of opinion. You label many clueless and naive, yet base much of what you say on little more than your betting history – profitable or otherwise.
Let’s take the Eclipse, for the third time, as an example.
Before the race you had Conduit as unbeatable, Rip Van Winkle as a progressive superstar and Sea The Stars as ‘one of the greats’ as a potential winner. After the race, however, with your financial interest a relatively remote third, you suggested that Conduit didn’t run to form, Rip Van Winkle hadn’t improved from the Derby and Sea The Stars had achieved less than **** all.
It’s b*llocks, isn’t it?
So let’s take the Oaks and Irish Oaks.
Sariska scrapes home from Midday at Epsom and, if memory serves, you rubbished my claim that she had won in spite of not handling the track. You went on to say that she wasn’t an Arc filly in any way, shape or form, and that any thought Michael Bell had of sending her for the race shouldn’t even be entertained. Then she canters to victory at the Curragh, achieving nothing by your own standards, yet was your pre-race selection for Longchamp and goes there with a better chance than Stacelita.
How does that make sense?
You have one set of rules for horses you have backed, another set for those you haven’t and for those that actually beat the horses you have backed then there’s literally no hope. We all know Zarkava (as an example) was a brilliant filly, but a two-length defeat of an under-achieving nutter does not a great filly make. With your ‘Sea The Stars head’ on you could pick any number of holes in her form, yet you choose not to because you made a killing backing her.
So, I have to ask, who is naive?
You without adoubt……July 8th Sariska did a sparkling gallop that had birds flying off in all direction with messages tie to their asses…….other than that I am entiled to say what I said and act on any info I choose to. If you cant see the difference between Zarkava and Rip Van Winkle which is as good a guide as you will get to how good Sea the Stars is then give up racing.
In my opinion the above is why you get people’s backs up – why should anyone should "give up racing" / "take up tiddlywinks" for having an opinion differing to your own?
You have certainly missed my point entirely – you said the distance you have beaten good horses is a barometer of how well a horse is remembered. Zarkava’s best run was probably winning the Arc by 2L receiving 11lb to Youmzain. This form is not particularly special, but the winner still was, as you yourself agree.
Therefore your own Sea The Stars arguement is fatally flawed by you yourself.
I do agree with Carvillshill – you’re punting results seem to completely dictate your rational opinions. You backed Mouryan in the Derringstown, so Fame and Glory was a poor winner and Mouryan didn’t run to form. You backed Conduit in the Eclipse, so Sea The Stars was nothing special and Conduit didn’t run to form. You made a killing on Zarkava, so a 2L beating of Youmzain recieving 11lb makes her one of the greatest fillys of all time.
Balance is required.
- Total Posts 17716
I think Equi was being his usualu ignorant self PC just giving him a dose of his own medicine that’s all.
It’s rediculous someone saying 3 months ago you said this and now you’re saying this.
If you fancied horse A and someone comes along you know gets good info and is an excellent judge tells you horse B did a wonder gallop what would you do? Even if you weren’t impressed by te horse the last time it was on a race track would you not back horse B. I did and I see nothing wrong with that at all.
Moutayan ran a stinker in the Derristown Fame and Glory got beat in the Derby like I said he would. Just didn’t have enough toe like I said.
Murtagh said he worked better than ever before the Irish. He now looks better than ever on the track but so did Mourayan who I think will win the St Leger but I know Harbinger is working brilliantly well so I will back both for the record.
Golden Sword or Age of Aquarius are on my def wont win list BTW.
As far as Conduit goes he showed me enough at Sandown to suggest he is as good as ever. I’m terrified of him in the Arc and don’t believe he ran up to his best at that trip. What can I say? I am not going to say Sea the Stars is a wonder horse because Conduit never ran as well as I expected him to.
I am basing his ability purely on how close Rip Van Winkle came to beating him. Had he gone though with his run and not hung right away from the whip twice and then hung left when Murtagh change whip hands how close would it have been between the two?
I never saw Zarkava hang in nay of her races and I certainly never saw he jockey do any more than push her out hamds and heels. And I will be damned if anyone could convince me she was not a different class of a horse to Rip Van Winkle. If he can get that close to Sea the Stars I think Zarkava would have murderd him.
All this about me being influenced by which horse I have backed on how I rate horses is horse ****.
This isn’t going anywhere. It serves no purpose stating the same arguments over and over again. There is no right and wrong. I happen to think winning the 2,000 Guineas, Derby and Eclipse doesn’t give you an automatic right to be described as a ‘great’ but that is only my opinion. Let’s wait and see before comparing Sea The Stars and Zarkava.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.