- This topic has 477 replies, 83 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
The rain has finally arrived in Paris! And here’s me checking out of the hotel in a t-shirt hoping to go on a boat trip! I’ve still not managed to see a replay of the race yet! I can’t wait to get home tonight to watch it! I didn’t get as many pictures as I’d hoped to get, but got a nice one of Sea The Stars in the parade ring before the race, and one of Yeats coming in after the race.
I’d pay about as much attention to timeforms ratings as Kim Jong il pays to the UN security council.
Amazing how he pulled hard for the first couple of furlongs (although not quite in the New Approach Derby lcategory) and still hacked up. I thought he was in trouble 3 furlongs out but a furlong from home he had the race won.
I have only just got to see the entire race, as opposed to the finish, and it does nothing but enhance Sea The Stars’ performance. Superb.
I must say though, I sadly thought that Ian Bartlett’s commentary was a real disappointment, and far too flat and boring for such an important occasion.
I agree with the opinion above that the ATR commentary was rather lacking in enthusiasm.
Jim McGrath did a top job for the beeb. Shortly after the race he lost it mid sentence and had to catch his breath.
Great call from the man.
Good post, Fist.
Interesting to hear the views of oficial BHB handicapper on today’s ATR.
He said STS is probably much better than the handicap mark he has allotted him; being based solely on the horses he has defeated thus far. He did add, that if it was merely a subjective view, then he would have to rate STS better than Dancing Brave.
Matt Chapman then asked him if there was a horse from the past, in his opinion, whom he could say was better than Sea The Stars.
He said there was – Sea Bird !
He said he had viewed footage of his wins and had studied the form of the horses he defeated and said he was better than all the rest.
Music to my ears.
Joe Mercer on the other hand wouldn’t put him above Ribot, Sea Bird, Mill Reef or The Brigadier, but rates him without doubt the best for 20 years.
I think he’s the best we’ve seen since the mighty SB. but I do hope that John Oxx decides that the Arc will be his last race. I was all for him going to the Breeder’s Cup, but I feel differently now that he has won the Arc. I would hate to see him defeated in the same way Dancing Brave was – though I’m sure he’d be the one they’d all have to beat.
I await Timeform’s latest rating. Surely 143 or possibly 144 – but never 145 !
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
http://www.sportinglife.com/racing/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=racing/09/10/05/manual_140856.html
For Himself. – The Timeform view.
- Total Posts 17716
When winning the Eclipse at Sandown, Sea The Stars had Conduit three lengths further behind him than he did at Longchamp,
Are they telling us they’ve taken Conduit’s Eclipse form at face value, DJ?
http://www.sportinglife.com/racing/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=racing/09/10/05/manual_140856.html
For Himself. – The Timeform view.
Thanks, David.
Interesting, if a little surprising.
If only the handicapper could be less literal and throw in a smidgen of subjectiveness. Surely certain factors such as ease of victory, problems in running, etc should be added to the overall equation.
It perplexes me how the handicapper can view his Arc winning performance, less meritorious than his Irish Champion Stakes win.
Mick Kinane thought yesterday’s win was his best performance to date. So do I, along with countless others – so why not the official handicapper or indeed, Timeform ?
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
Himself – Timeform aren’t saying that Sea The Stars isn’t one of the best horses in living memory. In fact the rating they have given him for his Irish Champion Stakes suggests that he is. They are just saying that the way the race was run on Sunday meant that he wasn’t able to/didn’t need to run up to that figure. If anybody believes Sea The Stars ran to anything like 140 on bare form on Sunday, they’d also need to believe that a 6-y-o mare called La Boum showed improvement to put her on a par with Oija Board.
Reet – No regarding Conduit. His master rating remains 130 (gained at the Breeders Cup and in this year’s King George. His Eclipse effort remains 5 lb short of that.
"A two-length defeat of Youmzain is no more than Zarkava achieved last year. When winning the Eclipse at Sandown, Sea The Stars had Conduit three lengths further behind him than he did at Longchamp, and the proximity of the mare La Boum, beaten only around five lengths when seventh in Paris, suggests Sea The Stars ran to a rating of 129 for his Arc victory."
As they gave Zarkava a rating of 133 and Youmzain one of 131 it seems the 129 rating they’re giving STS for sunday is well on the low side.
I too am surprised Timeform only rate sea The Stars Arc performance on 129. It must surely be a mistake. Youmzain had a rating of 131 last term and Conduit is on 130. So did the Arc second and fourth run below form?
They may have added a couple of pounds to Zarkava’s rating for ease of victory 133 (136 with the sex allowance). But Sea The Stars also won easily.
So how can they rate the performance of Sea The Stars below Zarkava?
Sure la Boum ran above expectation, but there is sometimes a horse down the field who is flattered in some way. If the rest of the race makes sense, that is surely fair enough.
Value Is EverythingI think a rating of 140 is realistic for Sea The Stars. Anything higher than that appears too much IMO. I even think Sea Bird is overrated.
When you look at the race statistics regarding those two horses Brigadier Gerard and Mill Reef, their ratings seem bang on.
Is it possible that when horses run below their rating that it could be attributed to a poor steering job by the jockey or an effort of some other jockey to make sure the horse does not get a chance to run up to his ability or an incredible skillful ride given to an inferior horse by a brilliant jockey? In other words must the horse take responsibility for the outcome of his race for "not running up to the expected rating" of the armchair critic? How far and fast should a horse be expected to win when there is no need to crush the opposition?And is the best performance always to be attributed to the winner?There were horses in the Arc who were there solely to amuse their owners but contributed to the boxing in of better horses which resulted in the better horses finishing down the field and so the performance of the winner was judged on how those horses ran not on how the winner himself ran. A horse race is not a logical sequence.For instance I would say that STS worst race was the Coral Eclipse race in which he beat RVW . He should have won by six lengths but he did not run up to his level of the Two thousand Guineas where he beat him by four or five lengths.( analogy Arkle’s best race against Mill House was when he beat him the first time; Mill House was never the same horse again;so a defeat can have unforeseen consequences for the loser, the 2000 guineas second was never quite so good again this year. ). He improved greatly on his Irish Champion stakes run when beating Fame and Glory by five lengths in Paris or like Mill House maybe F&G will never be the same again?
What if a horse really wants to run faster but a jockey is saving him for a tough season ahead; one which the horse cannot foresee, then his rating goes out the window because he is destined to win seven group one races and not one exceptionally brilliant ones(see Hawk Wing)
Also how does the time of a race enter into the rating of a horse?For example without the trouble of extricating himself from the surrounding horses he could produce a brilliant time eg Secretariate in the Belmont where he raced most of the race without the fear or worry of opponents? That was how it was done thirty years ago in the USA. Horses went as fast and as far as they could.These are just the rantings of a country bumpkin so probably are too stupid to warrant a response from the high priests of racing who regard ratings as sacred.
Sea The Stars always holds them.
Its hard to know how great he is – because he just does enough.
Thats why I dont really think it matters what rating he run to in the Arc.
He just does enough to win.
No way will Sea The Stars win. His Derby form isn’t as good as his Guineas form IMO. That could be down to the slow early pace but then you’d have to suggest he would improve over the trip for a faster gallop. Can’t see that being the case for a second.
Stacelita, Fame And Glory and Conduit – its between those three nothing else is good enough.
Easy to laugh at you in hindsight
But on a serious note – it is quite a bold thing to say a Horse of the quality of Sea The Stars has "no way" to win.
Half of that field were all serious contenders to win.
All Group 1 serious operators capable of producing high quality performances on their day.
Sea The Stars had more than a great chance of victory as the odds suggested.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.