- This topic has 109 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
Fair enough hope he gets under estimated off the back of it then as on a quicker surface he travels more smoother than that today, and picks up without any question, ok he was up against a better class of opposition today but coming from out the back done it the hard way on todays evidence.
Charles Darwin to conquer the World
GH never really settled even after he stopped pulling, but I wouldn’t rule out that he’s been beaten by a better horse on the ground and on the day. It was the first time in a year the filly has run on ground with cut, also, her owner is no braggart or fool, and he had a strong belief she was well up to this class. Time will tell.
Agree. Also the winner had pulled very hard in her previous races. She did today initially but seemed to settle much better once she got a lead off the pacemaker. Possible that others ran below form on the ground but she’s still improved and it’s too soon to write it off as a total freak result
Congratulations to David Elsworth, nice to see him back in the big time. Early days were spent not 100yrds from where I am sitting and went to the village school with my mum.
Value Is EverythingWell clearly the fillies can’t be that bad when compared to the colts. I imagine the connections of Golden Horn are ruing their decision not to run in the King George.
The ground couldn’t have been much worse there than it was today and I reckon he would have lagged up, although hindsight is a wonderful thing.
The best horse on the day won and deserved victory, Dettori could
nt settle Golden Horn even though he had a pace maker doing a good job for him, so big head Dettori is a lot to blame,as usual he blamed his horse,because it wasnt a steering job. He is not the brilliant jockey the media claim him to be,he was good back in his day.But now he is way past his best and blames the horse when his flaws are revealed.A bit quick to write Time Test off Steve.
TGG wasn’t that far ahead of TT.I am not sure the Grey Gatsby ran to his best either today Nathan. It seems unlikely Golden Horn ran to 130 today, as the filly was only rated 109 coming in and is unlikely to have found a stone and a half out of thin air.
I have nothing against Time Test, other than the notion that he was the same rating as Golden Horn, for winning in group 3 company, versus a horse who had won a Derby.
Those were the Timeform figures, whereas the official handicapper had Time Test on 116 and a stone behind Golden Horn.
The closeness of Time Test to The Grey Gatsby has to be offset by the proximity of the pacemaker just behind Time Test.
Dick Doughtywylie was only beaten half a length by Time Test, yet he is a horse rated 99 on turf. It opens a whole can of worms about what you do about a 109 horse winning and a 99 horse not beaten far, when a gorse rated 130 was in the race?
I don’t envy the assessor’s job in trying to make the figures form some semblance of sense after this boil over.
My issue was always that Time Test was a silly price coming in and, however it transpired, it turned out to be proven accurate as far as the result went.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
The one thing all of us watching can’t appreciate is the feel that the horse is giving the jockey during a race – I don’t doubt Dettori’s comment that he couldn’t quicken in the same way he does on faster ground because you could visually see he was making very heavy weather of getting on terms with the winner up the straight.
I personally think Dettori’s problems started immediately after the stalls opened when his pacemaker missed the break and was rushed up past GH to get to the front – that lit him up and he was always loosing the battle to get him to drop the bridle to conserve energy. That wasted energy cost him dear when he got tired after hitting the front and is probably the reason why he veered away from the whip in the last furlong as he had nothing left in the tank.
That being said I think the winner has run a lifetime best on ground that she has not encountered so far this season (she won a G2 last year on soft) and on only her second try at 10F (her dam’s side indicates that she would improve for going up in trip). Also bear in mind that if she herself had settled better in the early stages, she probably would have won by a bit further.
I heard that the plan for her is to go to Champions Day for the Filly & Mare Turf over 12F and then come back next year for a crack at the Arc – ambitious but fillies can very rapidly improve with age and time may tell that GH didn’t run too badly today afterall.
Some of the analysis and labelling of Gleneagles, on here and elsewhere, as a hype horse is bordering on hysterical nonsense and a few seem to have lost their normal faculties.
Unbeaten since his debut
Maiden then 5 wins at two
Including Tyros and Futurity
Wins two group 1s as 2yo
Including the best 2yo race in Ireland & best 2yo race in France (FPTP only)
Unbeaten at 3 including two classics and St James Place Stakes.That ladies and gentlemen is a career.
Couldn’t agree more. He is a top miler and has won every race since his debut. He has a magnificent physique and in hindsight the boys made the right decision. I believe on rattling ground he would out battle golden horn as his speed is superior to gh. Btw as regards fillies I wonder if the ballydoyle team wished they had run legatissimo. Result similar to tapestry toppling taghrooda last year. One last thing. How come Australia gets a rating 5 below golden horn when gh only beat tgg by a length more. All about opinions and I think Australia was grossly underrated due to one bad ride in the Irish champion. Huge well done to David Ellsworth and Geoff smith.
We sometimes forget how good a trainer David Elsworth is, I can’t quite believe it is 25 years since In The Groove came from last to first to win this very race under the peerless Steve Cauthen.
After reading some more of the excellent posts on here, I’m reflecting again on how GH never settled and the criticism of Dettori. Whatever you think of him as a person or of how his riding has panned out in his later years, watching him this season, one of the features of his riding has been that ability to switch a horse off.
I’ve seen him do it superbly on numerous occasions, and I don’t watch that much Flat stuff. I know I’m always banging on about factors other than form and the importance of what happens in a race, but I think that a settled horse, by nature or by jockey skills, is a potent force. It might be even more important to one like Golden Horn who is normally so well balanced. That balance, allied to a settled rhythm is worth many pounds in a race.
Only Frankie can judge how much energy the horse might have used after he’d stopped the obvious pulling. To me, his head was constantly moving, fighting the bit, nervy-looking (it looks to me to have an obvious effect on his action, too). The only time he looked happy in himself was when he was racing all out.
Although he was at his most impressive formwise in The Derby, Golden Horn’s Dante win was the one which, for me, was his most impressive visually regarding his power, balance and acceleration. That, of course, was under a different jockey, so perhaps Frankie does not get the best out of this particular horse despite his skills. I wondered too if Gosden would take any offence at Frankie’s post-race comment about missing the King George having caused the horse to be too fresh today. I know they’re good friends, but Mr Gosden seems to me a man with an ego of some size (and some would argue he’s entitled to it).
Anyway, I just wondered if W Buick might yet find himself back aboard.
LD73Participant
Total Posts 54
Is it really 25 yrs?, I was there with my late dad and had a massive £40 @13/8 (massive for me) and smiled for the rest of the day.
Steve Cauthen was and still is my favourite ever sportsman, what a shame we don’t see or hear of him more often.
We sometimes forget how good a trainer David Elsworth is, I can’t quite believe it is 25 years since In The Groove came from last to first to win this very race under the peerless Steve Cauthen.
The one thing all of us watching can’t appreciate is the feel that the horse is giving the jockey during a race – I don’t doubt Dettori’s comment that he couldn’t quicken in the same way he does on faster ground because you could visually see he was making very heavy weather of getting on terms with the winner up the straight.
I personally think Dettori’s problems started immediately after the stalls opened when his pacemaker missed the break and was rushed up past GH to get to the front – that lit him up and he was always loosing the battle to get him to drop the bridle to conserve energy. That wasted energy cost him dear when he got tired after hitting the front and is probably the reason why he veered away from the whip in the last furlong as he had nothing left in the tank.
That being said I think the winner has run a lifetime best on ground that she has not encountered so far this season (she won a G2 last year on soft) and on only her second try at 10F (her dam’s side indicates that she would improve for going up in trip). Also bear in mind that if she herself had settled better in the early stages, she probably would have won by a bit further.
I heard that the plan for her is to go to Champions Day for the Filly & Mare Turf over 12F and then come back next year for a crack at the Arc – ambitious but fillies can very rapidly improve with age and time may tell that GH didn’t run too badly today afterall.
High Celebrity was one of the leading fancies for the 1000 Guineas when she went off 4/9 favourite for the Cherry Hinton at the Newmarket July meeting last season.
I watched Arabian Queen beat her that day and there didn’t seem much fluke about it, so I made a note that she would be worth backing again, so long as the ground was soft. I didn’t have to wait long, as it was soft the next time she ran and I also thought that the 7f of the Sweet Solera would suit, given that Arabian Queen seemed to have improved for stepping up from 5f to 6f.
In that race, I was keen to oppose the Godolphin favourite, and that proved correct, as she was beaten favourite, however Arabian Queen was a disappointing 5th that day and I more or less put a line through her afterwards. Her next run, dropped in trip and up against speed machine Tiggy Wiggy on fast ground was a fools errand and the run could easily be forgiven.
She kicked off this season well with a good win in a group 3 at Epsom but it wasn’t a strong race at all and it now looks foolish that they dropped her back in trip from 9f to 8f and ran her at group 1 level on fast ground. She did better up in trip in the Nassau, where it was fast ground again and I suppose with the trip today and the slower going, it now looks obvious in retrospect that she should run her best race of the season, with the first time that going and trip were both in her favour.
Still a shocker but at least there were some clues there along the way and she was running in her 4th consecutive Group 1, compared to Time Test, who was handicap and group 3 the previous two races.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Nathan Hughes wrote:</div>
A bit quick to write Time Test off Steve.
TGG wasn’t that far ahead of TT.I am not sure the Grey Gatsby ran to his best either today Nathan. It seems unlikely Golden Horn ran to 130 today, as the filly was only rated 109 coming in and is unlikely to have found a stone and a half out of thin air.
I have nothing against Time Test, other than the notion that he was the same rating as Golden Horn, for winning in group 3 company, versus a horse who had won a Derby.
Those were the Timeform figures, whereas the official handicapper had Time Test on 116 and a stone behind Golden Horn.
The closeness of Time Test to The Grey Gatsby has to be offset by the proximity of the pacemaker just behind Time Test.
Dick Doughtywylie was only beaten half a length by Time Test, yet he is a horse rated 99 on turf. It opens a whole can of worms about what you do about a 109 horse winning and a 99 horse not beaten far, when a gorse rated 130 was in the race?
I don’t envy the assessor’s job in trying to make the figures form some semblance of sense after this boil over.
My issue was always that Time Test was a silly price coming in and, however it transpired, it turned out to be proven accurate as far as the result went.
No, Timeform did not rate Time Test the same as Golden Horn.
Seems you rightfully conclude Golden Horn and The Grey Gatsby ran below form, but want to judge Time Test by Dick Doubtywylie.Value Is EverythingStill a shocker but at least there were some clues there along the way and she was running in her 4th consecutive Group 1, compared to Time Test, who was handicap and group 3 the previous two races.
Is there any actual form line that you do not like Steve?
If Time Test was so badly over-rated then please explain the Ascot time? Or was every other Royal Ascot race slowly run?Sometimes a horse puts up a Group 1 performance in a Group 3.
If it is wrong to rate a horse so highly just because it has not won in the grade, then it must have been wrong for Timeform to have said of Golden Horn after debut Nottingham Maiden win (amongst other superlatives) “Group horse in the making”.
Value Is Everything<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>stevecaution wrote:</div>
Still a shocker but at least there were some clues there along the way and she was running in her 4th consecutive Group 1, compared to Time Test, who was handicap and group 3 the previous two races.Is there any actual form line that you do not like Steve?
If Time Test was so badly over-rated then please explain the Ascot time? Or was every other Royal Ascot race slowly run?Sometimes a horse puts up a Group 1 performance in a Group 3.
If it is wrong to rate a horse so highly just because it has not won in the grade, then it must have been wrong for Timeform to have said of Golden Horn after debut Nottingham Maiden win (amongst other superlatives) “Group horse in the making”.
I’ve always been of the view that the time of the race, and more specifically, the sectional times are of paramount importance in understanding the way in which a race has been run and by extension, the relative performances of the horses in the race.
That being said, as somebody who will always use his stopwatch [both on the flat & over jumps] to break-down a race, I can categorically say that the clock (when used as a comparative tool) does not always tell the whole, or even the accurate, story.
The issue in what you (and Timeform who gave him a ludicrous 130 rating) are saying is that it not only is incompatible with the formbook but that it outright contradicts the form book.
If Time Test was so badly over-rated then please explain the Ascot time? Or was every other Royal Ascot race slowly run?
If you were to take that Time Test is a Group 1 animal (or a 125-130 rated animal) then you would also have to argue that Peacock and Mustadeem (who both raced in less advantageous positions than Time Test that day yet were only 3-4 lengths behind him) were 115-120 horses themselves; something which they patently are not.
Indeed, having re-timed the race, you would have to said on a literal basis that both Peacock and Mustadeem were better horses than The Grey Gatsby & Free Eagle going on the clock!
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>stevecaution wrote:</div>
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Nathan Hughes wrote:</div>
A bit quick to write Time Test off Steve.
TGG wasn’t that far ahead of TT.I am not sure the Grey Gatsby ran to his best either today Nathan. It seems unlikely Golden Horn ran to 130 today, as the filly was only rated 109 coming in and is unlikely to have found a stone and a half out of thin air.
I have nothing against Time Test, other than the notion that he was the same rating as Golden Horn, for winning in group 3 company, versus a horse who had won a Derby.
Those were the Timeform figures, whereas the official handicapper had Time Test on 116 and a stone behind Golden Horn.
The closeness of Time Test to The Grey Gatsby has to be offset by the proximity of the pacemaker just behind Time Test.
Dick Doughtywylie was only beaten half a length by Time Test, yet he is a horse rated 99 on turf. It opens a whole can of worms about what you do about a 109 horse winning and a 99 horse not beaten far, when a gorse rated 130 was in the race?
I don’t envy the assessor’s job in trying to make the figures form some semblance of sense after this boil over.
My issue was always that Time Test was a silly price coming in and, however it transpired, it turned out to be proven accurate as far as the result went.
No, Timeform did not rate Time Test the same as Golden Horn.
Seems you rightfully conclude Golden Horn and The Grey Gatsby ran below form, but want to judge Time Test by Dick Doubtywylie.What were the ratings for the two horses then. Don’t tell me I am one pound out?
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>stevecaution wrote:</div>
Still a shocker but at least there were some clues there along the way and she was running in her 4th consecutive Group 1, compared to Time Test, who was handicap and group 3 the previous two races.Is there any actual form line that you do not like Steve?
If Time Test was so badly over-rated then please explain the Ascot time? Or was every other Royal Ascot race slowly run?Sometimes a horse puts up a Group 1 performance in a Group 3.
If it is wrong to rate a horse so highly just because it has not won in the grade, then it must have been wrong for Timeform to have said of Golden Horn after debut Nottingham Maiden win (amongst other superlatives) “Group horse in the making”.
Get off my case Ginger.
Every race has to be judged individually. If you think Timeform are infallible that is your preprogative but for christ sake listen to the facts for once.
I am talking about ONE race and that race is the Tercentenary. It is totally irrelevant what other races Timeform have assessed and got wrong or right over the years.
I am saying that in this ONE instance, they badly overrated the performance of ONE horse. That is ALL I am saying, nothing more, nothing less.
As BiggerBucks has said, if Time Test clocked a remarkable time then how come the moderate Peacock and Mustadeem were also able to clock relatively fast times compared to their ability?
I doubt Simon Rowlands would make the claim that Timeform always get it right. I am sure he will admit that they get it wrong from time to time. When the handicapper and Timeform are a stone apart on ratings, you know one of them is badly wrong and we, as punters, have to choose which one we believe more likely.
Maybe if you listened to other people’s input on this forum and gave it more respect you might find more people willing to engage with you.
As it is, you come across as a big-headed, know-it-all boor and that is something I find unpleasant and rude.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.