- This topic has 68 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 11 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
All good points as usual Ginge but I do wonder why Jim never had DA even entered in the Derby. As you say, his father had won the race so why not enter his son as well? We know the answer don’t we. Jim’s famous stamina index told him he had no chance of staying. It was only when Sheikh Mo came on board that the decision was made.
I completely understand the people that say they were right to go for it. There IS only one Derby and it DID look a poor race.
I just don’t think they were making the right decision by the horse
with this and with the Marois. You are right that JB does it all the time and
all the horses you mentioned suffered badly for it later in the season
. I thought Banimpire was the best filly of that year but was completely over-raced as was Finsceal Beo. Each to their own but I would much rather see a horse campaigned in a less scatter gun way even if it means seeing them a bit less. Personally
I would rather see great horses run to their best each time rather than just run no matter what and hope for the best
.
I understand others disagree and that’s fair enough. JB is clearly a fantastic trainer but his poor old horses do really earn their corn!
Of course JB/SM
"were making the right decision by the horse"
Joni, they gave a horse with a good or even outstanding chance of winning THE Derby
THE
chance to win
THE
Derby. Any other decision would’ve been a cop out. A horse not given a chance to fulfil its potential. You went through what could have been DA’s career had he not gone for The Derby Joni. Well what if he’d succeeded? What about the 2000, Derby, Eclipse, King George, Juddmonte, Irish Champion and Arc?
You say those horses
"suffered badly"
for running in those races Joni, I do agree with Finsceal Beo; she was overdone by running in three Guineas and don’t think even Jim would try such a thing again. But who says Banimpire would’ve done any better? Speaking as someone who backed her in both Ribblesdale and Irish Oaks, imo that was how good she was. Winner of 6 races as a three year old. Plus short head runner up in the Irish Oaks and 3rd in Prix De L’Opera and no better than those defeats. A remarkably consistent filly. Her one and only poor run coming in the middle of October on 12th run of the season. As you know Joni, many horses with a quarter of those runs would’ve cried enough before that time of the season. When a "great horse" is having its fourth run of the season in October and runs poorly do you say it’s been over-raced and could’ve done better Joni? Or do you just accept it as being over the top for the season? May be it could’ve done better if racing more often earlier in the year.
Baimpire was not the only one to keep her form for a long period of time. Lush Lashes won the Musidora in May, Coronation Stakes in June, an unlucky second in the Nassau and won Yorkshire Oaks in August, Winning the Matron Stakes in September before running right up to her best second in the Prix De L’Opera in October…
New Approach, second in two Guineas (English and Irish) in May, won English Derby in June, Only third in the International in August (after his longest break of the season) before finishing off by winning Irish Champion in September and English Champion in October…
Alexander Goldrun started off her three year old career in March with one success and ended it in victory in December. A small win followed by a Group 3 in May, before the same month 2nd to Attraction in Irish Guineas, then came a fourth in the French Oaks and 2nd in Irish Pretty Polly before winning Prix De L’Opera and in finally the Hong Kong Cup in December…
Please tell me what you mean by
"all the horses you mentioned suffered badly for it later in the season"
Joni?
Seems to me apart from Finsceal Beo they were all consistent… right up until late in the season. More consistent than the average racehorse who has fewer and more spaced out runs.You say you’d "rather see great horses run to their best each time"… We’d all like to see horses run to their best each time they run, but that’s a fallacy, is not what actually happens. Only two horses, Frankel and Black Caviar were machines. With any other racehorse they can run poorly whether having four nicely spaced out runs or twelve runs a season. Obviously those in the latter camp are three times as likely to run poorly because they run three times as often.
Value Is EverythingHappy to explain Mark.
Jim ran the brilliant Finsceal Beo on May 6th, 13th and 27th May after which her record read 8,6,5,5,2,3,9,7,3 and her RPR’s went dramatically downhill only recovering the once when she ran to 120 on the 2nd run back after the winter break.
Jim ran Lush Lushes 10 times in 2008 and,as you say, she did remarkably well up to Prix De L’Opera but her form figures after that and over the next 2 seasons read 14,3,6,4,4,4,10 and the highest RPR she recorded was 107.
Jim ran Banimpire an astonishing 12 times in 2011 and she maintained her form until August after which her form figures read 5,3,7,5. The "3" came in the Nassau where she ran really well having been given a – yes you’ve guessed it – break.
I can add Scintulla this year if you like – Jim has run her 10 times SO FAR and after August her form figures read 4,4,6,3.
Now Mark I know and we all know that this is Jim’s modus operandi and some people like you Mark like it and others like me Mark don’t – or at least feel it is flogging a dead horse.
In comparison to the above dear old Dawny has been positively molly-coddled but I still think there were two questionable decisions made this year. I only say the Derby was a questionable decision because Jim had never entertained the idea before SM came on board. As I keep on saying (and you keep on ignoring) he was not even entered in the race DESPITE being the son of a Derby winner. It was an afterthought. This horse made his debut over 5f ffs and was a Coventry winner! Jim must have had grave doubts. Ok so what? Run him anyway you say. He had a great chance, he was the favourite right? Well so was Frankel Mark and yet you agreed with the decision not to run him in the Derby. They had similar profiles no? Sons of Derby winners with speed on the dam side.
I just can’t go with this "run them while the horses hooves are hot" line either. Are you actually saying that if a horse wins he should immediately be run again? Surely not. They are not machines Mark.
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
Is Banimpire still running in America? She was my favourite horse when she was over here. Was chuffed to see her at Longchamp.
A note on Frankel and Sir Henry avoiding the Derby: he didn’t run Frankel at Epsom because he thought the horse was not sufficiently mature to settle in the race, not because he didn’t believe he wouldn’t stay the trip
per se
A note on Frankel and Sir Henry avoiding the Derby: he didn’t run Frankel at Epsom because he thought the horse was not sufficiently mature to settle in the race, not because he didn’t believe he wouldn’t stay the trip
per se
He didn’t run him over a mile and a half even when he had learnt to settle Joe. He always doubted he’d see out the trip.
I think Dawn Approach didn’t stay because he too couldn’t settle. The end result is the same no? He led til 3f out and didn’t stay.
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
Happy to explain Mark.
Jim ran the brilliant Finsceal Beo on May 6th, 13th and 27th May after which her record read 8,6,5,5,2,3,9,7,3 and her RPR’s went dramatically downhill only recovering the once when she ran to 120 on the 2nd run back after the winter break.
Jim ran Lush Lushes 10 times in 2008 and,as you say, she did remarkably well up to Prix De L’Opera but her form figures after that and over the next 2 seasons read 14,3,6,4,4,4,10 and the highest RPR she recorded was 107.
Jim ran Banimpire an astonishing 12 times in 2011 and she maintained her form until August after which her form figures read 5,3,7,5. The "3" came in the Nassau where she ran really well having been given a – yes you’ve guessed it – break.top
form. Banimpire had a long run of success up until a slightly disappointing performance in the Yorkshire Oaks (just 8 lbs below her best Timeform rating). This goes to the heart of my point; once Banimpire ran (comparitively) poorly in August – she was given a break. Jim does not run his horses when believing them to be less than 100%. She showed she needed a break and was given one. After this "break" Banimpire showed
no
ill effects from a long season, by running "really well" to be 3rd in the Prix De L’Opera (not Nassau). On Timeform performance ratings this 3rd was better than 5 of her 6 wins that year. Then at Ascot, just 6 lbs below that Prix De L’Opera form in 7th in the inaugeral Fillies & Mares. So she ran (comparitively) poorly on her final start for Jim Bolger, like so many less aggressively campaigned horses do on their final seasonal appearance. The last "5" in those "form figures" you quote was for USA trainer Chad Brown; nothing to do with Jim.
Even if we count those two runs as disappointing, she still ran well on 10 of the 12 three year old starts for Jim Bolger. So she dissapointed on 16.7% of her starts; that’s a lot less than most conventionally campaigned horses.I can add Scintulla this year if you like – Jim has run her 10 times SO FAR and after August her form figures read 4,4,6,3.
Now Mark I know and we all know that this is Jim’s modus operandi and some people like you Mark like it and others like me Mark don’t – or at least feel it is flogging a dead horse.can
be the right thing to do. I am for running horses when the trainer believes them to be 100%. Some trainers seem to want to run every horse once every three to four weeks "whatever" their state. This is also sometimes the right thing to do and sometimes wrong. Sometimes I believe some trainers leave it too long, missing out on the chance to run again when both horse and stable is functioning at its best.
You seem to have blamed every time an aggressively campaigned horse loses its form on this one particular practice Joni. Without thinking of the percentage of good runs the horses have compared to conventionally campaigned thoroughbreds. Highlighting all possible disadavantages without putting foreward any advantages. Am just trying to redress the balance. You also seem to think conventionally trained horses go through life without ever losing their form.
Yes, it is sometimes taken too far (eg Finsceal Beo) but only sometimes. There are other exponents of the art, eg Sir Mark Prescott, yet gets less criticism for it, in fact quite the opposite.
I just can’t go with this "run them while the horses hooves are hot" line either. Are you actually saying that if a horse wins he should immediately be run again? Surely not. They are not machines Mark.
if
the horse recovers quickly from a race there is no harm in racing it again fairly soon, if that is what connections want to do. Obviously, if the horse takes time to give them the same feel as before – there is no point going to the well again until waters have recovered.
Will get back to you about the Derby question as it’s a totally different subject Joni.
Value Is EverythingA note on Frankel and Sir Henry avoiding the Derby: he didn’t run Frankel at Epsom because he thought the horse was not sufficiently mature to settle in the race, not because he didn’t believe he wouldn’t stay the trip
per se
He didn’t run him over a mile and a half even when he had learnt to settle Joe. He always doubted he’d see out the trip.
I think Dawn Approach didn’t stay because he too couldn’t settle. The end result is the same no? He led til 3f out and didn’t stay.
You could be right; I’m just quoting from the superb Frankel DVD I watched over the weekend. My own suspicion is that Sir Henry had his 4-y-o season mapped out and wasn’t going to be diverted. Had the Juddmonte been 330 yards longer, I don’t think you’d find anyone who’d say he’d have won less easily that day.
As for Dawn Approach, he might not have stayed, we’ll never know. His Derby was effectively over after the first 3 furlongs.
When Dawn Approach was two Jim Bolger stated that a mile would be as far as they would ever want to go with him. Sometimes plans plans change, as we saw with Toronado this season, who was touted as more of a Derby horse initially, despite his trainer’s profile suggesting that would be unlikely.
I would say that the moment most 2000 Guineas winners pass the winning post, thoughts turn to Epsom and it is as certain as Christmas that you will see the words "If he stays he wins" appear on a forum within five minutes.
History tells us that very few horses win both races and although this year’s field was by no means outstanding, it still looked way more competitive than the dross Camelot beat last season. Camelot was a horse who was always going to Epsom, using the Guineas as a stepping stone but it was a very different story with Dawn Approach who was generally expected to stay at shorter for a while at least. I don’t think every 2000 Guineas winner is an automatic candidate to tackle the Derby on their next run because, as the record books show, not many horses are capable of mastering both sets of skills, particularly in such a short space of time. A trainer will have a gut feeling about what is the right path for the horse, whereas the owner is often clouded by sentiment.
Anyone who heard Sheikh Mohammed before the Derby will remember that he said:-
"If he wins, he’s the best horse in the world, if he doesn’t he’s the best miler in the world"
It was his choice to make, but we all now know he was wrong on both counts. Dawn Approach beat a 150/1 outsider at Newmarket, who came into the race rated 95. They raised Glory Awaits 19lbs to give the form a look of credibility, yet glory still awaits for Glory Awaits, still only a two grand maiden winner after twelve starts.
I think the decision to run in the Derby was the wrong one but I also believe the horse just wasn’t as "awesome" as Jim kept telling everyone he was.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Thanks for the reply Mark and always good arguing points with you. Perhaps I can give you Banimpire, you can give me Fisnceal Beo and Scintulla and we’ll agree to disagree over Lush Lashes!
Just one last clarification – I don’t think EVERY horse who is aggressively campaigned loses form for that reason (look at Dec of War) and clearly some "thrive with racing." It is just that Jim seems to apply that phrase to ALL his good ones. I suppose it is when the really good ones come along that I prefer to see them campaigned with a bit more thought. If I am going to back them anyway!
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
My own suspicion is that Sir Henry had his 4-y-o season mapped out and wasn’t going to be diverted. Had the Juddmonte been 330 yards longer, I don’t think you’d find anyone who’d say he’d have won less easily that day.
As for Dawn Approach, he might not have stayed, we’ll never know. His Derby was effectively over after the first 3 furlongs.
I think you are absolutely right Joe – he had his races mapped out and wouldn’t be swayed.
As much as I loved Sir Henry and applauded his handling my one regret or quibble with Frankel’s campaign at the time was the second Sussex. I couldn’t quite see the point in that one. I wish he had run him in the Eclipse and then we would have found out that little bit earlier if he stayed. We might then have even see him run in the Arc.
Still, at the end of the day, many would argue that the Champion Stakes showed how Frankel might have struggled over a mile and a half on soft ground in Longchamps so I am pretty sure Sir H got it absolutely right.
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
You could be right; I’m just quoting from the superb Frankel DVD I watched over the weekend. My own suspicion is that Sir Henry had his 4-y-o season mapped out and wasn’t going to be diverted. Had the Juddmonte been 330 yards longer, I don’t think you’d find anyone who’d say he’d have won less easily that day.
Funnily enough, I watched the Frankel DVD last weekend (bought it from WHSmith). Even now, I’m still convinced by Frankel’s nature and racing style, he’d have stayed 12 furlongs on his head. I don’t believe for one second that he’d have hit a brick wall with an extra 330 yards to go as some people think he would. I do agree with you on the notion that Sir Henry had Frankel’s season mapped out and nothing would have changed his mind.
As much as I loved Sir Henry and applauded his handling my one regret or quibble with Frankel’s campaign at the time was the second Sussex. I couldn’t quite see the point in that one.
I too thought that at the time but looking back at the race itself, the ease in which Frankel is only nudged out and still manages to do back to back sectionals of 10.75 & 10.42 speaks volumes of what he could’ve done on a flat, firm US track. I’ve always thought there was a sub 10 sec furlong somewhere within him that we were never destined to see.
I could not disagree more about Jim Bolger, and Finsceal Beo in particular. A gnats cock away from a famous Guineas treble, mind you they could have saved her for the Matron I suppose.
Frankel seems to be held as a beacon of how it is right to play safe. I would counter that by saying that Frankel was a freak (as we al know) and would have won any race he entered in my opinion.
For every horse who people allege has been poorly campaigned, there is also one who has been sat is his box, earning nowt, whilst being waited with for a specific race which he / she flopped in! What say we about that?
I think GT and Joni argue their points of view well, but I also think it is grossly unfair to assume we know more about the horses Jim Bolger trains than he does, especially as he is a man who seems to excel against the odds (odds = finances) time after time.
Thanks for the reply Mark and always good arguing points with you. Perhaps I can give you Banimpire, you can give me Fisnceal Beo and Scintulla and we’ll agree to disagree over Lush Lashes!
Just one last clarification – I don’t think EVERY horse who is aggressively campaigned loses form for that reason (look at Dec of War) and clearly some "thrive with racing." It is just that Jim seems to apply that phrase to ALL his good ones. I suppose it is when the really good ones come along that I prefer to see them campaigned with a bit more thought. If I am going to back them anyway!
Thats a fair enough Joni.
Value Is EverythingI could not disagree more about Jim Bolger, and Finsceal Beo in particular. A gnats cock away from a famous Guineas treble, mind you they could have saved her for the Matron I suppose.
Frankel seems to be held as a beacon of how it is right to play safe. I would counter that by saying that Frankel was a freak (as we al know) and would have won any race he entered in my opinion.
For every horse who people allege has been poorly campaigned, there is also one who has been sat is his box, earning nowt, whilst being waited with for a specific race which he / she flopped in! What say we about that?
I think GT and Joni argue their points of view well, but I also think it is grossly unfair to assume we know more about the horses Jim Bolger trains than he does, especially as he is a man who seems to excel against the odds (odds = finances) time after time.
Good post PC and I agree with most of it. I agree Finsceal Beo was an exceptional animal and almost pulling off that treble was incredible but look what it did to her. She was never the same after that – do you think she deserved to end her career finishing 3rd beaten 6 lengths in a listed race? She was better than that.
Frankel was a freak and perhaps you are right he would have won anything – we’ll never know. I did also mention Treve and Moonlight Cloud though.
You make a good point that many horses sit in their box waiting for the exact right conditions only to then flop. Estimate was a great example of this. A balance has to be found I suppose.
I would never presume to know more than Jim of course and my opinion is worthless in the scheme of things but there is no getting away from the fact that his method is different to some other trainers – I am just expressing my preference.
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
In comparison to the above dear old Dawny has been positively molly-coddled but I still think there were two questionable decisions made this year. I only say the Derby was a questionable decision because Jim had never entertained the idea before SM came on board. As I keep on saying (and you keep on ignoring) he was not even entered in the race DESPITE being the son of a Derby winner. It was an afterthought. This horse made his debut over 5f ffs and was a Coventry winner! Jim must have had grave doubts. Ok so what? Run him anyway you say. He had a great chance, he was the favourite right? Well so was Frankel Mark and yet you agreed with the decision not to run him in the Derby. They had similar profiles no? Sons of Derby winners with speed on the dam side.
Said I’d get back to you Joni,
Jim may have thought whilst Dawn Approach was in his early two year old career, running at 5 and 6f that he was purely a Guineas horse (so not entered in Derby). Dawn Approach settled well in those races (apart from for a few strides in the Dewhurst) and even pushed along quite early before finding plenty for pressure. Racing Post analysis of National Stakes, Dewhurst and 2000 Guineas indicates the horse is "ridden" some way out in those three. Dawn Approach
never
had the profile of one who will stay a mile and
no further
. Sort that (AT THAT TIME)
travels supremely to well inside the final furlong and possess natural enthusiasm, electric/speed or acceleration
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOMc59-p4xc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ds9cykq-FXQhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju8n703ZJ8w
Not saying Dawn Approach was definitely going to get the Epsom trip, just he deserved a chance to do so. Of course with any horse going up half a mile in trip, you can never quite tell if the slower pace will suit, particularly if the early stages are not even a true 12f pace.
Contrast the way Dawn Approach went through the Guineas with this horse…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yg–FSBJ_hQ
Any excuse to look at it again, eh Joni?
Frankel, one that"travels supremely to well inside the final furlong and possessed (AT THAT TIME) natural enthusiasm, electric/speed or acceleration"
of one who had
NO
chance of getting the trip in the Derby. A totally different "profile" to Dawn Approach. Hence the difference in my opinion of their Epsom chance (whether they should run) beforehand.
You say that Dawn Approach’s Derby run was an "afterthought" Joni. But so was his sire New Approach. Jim said after the Irish 2000 Guineas that he would not go to Epsom. Available @ 40+/1 for Epsom. It does not matter whether you believe it was Sheikh Mo’s decision or Bolger’s. The "afterthought" proved right in 2008. Indeed, if it was Sheikh Mo then there was every reason to overule the trainer again. If you are so adamant Dawn should not have run, then New Approach – a horse with a similar stamina doubt (a
Derby
winner) should not have run in the
Derby
either.
Value Is EverythingCurrently I’m part of a small group of students from the Royal Agriculture University looking into the racing industry as part of our course. We’ve put together a survey on the grand national, it’d be much appreciated if you could spare a minute to fill it in.
Many Thanks
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.