- This topic has 416 replies, 50 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
I thought Roaring Lion came there to win the race and looked to me that he just didn’t get home, over 10 furlongs he’d get an awful lot closer to Masar and probably have every chance of turning the form around but don’t get me wrong Masar looks an up-to-scratch Derby winner without being a Golden Horn/Sea The Stars – more like an Australia/Kris Kin.
10/3 with SkyBet for the Roaring Lion in the Eclipse looks fair as does the 5/1 for Masar in the King George.
I would have liked to hear more from connections of the defeated horses though, especially James Doyle’s thoughts on Young Rascal who just never really seemed that happy and strictly on form lines shouldn’t have been beaten as far as he was. Was inexperience to blame there? Knight To Behold seemed to lose his race early on being forced on by Kew Gardens who both finished eased down. I would imagine connections of the former would be keen to head onto the Edward VII given he’s still so lightly raced and was spared a hard time yesterday.
Just to add me two penn’orth.
IMO Saxon Warrior did not stay!!
The only horse he passed in the final two ish furlongs was Hazapour who patently didn’t stay and along with the winner was travelling best two out!Yes saxon Warrior may not have acted on the track but I would have to have my arm forced up my back to back him pretty much in any race over twelve furlongs. I think the Irish Derby should be ruled out straight away and the horse should either go for ten furlong races or drop back to a mile. Maybe they are trying to almost force it to be a twelve furlong horseas they don’t have an outstanding three year old cold over this trip.
Enough said about Saxon Warrior!
Hazapour could be the class act out of this lot come the end of the season. Hopefully they will target all the top group ones over ten furlongs because I am adamant that had this race been ten furlongs he would have won!!Once again well done all the Masar backers and DXB looks an out and out stayer St Leger maybe
Just to add me two penn’orth.
IMO Saxon Warrior did not stay!!
The only horse he passed in the final two ish furlongs was Hazapour who patently didn’t stay and along with the winner was travelling best two out!Yes Saxon Warrior may not have acted on the track but I would have to have my arm forced up my back to back him pretty much in any race over twelve furlongs. I think the Irish Derby should be ruled out straight away and the horse should either go for ten furlong races or drop back to a mile. Maybe they are trying to almost force it to be a twelve furlong horse as they don’t have an outstanding three year old cold over this trip.
Enough said about Saxon Warrior!
Hazapour could be the class act out of this lot come the end of the season. Hopefully they will target all the top group ones over ten furlongs because I am adamant that had this race been ten furlongs he would have won!!Once again well done all the Masar backers and DXB looks an out and out stayer St Leger maybe
Lol Raymo. Watch Capri in last year’s Derby again and tell me hand on heart if you saw him do the Irish Derby St Leger after that run.
You may be right but the race was unsatisfactory from Saxons point of view (and mine) and I would like to see him try the distance again on a conventional track.I feel like a complete wally, I should have just laid Saxon, and kept laying him.
I know exactly how you feel Nausered, i laid off about 25% of my bets on him in the end and still ignored being offered a 18/1 winner cash out before the race:yes:
I was in the same boat in a way but bottled it totally. Put this up in DLAP in April which was not totally right but a little bit right if you know what i mean.
“Got a feeling that this horse wont run, never mind win the Derby this year. If it looks like he is going for the Guineas i will be getting rid of most of this bet ASAP. Cannot see him acting around Epsom at all or stay a mile and a half.
The trainer is already starting with the ” beast ” & ” monster” comments. As soon as he starts talking like that, it is time to throw your tickets in the bin.”
Totally agree, Joni. Saxon Warrior’s combination of size and action counted against him yesterday. Whether he would’ve won if showing (only) the 2000 form – I doubt. ie Personally, I believe the Derby form is (as it stands) slightly better than the Guineas. However, that same size and conformation means SW has scope to improve further given a more conventional track and more Group 1’s can only be expected. For that reason I suspect Saxon Warrior will start favourite for the Irish Derby if meeting Masar again.
Of all the Derby principles Masar gives the impression he is the finished article. I had a great win from him yesterday but – being totally neutral – be a little surprised if he improves more than a few pounds in future races.
Roaring Lion seemed to improve on his Dante form despite the trip, looking booked for second until late. His biggest asset (even at 10f) is blinding speed. It wouldn’t be at all surprising if improving once returned to lesser tests of stamina…
…Which is the opposite to Dee Ex Bee. I think the Johnston horse’s performance has been to some extent overlooked because of Saxon Warrior’s disappointment, Godolphin’s win and Roaring Lion barely getting home. Way DXB runs there’s little doubt in my mind he’ll be better suited by a greater test. Indeed, had the Derby happened a day earlier (on softer) he’d probably be the Derby winner. Of course other horses will come out of the woodwork for Donny… But Dee Ex Bee’s form is already good enough to win an average St Leger, with prospects of improving further at that trip. 6/1 is unbe-exexexexexexex-lievable!!
Value Is EverythingMark, I haven’t followed the whole thread or would have congratulated you sooner on Masar – nice one and at a cracking price.
Back to this ‘under performing’. I suspect that what is causing the problem here, for me at least, is that they are using what seems to me the wrong terminology. If a horse has under performed that suggests to me it has had an off day and has not run to a figure it could have done had all been well with it.
What the BHA appear to be using it for in this instance is to infer that the horse would have run to a higher rating over a shorter trip – a mile perhaps (they’re not alone in this; you know my feelings only too well on the expression ‘did not run his/her race’ nonsense). On the day all horses line up facing the same conditions (aside from the draw effect). Sometimes jockey error will affect the outcome or a horse will be sufficiently disadvantaged (slipping, being baulked etc) to inhibit its winning chance. But all else being equal, every horse does the best it can and should be rated accordingly unless obviously amiss.
To infer that a horse under performed because it had already beaten those in front of it over a much shorter trip is a nonsense. Saxon Warrior could perhaps be marked up a touch for the draw and for being unable to get a clear run, but these are in-race ‘events’ that every runner faces. Ill luck does not equal under performing.
There was a recent call for racing jargon to be done away with/clarified. Before they even start to look at that they should consider citing a clear definition for the term ‘under performed’.
Cheers Joe, and everyone else for their congratulations. Masar was a much needed winner for me, had gone through a minor poor run but got it all back plus a bit more in one go. My satisfaction complete with the result, having also backed the second @ 33/1 and had most money on the third – from my three main bets.
tbh For me, “under-performed” means the merit of performance isn’t up to the horse’s best rating (or rating he’s thought still capable of given ideal conditions). Although I’d personally have some leeway, possibly around 3 lbs. One running within 3 lbs of its best not having under-performed. You’re right that just because a horse beat the horses previously – a la Saxon Warrior, Masar and Roaring Lion – it does not mean it necessarily under-performed. imo Both Masar and Roaring Lion have improved since Newmarket and Masar imo put up a better performance in the Derby than Saxon Warrior did in the 2000. But it’s all subjective opinion. Neither would I include any expected improvement. ie Just because Saxon Warrior did not show the expected improvement some thought he’d find, does not mean he under-performed. imo Saxon Warrior under-performed purely because his performance was more than 3 lbs worse than the level of ability shown in the 2000 Guineas.
…And a horse can under-perform for any reason, stamina, speed, ground, luck in running, track, conformation/action, virus/trainer form, jockey/jockeyship, draw, sweating up, fitness, temperament etc. When assessing future races the important thing is not that the horse under-performed, but the reason why it under-performed. In reality most horses in a race under-perform.
Yes, a horse may not be capable of any better than it’s actually shown given the particular conditions on the day were against it… But it’s still technically under-performed because the form rating shown is not up to its best. Something which I admit can be a little confusing.
Under-performing is some horses natural running. ie Needing either such a particularly small set of circumstances to produce a good run or one of poor temperament seldom putting it all in. Both meaning the horse runs to form infrequently. These could even be described as “under-performers“ and can usually be opposed in the betting.
This post was brought to you by the word under-perform.
That’s my take on this particular jargon, although no doubt others will have a different definition.
Value Is EverythingI think we are over-complicating it. He didn’t necessarily UNDER perform, he just didn’t handle the track like many before him and many still to come. That’s what makes Epsom so unique and why you can never be sure how a horse will handle it till they run there.
Generally speaking it tends to be smaller, nippier horses that go well there. I remember thinking Midday was a certainty the day of her Oaks as she was the perfect physical specimen for Epsom. Unfortunately she got bullied out of it that day (should have been a stewards imo!) but she was an Epsom “type”. Saxon Warrior clearly wasn’t.
Would he have run to 119 over a mile and a half on a more conventional track? I personally doubt it. So we can perhaps say he didn’t handle the track and would be capable of better on a different track but ran as well as he could have done on that particular track therefore didn’t underperform. Simple hey?!
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
Watching SW in the parade ring he was very fizzy, adjutated & generally not the laid back hoss he usually is. Not sure if that was the Epsom atmosphere or something else but he wasn’t himself.
Even when AOB was saddling him he was getting jiggy and nervous, took Aidan ages to saddle him up. Then he was stamping his hoofs on the floor, was all very strange compared to him usually, my alarm bells started going.
I’m coming round to the thought he got the trip fine and just wasn’t 100%, partly because of the pre-race antics and partly because of the track. He seemed a bit at sea, and not picking up as he normally would could be a sign of that also. He’s still the best horse in that field for me over 8-12F.
Masar antepost (had binned it mentally tbh) saved my lump on SW and he was impressive. His Bloodlines in hindsight should’ve told us all he’d Enjoy the test.
Hazapour & Knight To Behold are both tiny horses, couldn’t believe the size of them. Hazapour in the Eclipse be interesting if it was quick ground.
I think to have any other definition is over-complicating things, Joni.
Underperform = Run under the form a horse has previously shown he’s capable of achieving.
Does not matter if he “ran as well as he could have done on that particular track”, Saxon Warrior ran under/below the 2000 Guineas form, therefore he underperformed.
If we do not call this underperforming then what do we call underperforming?
Handling the track is just another aspect of form, same as going and distance are other aspects. Change the word “track” and put in “soft”. What if a horse runs below form due to not acting on soft? It – as you say Joni – “ran as well as he could have done on that particular” going. Is that not underperforming?
Value Is Everything:) :) :) oh blimey Mark. I fear a long running saga over what “underperforming” does or doesn’t mean, when it can be applied, how it can be applied, what terms might be better to apply depending on the circumstances, what are the mathematical chances of a horse underperforming on a given track on a given day with a given trainer or jockey, or travelling head-lad on a Monday or a Thursday early or late on in a season and dependant on whether we voted to stay in or out of the EU. ;)
You are right – he underperformed compared with his Guineas run but I don’t think there was much wrong with the horse save the track.
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
Mark, how can a comparison be made between 2 races over such different distances? That question is at the heart of this.
To return to my extreme example, if Harry Angel ran in an Ascot Gold Cup and finished last, would you expect to see a BHA handicapper (or anyone with any sense) saying he under performed?
It would be fine to say ‘SW is not as good at 12f as he is at 8f’ but that is not the same as under performing which, to my mind, means that a horse should have done better in that race on the day, that he was capable of running better in it than he did. If 12f simply didn’t suit SW as well as 8f, then he was not capable of running any better over 12f; he gave all he had and performed to his best on the day at the trip. How then can a horse who has performed to his best on the day have under performed?
The terminology is simply wrong.
Joe a horse can run his best on the day and still underperform to his general form what’s so hard to understand about that?
What am I missing?
It happens in all sports.
Twitter: Jackh1092
Hindsight is 20/20 so make the most of it!Jack, how can a horse run to its best and under perform at the same time? It’s an oxymoron – a classic example of one and that’s my whole point.
If the point you’re making is that a horse is not as good at a particular trip/track/surface as he is elsewhere, that’s a completely different argument.
If what you’re saying is that he did everything he could on the day but something physical/mental prevented him from finishing closer then he was amiss.
A horse running to his best on a particular day does not mean he has performed to his average or expected level each time he runs.
Usain Bolt could run the exact same 100m track 100 times over 100 days and not perform to the exact same level each time, however, giving his best each time? Day 70 he might be even below his average best over the 100 runs. Does this mean he didn’t give his best on that day, no, but he’s underperformed on his average or expected times?
Saxon Warrior has run 5 times in his life, this is his first time running at Epsom, whilst being a track that can not suit certain horses, it’s fairly early to use the track as the overall reason for his below par effort. I would trust O’Brien’s judgement on SW + he expects him to stay 1m4 with ease..i would love them to have a go at it again but they probably won’t in the near future. Maybe they’ll have a go at it later in the year!
Twitter: Jackh1092
Hindsight is 20/20 so make the most of it!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.