- This topic has 97 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
You are being condescending Ginger Tipster, Britain didnt make Australian racing. We manage our racing better than your administrators, have you heard? apparently there was a global financial crisis!!! We didnt know! And your comment ‘surely you dont think all 4yo’s are better than 3yo’s’, dont try and twist words. If you like to go far enough back into breeding the Queen along with the rest of us are come from a line of Neanderthal man. You are a little too obsessed with numbers,margins,ratings,thats fine if you want to try and make your 10% each year,sound judgement in horse flesh is more valuable when making an assessment on a horses ability. although i know already you wont agree
Not "condescending at all Jollyp.
Just saying the catalyst for improvement in quality of Australian racing is better breeding. Better breeding that has come predominately from Britain, Ireland, France and USA. Shuttling horses like Danehill has also helped. With sires doing covering seasons in both hemisperes.It just seems wrong of you not to aknowledge the influx of breeding as the main catalyst for improvement in Australian racing. British bloodstock started with the Arabian influence. Darly Arabian, Briary Turk etc. Also, if Britain/Ireland had not brought in Northern Dancer stock in the 1960’s and 70’s we’d be in a worse situation today. Had USA not enhanced their bloodstock many many years ago by taking in British blood; they would never be in their position today. Japan has taken some of our best lines over recent decades. Of course Australians deserve credit (a) for bringing horses in from elsewhere and (b) for doing so well with those horses and progeny.
I’ve enjoyed our discussion Jollyp. Please realise though, if you’re going to tell us about how good Australian racing is and all our so called faults….. You should expect some defence and for it to be reciprocated.
I actually like Australian Racing, as I’ve said before there are things about it I prefer. Particularly willingness to run horses at vastly different trips. Sometimes stay up / get up early for the Melbourne Cup.
Wish you all the best Jollyp and hope So You Think shuttles to Australia/New Zealand when his racing career is over.
Value Is EverythingKris Diesis,
Yes it does matter that he is a 3yo when people want to say he is the best,only mature horses who have trained on can claim that. I for one am not bagging the horse,he may well earn the title of ‘the best’.Though experience tells me not to get carried away before he is just as awesome against the mature Group 1 ers.An experienced person will tell you Canford Cliffs wasn’t right you didn’t have to be Einstein to see it.Wear and tear on the joints or sesamoiditis could have been the problem reading between the lines.He shifted out under pressure like a horse may do under those circumstances.
I know Timeform is not the be all and end all of horse ratings, but they have been rating horses over here for over 60 years, and using a Timeform rating of 140 as a benchmark for greatness would seem a fairly sensible assumption. The following horses never raced after 3, Sea Bird, Tudor Minstrel, Dancing Brave, Sea The Stars, Shergar and Vaguely Noble. Not including Frankel who obviously has not had the opportunity to race at 4 although the intention is for him to stay in training, that is half of all the other "great" horses.
Are you seriously suggesting that none of that illustrious band of horses cannot be called great because they never ran after their 3 year-old campaign?
If Canford Cliff has sesamoiditis or something similar why not say it. This is what was actually reported.
"He has a bit of a shadow on the joint running into the pastern and that could turn into something nasty – it could turn into a fracture," said Hannon.
Hannon added: "He’s a perfectly sound horse and I could very nearly go on training him, but under that light, I don’t want to do the horse any damage as he’s done us so proud."
So there we have it from the horses mouth, so to speak. The horse was perfectly sound, a bit of a shadow that could be nasty but evidently isn’t.
It all looks a bit cloak and dagger to me. The horse was shattered by Frankel. To me it seems the Coolmore operation are trying to put a spin on the facts to show Canford in the best possible light, not that he needs it, he was a very fine colt, just unlucky to up against a great colt in Frankel.
Ginger Tipster,
Firstly i think the quality of your horses is very good, my point is more so with the administration, you have all the infrastucture and there is no reason why your prizemoney should not be much greater. To be fair Ginger Tipster the quality of horse and the racing and prizemoney in Australia has been strong since the late 1800’s.It is really only in modern times that allow the long traveling distance to race internationally. Yes we have had some very good influence from UK/European stallions,more so with American horses first. Though first and foremost we have have been going well here for a long time. So i suppose my point is we haven’t just been ‘made’. Also when mentioning our current outstanding crop of 3yo’s i forgot to mention Sepoy 7 wins and a narrow second behind Smart Missile from 8 starts. He kicks off his campaign at Moonee Valley on Friday night in the Group 1 Manikato Stakes, he is probably the horse here who can get closest to Black Caviar.
A top class Group 1 horse yes, but So You Think is not in the same league as Frankel.
Tell me what Frankel has EVER done that is so mindblowing that proves he is clearly above a horse like SYT?
Beating class animals by wide margins.With form franked time after time after time.
A bunch of restricted class wins and another against a lame horse?
Just because a race is restricted to three year olds, does not prevent a horse putting up a truly exceptional performance (eg 2000 Guineas). Shergar’s outstanding Derby victory another of its type.
Even if taking out the "lame horse" Canford Cliffs from the Sussex Stakes, it can be measured by the running of consistent Rio De La Plata. Comparing distances beaten in the Queen Anne at Ascot (behind Canford Cliffs and Goldikova) and behind Frankel at Goodwood. Frankel produced a better performance to beat Rio than did Canford, suggesting strongly that even had the latter ran to form at Goodwood, he’d still have been well beaten. Ratings for Frankel’s Sussex win are NOT based on Canford Cliffs.That is not enough I’m afraid, and I think you’d have realised that if you’d applied yourself as much to dissecting who Frankel has been running against as you did to SYT’s rivals.
Not enough? What do you want, blood?
Once again, form Frank(el)ed by first four home in the Moulin on Sept 11. Sussex third and fourth Rio De La Plata and Rejsaman filling second and third. Beaten by far less a margin than in July. Winner and fourth there, Excelebration well beaten in both Greenham and St James’s Palace and Dubawi Gold in 2000 and St James’s, so Moulin 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th had all been trounced (with a Capital T) by the Wonder Horse. Me thinks it is you AIC who should "apply yourself" better.Another thing, this (predominately UK based?) trend of using winning margins and using them as absolutely literal proof of differences between horses that have never raced against each other is to me quite flawed.
Your dismissal AIC is flawed, as it is not predominately UK based, but Worldwide. Distances as margins of superiority are not fool proof or "literal", sometimes exaggerate or understate margins of superiority. But if you don’t want any collaterol form used as evidence, allows me to the claim of being the best sprinter in the World, having never met Mr. Bolt in a race.
Pace can have a great affect, so too idling or type of win. Of course racehorses are not machines and can run 1, 2 or 22 lbs below form. Even so, distanaces are one of the best ways to judge racehorses, especially when racing against consistent types and/or in tandem with time performance (comared to other races at the meeting and pace). Certainly a better judgement can be made with distances and collaterol form than number of races won or Group 1 races won as you seem to suggest. Just because a horse wins two Group 1’s by a short head, it would be as ridiculous to claim it is better than one that’s won one Group 1 of equal status by six lengths. As it is to suggest winning eight such races is any better than one or two exceptional performances. So You Think is a corageous, genuine, consistent, top class animal; and deserves awards for being so. But his form rating does not yet, and probably never will reach that of Frankel. Under your criteria AIC, Goldikova and Zenyatta are infinitely better than So You Think, I don’t think so.Does not take into account horses that love the fight, or pace in a race, or preferred racing styles and patterns or even the weather conditions on the day (hard track soft track etc).
Softer ground can exaggerate but allowed for in measuring. Pace in the race can have a great affect, so too idling or type of win. One who comes with a late flourish might not show his/her full merit (on form). There is a case to suggest if finding a genuine racehorse he can outbattle one with seemingly "superior" form. But this is another thing to take in to account when assessing chance of winning.
If this sort of "horseracing maths" existed we’d back the winner in nearly every race on every card. Just doesn’t work that way and you know it.
Just because something has the best "form" as in, the best meritted performance so far; does not mean it will win or even have the best chance of winning. There is an almost infinite amount of things to take in to account before betting. Including trainer form, jockeyship, temperament, pace, ground, distance raced over, breeding, headgear, track, likely progression etc. Then there is the "horseracing maths" that really does count… V A L U E (Sorry Reet) when having a bet….
But we are not talking here about what horse will win, or what horse is value to win are we? It is how good each horse is given optimum conditions. ie In this case it IS in fact "FORM" (distances) that matter. Of course an idle or hold up horse might be a little better than his "form rating", but this is not an exact science after all.Thanks for the detailed reply Gingertipster.
My taking exception is with the way an opinion is worded. I remember living in a world where we didn’t use exaggerated language every 2nd sentence and ‘the greatest of all time’ wasn’t spat out every time some goldfish (poor memory or just selective?) with an agenda (stud fees? regional loyalty?) sees a damn good horse.
To say Frankel is in a different class to SYT without them ever having raced is to me just americanesque type sensationalism.
In Australia they do the same thing every time a good horse comes along – is it the greatest ever? X would’ve beaten Y every day of the week! Z is in a different class and anyone who doesn’t think that is clueless!!!!!!
Although I do agree with you that value is everything. It just so happens I punt purely on value, and hype certainly helps create value (or destroy it) which a smart person can then use to his advantage.
And the fact is the SYT hype got dissected and ridiculed yet the Frankel hype has escaped a similar sort of attention and diagnosis. He’s certainly a cracking galloper but he really needs to race in and win 8-9-10 or more open class G1 races before he can be called anything like the greatest galloper ever.
For the record I think SYT is a damn good horse but I doubt he’s running any better in europe than he did in Australia. Now, in Australia there are people who rate SYT the best middle distance galloper since Kingston Town – my opinion is these people are peas in a pod with the people over in pommie who say things like in this thread about Frankel. Is it just attention seeking oneupsmanship? I don’t think everything back in the day is necessarily better but off the top of my head I reckon Northerly, Might and Power, Saintly, Rubiton, Red Anchor, Vo Rogue and Better Loosen Up could all have beaten SYT over 2000m on any given day.
Just my opinion!
Not "condescending at all Jollyp.
Just saying the catalyst for improvement in quality of Australian racing is better breeding. Better breeding that has come predominately from Britain, Ireland, France and USA. Shuttling horses like Danehill has also helped. With sires doing covering seasons in both hemisperes.It just seems wrong of you not to aknowledge the influx of breeding as the main catalyst for improvement in Australian racing. British bloodstock started with the Arabian influence. Darly Arabian, Briary Turk etc. Also, if Britain/Ireland had not brought in Northern Dancer stock in the 1960’s and 70’s we’d be in a worse situation today. Had USA not enhanced their bloodstock many many years ago by taking in British blood; they would never be in their position today. Japan has taken some of our best lines over recent decades. Of course Australians deserve credit (a) for bringing horses in from elsewhere and (b) for doing so well with those horses and progeny.
I’ve enjoyed our discussion Jollyp. Please realise though, if you’re going to tell us about how good Australian racing is and all our so called faults….. You should expect some defence and for it to be reciprocated.
I actually like Australian Racing, as I’ve said before there are things about it I prefer. Particularly willingness to run horses at vastly different trips. Sometimes stay up / get up early for the Melbourne Cup.
Wish you all the best Jollyp and hope So You Think shuttles to Australia/New Zealand when his racing career is over.
I think the shuttle stallions have undoubtedly been great for Australian racing but balancing that is our best 3 stallions down here at the moment are Encosta De Lago, Lohnro and Redoute’s Choice, and I doubt many UK racing followers would have heard of any of them.
Thanks for the detailed reply Gingertipster.
My taking exception is with the way an opinion is worded. I remember living in a world where we didn’t use exaggerated language every 2nd sentence and ‘the greatest of all time’ wasn’t spat out every time some goldfish (poor memory or just selective?) with an agenda (stud fees? regional loyalty?) sees a damn good horse.
To say Frankel is in a different class to SYT without them ever having raced is to me just americanesque type sensationalism.
In Australia they do the same thing every time a good horse comes along – is it the greatest ever? X would’ve beaten Y every day of the week! Z is in a different class and anyone who doesn’t think that is clueless!!!!!!
Although I do agree with you that value is everything. It just so happens I punt purely on value, and hype certainly helps create value (or destroy it) which a smart person can then use to his advantage.
And the fact is the SYT hype got dissected and ridiculed yet the Frankel hype has escaped a similar sort of attention and diagnosis. He’s certainly a cracking galloper but he really needs to race in and win 8-9-10 or more open class G1 races before he can be called anything like the greatest galloper ever.
For the record I think SYT is a damn good horse but I doubt he’s running any better in europe than he did in Australia. Now, in Australia there are people who rate SYT the best middle distance galloper since Kingston Town – my opinion is these people are peas in a pod with the people over in pommie who say things like in this thread about Frankel. Is it just attention seeking oneupsmanship? I don’t think everything back in the day is necessarily better but off the top of my head I reckon Northerly, Might and Power, Saintly, Rubiton, Red Anchor, Vo Rogue and Better Loosen Up could all have beaten SYT over 2000m on any given day.
Just my opinion!
AIC,
I totally agree, media do exaggerate, and we have a responsibility to keep it real. However, we also have responsibility to tell it as it is, and not to dumn down a rating just because it’s abnormal. Form is form is form. Of course we should be cautious if there is only one form line to suggest a supreme rating. But when form gets franked again and again and is backed up by times, then we should believe it.It’s not just one or two people who believe Frankel is something special.
My form book suppliers (
Timeform
) make their money through being factual and accurate. They’re not given to superlatives. If they give a supreme rating which is not deserved and not lived up to – then their reputation diminishes. I know most breeders get
Timeform Racehorses
annuals (even Australian bloodstock firms) because of their accuracy.
I agree with you, I’d have So You Think’s European runs on the same rating as his Australian form. Is after all an established five year old. However, do think you’re doing SYT down a bit.
Timeform
opened their essay on So You Think in
Racehorses Of 2010
by saying:
"
Ratings for the best Australian and New Zealand horses have become an established part of Racehorses annuals since they were first included in 1998, but none of the thousands of horses assessed from that part of the world during this period has been rated more highly than So You Think. Harbinger apart, his Timeform rating (133) would have made So You Think a match for any horse trained in Europe
".
(Goldikova was rated 133 too, so with her sex allowance it could be argued she was "better").
I wish Australians would not see the European opinion of the So You Think / Frankel debate as doing down So You Think. It is just that Frankel is such a freak, as form (not sentiment) suggests. I believe the current Timeform rating for So You Think is 134, Frankel is 142. It may be the former’s style of racing means he does not fully show his full ability, but very much doubt it is an 8 lb difference.
Value Is EverythingI think the shuttle stallions have undoubtedly been great for Australian racing but balancing that is our best 3 stallions down here at the moment are Encosta De Lago, Lohnro and Redoute’s Choice, and I doubt many UK racing followers would have heard of any of them.
The breeding of thoroughbreds has been completely international for some time now. Australia and New Zealand are in no different position from all the other racing/breeding nations, although the sheer size of the foal production in the USA tends to dwarf the others and skew their figures just a bit.
However some people might say to you that in their fourth generations (16 forebears):
Encosta de Lago – 16 of 16 forebears are from outside Australasia
Redoute’s Choice – 15 of 16 forebears are from outside Australasia
Lohnro – 15 of 16 forebears are from outside AustralasiaBut you could reply that for the two top stallions based in GB
Oasis Dream – 14 of 16 forebears are from outside GB (and IRE for that matter)
Dansili – 12 of 16 forebears are from outside GB and IREAnd in the recent history of legendary Irish-based stallions, Galileo, Danehill and Sadlers Wells do not have an single Irish bred forebear in their fourth generation. A fair amount of USA, a modest amount of GB, and a sprinkling of FR, ITY, GER and ARG.
Two of the greatest stallions ever produced in North America, Northeren Dancer and Bold Ruler (seven consecutive stallion championships) had a minority of blood from their own continent. Northern Dancer having 10 out of 16 "foreigners" and Bold Ruler 11 from 16 "foreigners".
Australian racehorses and stallions having a lot of foreign blood is just par for the course in such a global business.
Sepoy! After a scintillating win in the $500 000 Group 1 Manikato Stakes tonight it seems the Darley owned colt is to go the UK to stand at stud and possibly race,he is a superstar.
Saw the race Jollyp. Didn’t get the best break yet forced up the inner to take it up. Impressive in going clear. Be nice to see him over here. "Superstar" ummmm, as AIC might say, at the moment a little exaggeration? Potentially yes.
Value Is EverythingI have questioned Frankel every step of the way, and took Canford Cliffs to beat him. But I’ll tell you why on the formbook people speak in such awe of Frankel. BTW I disagree with Timeform on plenty of their ratings, they aren’t as scientific as I expect such an organization should be.
Goldikova is a terrific miler and one of the all time great mares. I’d actually argue that she isn’t quite as brilliant on the day as her lofty reputation suggests; I think she’s been elevated to that level because of the quantity of consistently top class performances rather than a scintillating LEVEL of form. But nobody would argue that she is a great miler.
Canford Cliffs took her apart at Ascot. There are no excuses, and she was pretty much at her best, no argument there (though some may argue that she’s regressed with age).
Frankel beat Canford Cliffs very cozily. It’s clear that CC didn’t run to form. He was different class in every way to Rio de la Plata at Ascot, quickening in the manner of a superior horse (Rio was asked to go early, but there is no comparing his sprint to CC’s). In the Sussex, CC was matched by that horse in the run and the sprint to the line. So he was below form.
But I and most people think that at his best CC wouldn’t have beaten Frankel. Frankel had lengths on the line and maybe more up his sleeve. In the best case scenario, if Frankel had nothing in the tank, MAYBE CC would get beaten under a length. Most think that there is no way CC would have beaten Frankel, and that is the same Canford Cliffs who took care of Goldikova with ease. So basically, Frankel is an animal capable of cozily beating a horse (Canford) who is capable of cozily beating Goldikova.
Plus, there is the possibility for more over 1m2f with Frankel, which adds to the excitement.
But I and most people think that at his best CC wouldn’t have beaten Frankel. Frankel had lengths on the line and maybe more up his sleeve. In the best case scenario, if Frankel had nothing in the tank, MAYBE CC would get beaten under a length. Most think that there is no way CC would have beaten Frankel, and that is the same Canford Cliffs who took care of Goldikova with ease. So basically, Frankel is an animal capable of cozily beating a horse (Canford) who is capable of cozily beating Goldikova.
Plus, there is the possibility for more over 1m2f with Frankel, which adds to the excitement.
Do you actually believe Canford Cliffs at his best is only 1L inferior to Frankel?
I re-iterate Canford Cliffs appeared to run below form because he was asked to sustain an unrelenting pace after the first 2 furlongs, he was cooked with 3F still to go when Frankel was still travelling on the bit, he just couldn’t go any faster! If Queally had pushed the button a furlong earlier Frankel would have won by at least 8L.
Canford Cliffs was a very good colt and able to produce a telling turn of foot when opossed by ordinary Group 1 class horses rated in low to mid 120’s, which made him an outstanding colt in an otherwise average era for milers perhaps Goldikova apart, whom I consider marginally inferior to Canford Cliffs. Don’t forget Goldikova’s jockey put up 2lb overweight at Ascot, which makes them almost identical in mathematical terms but I suspect CC hand a little bit in hand that day.
The thing is Frankel in not just above average. Frankel is quite simply the most brilliant horse I’ve ever seen and I suspect will ever see. If he stays sound I’m convinced he will eventually achieve the highest rating ever.
He has reproduced his brilliance time and again, the form gets backed up time and time again. Horses he completely demolishes are winning top class race after top class race. Today at Longchamp the form was boosted yet again when Rajsaman just got the better of Rio De La Plata in the Prix Wildenstein, as you may remember both beaten a long way by Frankel at Goodwood.
I said that would be my best case scenario (Frankel had nothing left in the locker, Canford ridden in such a way to show his best), Canford might come within under a length. Give him a length for hanging and being eased down, more for his clear superiority over Rio and maybe a bit more for the improvement that may come if he was ridden not to track Frankel but where the horse is comfortable, and on that note there were pre-race concerns about his liking for the track. But Frankel would still beat him.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.