- This topic has 134 replies, 35 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
everyone was well behind the leader(Port Douglas)anyway not going to keep going on about it,i have my view and you have yours.By the way i have no need to watch the race again,have watched many times and my views.Harzand was still alot nearer the pace than US Army Ranger(7th early on),this is not to say Moore’s ride in any way was a starkey shocker,just in my view not his finest hour.One last point moore on the descent to tatternam corner tight against the rail look where he has to bring his mount.Maybe if he could have sat closer he could have got a better run?
Interestingly Timeform sectionals has given Found a lesser upgrade than Postponed, while Idaho receives no upgrade at all indicating he ran as efficiently as the winner.
Interestingly Timeform sectionals has given Found a lesser upgrade than Postponed, while Idaho receives no upgrade at all indicating he ran as efficiently as the winner.
The official Irish Handicapper raised Idaho by ten pounds, to 118, for his Derby run, so it would have to be assumed he ran quite efficiently.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Most unusually, the UK handicapper has also published updated marks for the Irish runners in the Derby, which I can only assume is because they have entries in races later in the season here, and the handicap marks are used in the elimination process if too many are declared for a race.
The UK man has raised Idaho to 117.
Very rare to see a Derby winner come from that far back so you pretty much knew the horse was up against it from the start and if he had the ride again he probably would have made a little more effort early on to be a little closer to were Harzand was positioned. You could argue that the energy that he saved from backing out of following a suicidal early pace was then used to get him into a position
Personally think the best horse won the race as standing with your hoof in a bucket a ice water cannot have been an ideal prep just hours before the Derby and to me Harzand is surely value for a little more than the winning distance. For those who say USAR will ge his revenge on better ground…dream on, as I don’t expect to see Harzand in a race where the ground conditions don’t have the word soft in the description. 10s for the Arc is a good price as three of the last six runnings have been on Soft, Very Soft and Heavy with the remaining three being run on good ground (although Danedream broke the track record in 2011 on ground that you would have thought must have been quicker than the official description of good).
I do think he made the ride on Minding much more difficult than it needed to be as trying to go up the inside coming down the hill into the straight is problematical at best as those in front and those off the rails will always be rolling down off the camber to the inside. Had he not been on clearly the best filly in the race that was classy enough to get him out of trouble he would have ended up with a lot of egg on his face. Hopefully we will get the match up between her and So Mi Dar somewhere down the line to see which one has the best turn of foot – pure conjecture but I am not so sure had she been in the race whether Minding would have still been able to have made that much ground up on her.
The Coronation Cup was an oddly run race (credit to Jack Mitchell for changing his tactics on the fly mid race) and I don’t think the Found of early season is the same Found we get in the Autumn – that being said I am still not sure she would ever be good enough to beat Postponed in any case. For Simple Verse, I would suggest for future races they follow the Postponed camp and buy their own 100+ rated pacemaker and just sit her in behind as she needs a true end to end gallop over 12f to be truely effective.
Overall, I just wish that all commentators/pundits would have the cojones to stand up and say when (not just Moore but all top jockeys) ride an average or bad race in the same way that they are quick to wax lyrical over a good ride. Afterall they don’t seem to have a problem voicing their thoughts when it is a lesser known or foreign rider that doesn’t measure up – maybe it is because they don’t have to worry about how well they will be received the next time the are trying to get an interview from one of the top jockeys.
The Current Sectional Archive gives the upgrades for the first 3 in the derby as 0,1,0.
Minding was three lengths off the lead and being urged through a clear gap when Turret Rocks, on her inside lost her action badly and gave Minding a heavy knock (she might also have been struck on the face by an elbow/whip). She was then interfered with again and knocked back in toward the rail and by the time they crossed the path she was six lengths last.
Moore kept cool and threaded his way through to win comfortably. Not much point saying the filly got him out of trouble: she would have responded as she did for anyone and he was entitled to ride her as the best horse in the race.
And what would have been wrong with his Derby ride had UAR not hung continuously before ducking in behind the winner? Had he run straight, maintained that momentum and gone through with his effort (he was on Harzand’s tail with a full furlong to run), the ride would have been hailed as top notch.
I strongly suspect UAR’s enthusiasm in a finish does not match his ability.
I am no sectionals guru nwalton, Simon Rowlands (Prufrock) is the Guru. But it is an important part of what gives me an edge and gives a lot of people who make a good profit “an edge”. You are right, there are many knowledgeable people on this forum, but not (it appears from most comments) on this particular subject.
Evidence? Proof? of this edge?
I expect it will be in short supply from you, similar to when you said that the vast majority of the hundreds of non runners were entirely predictable. You couldn’t predict any of them could you when given the opportunity?So you didn’t know whether Moore’s ride was good or not until you saw Simon Rowlands analysis of the sectionals?
I said it was a good ride at the time, didn’t need any sectionals to tell me that.
Sectional times are of no interest to the vast majority and have no place on screen during a live race, although they are worthy of a bit of analysis post race although not the OTT analysis that Willo sometimes slips in to.
Willo doesn’t know who a good rider is until he’s consulted his Whitley jockey ratings although I notice he makes an exception regards Moore for some reason
I’m not sure what relevance my being, or not being, ‘in the media’ has to the debate, which by the way you wanted and I’ve got rolling for you.
It was my first and last post, i don`t need to be called stupid.
I submitted the post hoping to get a debate rolling,not youlike the majority of the media sat on fence.Once again, we get a TRFer strongly criticising a jockey or those within racing, and yet when another TRFer then strongly criticises that TRFer’s views – it’s somehow wrong. Darren’s “writing isn’t perfect”, but does not matter because it is coherent, balanced and knowledgeable Stilvi.
I think most people can see that I wasn’t criticising Apracing for taking a different view – that is what forums should be about. It was purely the way it was done.
Returning to US Army Ranger it is obviously fact that he did get close to the winner but was the reason he didn’t get by due at least in part to Moore beginning his effort from too far back relative to the winner’s position? A horse can only sustain an effective run for a limited period. I don’t know the answer for sure but it certainly isn’t a stupid theory.
I think the problem with some punters is that they have a notion of a jockey being able to sit closer to the pace, yet expend zero extra energy from the horse’s reserves.
In order to sit closer to the pace, a horse simply has to travel at a slightly higher speed.
It may be quite a subtle difference in speed but it still leaches into the amount that a horse has to offer later in the race.
Horses coming from the back are usually making up ground relative to those who were in front but it is a two way street because those who were at the front are often back pedalling because they burned their petrol early. This usually means that the closing horse is visually flattered.
US Army Ranger would have won had he maintained his initial rate of closing. Had he sat closer, logic tells us his tank would have been slightly less empty at the business end.
Horse Racing is not an exact science and it’s laughable to think that sectional timings go right down to 1/100th of a second. Anyone who ever worked in a scientific discipline would tell you that such a level of timing applied to a horse race is nonsense.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Bravo TROY111 for raising the subject. This forum is where differing opinions should be aired. It is possible to disagree with a poster’s opinion but doing so in a rude manner adds no weight to one’s argument. I was surprised at the tone of AP’s first post(calling TROY stupid for example) as he’s usually the most readable of posters on here. Well thought-out opinions are just as well made (maybe better made) without slagging off others.
LD73’s last paragraph about racing pundits reluctance to scrutinise/criticise leading British jockeys rides is spot on.
Regardless of whether Moore’s Classic rides were works of genius or moderate, there’s no reason why his performance (or that of any other jockey) should not be subject to analysis – as has been done on here.
I think it fair to say if Joseph O’Brien had given Minding & USAR these rides, his performance would have drawn much more comment.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.