- This topic has 160 replies, 54 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 12 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Joseph O’Brien tried to copy what Lester did on Nijinsky. Unfortunately for him, Camelot is no Nijinsky and he is no Lester.
My immediate thought after the race was that Joseph left it too late before unleashing his challenge.
That said, Camelot’s defeat only emphasises how hard it is for any horse to win the Triple Crown, and how great Nijinsky’s achievement was back in 1970.
I did point out how Shergar’s defeat should act as a warning call to those who thought Camelot was already home and hosed.
It will be a long time before another horse emulates Nijinsky’s feat.
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
By going up the inner, Joseph had to wait for a gap, as you say "sitting there motionless" though it was hardly that. When there are horses directly in front a jockey can’t do anything else. In the meantime Barca had got first run on Encke. Joseph gained for a while, but
The horse wasn’t "flying at the end"
. If you look at a replay Del_Boy Camelot made ground up after he got out, but being held in the final strides.
Maybe you should take another look at the replay yourself Ginge. Neither jockey has dropped his hands before the line and Camelot has moved from three lengths down to three quarters of a length by the line in the last twenty five yards. How the hell is that not ‘flying at the finish’?
Here, see for yourself:
Hammy, look at it again.
Camelot was possibly as much as three lengths behind Encke. Making up 2 lengths in around 1 1/2 furlongs (that’s 330 yards, not 25 as you say). Is that "flying at the finish"? Well, matter of opinion (imo not). But even if it is; the ground made up was primarily done up until about 30 yards out. Camelot making very little headway on the leader in to the final throws, despite Barca celebrating as he reached the post; which is why I said he was "being held". Whether you believe Camelot flew or not, the flying ended before the finish, so wasn’t "flying at the finish".Value Is EverythingThe horse that was second was Meadowville by Charlottsville, closely related to shock Derby winner Larkspur. Third was Politico, who went on to sire Grand National hero Party Politics.
Did anyone know what horse was shown on the Channel 4 film, a darkish bay with an unusual white star, shown on the gallops. Was it a St Leger winner?never having seen the footage of Nijinsky’s St Leger before, who was that tiny little horse that came second to him?
Meadowville, who won the Voltigeur and went on as a 4yo to win the John Porter and Jockey Club Cup. He was also second in the Irish St Leger
edit:
sorry Crepello, crossed post
There are no certainties in racing. Well, except for the fact that if Camelot lost there would be a thread like this one.
A 2/5 shot getting beaten is nothing extraordinary.
What’s remarkable is that this was by far and away the biggest ride of Joseph’s career and if he was allowed to ride the race again, not only would he have done things differently but he would have won as well.
I’m not mocking the kid at all. I just found it startling that his ride has in all probability knocked millions off Camelot’s stud value.
On a related note, I think that it will be inevitable now that Camelot races on at four in an attempt to replenish his reputation because winning three poor classics alone won’t be enough to justify champion standard fees.
There are no certainties in racing. Well, except for the fact that if Camelot lost there would be a thread like this one.
A 2/5 shot getting beaten is nothing extraordinary.
What’s remarkable is that this was by far and away the biggest ride of Joseph’s career and if he was allowed to ride the race again, not only would he have done things differently but he would have won as well.
I’m not mocking the kid at all. I just found it startling that his ride has in all probability knocked millions off Camelot’s stud value.
On a related note, I think that it will be inevitable that Camelot races on at four in an attempt to replenish his reputation because winning three poor classics alone won’t be enough.
You could say if the race was run again he would be given different instructions.
There are no certainties in racing. Well, except for the fact that if Camelot lost there would be a thread like this one.
A 2/5 shot getting beaten is nothing extraordinary.
What’s remarkable is that this was by far and away the biggest ride of Joseph’s career and if he was allowed to ride the race again, not only would he have done things differently but he would have won as well.
I’m not mocking the kid at all. I just found it startling that his ride has in all probability knocked millions off Camelot’s stud value.
On a related note, I think that it will be inevitable that Camelot races on at four in an attempt to replenish his reputation because winning three poor classics alone won’t be enough.
You could say if the race was run again he would be given different instructions.
That was the implication.
Hypothetically, if the race was ran again tomorrow, would you price Encke up as favourite?
By going up the inner, Joseph had to wait for a gap, as you say "sitting there motionless" though it was hardly that. When there are horses directly in front a jockey can’t do anything else. In the meantime Barca had got first run on Encke. Joseph gained for a while, but
The horse wasn’t "flying at the end"
. If you look at a replay Del_Boy Camelot made ground up after he got out, but being held in the final strides.
Maybe you should take another look at the replay yourself Ginge. Neither jockey has dropped his hands before the line and Camelot has moved from three lengths down to three quarters of a length by the line in the last twenty five yards. How the hell is that not ‘flying at the finish’?
Here, see for yourself:
Hammy, look at it again.
Camelot was possibly as much as three lengths behind Encke. Making up 2 lengths in around 1 1/2 furlongs (that’s 330 yards, not 25 as you say). Is that "flying at the finish"? Well, matter of opinion (imo not). But even if it is; the ground made up was primarily done up until about 30 yards out. Camelot making very little headway on the leader in to the final throws, despite Barca celebrating as he reached the post; which is why I said he was "being held". Whether you believe Camelot flew or not, the flying ended before the finish, so wasn’t "flying at the finish".I cant see that myself Ginge, honestly. The horse makes up a lot of ground in the last few yards of the race. Okay perhaps more the last fifty yards than twenty, but he’s gaining hand over fist nonetheless and in another fifty yards the horse that has questions around his ability to see out the Leger trip would have over hauled the winner. Whether the leading horse was slowing or Camelot was gaining is a question of semantics. The point is that at the end of the race he was travelling considerably quicker than the winner.
Not only did he see the trip out entirely adequately, but he looks like he could probably race over even further if ridden to suit.
I thought there was a point where he asked a question of Camelot and the horse just didn’t seem to be concentrating. He was, if you like, too relaxed, and didn’t appear to realise he was in a race. If he’d have been held up a little closer to the pace I believe he MIGHT have won the race.
I’m not of the opinion that Joseph gave the horse a particularly bad ride but I do think he (Or they.) got the tactics wrong.
Ginger – to avoid discussing the definition of "flying at the finish" for the next 6 months, how about admitting the clear fact that Camelot was asked to "go" too late? 100 yards earlier and he would surely have gotten there.
Quote –
"That was the implication. Hypothetically, if the race was ran again tomorrow, would you price Encke up as favourite?"
You’ve been implying that the fault is the jockeys. However, you could say that it was a victory by Al Zarooni over Aidan O’Brien as much as anything else. If it were run again, the jockey would only ride a different race because he would be told to ride differently.
The horse makes up a lot of ground in the last few yards of the race. Okay perhaps more the last fifty yards than twenty, but he’s gaining hand over fist nonetheless and in another fifty yards the horse that has questions around his ability to see out the Leger trip would have over hauled the winner. Whether the leading horse was slowing or Camelot was gaining is a question of semantics. The point is that at the end of the race he was travelling considerably quicker than the winner..
It’s folly to be dogmatic about this without knowledge of the individual horses’ last furlong sectionals but, as Betlarge has pointed out, it is wise to correlate the apparent acceleration (or not) of horses with those behind, not with the winner. A slowing wiinner as I and others think Encke was tricks the eye and hence the brain into believing the second was accelerating or ‘flying at the finish’ to coin your term
It seems most likely that Camelot was one paced at the death and the winner ‘coming back to him’ not Camelot ‘gaining on him’
Therefore by extension Camelot produced a ‘staying on’ performance at constant velocity but no acceleration behind a slowing winner, not a ‘turn of foot’ acceleration gained on a horse with constant velocity
Did anyone know what horse was shown on the Channel 4 film, a darkish bay with an unusual white star, shown on the gallops. Was it a St Leger winner?
Nijinsky
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
You’ve been implying that the fault is the jockeys. However, you could say that it was a victory by Al Zarooni over Aidan O’Brien as much as anything else. If it were run again, the jockey would only ride a different race because he would be told to ride differently.
That’s a bit like saying one boxer’s success over his vanquished foe is down to the promoters. Ultimately, the result today came down to the respective decisions of the jockeys involved and my argument is that if Joseph had the requisite nous and conviction (which can be said of all genuine top class jockeys), he would have known five furlongs out that Camelot needed to be further from the rail thus able to press on much sooner.
The horse makes up a lot of ground in the last few yards of the race. Okay perhaps more the last fifty yards than twenty, but he’s gaining hand over fist nonetheless and in another fifty yards the horse that has questions around his ability to see out the Leger trip would have over hauled the winner. Whether the leading horse was slowing or Camelot was gaining is a question of semantics. The point is that at the end of the race he was travelling considerably quicker than the winner..
It’s folly to be dogmatic about this without knowledge of the individual horses’ last furlong sectionals but, as Betlarge has pointed out, it is wise to correlate the apparent acceleration (or not) of horses with those behind, not with the winner. A slowing wiinner as I and others think Encke was tricks the eye and hence the brain into believing the second was accelerating or ‘flying at the finish’ to coin your term
It seems most likely that Camelot was one paced at the death and the winner ‘coming back to him’ not Camelot ‘gaining on him’
Therefore by extension Camelot produced a ‘staying on’ performance at constant velocity but no acceleration behind a slowing winner, not a ‘turn of foot’ acceleration gained on a horse with constant velocity
Semantics Drone…
Ginger – to avoid discussing the definition of "flying at the finish" for the next 6 months, how about admitting the clear fact that Camelot was asked to "go" too late? 100 yards earlier and he would surely have gotten there.
If you like PC, we could discuss the definition of "go".
Having made the decision to go up the inner, Joseph had to wait for a gap before "go"ing. Had Camelot got the ride Encke did, it is possible Camelot would’ve won. But it’s not certain, only 50/50 in my opinion.A lot has been made of Camelot’s "flying at the finish", but Encke showed at least an equally good turn of foot to go three lengths clear in a short space of time. So it is obvious that having made that greater effort Encke would at some later stage be losing ground on something who hadn’t yet gone for everything. Had Camelot gone for home earlier using his wings ("flying") it’s quite possible Encke could’ve used his turn of foot to get up.
In my opinion Camelot was below form (for whatever reason) today, just like he was in the Irish Derby. Difference in the two performances being this time another horse proved capable of taking advantage.
Value Is EverythingWell, first of all I thought Camelot only had to turn up, boy was I wrong.
Perhaps Camelot isn’t a real group 1 type horse, as Alistair Whitehouse-Jones [from the racing post Weekender } puts it he’s only beaten 2 group 1 horses in 5 appearances before this race.
French Fifteen who won as a juvenile and endured 2 comprehensive failures since finishing 2nd at Newmarket in May
and
Power who ran abysmally in the Guineas and at Royal Ascot in a forgettable renewal of the Irish 2,000 Guineas.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.