- This topic has 22 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Of course Zarkava can be “mightily impressive” in beating Goldikova over an inadequate trip, TTC. But the point I was making is you are using a race where both were nowhere near their very bests in order to justify your belief Zarkava was better than Enable. If Zark’ and Goldi’ were nowhere near their best form at that time… then that particular form can not be used to justify Zarkava being rated in front of Enable.
Yes, there is usually one or two of any field running unexpectedly well/poorly TTC. But if Zarkava and Goldikova ran to their career best form in the French Guineas then the 3rd (even subsequent multi-Group 1 winner Halfway To heaven) 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th must ALL have put up performances not only better but far better than anything they ever did either before or after the French Guineas. What are the chances of the 5 horses who finished behind Zark’ and Goldi’ putting up stand out career bests in the French Guineas?
Value Is EverythingI never said anything about “stand out career bests”. I could not care less about that really. Zarkava beat Goldikova over a mile, in to 2nd, in a classic. You can pick holes using the also-rans all you like, and have a different opinion all you like. But it happened. And, as with Frankel, I personally doubt they both ran 10lb wrong either.
I have no doubt you can (and will) debate me to death on this with figures.
“The 4th home didn’t get the soft lead she likes, and averages 38.634 grams lower with Timeform when running within 2 weeks of rainfall deemed a downpour by a weather station within 20km of the track”, or some such.
And Zarkava will still have stuffed Goldikova over an inadequate mile in a classic.
BUY THE SUN
Sorry mate but: You didn’t mention “stand out performaances“; I did. I am saying if the French Guineas is rated up with Zark’ and Goldi’s best then the five that followed them home must ALL have put up their stand out performance… And that seems highly unlikely.
For sure two people’s idea of form can be different, but how horses are rated should be based on form. It’s not about “picking holes”. It’s always about using form figures in order to rate what the actual standard of performance was when two (who subsequenty proved) great fillies met early on in their careers. For me, how good each performance is rated should be based on form and not emotion.
Just because I might want to believe Zarkava beating Goldikova was a significant race in how the two are rated… I can not ignore how good (or poor) the five who chased them home were and how close they finished to the pair. Zark’ won (beating Goldi’) but the form needed to do so was around 10 lbs short of Zark’s best; the two of them subsequently showing significant improvement.
Value Is EverythingYou know your onions GT but you are a bit of a mood hoover and no mistake. All these patronising italics, jesus.
I really rate Zarkava. I think her beating Goldikova in the French 1000 is a superb effort, and a significant part of her CV.
I’ll leave it there mate, have a good weekend.
BUY THE SUN
If looking TTC, I didn’t use italics in my first post to you. The post you replied to by calling me “arrogant”. Plain to see your attitude to me from the start – before italics.
It was clear you did not understand my main point in that first post, which was why I subsequently used italics in order to emphasise important words in explaining my opinion – that’s all… And it worked. Didn’t mean it to be patronising. You may find people appear patronising when you begin by being abusive towards them.
“Jesus”, they’re only my opinions about horses. Nothing else.
Have a good life.
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.