- This topic has 203 replies, 33 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Dylan Thomas won as he should’ve. On my book he was about six pounds clear of everything else and as long as things didn’t go against him he shouldn’t have got beaten and he didn’t.
Impressive winner but lets be honest from a pretty dire King George field.
Zorro – since 1988 (as far back as the RP database goes), only Lammtarra, Swain (the second time around), and Daylami have been able to follow up a win in the King George with another Group 1 win in the same season.
None of Hurricane Run, Azamour, Doyen, Alamshar, Golan, Galileo, Montjeu, Swain (the first time), Pentire, King’s Theatre, Opera House, St Jovite, Generous, Belmez or Mtoto could do it. (Nashwan didn’t get a chance to).
In terms of numbers, it works out as:
19 winners attempted 37 subsequent Group 1 races in the same season they won the King George and were successful just 4 times.
Thanks Gareth. And all post victory starts since 2001 King George winners are 0 for 23, as the Yanks would say. Think Dylan might break that – although maybe not if he’s aimed too high.
Dylan Thomas is more than capable of following up. On British form I have only Manduro rated above him on 129 to Dylan Thomas’s 127.
If he’s campaigned correctly he can win again the 10 – 12f division isn’t outstanding this year. You have Authorized (126 my ratings), Soldier Of Fortune 125 then there’s a five pound gap to everything else. (Unless I’ve forgotten anything).
If you look at a lot of those that haven’t followed up they are in stronger years which are more competitive – hence more difficult to follow up. There isn’t a 130 horse around yet this season and there are only a small handful above 120.
I think part of the problem has been the suitability of their campaigns afterwards. Galileo was poorly campiagned with neither the Irish Champion or (particularly) the Breeders’ Cup Classic going to play to their strengths. Similarly Azamour and Alamshar both were sent in pursuit of the Irish Champion Stakes when they had shown their very best form at 12f.
I think part of the problem has been the suitability of their campaigns afterwards. Galileo was poorly campiagned with neither the Irish Champion or (particularly) the Breeders’ Cup Classic going to play to their strengths. Similarly Azamour and Alamshar both were sent in pursuit of the Irish Champion Stakes when they had shown their very best form at 12f.
Absolutely right. Every horse is more suited by one thing than another. At the top level you’re not going to get away with winning races that aren’t to your strength. Every now and then you get a horse like Mill Reef or Dancing Brave that are brilliant enough and versatile enough to "get away with it" (I still don’t think Dancing Brave truely stayed a mile and a half) but generally against the best there are no soft options a horse needs to maximise his strengths.
Had they brought Nijinsky back to ten furlongs directly after the King George he may well have not won again. Had they brought Reference Point back in trip after the King George (tried the Eclipse beaten by Mtoto) or stepped Dancing Brave up to 14 furlongs for the Leger history would probably be a different read.
Galileo was a stayer he shouldn’t have been brought back to ten furlongs against a horse like Fantastic Light, the same with Motivator they should’ve been campaigned over further.
Authorized now should NOT be brought back to ten furlongs.
People may point to Sinndar winning the Arc after bypassing the King George but its far more likely that the reason he won the Arc was because he was campaigned properly instead of being messed about running over trips that he shouldn’t have been running at. Lammtarra is another one, campaigned properly over a trip that maximised his strengths.
But how many thought Azamour wouldn’t win another race? Or Galileo? Or Montjeu? Hindsight is great, but look at the odds that the winners started at subsequently – there wasn’t much opposing going on.
But how many thought Azamour wouldn’t win another race? Or Galileo? Or Montjeu? Hindsight is great, but look at the odds that the winners started at subsequently – there wasn’t much opposing going on.
Montjeu had a good career its unfair to use him as an example. Even then he ran in the Champion Stakes over ten furlongs. God knows why.
Galileo probably would’ve won again had he been campaigned in conditions that suited him.
Azamour – I never had him rated very highly in the first place was never likely to follow up IMO.
I’m sure you can come up with plenty of reasons for each winner I listed earlier who couldn’t win another Group 1.
Of course, it couldn’t possibly be the case the the King George is an exceptionally tough test that bottoms top class horses like no other.
I’m sure you can come up with plenty of reasons for each winner I listed earlier who couldn’t win another Group 1.
Of course, it couldn’t possibly be the case the the King George is an exceptionally tough test that bottoms top class horses like no other.
No it isn’t. The Arc is a tough race, the Champion Stakes is a tough race, the Derby is a tough race, the QE11 is a tough race, the Juddmonte is a tough race, the Irish Champion is a tough race.
Each one features top class competitors the name of a particular race doesn’t make it a bottomer.
There seems to be a modern theory going around this year and possibly last that the King George and the Derby are graveyards for horses, – rubbish its just something that has been mentioned that people have latched onto to make it a "fashionable" view.
There was a time when the Cheltenham Gold Cup was "a bottommer" too and the Triumph Hurdle.
Just a thought…is it possible horses are too fit for the Derby nowdays, given the revolution in training over the last say 10-15years…?
Just a thought…is it possible horses are too fit for the Derby nowdays, given the revolution in training over the last say 10-15years…?
Fair question.
I don’t think so I just think we’re going through a spell where we’re just not getting particularly great Derby winners.
That said I’m not unsure that the flat racing calendar does three year olds many favours often they are rushing to come to themselves in time for the big early season targets. The Guineas and possibly the Derby could do with being a few weeks later than what they are possibly.
None of Hurricane Run, Azamour, Doyen, Alamshar, Golan, Galileo, Montjeu, Swain (the first time), Pentire, King’s Theatre, Opera House, St Jovite, Generous, Belmez or Mtoto could do it. (Nashwan didn’t get a chance to).
In terms of numbers, it works out as:
19 winners attempted 37 subsequent Group 1 races in the same season they won the King George and were successful just 4 times.
I think the KG bottomed out Doyen, Azamour, Belmez and Pentire.
Hurricane Run wasn`t the same animal as a 4yo.
Alamshar ran over the wrong trip after Ascot.
Galileo was only beaten in Ireland by another top class horse.
Montjeu can`t have been bottomed because he had such an easy race. Can`t explain his subsequent failures – although he did run well in the Champion Stakes.
King`s Theatre, Golan and Opera House were below average winners who met better horses after the KG.
St Jovite and Generous were very good winners who failed in the Arc for different reasons – ground for SJ, long season/travelling for Generous.
Mtoto was beaten by a very good animal in the Arc, would have won an average renewal.Montjeu was quirky. Rather like Hurricane Run maybe he decided he didn’t want to do it any more?? At his best he was a fantastic racehorse.
Pentire and Belmez weren’t particularly great anyway IMO. Pentire beat a stayer Classic Cliche and a poor Derby winner in Shaamit. Belmez beat Old Vic who was a soft ground horse on fast ground and had previously been beaten by the filly Salsabil in Ireland.
I suppose you could call both good horses but to be honest they were hardly exceptional King George winners.
I’ve been searching for this for a while. I remember the references at the time.
"Top trainer, Ian Balding, gave his own informed view of the crisis facing the industry when he told Racing Post: ‘The fashion now is for speed and more speed. We have gradually lost [the] strength, stamina and durability, temperament, extra bone and courage that those horses have. If we carry on like this, then slowly but surely we are ruining the breed.’ (‘Decline of the Thoroughbred breed’, Racing Post, October 12, 2001)"
If anyone has the full transcript, I’d be grateful. It might explain certain things mentioned here. The source also refers to a piece written around the same time by our own Zorro, but its not mentioned in any detail.
Montjeu can`t have been bottomed because he had such an easy race. Can`t explain his subsequent failures – although he did run well in the Champion Stakes.
He injured himself; either in the race or soon after.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.