- This topic has 40 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Oh Ginger that is one hell of a twist you’ve put on my words, and I dare say you know it.
This whole argument about Snow Fairy and So You Think ‘running to form,’ has been completely in the context of Danedream’s Arc. Sometimes I feel like we are debating two completely different topics here.
You’re initial post gave me – and another few posters on this thread – the impression that you were trying to drag down the form of Danedream’s Arc. In fact you literally said those words yourself.
So when you say:
My first post was not challenging Danedream’s 132 rating.
That is in direct contradiction to when you said:
Always possible to look at any form and drag it down a pound or two (as I’ve shown above).
So yes, your goal since the beginning has evidently been to drag down the form of Danedream’s Arc, and you did this by arguing Snow Fairy and So You Think did not run to the level of form Timeform said they did. Which is a very facile argument without sufficient evidence.
To which I responded by arguing they did indeed ‘run to form,’ in the context of Danedream’s Arc, as there was nothing to suggest otherwise.
Of course So You Think couldn’t have run to 131 Ginger, then Danedrean’s rating would have been in the stratosphere. But he achieved that rating over 10f, so it is void in this scenario. My point is, that SYT’s rating of 124 is him ‘running to form” in a Group 1 over 12f.
I’m struggling to understand how you could have misinterpreted this Ginger, you just seem to be exploiting my inefficiencies in communication. I have always maintained that Danedream’s win at 132 was bang on. So is it not a case of 2+2=4, that when I say Snow Fairy and SYT “ran to form” it is in the context of that overall rating?
How could I be insinuating So You Think ran to 131 if I firmly believe Danedream only ran to 132? It is just common sense Ginger.
In short; you were implying Snow Fairy and So You Think didn’t run to the level of form Timeform believed they did, to warrant giving Danedream a mark of 132. You basically said so yourself. My point has been to defend Timeform and argue that they did indeed run to form, and that rating is correct.
My main point is to argue there is nothing about Danedream’s form that makes it 2lbs inferior to Enable’s. You believe the 2nd, 3rd and 4th horse didn’t run to form, but I believe I’ve provided sufficient evidence that they did indeed.
Please do come back to it Ginger.
Talk about “twisting”.
The full quote about dragging the form down is:
It’s very difficult to judge one year against another. Always possible to look at any form and drag it down a pound or two (as I’ve shown above). I don’t know whether Gosden’s filly is better than Treve or Zarkava or Danedream; but – unlike those three -I do know Enable can already be rated exceptional on more than one performance and remains in training! Something to look forward to and celebrate.
It’s me aknowledging that there are always things a person can look at if wanting to drag form down. It’s aknowledging that although the things I’d written about three Arcs were mainly negative, there are plenty of positives too. These were after all real top notchers. But it’s also aknowledging there are reasons to keep some perspective. eg Danedream’s performance was one of the best Arcs, but beating Snow Fairy and So You Think by those distances should not be taken at face value (as Timeform did not take them at face value) otherwise Danedream would’ve been rated 138 or 139!!! “Dragging the form down” to 132 very wise imo. The paragraph also aknowledging that if a horse has one stand out performance – Treve and Zarkava, along with colts such as Harbinger’s KG – (Danedream’s other form is at least 4 lbs worse too) it is less reliable form than Enable whose King George and Arc are similar in (outstanding) ratings. More a horse runs to outstanding ratings the more reliable its form becomes.
You say your assumption that So You Think’s running to form was only in the context of danedream’s 12f Arc – is laughable. Please tell me what 12f form you have So You Think running to then? Ummmmmmmm, hang on… Arc was SYT’s one and only run at 12f. So there is NO 12f “form” for him to “run to”. So what do you mean?
This is another racing term you don’t seem to know the meaning of. “Running to form” means reproducing its previous form rating – or as near as damn it. Exactly what form was Snow Fairy running to when according to you “running to form” in the context of the Arc? Was it her other Arc runs? Nope she hadn’t run in the Arc before. Again, it does not make sense. What do you mean?
When a form book says horse X “ran to form” do you think it means its form at that particular distance? Or its best form at any distance? Or do we have to guess? There was no explanation of what you meant at the time and I presumed it meant what it’s general use is. Why was that wrong of me?
That’s just it my friend, you did not realise what Snow Fairy and So You Think’s Timeform master ratings were until I told you. You did not know that Snow Fairy and So You Think’s Arc performance ratings were “below form” until I told you. So until then you believed all the first four home in Danedream’s Arc ran to form. That’s why I said your analysis did not make sense… Because it is impossible to rate Danedream at 132 and still believe SF and SYT ran to form. Well done, you’ve changed your mind on SF and SYT, you had to because otherwise it made no sense.
Where have I said Shareta did not run to form?
Of course she did, in many ways it was her finest hour. I gave you her best 4 ratings, “122 Arc, 122 Vermaille…”.
Where have I said Danedream was not a 132? I’ve only said it would be better had she run to that figure more than once; but she has not. So we’ve got to make the best of evaluating one race. SF and SYT do not need to have run to form for Danedream to be rated 132. However, It would have been impossible to demonstrate why Timeform could rate Enable’s form as 2 lbs above Danedream’s, without first explaining that SF and SYT had not run to form. I am glad we now agree they did not “run to form” (at least when those last three words are meant how they’re usually meant). :lol:Value Is EverythingMerely pointing out that your 1, 2, 3, 4 (together with all the races SYT and SF won) – was not as good as that basic reading of form suggests… Because neither of those two horses ran to form in the Arc and therefore their place in this discussion is a false one. ie It’s impossible for me or anyone else to argue Enable’s 2 1/2 lengths+ beating of Cloth Of Stars, Ulysses and Order Of St George is worth more than a 5 lengths+ beating of Shareta, Snow Fairy and So You Think… UNLESS people realise the latter pair were BELOW FORM.
I can sum up my argument in one sentence:
There is no way Ulysses or Order of St George ran to a rating of 130 and 128 if So You Think and Snow Fairy only ran to 124 and 122 respectively.
So on that basis, even if you believe Snow Fairy and So You Think were below form, the level of form they ran to is still equal to Ulysses’ and OOSG’s best form.
Order of St George never would have fished 4 lengths ahead of So You think on that run. Never.
Never?
Or do you mean not until your next 180, Voleur?
Tell the truth, you’re just winding me up now. :lol:Can you please explain how two horses in 3rd and 4th running below their bests in 2011, mean that two horses running 3rd and 4th in2017 must be rated as below their bests and furthermore… Can not be rated in accordance with “form” (the horses around them)? That’s daft.
Or have you changed your mind again and believe Danedream the best female racehorse in Timeform’s history?Is it not concievable that Order of St George ran just 1 lb better on softer ground (more of a test of stamina) than in the same race last year?
Is it not concievable that Ulysses ran to just 3 lbs better form on less testing ground (less of a test of stamina) than he did in the King George?So You Think would not have finished 4 lengths behind Order Of St George anyway, not even on the ratings given to the two horses on the days. SYT ran to 124 and OOSG 127. And it’s not as simple as 1 lb per length either. You also seem to be forgetting SYT was unproven at 1m4f, had a change of tactics and not run in the race before or the course. Where as OOSG had tactics he’s had before and proven at the trip, course and race.
Had So You Think and Snow Fairy ran to form in the 2011 Arc, they’d have been 2nd and 3rd.
Had So You Think and Snow Fairy ran to form in the 2017 Arc they’d have both been in a photo for 2nd.Value Is EverythingLet’s keep this civilised Ginger won’t we? Your twisting is becoming more than a little vindictive now, and your arguments are making less and less sense.
It’s me aknowledging that there are always things a person can look at if wanting to drag form down. It’s aknowledging that although the things I’d written about three Arcs were mainly negative, there are plenty of positives too. These were after all real top notchers. But it’s also aknowledging there are reasons to keep some perspective. eg Danedream’s performance was one of the best Arcs, but beating Snow Fairy and So You Think by those distances should not be taken at face value (as Timeform did not take them at face value) otherwise Danedream would’ve been rated 138 or 139!!! “Dragging the form down” to 132 very wise imo. The paragraph also aknowledging that if a horse has one stand out performance – Treve and Zarkava, along with colts such as Harbinger’s KG – (Danedream’s other form is at least 4 lbs worse too) it is less reliable form than Enable whose King George and Arc are similar in (outstanding) ratings. More a horse runs to outstanding ratings the more reliable its form becomes.
This paragraph literally makes no sense to me, you are talking in circles now. Despite you claiming that I am “twisting” your words, your initial post was clearly and plainly attempting to drag down the form of Danedream’s Arc, as you said in your own words. You can deny that with all your roundabout spiel on “perspective,” but it would be insulting to our intelligences.
Where have I said Shareta did not run to form?
Of course she did, in many ways it was her finest hour. I gave you her best 4 ratings, “122 Arc, 122 Vermaille…”.
Where have I said Danedream was not a 132? I’ve only said it would be better had she run to that figure more than once; but she has not. So we’ve got to make the best of evaluating one race. SF and SYT do not need to have run to form for Danedream to be rated 132. However, It would have been impossible to demonstrate why Timeform could rate Enable’s form as 2 lbs above Danedream’s, without first explaining that SF and SYT had not run to form. I am glad we now agree they did not “run to form” (at least when those last three words are meant how they’re usually meant). 😆I’m going to ignore the rest of your pointless slandering and focus on this paragraph because I believe in here lies the answer.
You said you had dragged down Danedream’s form by “a pound or two.” in your own words. You can ramble on with some convoluted excuse about perspective, but you said it. That’s how you set out your stall for this debate. So, all of my arguments directed at you were on the basis that I believed you only rated Danedream’s win at 130. You did this by reasoning So You Think and Snow Fairy didn’t run to form, i.e. a “pound or two” below the rating Timeform allocated them.
I on the other hand firmly believed Danedream ran to 132. I agreed with Timeform. I have always maintained that and never done a 180 on it as you seemingly have. Therefore, when I argued they did in fact run to form, common sense would dictate that was in the context of that overall rating. To the world, it looked like you were arguing Snow Fairy and So You Think ran “a pound or two” below the marks of 124 and 122 Timeform gave them. i.e below form. That is what you insinuated to me, and that is what I have been arguing against this whole time.
The fact that you have been attacking my use of phraseology rather than the substance of my arguments shows who has more credibility here.
(Danedream’s other form is at least 4 lbs worse too) it is less reliable form than Enable whose King George and Arc are similar in (outstanding) ratings. More a horse runs to outstanding ratings the more reliable its form becomes.
You’ve gone and shot yourself in the foot with this one Ginger. Danedream’s performance in the King George was rated 4lbs below her Master Rating at the time. Enable’s win in the King George was also rated 4lbs below her current Master Rating. So how does equal disparity in ratings make Enable’s form suddenly more reliable? Once again you are talking in circles.
In your very first post you said:
Always possible to look at any form and drag it down a pound or two (as I’ve shown above).
That is insinuating you are dragging down her 132 rating by
“a pound or two.” It’s clear as daylight. So when you say:Where have I said Danedream was not a 132?
You start to lose credibility Ginger, whose doing 180’s now?
You seem to have missed my questions, Voleur:
Can you please explain how two horses in 3rd and 4th running below their bests in 2011, mean that two horses running 3rd and 4th in2017 must be rated as below their bests?… And therefore why they’re not rated on those who finished around them?
Is it not concievable that Order of St George ran just 1 lb better on softer ground (more of a test of stamina) than in the same race last year?
Is it not concievable that Ulysses ran to just 3 lbs better form on less testing ground (less of a test of stamina) than he did in the King George?
Value Is EverythingYou said you had dragged down Danedream’s form by “a pound or two.” in your own words. You can ramble on with some convoluted excuse about perspective, but you said it. That’s how you set out your stall for this debate. So, all of my arguments directed at you were on the basis that I believed you only rated Danedream’s win at 130. You did this by reasoning So You Think and Snow Fairy didn’t run to form, i.e. a “pound or two” below the rating Timeform allocated them.
I on the other hand firmly believed Danedream ran to 132. I agreed with Timeform. I have always maintained that and never done a 180 on it as you seemingly have. Therefore, when I argued they did in fact run to form, common sense would dictate that was in the context of that overall rating. To the world, it looked like you were arguing Snow Fairy and So You Think ran “a pound or two” below the marks of 124 and 122 Timeform gave them. i.e below form. That is what you insinuated to me, and that is what I have been arguing against this whole time.
Voleur,
Timeform rated So You Think on the 132 “mark” and Snow Fairy on a “mark” of 128, ie that is what Timeform believed them capable of. So when in Timeform’s opinion So You Think ran to 124 and Snow Fairy ran to 122 they “did not not run to form” because they did not run to their marks of 132 and 128. Timeform themselves rated their Arc performances “below form” in rating their performances 124 and 122. I was only agreeing with them. It was you who insisted they “ran to form”… and therefore you who disagreed with Timeform. That’s the way it reads.Anyway, I’ll remember next time that your definitions of words are a lot different to their general use.
Value Is EverythingGinger like I’ve said, the fact that you’ve been obsessed with attacking my use of phraseology rather than the substance of my arguments, or rather than put a coherent argument together yourself, paints a very clear picture.
I’ve explained my points very thoroughly, despite a few errors in communication, but a small dose of common sense would allow most people to see past these “errors” to the core of the matter. The way I see it, if you don’t have a definitive point to argue, don’t argue at all. Sitting on the fence can result in splinters. Sitting on the fence whilst being aimlessly argumentative can result in much worse.
I’ve nothing further to add to this debate.
Ginger like I’ve said, the fact that you’ve been obsessed with attacking my use of phraseology rather than the substance of my arguments, or rather than put a coherent argument together yourself, paints a very clear picture.
I’ve explained my points very thoroughly, despite a few errors in communication, but a small dose of common sense would allow most people to see past these “errors” to the core of the matter. The way I see it, if you don’t have a definitive point to argue, don’t argue at all. Sitting on the fence can result in splinters. Sitting on the fence whilst being aimlessly argumentative can result in much worse.
I’ve nothing further to add to this debate.
Yes, you’ve argued your case very thoroughly, but unfortunately that thoroughness has been lost together with the substance. In fact it’s not “phraeseology” it’s the actual meaning of words you’ve got so wrong. Sadly, you have not argued what you thought you’ve argued and that’s led to a wasted debate.
You can’t constantly (and even when it’s pointed out to you) continue to argue that something is “X” when it is “Y”, and then blame the other person for not agreeing it’s “X” (for being argumentative). :lol:
Anyway, BFN.
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.