- This topic has 861 replies, 151 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
I haven’t worked at Timeform for a while now, so I certainly don’t want to appear as if I am a spokesperson for them.
What I would say to anyone doubting the merit of provisional ratings is: look at it another way, how should a 2yo handicapper rate a race after the event?
It would involve race standardisation, time analysis, trainer analysis and pedigree analysis. The first two aren’t really available to us until after the race, but the first two are.
I reckon provisional ratings should ideally incorporate sales prices (valid ones) and big-race entries, but writing the algorithm for that lot would be beyond me for a starter. Trainer and pedigree ratings are a start, and a pretty good start at that.
Trainer and sire median ratings are available for a modest outlay in the (in my view) excellent Timeform Statistical Review.
I have to say that I think a lot of the arguments put up against ratings, including some made above, end up making the opposite point to the one they intend, namely just how useful it is to evaluate individual performances accurately.
There seems to be a puzzling asssumption in many quarters that a horse’s master rating – as opposed to its many performance ratings – is all that matters.
- Total Posts 17716
Pru
"There seems to be a puzzling asssumption in many quarters that a horse’s master rating – as opposed to its many performance ratings – is all that matters."
But surely the ones most likely to make that error are those who have drawn up the rating in the first place, Nick Mordin being a prime example, though there are plenty of others on this forum?
"I have to say that I think a lot of the arguments put up against ratings, including some made above, end up making the opposite point to the one they intend, namely just how useful it is to evaluate individual performances accurately. "
But do they, or can they, have use as a definitive guide to each performance? <br>Take GW for example, ran well below his best, (10lb, according to RPR), on his return at Goodwood, but what use is that unless we know why? <br>Was he 10lb unfit, or 5lb unfit and 5lb inconvenienced by the course, either can only be a matter of personal judgement and not something anyone not directly involved with the horse would know, certainly not to the extent of putting a hard and fast figure on?
<br>*Please note, I have no problems with ratings per se, just as a final means of selection. <br>
The Racing Post reports that AOB has not ruled out a tilt at the Breeder’s Cup Classic for George Washington.  What do you think?  Should Coolmore consider putting him up against Barnardini et al on dirt for the first time?  Surely a big ask for a horse like GW.
ap,
Well AOB will have a good marker from the Dylan Thomas fiasco at Belmont last Saturday.
As Dylan Thomas and George Washington share the same sire (Danehill) it looks a huge risk to me to try the temperamentally fragile George Washington on a surface he has absolutely no experience of. I cannot believe they’ll risk him on it
Quote: from davidjohnson on 1:04 pm on Oct. 9, 2006[br]As Dylan Thomas and George Washington share the same sire (Danehill) it looks a huge risk to me to try the temperamentally fragile George Washington on a surface he has absolutely no experience of. I cannot believe they’ll risk him on it
THey are clearly desperate to win the race but to be frank, the idea looks nuts and I would be very surprised if he goes for it.. Do Danehills go on dirt???
SHL
Problem could also be the tight bends and the general hustle (as well as his tendancy to start alittle slow)
Great horse but i have always felt he needs the conditions just so…
listening to AOB after the QE11 victory i think its basically a done deal that we won’t see GW again next year.<br>With that in mind and although i’m no expert on churchill downs, i can’t see a downside in running in the classic that you wouldn’t get in the the breeders cup mile race which i assume is also on the cards.
A win in the breeders cup mile is likely to affect his stud fee little, as would a flop in either of the two races as i’m sure there would be a myriad of excuses / explanations that wouldn’t detract from his already impressive career. <br>A decent run in the classic however would be a major plus for his stud career and as we know AOB isn’t afraid to throw his best 3yos into this race.
Quote: from rory on 1:41 pm on Oct. 9, 2006[br]….erm, not to mention the trip he won’t stay!<br>
Well here is another example of horse alot of us think wont stay based purely on the fact that he is so good over a mile. This doesnt nescessarily make it so.<br>
SHL
I don’t think his running style would suit a race like the Classic at all. Ironically, an out and out galloper like Dylan Thomas would have, but it appears he hated the surface more than any other horse in recent memory.
I’m not sure there’s been enough Danehilll’s tried on dirt to know if they go or not, but given he was by Danzig it wouldn’t be completely out of the question, surely? Oratorio took to it ok last year, but just couldn’t cope with the kickback.
(Edited by Gareth Flynn at 2:10 pm on Oct. 9, 2006)
Doesn’t include 2006, but can only find one horse by Danehill that raced on Dirt finishing 4th< in the US –
Matiara Stakes Listed Fillies 9f (Wet/Fast)
Secret Garden, 2nd, beaten 4L
<br>
(Edited by empty wallet at 2:28 pm on Oct. 9, 2006)
I’m not sure there’s been enough Danehilll’s tried on dirt to know if they go or not
<br>Gareth/EW, I didn’t see the race but George’s pal Ivan Denisovich (Danehill- Hollywood Wildcat) didn’t perform too well in last years BC Juvenile at Belmont. According to the Racing Post he was  "always behind, beaten at halfway".  There was a better showing when second in the Grade I Secretariat Stakes (on dirt I think) at Arlington last August. although that earned him a RP rating of just 112.
A decent run in the classic however would be a major plus for his stud career
<br>Roland , that a very interesting point you raise about there being little downside to going for the Classic rather than the mile. I am a big fan of GW but personally I would think there are too many question marks there for them to take the chance on running him in the Classic.  I think that Bernardini is exceptional and very possibly Discreet Cat is very good also.  George would need to have everything going his way to win against those and I can’t see them risking it instead of going for much easier pickings in the mile. Half of me hope I’m wrong though! ÂÂÂ
(Edited by apalachee at 3:35 pm on Oct. 9, 2006)
Good point about Ivan D, although post-Morny he’s been more canine than equine.
The Secretariat was on turf, btw.
Edit: Just remembered that Ivan D is out of a BC Distaff winner, hence the attempt on dirt not being completely out of the blue.
(Edited by Gareth Flynn at 4:46 pm on Oct. 9, 2006)
I suppose there is some evidence on the Dam side of GW that would allow him to handle turf…without highlighting him as a specialist. Dylan thomas had nothing in his breeding.
SHL
I think and hope that they will end up sticking with the Breeders Cup Mile for George Washington. If he runs to his best in the mile (which is quite a big if) then he will almost certainly win the race as I don’t think there is another horse in the field who could cope with his turn of foot.
In the BC Classic there are so many things that could go wrong for him. The dirt surface is something that he has never run on before, his running style wouldn’t suit the race at all because he tends to break slowly which means he’d be playing catch up right from the start, he’d have to deal with alot of kick back, there is a big question mark over his ability to stay the 1m 2f trip and on top of all of that he’d have to deal with Bernardini who IMO is the strongest looking favourite out of any of the BC races this year.
I hope Ballydoyle are sensible and run GW in the Mile where he’d actually have a chance of winning.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.