- This topic has 74 replies, 25 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
Exactly DJ.
If we were taking the optimum 12f on good ground conidtions, I would go for Authorized. As Flash says, there has to be every chance hes improving and remember that York just his sixth outing
DT’s sixth outing was the defeat in the Derby
The Irish derby form is hopeless Reet
Its a sport of opinions.
I never listen to anything trainers or jockeys say they’re a bit like football pundits – always experts after the event, rarely accurate before.
Now now boys,
Just look at the arguements caused by compiling your own ratings
I’m only joking with the above statement, but a serious question is, do any of you think that assessing form with the naked eye is better than assessing form via ratings.
I’ve never used ratings ever, and I am far from being an unsuccessful punter – my placepot blog is good proof of that at the moment (bit of a plug there).
Just a thought.
Mike
Now now boys,
Just look at the arguements caused by compiling your own ratings
I’m only joking with the above statement, but a serious question is, do any of you think that assessing form with the naked eye is better than assessing form via ratings.
I’ve never used ratings ever, and I am far from being an unsuccessful punter – my placepot blog is good proof of that at the moment (bit of a plug there).
Just a thought.
Mike
I don’t think there is any right or wrong way people do what suits them best. If it works then its correct.
I rarely bet just on the back of ratings, I use them as a guide but that is all.
Know your horses, the more you know about a horse the more chance you have got.
So anyone who doesn’t agree with your ratings is being assumptive and isn’t being objective?
You have, perhaps deliberately, got the wrong end of the stick.
It’s not about the accuracy or otherwise of my ratings. It’s about having some credible independent means of measuring performance and drawing assumptions from that rather than making individual assumptions and extrapolating measurements of performance from them.
Or, in other words, not allowing the tail to wag the dog.
Somehow, I think you won’t be convinced.
- Total Posts 17716
It’s not about the accuracy or otherwise of my ratings. It’s about having some credible independent means of measuring performance and drawing assumptions from that rather than making individual assumptions and extrapolating measurements of performance from them.
Or, in other words, not allowing the tail to wag the dog.
On the contrary, I believe it is you who is allowing the tail of your ratings to wag the dog of the horses’s ability.
Looking at it objectively, DT’s performance in the Irish Derby was at least 7lbs better than anything he achieved previously, (RPR 124+ from 117), for which there has to be a reason. He was ridden differently to the Epsom Derby, and normal improvement may account for some of the change but, given it was such a scintillating performance, there had to be a reason for such a radical rise in the horse’s ability, the most obvious reason being the ground, a view since endorsed by both his jockey and his trainer.
From there, he went on to disappoint in the soft ground Juddmonte, (RPR 114), before showing further improvement on the faster ground of the Irish Champion, (128). After an abortive run on the dirt of the Breeders’s Cup, he was finished for the season.
Starting this season with an easy listed win on a fast-ground Curragh(110), he then went on to a very easy victory in the Prix Ganay, again on fast ground(125).
He then proceeded to disappoint on rain-softened ground at the Curragh where, although he achieved a rating of 127, he was unable to find his customary burst of pace to peg back Notnowcato. On to Ascot where, in a slowly run race on good ground, he did produce that pace but was unable to get to the speedier Manduro (128).
On to the King George, where he did again produce that burst of pace (130) but, despite the official going being g/s, he did it on the straight part of the course where they haven’t had anything approaching soft ground since the straight was rebuilt 2 years ago.
Lastly, at York last week, again on rain-softened ground (128) where he was again unable to quicken at the business end of the race.
So there you have it, a highly consistent and progressive horse over the last 2 seasons and still improving, but littered with an inability to produce that bit of extra pace when there is juice in the ground.
Your ratings might not tell you that, my form study does, and that, coupled with what can be gleaned from connections, will do for me.rating without taking account of conditions is madness imo
By which, in this context, I took you to mean that ratings should be arrived at subjectively, based on preconceptions about horses’ requirements in order to "prove" those requirements.
(Unless you disbelieve both his trainer and his jockey).
I would not be the only one who disbelieved a great deal that both this and other trainers and jockeys say.
Other than that, you have made some sort of a case for why Dylan Thomas might be a significantly better horse on ground faster than he has encountered on his last four starts. You did that by reference to an independent means of evaluating his performances to date. You were speaking my language at last.
I don’t happen to agree with your interpretation – or with the explanations you have forwarded for some of Dylan Thomas’ previous efforts – but that I hope we can both live with.
I remain mystified as to why you can’t see that this point – that statements about a horse’s aptitude and ability should be based on evidence rather than assumptions or hearsay – was the one I was trying to make rather than to claim for myself some sort of primacy in terms of ratings or the interpretation of those ratings.
There are some lovely knitting patterns in Women’s Weekly, I’ve heard.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.