- This topic has 158 replies, 30 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
- Total Posts 17716
"If we ignored the way the race was run..you might think SP stayed every inch of 12f…if thats the case then why are they dropping him back?..the answer is in the way the race was run..of course thats of no interest to you or RH..you just take the race at face value and assume what a good stayer the winner was..when in fact he outspeeded horses that wanted a stamina test."
EC<br> Have you ever actually read a form book?<br> Not many, to be sure, or you’d realise that most recent Derby winners had subsequent runs over 10f, as with many Oaks & Coronation Cup winners.<br>Maybe that’s the answer; none of them stayed 12f?:biggrin: ÂÂÂ
EC<br>
<br>I really ain’t sure what your asking Clive..the fact that many races in France are slowly run is going to affect speed & form assessment..basically the whole thing is guesswork..not just the speed.
But the form is only really worthless if that is upheld by subsequent events? I was asking if that is generally the case with french grp ones
Oh doesnt matter.,.im bored with this
Fair assesment of SP there EC, but bear in mind that they are going for 10f prizes partly because thats more attarctive to breeders and also cos MT feels that the older horse opposition might not be quite so testing
TDK…i think Sp will remain backable for alot of this seasom
<br>
Quote: from EC on 5:19 pm on June 11, 2006[br]I thought Sir Percy was very impressive<br>
<br>I thought same fella, as stated earlier the final 3f was very interesting imhaho
<br>Good to see yer posting again too ;) i knew you’d miss me :biggrin:
(Edited by empty wallet at 6:14 pm on June 11, 2006)
EC (and Stav), You lasted well against the abysmal level of replies. I just don’t know how you can keep your cool so well with the nonsensical comments from the pair of slackjaws on this thread. I don’t hold out much hope for any thoughts of SP’s connections either as the atching trainer didn’t even know that SP had won the race.
Last point from me is that there was actually a French Group 2 winner in the race and it was 2/1 favourite after winning at 1/5 in 10f GR2 race at StC. (RPR 117, TS 115). It did last 10f. Certainly UK bookmakers were impressed by that French "form", if no one else was. If it had won a GR1 it would have been unbackable odds on.
EC (and Stav), You lasted well against the abysmal level of replies. I just don’t know how you can keep your cool so well with the nonsensical comments from the pair of slackjaws on this thread. I don’t hold out much hope for any thoughts of SP’s connections either as the atching trainer didn’t even know that SP had won the race.
Stupid comments
1. "Slack jaw" questions were never answered properly. And not by you either re french form. For all the stats and spreadsheets no one has managed to justify the thought that Frnech group ones are not worthy form given the supposed poor speed ratings many of these would attain. Mordins and others point is that SP is a poor winner because of a speed rating that wasnt high. I said that the worst it shows is an open mind. Poor speed ratings dont always mean much as far as i am concerned..other than that a non stayer may have stayed…which again is unproven either way in this case.
Hate top go over old ground but such arrogance deserves it
Certainly UK bookmakers were impressed by that French "form", if no one else was
So no one backed it then?
2. What a stupid jibe at MT. Incredible… <br>
Oh yes robert
very intelligent comment reagrding trainer eh? :angry:
<br>
Certainly UK bookmakers were impressed by that French "form", if no one else was
So no one backed it then?
trackside,
I have never known an Arc to be run at anything but a strong pace throughout. French Group I winners that have raced succesfully in UK have previously scored very high speed figures in France. If you have a superior horse you do not risk losing a Gr1 race by giving all the other horses a chance. You use that horse’s ability to the full. If Clive could produce any evidence of his statements, as Stav has, then he could be taken more seriously.
Your points about speed figures are red herrings. The time figure just records the time a horse took to cross the line. It is then adjusted for the average going. If you want to make adjustments for fitness, getting blocked in, hard luck etc there is nothing at all to stop you making those adjustments. That is no different from any other type of rating.
What is more to the point is collateral rating a Gr1 winner in the region of 115+ when that race was ran slower than a selling race or 2yo maiden race on the same card.
Quote: from robert99 on 11:41 pm on June 11, 2006[br]trackside,
What is more to the point is collateral rating a Gr1 winner in the region of 115+ when that race was ran slower than a selling race or 2yo maiden race on the same card.
<br>What is more to the point is how can a horse like Sir Percy be allocated a rating lower than the likes of High Rise? Still can’t get over that, regardless of descrepencies over the Derby form. Makes a complete nonsense of any rating system as far as I’m concerned. I’m sure someone will try and justify Dubai Millennium getting a Timeform rating of 140 as well or Celtic Swing 138 ???
Sorry, off track a bit I know, just puzzles me to the point of mind boggledness. :noway:
(Edited by The Market Man at 11:56 pm on June 11, 2006)
Market Man, the Old Vic/Nashwan debate still rankles now. The former ended the season as the best horse for some reason. I have never understood this to this day.
I’ll be VERY interested to see SP’s official rating at the end of this season.:cool:
Oh come off it robert
The arc is hardly typical, being mobbed with britsh and irish runners
- Total Posts 17716
Quote: from EC on 1:01 pm on June 11, 2006[br]Reet Hard
The truth is, that using s/f alone, no one knows if the form is sound or not until subsequent races have been run, which renders them useless as a definitive tool in any race where unexposed (timewise) horses are involved, ie, the great majority of better class races.
That’s why you use benchmark races like mature handicaps to rate unexposed races..doh. Speed figure making exposes very fast maiden races..as I demonstrated on here last year..though actually putting up examples proves nowt whilst spouting generalistic rubbish seems to be "a good post"…lmao.
Read it again, Bozo. It says " unexposed (TIMEWISE) horses" i.e horses that have not yet produced evidence on the clock. There are such horses in most of the better races, so the timefan is left to guess, or not to bet, much like in Clivex’s French gp1 scenario!
<br>I used to do my own s/f, but abandoned them over a decade ago for a number of reasons apart from the above. <br>Going allowances, no matter how sophisticated the database, are, at best, a guess and can differ alarmingly, even amongst professional compilers.
So basically, you didn’t know what you were doing:cheesy:
I used to do operations on folk..it must be a poor idea though because I killed them all ;) <br> Once again, I presume you have to guess. The top race of the flat season, widely viewed and dissected, yet even the half dozen of you on here can’t agree the going. Multiply that by the number of compilers and the number of meetings, and the GA is anybody’s guess!:) <br>Standard times again vary markedly from compiler to compiler, and often, even from the same source and over the same course.
Thats because they use different benchmarks..some use a 100 horse on Good ground..some use something else..so they are BOUND to be different. The relationship between a compilers standards is what is important..most pro standard times aren’t done correctly..so that means in your book it can’t be done..just because they are pro don’t make them infallible..you have the British disease..it’s pro so it must be the best attainaible..you are so brainwashed…I’ll bet you think all doctors and dentists are the salt of the earth too;) <br> So we are agreed, then, it can’t be done – unless you’re deluded!
Standard times, by definition, also pay little respect to class,
Again…a load of s**t<br>e..who’s standard times are you on about?..they aren’t standard times if they don’t all represent the same class..I suppose you were too lazy again or it was too difficult for you…the old doing operations scenario crops up again. RH..if something is too difficult for you..does that mean it can’t be done?<br> Not at all. The old Raceform s/f were generally recognised as high standard, yet took no account of class, simply measured the best times over each particular c/d. Timeform used pars at around that time, but weren’t as good, imo, as Raceform.
<br>Inconsistent ground is another factor. With the prevalence of selective watering, not only is it difficult to ascertain the overall going, it may well vary from section to section, and, far too often to make definitive judgements, from one side of the course to the other.
Interesting..you don’t seem to care what goes in the form book re ground..coz a pro put it there..most horse’s form has inconsistent going included..but all of a sudden when it comes to speed figures..ooh we have to be pinpoint accurate or I can’t find enough sticks to beat it with. Basically..the form book is ok with a million errors in it..you slavishly study form with all those errors without minding..but get all pinnickity about minor details when it comes to speed figure..you just like knocking speed compilers..which is handy as the two people on here who you like digging at both compile them…sad sad sad.<br> Once again, you are missing the point. The form student can see, read, or ascertain, when the going is uneven on different sides of the course. No doubt the s/f compiler could do the same, but how does he introduce that into his figures? Let me guess?:) <br>
trackside…
i sense that u have watched a bit of racing in the past
so why do u need to rate what u have have already see and understood?
It is then adjusted for the average going. If you want to make adjustments for fitness, getting blocked in, hard luck etc there is nothing at all to stop you making those adjustments. That is no different from any other type of rating.
just like that
tracksides point is spot on…how the hell do you quantify all that?
French Group I winners that have raced succesfully in UK have previously scored very high speed figures in France
No
i raised the question
u produce the evidence
- Total Posts 17716
Quote: from robert99 on 11:41 pm on June 11,  If Clive could produce any evidence of his statements, as Stav has, then he could be taken more seriously.
And if Stav could produce any evidence of his statement that high-class handicaps involving bunched finishes are generally slowly run, maybe the same would apply?
The time figure just records the time a horse took to cross the line. It is then adjusted for the average going. If you want to make adjustments for fitness, getting blocked in, hard luck etc  there is nothing at all to stop you making those adjustments. That is no different from any other type of rating.[/i
“Far more damning, imo, than all the above, is that s/f, as such, take little or no account of the actual horses involved, so that major influences such as invidual class, fitness, going and distances preferences, are largely ignored, all of which have an impact on every single race run.“
Quite complicated these s/f, aren’t they?:biggrin: ÂÂÂ
/quote]
Clivex
Don’t know if all raced successfully after they posted these, but a query for Split Second s/f’s,12f G1’s in France (not the Arc)
Longchamp<br>126 Volvoreta<br>125 Pearly Shells<br>117 Mezzo Saprona<br>115 Sweet Stream<br>114 Scorpion<br>112 Shawanda<br>112 Daryada
Chantilly
119 Dalakhani<br>118 Holding Court<br>118 Sulamani<br>117 Blue Canari
Saint – Cloud
119 Gamut<br>118 Alkaased<br>112 Ange Gabriel<br>102 Ange Gabriel
<br>Compare those to
Epsom
Quija Board/Motivator 114 top (not bother with rest)
Ascot
122 Daylami<br>120 Galileo<br>118 Golan<br>117 Montjue<br>114 Alamshar
<br>some decent figures from the French runners, whether you believe em is another matter
(Edited by empty wallet at 1:19 am on June 12, 2006)<br>
(Edited by empty wallet at 1:27 am on June 12, 2006)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.