- This topic has 28 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 24 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
You misunderstand Razeen. I am suggesting that Timeform is being inconsistent with itself in that Godolphin horses have particular high rating in relation to the very accurate ratings they otherwise produce. ÂÂÂ
I am using other sources only in comparing like with like.
Luke,
Dettori said the same thing about a whole series of Godolphin horses, every other season, or occasionally within a season, including Balanchine, Halling, Mark Of Esteem, Cape Verdi, Swain, Daylami, Intikhab, Daylami (again) and Dubai Millennium – and mark my words he will say it again as he is very happy to hype stud values for his employers.
Sunny bay – at any distance, on any going DM would not have got near Montjeu.
The first is a galloper who needs to dominate, the second is more versatile and has the ability to quicken off a fast pace (and was better anyway according to all ratings other than Timeform). How is it possible that DM could have beaten him?<br>
I’ve had enough. Infact I wonder why Jim agreed to answer questions at all. Perhaps the proviso should have been that he will answer questions, except difficult ones, in less than one sentence unless he could get away with one word.
So Jim thinks that Intikhab, Daylami and DM deserve their Timeform ratings. Intikhab is rated 135 by Timeform, yet the time figures he actually ran to were in the 120s. Let’s say he lined up against others deservingly rated by Timeform at 135 that were effective at at least a mile, in the past 50 years. The list looks something like: Dahlia, Known Fact, Kris, Le Moss, Match, Nashwan, Pebbles, Petoski, Right Royal, Royal Anthem, Sagace, Sassafras, Shadeed, Shahrastani, Shareef Dancer, Sir Ivor, St Jovite, Teenoso, The Minstrel, Trempolino.
Look at the races that these horses won with such authority – for example Sir Ivor won the Grand Criterium, 2,000 Guineas, Derby, Champion Stakes and the Washington DC International. Nashwan won the 2,000 Guineas, the Derby, the Eclipse and the King George. Dahlia won the Prix Saint-Alary, Grand Prix de Saint-Cloud, Irish Oaks, King George (twice), Benson & Hedges Gold Cup (twice), Washington International and the Man O’ War Stakes. There are a further assortment of Arc, King George, Derby, Oaks and Guineas winners all rated 135. And of course the mighty Intikhab – let’s remind ourselves what he won, oh yes, the Vodafone Diomed Stakes and the Queen Anne Stakes. Indeed highly commendable, but hardly anything to shout about in this sort of company. Had he lined up against this lot they would still be sending out the search parties!
Same goes for the other two both of which look very uncomfortable with horses rated exactly the same as them, as mentioned in my original question.
But I’ve had enough of this… I withdraw my question and remain particularly pleased that I don’t work for either Jimbo or Godolphin from their (I mean Timeform’s) Halifax base. <br>
I agree with your assessment of Intikhab SteveM, isn’t it possible that it was a misprint in the Annual and they really meant 125?! But seriously, they do seem to be a little guilty of believing the hype.
But to be fair, Timeform has come up with some pretty <br>wacky ratings in the past, particularly for 2-y-os in the 10 years or so after the war – Windy City’s mark of 141 (!) in 1952 is probably the maddest.
There was an interesting debate on the channel 4 site as to which was the better out of Dubai Millenium and Montjeu. I think Montjeu just came out best by about 60% to 40%. Personally I would have had one of my largest ever bets if they had raced each other, I am convinced that Montjeu would have easily beaten Dubai Millenium at 10 furlongs if both horses were at their best. <br>At a mile and a half I think Montjeu would have murdered him.<br>Just my opinion.<br>
No micky its not all about winning money! I am a racing fan and like to disscuss pre/post races reviews and views! Half majority are into solely gambling but the other half like to learn about as much about horse racing as they can from others and debate topics (like this one!) and they are not interested in winning money on this subject but just merely enjoying racing for the spectacle!
Don’t presume everybody is the same as you micky and should all share your views as ‘Chit-Chat’ would be pretty boring without disscussion on the finer points/News of the racing world would it not?
No, not for me Mickey, i have a passion for this sport, i like to gamble, shure, but i could stop of i wished and i’d still buy the racing post, watch the racing on tv, surf the web, read racing books etc etc. I love this sport, its not just about gambling me.
I won’t let this place turn into another evil forum where everyone slags off each other micky, there are plenty of those about already – the main rule here is you don’t be offensive to other members (debate is fine – until it becomes personal).
We have debated how active the administration should be and the overwhealming majority was to remove/edit personal offensive material, that may be a reason why the membership keeps growing as new members might not be so intimidated into posting for fear of being abused!!
Personally Mickey, I think you are incorrect with your assessment that the majority of members, voyeurs included are into betting. I would say they are into horse racing, of which betting is part of the whole package. I would also say that many fall into a category similar to Ali, where they bet, but could take it or leave it and still maintain a deep interest in the sport.
As members on this forum, we are grateful to Jim for taking the time to answer these questions, the fact that a very stimulating discussion resulted, especially for us voyeurs, was an added bonus that unfortunately doesn’t happen often enough here.
Your interest in racing may highlight with winning a few pounds off a seller at Catterick, that is your business, but for many, probably the majority, their interest is far broader.
Regarding the editing, I don’t know what you wrote, but a strong stance on abuse was widely supported by members and Daylight obviously thought you had transgressed that line, so I for one would have to go with his judgement.
Griff.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.