- This topic has 55 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 12 months ago by
.
- Posts
…So we agree, comparing Frankel’s headwind time is "a little pointless". But there hasn’t been a headwind for every 2000 Guineas… Therefore, if Night Of Thunder’s time is very similar with most/plenty "good-firm" 2000 Guineas times – we can conclude –
the evidence suggests ground was probably good-firm yesterday and definitely not on the soft side of good
.
No we don’t agree. You’ve chosen to misinterpret my words:
I have
"chosen"
to do no such thing ffs!
May be you don’t understand what I mean, or I don’t understand your meaning; but I did NOT choose to
"misinterpret"
your words Drone.
Value Is Everything…So we agree, comparing Frankel’s headwind time is "a little pointless". But there hasn’t been a headwind for every 2000 Guineas… Therefore, if Night Of Thunder’s time is very similar with most/plenty "good-firm" 2000 Guineas times – we can conclude –
the evidence suggests ground was probably good-firm yesterday and definitely not on the soft side of good
.
No we don’t agree. You’ve chosen to misinterpret my words:
the 24mph headwind of Frankel’s race reported by Indocine which must surely be
significant
, it seems a little pointless to base going assessment on raw times
Yep, that headwind was
significant
hence must be taken into account when extrapolating time-to-going calculations; just as wind direction and speed should be accounted for in every race if you’re intent on trying to assess going from racetimes.
The alternative, using raw time alone to assess going assumes all races are run in a flat calm; hence my query about the conditions at Newmarket yesterday compared to those at previous Guineas, of which the stiff headwind of Frankel’s may or may not be the most extreme
To reiterate, I’ve no idea how to empirically correct times for wind direction and speed against the ‘calm standard’ though do recall Prufrock giving it a go once on TRF
What we are discussing here is whether Newmarket over-watered. If it was genuinely good ground, may be they did. If it was genuinely good-soft, then yes they definitely did. If it was genuinely good-firm, they got the watering dead right.
If we were judging the going of Frankel’s Guineas by times then of course we would need to allow for wind speed and direction, but thankfully we are not. I am judging nothing by Frankel’s time. I am also not judging Night Of Thunder’s ability, only what the ground was like.
Yes, if yesterday’s race was run in a strong wind it would have to be allowed for, like any race. But in this particular calculation it does not matter if one or two times in the past were affected by wind speeds and directions because the races we are judging yesterday’s going by is a large enough sample for it not to be that important.
Here are the official goings for 2000 Guineas of this millennium.
2014 Good-firm, good in places Night Of Thunder 1m 36.61
2013 Good-firm Dawn Approach 1m 35.84
2012 Good-soft Camelot 1m 42.46
2011 Good-firm Frankel 1m 37.3
2010 Good-firm Makfi 1m 36.35
2009 Good-firm Sea The Stars 1m 35.88
2008 Good Henrythenavigator 1m39.14
2007 Good-firm Cockney Rebel 1m 35.28
2006 Good-firm, firm in places George Washington 1m 36.86
2005 Good-firm, firm in places Footstepsinthesand 1m 36.10
2004 Good Haafhd 1m 36.64
2003 Good Refuse To Bend 1m 37.98
2002 Good-firm Rock Of Gibraltar 1m 36.50
2001 Good Golan 1m37.48
2000 Good Kings Best 1m 37.77I am assuming all races were of the same distance.
Was yesterday’s official "Good-firm, good in places" right?
As I said, "the evidence suggests ground wasprobably
good-firm yesterday and
definitely
not on the soft side of good".
The only "Good" ground 2000 Guineas anywhere near Night Of Thunder’s time was Haafhd (three hundredths of a second slower). However, in 2004 the following day’s 1000 Guineas was described as "Good-firm", so unless it blew a gale overnight can’t have been far off good-firm on the Saturday. It was also particularly truly run. Pace not slow or overly strong, but just right for Haafhd to produce Timeform’s best Timefigure of any age group in 2004. (Timeform Timefigures allow for wind speed and direction). ie Haafhd’s time was exceptional for good ground.
Therefore, my conclusion is that although (like Haafhd) there is a
small possibility
it was good ground (but bordering on good-firm) – "the evidence suggests ground was
probably
good-firm yesterday"… And as I have heard no reports of a hurricane blowing up their backsides, "
definitely
not on the soft side of good".
A time that is usually associated with
good-firm
can of course (if a slowly run race) be put up on
firm
Drone, but viewing the race it seemed to me a fairly well run race. This is borne out by Simon Rowlands’ sectionals:
https://www.timeform.com/Racing/Article … rket_May_4
However, although I can not say it was definitely good-firm, what I can say is that it was definitely NOT good-soft! Because from what we know of thoroughbreds it is
physically impossible
to do a time of 1 minute 36.61 seconds up the Rowley Mile on
genuinely good-soft
ground unless there was a tail-hurricane! There wasn’t…
Value Is EverythingI know most ppl here do not actually make speed figures, but if you have the slightest feel… Let me pose you a more rhetorical question on the 2000 Guineas day times. Do you think, given the quality of horse on offer across the whole card, that, on
good to firm
ground, not one single race would be run in a time below RPost standard on a windless day? In fact, the Group class races, (which were not falsely run) only just got to within 1¼ secs of RP standard times, and a RP standard time is itself nowhere near group class! To assert that it was good to firm ground is just ludicrous.
I didn’t think Kingman was going to run if the ground came up with the word firm in it as he had that injury and Gosden wouldn’t risk him? Night of Thunder was supposedly best on the softer side although hadn’t ran on quicker so that could of just been a theory. Did Paddy pay the clerk to cover any possible losses from the going market? 2/5 yes 6/4 no.
Gaelic Warrior Gold Cup Winner 2026
I know most ppl here do not actually make speed figures, but if you have the slightest feel… Let me pose you a more rhetorical question on the 2000 Guineas day times. Do you think, given the quality of horse on offer across the whole card, that, on
good to firm
ground, not one single race would be run in a time below RPost standard on a windless day? In fact, the Group class races, (which were not falsely run) only just got to within 1¼ secs of RP standard times, and a RP standard time is itself nowhere near group class! To assert that it was good to firm ground is just ludicrous.
The Palace house was not "falsely run", but it was not truly run either. ie the fractions were not conducive to a particularly fast time.
Any punter watching the Jocky Club Stakes should be able to see it was falsely run.
Please take a look at that link Indocine. Prufrock puts it far better than I can, the fractions show how races were run. To be a truly run race it must have relatively even fractions.
Value Is EverythingObv JC is slow. Sole Power could’ve run 2 stone slow and still it wouldn’t be g/f, lol.
Sole Power could’ve run 2 stone slow and still it wouldn’t be g/f, lol.
You must be the only person to believe Sole Power equally as good on a soft surface Indocine. A well known top-of-the-ground specialist wins – and you think the going is on the soft side.
Value Is EverythingSurely race times can only give an indication of the going after the race has been run, when as a punter you want to know what the going is before the race happens
You could try timing the first few races on a card Andrew, but then again they could be slowly run.
There are however, many occasions where the time of a truly run race allows a punter to realise the official going report is nonsense.
The form book might say the ground was officially good-soft when horse "X" won last time out, and is now running on good-firm for officially "the first time", which is allowed for in the betting… Knowing times strongly suggest the ground was genuinely on the firm side of good last time (not good-soft)… means you’re likely to get a value price.
Value Is EverythingEvidence suggests no over-watering and the Clerk did a pretty good job in making safe good-firm ground.
What are you talking about "SAFE" ? We’re talking about high quality flat racing here not 3 mile chasers, it should be run on fast summer ground if it doesn’t rain.
Simon Rowlands states conditions were faster last year and Willow rates the race highly due to the fast time under the conditions.
Going into the Guineas by common consent, most considered it one of the highest quality fields in recent times with plenty of strength in depth but you consider the race to be only average after, why would that be?
Most horses including Sole Power could go on the ground provided but it should have been good to firm at least not good. Horses wanting some cut should have been seriously hindered or even withdrawn, similar to what happens to top of the ground performers when it rains.
Lots of horses can’t go on soft ground but what do the clerks of the courses do to produce "perfect" ground if it rains a lot?
Good to firm (Good in Places) as a description is a con when 99% of those places are good.
Clerks of the courses should be honest.Thank you Ginger for that zephyr up my backside
I’ll now depart…
…
out by the same door as in I went
Evidence suggests no over-watering and the Clerk did a pretty good job in making safe good-firm ground.
What are you talking about "SAFE" ? We’re talking about high quality flat racing here not 3 mile chasers, it should be run on fast summer ground if it doesn’t rain.
Simon Rowlands states conditions were faster last year and Willow rates the race highly due to the fast time under the conditions.
Going into the Guineas by common consent, most considered it one of the highest quality fields in recent times with plenty of strength in depth but you consider the race to be only average after, why would that be?
Most horses including Sole Power could go on the ground provided but it should have been good to firm at least not good. Horses wanting some cut should have been seriously hindered or even withdrawn, similar to what happens to top of the ground performers when it rains.
Lots of horses can’t go on soft ground but what do the clerks of the courses do to produce "perfect" ground if it rains a lot?
Good to firm (Good in Places) as a description is a con when 99% of those places are good.
Clerks of the courses should be honest.Some Clerks may not be totally honest, but I do not see how Michael Prosser can be criticised on this occasion when the only evidence we have is the 2000 Guineas time, being what you’d expect from good-firm ground.
Everyone has their idea of what "Safe" ground is Eddie; but (as I understand it) over fences GOOD is considered safe by the powers that be, where as on the flat it is considered GOOD-FIRM. I used to have the same opinion as you, against most watering on the flat… until speaking to an equine (racecourse) vet and a jockeys Doctor. The Authorities have done research in to ground conditions and found injuries increase significantly on firm ground (jumps and flat). Thoroughbred’s legs are quite brittle and racing on firm ground can put too much stress on them; producing more injuries on firm (or hard) than good-firm.
When so much is at stake (prize money and/or Classics (breeding), where there’s only one a year) there’s also a greater probability connections taking a chance on ground/injury. Where as for other races connections can wait next week or even tomorrow for a suitable Class 4 mile handicap, the same can not be done with a Guineas. The British 2000 Guineas is considered a more prestigeous race than its French or Irish counterparts…
…And what if you have your way Eddie, and connections don’t take the risk of injury? With no Night Of Thunder, no Kingman, no Kingston Hill, all going to France instead. Coolmore with an easy Guineas to win for their Triple Crown prospect, don’t run War Command either. Take those out of the betting and see what you get! The Newmarket 2000 Guineas would’ve been far less competitive; and every year after that this situation comes upwithout watering – far less competitive. It could even lead to the French 2000 Guineas eventually becoming the more difficult to win and therefore the more prestigeous.
"Top-of-the-ground" horses still have an advantage over soft ground horses on good-firm ground and is better (safer) for them (even with a fluent action) than racing on firm.
If not watering to maintain good-firm then you risk more injuries/deaths, horses going abroad to race/remaining in their boxes and far less competitive racing.
Timeform measure ground conditions much more accurately, they need to for the purposes of rating horses. Might be "good-firm" that is verging on firm and then there’s "good-firm" that is verging on good. If they did not allow for that difference ratings would be less accurate. Suspect when racecourses say "good-firm, good in places" what they often mean is "good-firm, but nearer good than firm", so not surprised Simon Rowlands rates 2013 faster than 2014. But the fact remains Timeform still rate both 2014 and 2013 runnings as Good-firm.
As I said earlier, Willow is a law unto himself. I suspect what he’s done is look at ALL Saturday’s Newmarket times and (correctly) seen the 2000 Guineas stands out on over all times. If only going by over all times then he’d be right to rate it an outstanding performance. However, as Simon points out in that betfair/timeform sectional piece, no other good race on Saturday was run with sectionals conducive to achieving a very fast time. So a straight comparisson between over all race times is imo misleading.
Going in to the race Eddie, it did look "one of the highest quality fields in recent times", a better than average field. ie Although no horse had yet put up a performance good enough to win an average Guineas, there rarely ever is. Even most Champion Two Year Olds need to improve to win an average Guineas. But in 2014 more horses than usual had potential to improve in to an average or better than average Guineas winner.
For me; considering the race was truly run, there was too many horses within 5 lengths to consider it an above average Guineas. It was a Top Class Performance, and as I said an "average Guineas" should not be seen as derogatory. Take a look at the list of fourteen 2000 Guineas performances of this Millennium (emphasise "Guineas Performances", some may have improved in later races).
I’d have (in order they’ve run): Dawn Approach, Frankel, Sea The Stars, Henrythenavigator, George Washington, Haafhd and Kings Best as better performances than Night Of Thunder…
With: Camelot, Makfi, Cockney Rebel, Footstepsinthesand, Refuse To Bend, Rock Of Gibraltar and Golan worse than Night Of Thunder…
7 better and 7 worse makes this year’s winner imo Eddie – an average 2000 Guineas winning performance. However, I did say " I do believe the first three have potential to improve in to above average Group 1 three year olds… With Australia possibly a well above average three year old once given a greater test of stamina", indeed I expect them to do so.
Value Is EverythingHi Ginger
Just considering what most would regard as the ideal ground for Flat Racing, viz the parameters Good G to Firm F, do you believe that the Time T taken to run the race if plottted G-to-F against T would be a smooth, linear reduction as the going firms-up and if so why?
Hi Ginger
Just considering what most would regard as the ideal ground for Flat Racing, viz the parameters Good G to Firm F, do you believe that the Time T taken to run the race if plottted G-to-F against T would be a smooth, linear reduction as the going firms-up and if so why?
Not sure I understand your question correctly Drone.
Value Is EverythingActually, forget it Ginger
I have – or had to be precise – this theory that although times are likely to be faster on GF than G they would not necessarily be faster on F than GF, or at least the difference would be smaller, or even in some instances negative, due to horses being reluctant to gallop with full effort (let themselves down is the horsey term) due to the jarring effects of a firm surface
I now recall a thread on here some years ago, that I can’t find, in which Prufrock amongst others summarily dismissed my theory. He had data, I had thoughts
Actually, forget it Ginger
I have – or had to be precise – this theory that although times are likely to be faster on GF than G they would not necessarily be faster on F than GF, or at least the difference would be smaller, or even in some instances negative, due to horses being reluctant to gallop with full effort (let themselves down is the horsey term) due to the jarring effects of a firm surface
I now recall a thread on here some years ago, that I can’t find, in which Prufrock amongst others summarily dismissed my theory. He had data, I had thoughts
I see Drone,
Assuming we are talking about horses ofequal
ability on the
same
racecourse and races run at
level, fast
fractions:
The firmer the ground is, the fewer horses act on it, obviously some thatdon’t
act (
"jarring"
or hurting etc) on F might be able to do their
own personal best time
on GF rather than F… But those putting up personal best times on GF will
not
be as fast as those personal bests put up by those who
do
act on F.
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.