- This topic has 650 replies, 50 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Maurice,
You’re not comparing like with like. It is not fair to compare Saturday’s pre-Derby ratings with post-Derby ratings of Derby winners. Three year olds going in to the Derby will invariably improve. If you want to compare ratings then compare Saturday’s runners ratings with the PRE-Derby ratings of past winners.Surely you would have expected previous runners to improve beyond the race?
Leaving that aside, what happens beyond the race is largely irrelevant. We’re trying to see what the race is like going into it and how it comapres with the form going into previous renewals,are we not?
Golden Horn (118) might stay well enough to win but that, for me, would mean it’s a poor race.
God help us if the highest rated horse in the race winning means it’s a poor race.
I don’t know if my contributions to the thread are part of the “old guff” but I am finding it hard to get enthused about the quality of the race.
It may well be that we would be more enthused had the Dante 1-2-3 contested and won three separate trials but the fact is that they didn’t and there was reasonable distance between the three in the race to indicate that form reversal is unlikely in the Derby. Some people see that differently but I’ll be surprised if they don’t finish in the same order this time.
Even if the had contested separate trials, I see no evidence that we would have been looking at three colts with higher ratings than they now have. If they are 1-2-3 at Epsom and there isn’t a fair bit of distance to the next horse, I am finding it hard to see how they will emerge with anything other than mediocre ratings in the aftermath.
In my mind a convincing win for Golden Horn may see him emerge with perhaps a 125 rating and that looks the most likely scenario for rising above what looks a below average renewal. Guff or not, that’s my take on it and all the bluster about Giovanni Canaletto breaking track records is blowing out of my laptop and wafting up the chimney on its way to Fantasy Island on a Southerly wind.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
It’s fairly obvious by the posts on here that this is one of the most complicated and open Derbys for many a year. I obviously take TAPK out of that equation, as he believes it is a one horse race with GC….and good luck to him. If it wasn’t for the distance, I think the only stand out horse in the race, Golden Horn, would waltz in, but like many on here I have serious doubts about him getting the last furlong, and he is most certainly not for me at 15/8.
I think there could be an upset this year, and I hope I might have an idea who could be better value than his odds suggest. I think Moheet is a better animal than he has shown and I think there are valid excuses for his unimpressive form figures. He has run 3 times, the first of which was his maiden last October at Salisbury. Admittedly he didn’t have any superstars to compete against, but the manner in which he won could only be described as impressive. He started back this year in the Craven, and having started slowly, he came through strongly at the end to finish 3rd. That being over a mile suggested that he would improve over further.
His last run, in the 2000 Guineas, can be forgotten. He came out of the stalls and Dettori managed to lose his irons for the first couple of furlongs causing the horse to lose ground and switch behind horses to the stand rail. He did start to make progress but Dettori (who had a stinker, and got a 2 day ban) then collided with another horse and that was that. Considering what happened he did well to finish 8th.
It’s not that I think he is a great horse, I’m not getting carried away, but without there being, to my mind, an obvious winner, then with any amount of improvement, and perhaps a jockey that can manage to keep his feet in the irons, I think he has a very decent e/w shout.
Paddy Power have gone 50/1 this morning, so I’m having some of that.
Best of luck guys
2014: 7 of 16 had the rating, the top two of which were likely stayers and were first and second and the winner emerged with a new OR of 123. Australia was 119 going in to the race, but he’d already had the opportunity of running in a 3 year old Group 1.
2013: 6/12, 125 (Dawn Approach, miler), Ruler Of The World won, new OR 120 (Libertarian, Dante winner second top, second) Ruler Of The World was 109 going in to the race.
2012: 3/9, 120 (Camelot, won) Camelot was 121 going in to the race, but he’d already run in a 3 year old Group 1.
2011: 5/13, 117 (Seville unpl), Pour Moi (115) won, never raced again. Pour Moi was 113 going in to the race.
2010: Workforce was 108 going in to the race.
2009: Sea The Stars was 121, but he’d already run in a Group 1 3 year old race.
2008: New Approach ?
2007: Authorised (another Dante winner) was only 116 going in to the Derby, 2 lbs worse than Golden Horn.
2006: Sir Percy was 121, but again had already run in a Group 1 3 year old race.
2005: Motivator (another Dante winner) was only 117 going in to the Derby, 1 lb worse than Golden Horn.
2004: North Light (another Dante winner) was only 115 going in to the Derby, 3 lbs worse than Golden Horn.Saturday’s Derby doesn’t look so bad.
I’d argue you’re proving my point here.
Australia was a proven G1 winner. Nothing else was. He won because he had no opposition. Ordinary race.
Ruler Of The World was only 109 yet still won. Ordinary race.
Camelot – same as Australia
Pour Moi – won a poor race
Workforce – had been below form in the Dante but did end up a good winner and progressed well afterwards
Sea The Stars – a proper candidate and a brilliant winner.
New Approach – a proper candidate and a brilliant winner. Maybe these two are why I’m cautious about praising ordinary types.
Authorized – good candidate (likely stayer, unlike GH), good winner
Sir Percy – good candidate, won poor race (blanket five-way finish, iirc)
Motivator as Authorized
North Light – fair candidate, fair winner, probably about the same as this year’s.<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Gingertipster wrote:</div>
Maurice,
You’re not comparing like with like. It is not fair to compare Saturday’s pre-Derby ratings with post-Derby ratings of Derby winners. Three year olds going in to the Derby will invariably improve. If you want to compare ratings then compare Saturday’s runners ratings with the PRE-Derby ratings of past winners.Surely you would have expected previous runners to improve beyond the race?
Leaving that aside, what happens beyond the race is largely irrelevant. We’re trying to see what the race is like going into it and how it comapres with the form going into previous renewals, are we not?
That is exactly my point Maurice.
I am comparing the ratings of Saturday’s horses as they are going in to the stalls before the Derby with what past Derby winners were before the Derby.
You are comparing Saturday’s runners ratings before the Derby with with ratings of Derby winners AFTER they’ve past the post (after those past Derby winners had been assessed by the handicapper).ie You are not comparing horses “going into previous renewals”.
Golden Horn actually has a better OR than Dante and Derby winners Authorized, North Light and Motivator did going in to the race.
Value Is EverythingGod help us if the highest rated horse in the race winning means it’s a poor race.
The highest rated horse in the race is a doubtful stayer. To hit 125 he would need to improve for the step up in trip (and it would be a pretty exceptional Derby winner that hit 125 anyway) which is unlikely.
I’m saying if 118 is as good as he is and that is good enough to win a Derby then it is probably the poorest Derby I’ve rated since Oath, and he was pretty poor.
Where’s the beef with that?
That is exactly my point Maurice.
I am comparing the ratings of Saturday’s horses as they are going in to the stalls before the Derby with what past Derby winners were before the Derby.
You are comparing Saturday’s runners ratings before the Derby with with ratings of Derby winners AFTER they’ve past the post (after those past Derby winners had been assessed by the handicapper).Read my post again, Gt. I gave the ratings of past winners going into the race to provide the comparison. I also gave an idea of what they did subsequent to the race to show how the form of the race panned out. That has nothing to do with this year’s race other than illustrate what we might reasonably expect of them going forward.
Look at it another way.
Take the last 30 years.
Name the 5 best Derby winners.
How were they rated beforehand and what did they do subsequently?
What are the chances of any of this field emulating them?
BigG; I’m following you in with Moheet; supposedly has the right dosage for the race [not that I understand dosage]and only falls down on one stat. There may or may not be a big priced winner but I’m pretty sure there’s a nice priced placed horse in there somewhere.
BigG; I’m following you in with Moheet; supposedly has the right dosage for the race [not that I understand dosage]and only falls down on one stat. There may or may not be a big priced winner but I’m pretty sure there’s a nice priced placed horse in there somewhere.
I’ve been toying with that idea myself. There’s an item in the Weekender about big-priced outsiders making the frame.
BigG; I’m following you in with Moheet; supposedly has the right dosage for the race [not that I understand dosage]and only falls down on one stat. There may or may not be a big priced winner but I’m pretty sure there’s a nice priced placed horse in there somewhere.
Couldn’t agree more Moe, I’m very hopeful for a place, but wouldn’t it be rather nice if he came home in front. I was lucky with Night Of Thunder in the 2000 Guineas last year at similar odds, I’m hoping lightning can strike twice
Read my post again, Gt. I gave the ratings of past winners going into the race to provide the comparison. I also gave an idea of what they did subsequent to the race to show how the form of the race panned out. That has nothing to do with this year’s race other than illustrate what we might reasonably expect of them going forward.
No, you have not “given the ratings of past winners going into the race to provide the comparison”. You gave the ratings of the winners after they’ve passed the post and been reassessed by the handicaopper. Not comparing like with like.
In the post you begin by saying:
“I’m sure we’d all want to see a great race in which the subsequent form goes on to prove it was a cracking renewal but when it comes to form I find it pays not to get carried away but look soberly at what we’re faced with.
Anyway, as for the week’s race, How do they line up in terms of their current official ratings”?…You are saying this is a poor renewal of the Derby quoting Golden Horn’s 118 as evidence and comparing it with ratings of Derby winners after they’ve past the post. Yet going in to the race – Golden Horn’s 118 is BETTER than the last 3 Dante winners to go on to victory at Epsom, so it’s imo illogical to use Golden Horn as an example to suggest this is a poor renewal. And it is not only the favourite, Jack Hobbs has a rating 4 lbs better than another similar (unexposed) Dante runner-up Workforce did going in to the race. Elm Park’s 117 compares well with many staying bred Derby winners going in to the race.
It is too early to judge whether this is a poor renewal, there are several with current ratings comparable with pre-race ratings of past Derby winners.
On Timeform ratings Golden Horn only needs to improve 1 lb to win an average Derby. Jack Hobbs – with great potential to improve further on only his fourth run, given both his frame and first chance to race at 1m4f which looks likely to suit – only needs to improve 1 lb to place and only 7 lbs to win an average Derby.
https://www.timeform.com/racing/articles/the-timeform-knowledge-race-standardisation-2752015
Value Is Everything<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>stevecaution wrote:</div>
God help us if the highest rated horse in the race winning means it’s a poor race.The highest rated horse in the race is a doubtful stayer. To hit 125 he would need to improve for the step up in trip (and it would be a pretty exceptional Derby winner that hit 125 anyway) which is unlikely.
I’m saying if 118 is as good as he is and that is good enough to win a Derby then it is probably the poorest Derby I’ve rated since Oath, and he was pretty poor.
Where’s the beef with that?
Golden Horn doesn’t need to improve for the step up in trip. He is probably going to improve simply for time. He has gone from 90 to 111 to 118 on his last three starts and will probably improve again. He has a very similar profile to Taghrooda from last season, she improved markedly on her second third and fourth starts. 118 is actually the most conservative rating Golden Horn has. He is rated 122 by the Racing Post and 124p by Timeform. I think 125 puts Golden Horn into Authorized territory and I see similarities between those horses, if we assume the horse stays, and I think an awful lot is being made of his pedigree. At the end of the day the owner and trainer didn’t just stick him into the race for the crack, they must feel he’s more likely than not to be OK.
It seems counter intuitive to see the highest rated horse winning the race as a sign of poor quality. Surely anything lower winning it makes it even worse?
I had a pick through a Timeform article and the Dante ratings were given as:-
Golden Horn 124
Jack Hobbs 118
Elm Park 112Not surprisingly this is the highest rated trial. Golden Horn is deemed 6 lbs above the average winning Dante mark. Jack Hobbs 3 lbs above the average runner up and Elm Park 1 lb above the average 3rd.
Moving to the other trials Hans Holbein gets 112 for the Chester Vase, one 1lb above average in a trial described as won by barely group class horses, on the day, in recent years.
Kilimanjaro got a rating of 106 for the Lingfield Derby trial, 4 lbs below the average and Storm The Stars received 106 for winning the Cocked Hat, which was 2 lbs below the average winner and 3 lbs less than the mark he has for being runner up at Chester.
Zawraq was awarded 110 for the bare form of his trial win, which was an average for the race but was uprated to 116 for the way he won. Success Days got 114 for the Derrinstown win but the ground was soft there and the runner up was rated 18 lbs lower than the average for a runner up in the race. That leaves us with Giovanni Canaletto who was rated 107 for his Gallinule run, with the caveat that he can improve on that rating.
Logically I see the highest rated horse winning, and winning it well, as the best chance to rise above the mediocre. If Golden Horn patently doesn’t stay and one of the plodders wins, I can’t see how that makes it a good Derby.
The article I picked these figure from is here if anyone wants a read:-
Of course there is a lot more to it than just the ratings but the favourite looks as likely as most to improve further and I thought 3/1 with a run was fair value after the Dante.
We may see The Ante Post King barging past Aiden O Brien to lead Giovanni Canaletto in, but we were promised the sight of him doing that with Intillaq in the 2000 Guineas but the maiden winner forgot to read the script.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Apologies, part of my post crossed with the previous one in terms of some of the figures.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Here’s the Timeform free Derby race pass.
https://www.timeform.com/racing/RaceCard/Race/2015-06-06/16/5
Value Is EverythingI am not the one showing off !! I only did it in response to you lacking humility TAPK !!
I am still of the opinion that GC can not and will not win the Derby and also he is a ludicrous price considering what he has achieved!
No, you have not “given the ratings of past winners going into the race to provide the comparison”. You gave the ratings of the winners after they’ve passed the post and been reassessed by the handicaopper. Not comparing like with like.
In the post you begin by saying:
“I’m sure we’d all want to see a great race in which the subsequent form goes on to prove it was a cracking renewal but when it comes to form I find it pays not to get carried away but look soberly at what we’re faced with.
Anyway, as for the week’s race, How do they line up in terms of their current official ratings”?This is the post:
I’m sure we’d all want to see a great race in which the subsequent form goes on to prove it was a cracking renewal but when it comes to form I find it pays not to get carried away but look soberly at what we’re faced with.
So far I’ve got two bets in the race, HH ew at 66/1 with the win portion laid off at 11/1 and I plan to lay the place portion off while the a/p market is still there. I also took GC a couple of weeks ago. I’ll need to check my accounts for the price it was either 16/1 or 20/1 as I may have been confusing the price with the one I took about HH for the St Leger.Anyway, as for the week’s race, How do they line up in terms of their current official ratings?
Golden Horn (118) might stay well enough to win but that, for me, would mean it’s a poor race.
Elm Park (117) is tipped by Steve Miller in his dosage article. That would be strong grounds for optimism if I fancied the horse but I also found Simon Holt’s case against Elm Park’s overall form quite compelling leading up to the Guineas. Golden Horn’s fine performance in the Dante – it was well up there with past winners – still leaves Elm Park with 10lbs to find with the winner and then there’s Jack Hobbs likely to improve past Golden Horn anyway. Better judges than me are expressing doubts about JH’s maturity at this stage and EP’s ability to handle the track (based on the Breakfast gallop) and they’re saying he might not even run if the going quickens up again.
Success Days (117) looks like his OR is based more on the history of the Derrinstown than on the actual performance which was in heavy ground against very ordinary opposition who probably didn’t act in it. By Jeremy, he has to be a doubtful stayer although I wouldn’t have given him much chance of staying the 10f. He might be a freak, in which case he’s overpriced, but connections seem to think he needs it soft, which won’t happen.
Jack Hobbs (112) – see above
Epicuris (112) – is here due to technicalities
Zawraq (111) is the only other entry with an OR in the teens and he might not stay and has a late scare to set aside.That’s 5 entries with ORs of 110 or more, the best of which is 118.
2014: 7 of 16 had the rating, the top two of which were likely stayers and were first and second and the winner emerged with a new OR of 123.
2013: 6/12, 125 (Dawn Approach, miler), Ruler Of The World won, new OR 120 (Libertarian, Dante winner second top, second)
2012: 3/9, 120 (Camelot, won)
2011: 5/13, 117 (Seville unpl), Pour Moi (115) won, never raced again.Need I go on?
It all points to this being a very ordinary renewal.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.