- This topic has 65 replies, 25 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I think the argument about Frankel verses Golden Horn is separate. GH is not in Frankel’s league and we all know that. Sir Henry would probably have run Frankel in those conditions on Saturday (if it was over 10f of course) but Frankel was happy on soft ground. I can tell you though that Sir Henry would NEVER have run Golden Horn on that ground. Two totally different horses. I agree with you, one was a great (the greatest imo) one is very good.
Sorry if my point about mental capacity was harsh (felt exasperated at 11pm last night!)> Look I can totally understand people’s disappointment when he was withdrawn and I can see why they would say “oh he should definitely have run”. I am pretty sure myself he would have won. I am sure however disappointed WE were that he didn’t run can’t compare to how disappointed connections were. They were all there having paid their entrance fees, they were all looking forward to it, the horse was there ready to go. It will probably only be at the end of the season when we can see the whole picture that we will see this decision in its proper light. As far as I can see three things could have happened on Saturday. 1. He runs and wins easily and doesn’t have a hard race – no harm done. 2. He runs, has a hard race but wins or almost wins. 3. He runs and doesn’t handle it at all and trails in.
My guess is that they were most worried about option 2 and that is why they pulled him out. For me it was the right decision and the rest of the season will show that.
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
No worries – just don’t you losing your nice guy image =D
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"Would anyone have batted an eyelid if Golden Horn hadn’t been aimed at the King George and they had stated that York was his next race after the Eclipse?
That was Gosdens thinking but the owner obviously with his King George connection wanted to run in it if possible, which was understandable. Gosden soon agreed but he is paid to make decisions like this and the owner agreed with the final decision.
It’s pointless anyone saying he would have still hacked up or would have won half the track, horses get beat every day of the week who should do that.
Far more disappointing to me than not running in the King George is the horse not running as a 4 year old.
It’s up to Gosden and the owner what they do – same goes with any horse and any connections. Their first responsibility is to their horse, not racing, or the public.
But I think they might have made a tactical error. It would have been the ideal chance to find out if the horse was worth a proper Arc prep. To my eye, his action is not that of a fast ground only horse; he is not a particularly good mover in classic terms – miles away from the likes of Nashwan for example. He is built more like Mill Reef, and his key weapons are balance, temperament (switches off and relaxes), and that leave-them-behind acceleration (though he takes a wee while to change to top gear).
I’ve nothing to back this up other than instinct, but I believe the farther he goes the better he is; that stamina in all but extreme circumstances would not be an issue, and that he might well relish soft ground. Saturday would have given connections the ideal opportunity to test him against lesser opponents.
Well at least Gosden gave it right up to race time to make a decision.
Two droplets of rain at Goodwood and Aidan O’Brien has already pulled Gleneagles out of the Sussex Stakes.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
It wasn’t Mil Reef’s final race when he was asked to run on soft ground, nor was it Reference Point’s or Dancing Braves or Nashwan’s or Brigadier Gerard’s.
Hate to break this to you IB, but horses are different.
Mill Reef did not have the action of Golden Horn and palpably acted on any ground.
Reference Point if anything was suited by soft ground, placing more emphasis on stamina.
Dancing Brave ran on soft ground only in a lesser race – the Craven – before he became the horse we all love.
Brigadier Gerard was a freak.
Nashwan is perhaps the horse you quote who’s most like Golden Horn, with a top-of-the-ground action. Won a listed race as a 2 year old on good-soft – again before becoming the horse we know. Then at three ran on a sound surface until meeting his only defeat in the then Group 2 Prix Niel, 3rd of 4 starting at 1/5 in what was meant to be a prep for the Arc. Did not run again! What’s more, were you one who heavily criticised Nashwan’s connections at the time for not targeting the St Leger/Triple Crown?
Value Is EverythingI think the argument about Frankel verses Golden Horn is separate. GH is not in Frankel’s league and we all know that. Sir Henry would probably have run Frankel in those conditions on Saturday (if it was over 10f of course) but Frankel was happy on soft ground. I can tell you though that Sir Henry would NEVER have run Golden Horn on that ground. Two totally different horses. I agree with you, one was a great (the greatest imo) one is very good.
Value Is EverythingWell at least Gosden gave it right up to race time to make a decision.
Two droplets of rain at Goodwood and Aidan O’Brien has already pulled Gleneagles out of the Sussex Stakes.
And I hope we are now all up in arms with Aiden O’Brien and Henry Candy who has withdrawn Limato for the same reasons. I guess they are prIcks too?
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
Well I never called anyone a prick.
But Gleneagles is exactly the same deal. For anyone who wants to fly into overused superlatives – brilliant, great, whatever – no, he isn’t either.
Like Golden Horn, he is a proper decent horse but he is ground dependant and simply not good enough to get away with the wrong conditions and still win at all-aged Group 1 level.
These big race swerves just make you appreciate how great the truly great (140+ – Frankel, Brigadier Gerard) horses were even more. =D
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"I agree Ian. Luca Cumani was unsure about Postponed running on the soft ground but he still had the balls to let the horse take his chance.
I believe the decision to run was made by the owner according to the jockey post race.
Can we all calm down and concentrate on GLORIOUS GOODWOOD please???
Well I never called anyone a prick.
But Gleneagles is exactly the same deal. For anyone who wants to fly into overused superlatives – brilliant, great, whatever – no, he isn’t either.
Like Golden Horn, he is a proper decent horse but he is ground dependant and simply not good enough to get away with the wrong conditions and still win at all-aged Group 1 level.
These big race swerves just make you appreciate how great the truly great (140+ – Frankel, Brigadier Gerard) horses were even more. =D
So what are you moaning about Ian? Absolutely nobody has claimed Golden Horn or Gleneagles to be in the Frankel/Brigadier class.
Value Is EverythingMoaning? Moi? =D
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"Golden Horn is not a proven stayer is he; that’s why they didn’t run him. The soft going would have added another furlong to the distance for him. I wouldn’t expect him to turn up at Longchamp either.
I can tell you though that Sir Henry would NEVER have run Golden Horn on that ground.
Fair play to your response to my comments and so on. But I am sorry mate, this one really does take the biscuit. You have a direct line to the thoughts (past and who knows, even present) of Sir Henry Cecil??
Come on, at least give me some credit. I accused you of coming across as a hero worshipper. Surely comments like this do nothing to dispel that view? Do they?
I have no problem whatsoever with John Gosden. Indeed, I, like you I am sure, was always fascinated by the lineage between Towser Gosden and HRAC by way of the Wernhers and Phillips’, via Cecil Boyd-Rochfort.
However, given the man’s somewhat opinionated style (compare and contrast for instance with the highly humble – whether fake or otherwise – style of Aidan O’Brien) not to mention that of his good lady wife Miss Hood, one can surely be forgiven for feeling somewhat aggrieved when he robs the racing public of a chance to see a potentially great horse.
Ballydoyle came in for a LOT of criticism, which Channel 4’s team really persisted with today, when they pulled Gleneagles out of today’s race on Monday. However Gosden was given a comparatively easy time of it by the media on Saturday. Nobody made long journeys to Goodwood today on the basis of seeing a race that would never take place because Ballydoyle did the right thing by the public. On Saturday the prospect of seeing Golden Horn drew a lot more people to Ascot than would otherwise have been the case. He could have run, without much risk to anything other than his unbeaten record (my opinion of course).
Oppenheimer is defended in some quarters because a “tough race” in the King George may have damaged the remainder of GH’s final season. The decision to shuttle Golden Horn off to stud would be wholly understandable if he was owned by one of the really big breeding operations – its what they often do after all. Oppenheimer never tired of telling us how long it has taken him and his father before him to produce a horse of this calibre. And yet he shows a total disregard for the history of the sport – he should be taking as many opportunities as possible to test whether GH is indeed a great horse (as I believe him to be). And that ought to include asking him to concede weight to next year’s three-year-old generation when the time comes.
Must say I’m not big on assertions about what people (especially dead people) would or wouldn’t have done either.
It’s presumptuous to put it mildly.
Let’s face it, by the decisions being made Oppenheimer seemingly isn’t that rich that he can afford to do anything other than maximise his revenue from the horse.
He will earn far more at stud than on a racecourse – retiring him as an unbeaten Derby and Eclipse winner is probably his priority now.
But unlike Mr Jonibake I am neither a medium nor a mind reader – you would have to ask Oppenheimer himself to be sure. =D
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.