Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Love the Paddy Power adverts. Harmlessly humerous in an increasingly schizophrenic world which lurches between hardcore PC and blatant sexual exploitation.
As for the bookmaker, they are like all the others. Every bet knocked back if they think you might win a few quid.
Ginger
There must be something about horse racing that makes people look at it in a different way to all other sports. You wrote
Group 1 races are already essentially level weights. With 3 year olds only getting weight for immaturity. If there was no weight allowance then all three year olds will be effectively giving weight.
So let’s take a human equivalent. It is the 100 metres final at the Olympic games. The 18 year old World Junior Record holder gets 5 metres DFA allowance from Usain Bolt because otherwise he would effectively be giving distance (your logic). He beats Usain by a metre in 9.48 seconds, is proclaimed the greatest sprinter in the world, scoops all the lucrative contracts, never having to prove he would have progressed by that 5 metres to justify the adulation. It’s ridulous, but that is what happens in horse racing.
Who knows whether Sea The Stars would have improved a single pound. I know of brilliant 3YOs who did not improve at all (the euphemism is "not trained on") and useful ones who improved by stones until they were 6YO and beyond. It is a mistake to assume horses will make "normal" improvement.
You say it deprives us from seeing potential stars. Well horses like Sea The Stars and Zarkava proved themselves before "retirement". Running in and winning many Group 1’s.
It deprives us of seeing which are the best and fastest, because as 3YOs they are not. They invariably receive more weight than the equivalent of their winning distance. As mature horses would Sea The Stars, Rip Van Winkle, Zarkava or some other horse be the best, and in what circumstances. The pecking order is often quite different at 4YO and 5YO. Which, of course, is the point of getting your champion 3YO off to stud before the horse is properly tested and perhaps an inconvenient truth revealed.
The whole point of my argument is that the sport could be better for adopting measures which strongly encourage good horses to be kept in training. Horse racing competes with other sports for public attention, TV and press. The flat racing part of the sport haemorrhages it’s stars and potential stars every year, and it doesn’t help.
In the ROA magazine this month John Gosden expresses the opinion that flat racing is on the brink of major decline. One of the reasons being that racing is not promoted as a sport with its stars, the horses, given exposure in the popular press and TV. The concentration on betting and centuries old traditions does not attract a younger audience. How can the stars and the clashes of the giants be promoted when they’re here today, gone tomorrow.
The removal of WFA would have to be only one of several measures to put racing on a sensible footing intended to reward merit rather than precocity. A class of races above Group One perhaps called Championship races is one idea eg the Eclipse, ARC, July Cup etc which would be only open to 4YOs and over. Prize money would have to be adjusted so that Championship races were worth much more than Group Ones. Handicap ratings would not include credit for ability assumed but not yet proven, so Sea The Stars would be 135-8= 127 or whatever it is. Raceform, Timeform and other handicappers would ideally fall into line. All measures to establish a true meritocracy and worthy champions rather than youth champions. Sea The Stars would have to race the next year to be established a champion and his value would reflect that.
Our sport must be just about the only one to hail youth champions as the best. It is ridiculous when you think about it. What is worse it deprives us of seeing many of the potential stars for more than a year. It is like Federer giving up after one Wimbledon, or Tiger Woods saying thanks for the memories after the 1997 Masters.
Nothing left to prove? Don’t make me laugh.
Getting rid of weight-for-age and sex allowances in Group races would be a start. Championship races, a new class above Group Ones, would then only be open to 4YO plus.
These sorts of changes are needed to make racing a true meritocracy and to discourage premature retirement of the best 3YOs. At present in flat racing all the accolades go to the youth champions. It must be the only sport that works that way. I can understand people saying that Sea The Stars has nothing to prove the way the system works now, but of course it is nonsense.
The July Cup is a race that often favours horses coming back in trip as the course is a very stiff 6f. Green Desert, Ajdal, Chief Singer, Mozart, Stravinsky, Mr Brooks ……….. correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t they all win the July Cup having been previously campaigned over further?
Nobody seems to remember the ones coming back in trip that failed, only the few that succeeded. Most of those were three year olds whose optimum trip was unclear before the July Cup. A four year old with plenty of form from which to judge it’s optimum distance etc is a less likely contender, unless it has been crying out for a shorter trip.
As for the course being very stiff the RP standard time for the July Cup course is 1.10.3, which is about average for a 6f in this country. Plenty of straight flat courses have slower standard times eg Ripon, Doncaster, Folkestone, Redcar, Thirsk…….. Haydock and Newcastle are at 1.12.4. For stiff courses there’s Salisbury 1.13.0, Ascot 1.13.5 and Pontefract at 1.15.2. So the July Cup course is definitely not a very stiff 6f.
I’d suggest you don’t become petty it really doesn’t do much other than come across as a little childish.
Well I’d suggest that you think twice before you describe someone else’s opinion as nonsense, then they will be less inclined to pick you up on your mistakes. Here is another person using the word nonsense with much more justification. From Richard Hannon’s website:-
Hannon said:"The Racing UK pair (Lydia Hislop and Steve Mellish) cut Jimmy (Fortune) to pieces, and it was most unfair. It is obvious that neither of them have ever sat on a racehorse in their lives, because I have never heard so much nonsense talked after a race.
"The fact is Paco Boy could not go the early pace and then he became totally unbalanced in the Dip. Once he met the rising ground he took off, and these so-called experts don’t seem to understand that plenty of horses fail to handle that run down into the Dip at Newmarket. It was the same with Big Audio in the Superlative Stakes – he lost his race there, too."
Plenty of so-called experts also don’t seem to be able to judge the pace of a race. These are the approximate sectional times I came up with :-
Start to 1f…….14.3
1f to 2f…………11.0
2f to 3f…………10.7
3f to 4f…………10.8
4f to 5f…………10.5
5f to 6f…………12.28
Total…………1.09.58After an average first furlong (for the grade) the times are very fast, finishing just 0.07 seconds outside Stravinsky’s track record.
With the going, the dip and the speed of the race Paco Boy stood no chance.
You are talking nonsense, with respect. Paco Boy was under no pressure to keep his position or anything he travelled well and smoothly within himself at no point was he struggling for pace. I think Steve Mellish hit the nail on the head when he said Fortune wanted to track Scenic Blast but had no plan B when it was obvious the race wasn’t going to be run to suit Scenic Blast.
To be honest I struggle to see how anyone can defend Fortune’s ride. I can understand Art Connoisseur being held up because he’s a tricky horse who has to have everything drop perfectly. Paco Boy is a different case entirely.
Well for someone who cannot tell the difference between Richard Hughes and Jimmy Fortune you are obviously something of a judge. You will find that the official form book uses the words "soon outpaced" about Paco Boy.
I have watched umpteen 7f horses niggled along early to go faster in 6f races
What faster pace? They crawled.
Paco Boy has tons of speed and would have went faster in the Lennox, Foret and Queen Anne. Ryan Moore on Main Aim maximised his position by riding prominently when he saw the pace was slow.
A poor ride from Fortune, plain and simple, lacking in flexibility in the circumstances.Well you can argue that Fortune should have pushed Paco Boy from the stalls to be prominent (eg Murtagh’s US Ranger ride last year), but not being psychic and knowing that would be highly unlikely to work he probably settled for the usual hold up ride. What the video shows is Paco Boy close to flat out after the first furlong. It is the same old story. Sprinters go a stride faster than 7f/8f horses and that is enough to make the difference.
Don’t agree. Fortune did the only sensible thing in the first half of the race.
I have watched umpteen 7f horses niggled along early to go faster in 6f races and it does them no good at all. Paco’s chance was based on a strong pace and the field coming back to him, and that didn’t happen. To see Main Aim and King’s Apostle up with the pace was very strange indeed.Well the Aussies and their followers lose their money over 6f yet again. Shame !!
I am with Prufrock on this one. The draw as published is how the horses should line up with gaps where there are withdrawals. This punter, and many others, are fed up with the amount of moving of the goalposts that has been going on – inaccurate going forecasts, overwatering, differential watering, rail repositioning, mass withdrawals etc – and stability and reliable information is much needed.
The reasons for not leaving gaps have little merit in my opinion. As for the benefits of horses running in a group, they will still do that if they want to or do the opposite if they don’t want to regardless of gaps. For every horse in a sprint that needs to be covered up in a group you will find one that needs to be front rank, and/or is intimidated by other horses and/or will not go through gaps and needs to be brought wide etc. Many will welcome having stall gaps and as Pru writes some gaps are inevitable with late withdrawals.
The effect of the draw on the shape of the race, who will be able to get to the front and whether groups split off and go to the opposite rail is the sort of thing that punters that specialise on sprints will very much take into account.
As things stand punting on sprints is becoming less attractive as there is too much unpredicable moving of the goalposts going on.
I really do think Prime Defender is going to win this.
There have been worse 100/1 chances.
I can remember Compton Place finding a golden highway and fluking the July Cup at 50/1.
How many different horses from Oz have run over further in how many races since Choisir?
Since Choisir won the Golden Jubilee in 2003 these horses from Australia have had a go in the Golden Jubilee or July Cup :-
Choisir 2nd
Exceed And Excel 19th
Takeover Target 3rd
Glamour Puss 10th
Takeover Target 7th
Falkirk 13th
Takeover Target 2nd
Magnus 14th
Miss Andretti 15th
Mutawaajid 9th
Bentley Biscuit 10th
Takeover Target 4thview of HKJC CEO :
http://www.hkjc.com/english/corporate/ce/ce_blog.asp
==================
I was at Ascot to see the race myself and felt Sacred Kingdom never found his normal flowing rhythm. This may have been due to the undulation of the track, which I mentioned before the race as being a testing factor for horses used to flat surfaces.
When Cape Of Good Hope conquered this Group One race back in 2005, Ascot Racecourse was under renovation and the race was actually staged at York, which was a firmer track than Ascot and proved to be easier for our runner. Our top racehorses usually seem to perform better on the flat tracks of Japan and Singapore than in Europe, where they can face some quite challenging slopes. It would be nice if we had some uphill or downhill training tracks in our facilities at Sha Tin, but current space limitations don’t allow it. This is something we need to consider for the future, though, so as to help our horses become more adaptable and get better prepared for different racecourses when they take on challenges around the world.
Anyway, even though Sacred Kingdom’s overseas venture did not end in success this time, I would say it will serve as good experience for both Ricky Yiu and Brett Prebble in future. And I’m especially delighted to hear how much interest the media and a lot of our local racing fans showed in following the race. Actually, I received a lot of feedback from both the media and the racing public asking why the Club could not simulcast the race live to Hong Kong and how they could watch the race live on the Internet. This is clear evidence of how many local racing fans are concerned with following the performance of our top racehorses overseas.
================================
wit
I think that the connections of Sacred Kingdom can forget the performance at Ascot. Due to overwatering the going was loose and on the easy side of Good on the stand side and may not have suited several of the runners.
Also as I posted on another thread the sectionals show a very uneven pace. The first 150 yds were slow as everyone waited for JJ The Jet Plane to lead, then the next three furlongs were very quick. The front runners fell in a heap due to going too fast on the loose ground. These are the sectionals I took :-
Golden Jubilee
6f to 5f … 14.51
5f to 4f … 11.35
4f to 3f … 10.63
3f to 2f … 11.10
2f to 1f … 13.40
1f to 0f … 13.91
Total … 1.14.90 (1.40 slow)Hopefully this will not stop them trying again. The chances of getting a sound consistent surface at the July Cup are much higher, than Ascot on the Saturday.
Blackheath
4 things you’ll never convince me of:
1/ Any human being can time sectionals to 1/100th of a second from a front view, well in front of the horses, and across the breadth of a wide track like Ascot
2/ Horses at least 2 classes superior to those in the Wokingham fell in a hole after 4 furlongs after only travelling 2.5 lengths faster (your figures) over that distance.
3/ Sectionals are anything more than just another useful tool for British racing (with the possible exception of the all-weather tracks), and that anyone has yet proved to use them, as such, with any great deal of success in that sphere..
4/ That Art Connoisseur, a horse that didn’t stay a slowly run 7f in the Craven (His trainer’s words, not mine), and had the Coventry – over the same c/d as the GJ – in the bag fully a furlong from home, won the race by sheer stamina.Make that 5/; That you are not the guesser you readily accredit others being who disagree with you..
reet hard / thedarkknight
1/ I will set out the figures I got for each furlong. To get them I had to take 80+ timings keeping going until I was happy that I was getting reasonable consistency at each furlong marker. In most cases the median three are averaged. Of course you cannot get very accurate times off the Telly, but just because something is difficult does not mean it’s not worthwhile. The GJ ones were easier than the Wokingham.
2/ The timings are very revealing. Do a rough check on them yourself. What they show is that most commentators got entirely the wrong impression of the pace in the GJ and therefore have reached the wrong conclusions about the race. The pace, the going, why the two best horses fell in a hole, what Art Conniseur achieved. The lot.
3/ I don’t do a lot of sectionals. Just when I think there’s something fishy.
4/ Well it is no big deal when you just go a more sensible pace than the rest. Art Conniseur must have been slowing down as well, just not as fast as the others. Despite all the data that has been available from Newmarket, Turftrax, etc people still do not seem to have grasped the fact that in most races all the horses are slowing down inside the final furlong.
5/ I thought the mention of guessers was quite mild after the poppycock and Beano references.
Golden Jubilee
6f to 5f … 14.51 Slow first 150 yds with JJ reluctant pacemaker.
5f to 4f … 11.35 )
4f to 3f … 10.63 ) which is why they fell in a heap on the loose ground
3f to 2f … 11.10 )
2f to 1f … 13.40
1f to 0f … 13.91
Total … 1.14.90 (1.40 slow)Wokingham
6f to 5f … 14.17
5f to 4f … 11.73
4f to 3f … 11.00 ) estimated as 3f marker not shown on TV
3f to 2f … 11.13 ) (Markab)
2f to 1f … 12.45 (Markab)
1f to 0f … 13.71
Total … 1.14.19 (0.69 slow)Final point this sprint handicappers winning Group races nonsense should have been put to bed long ago. Many sprinters keep maturing well into their 5YO and 6YO careers. They build up muscle and power, improve and get faster over time. Many, probably the majority, start off as handicappers but to keep labelling them as such when they reach the top is a travesty.
Well my video shows nine horses racing down the stand rail in the Wokingham. Kevin Ryan who walked the course beforehand decided that Tamagin had to go far side because the ground on the stand side was slower. Perhaps he also hoped for a repeat of Tamagin’s run in the 2008 Great St Wilfred of which the RP commented "Tamagin deserves the utmost praise. Drawn in single figures, he dashed to the far side and took the field along at a rate of knots. Headed inside the final furlong, he kept on well to the line."
David Nicholls who allowed Van Bossed to take his chance down the stand rail in the Wokingham is reported as saying that Van Bossed came back covered in mud.
The honest answer to all this is that the Clerk of the Course overwatered. He turned what had probably been a stand side advantage into a stand side disadvantage where the horses raced on looser ground on the easy side of good, with the consequent times 2 secs or more above what they should have been. Why some in the media have to deny this and look for other implausible explanations only they know. Their kid gloves treatment of major watering cock ups at Ascot, Folkestone and Newcastle are doing racing a disservice. In other sports the people making crass judgements like this would be taken to task.
Back to Tamagin you are right that he has some very good runs at Lingfield, particularly the last one. Those who use RP ratings probably believe those runs are as good or better than his efforts at Ripon, Newcastle and Windsor.
Ancien Regime has moved from a top class trainer of sprinters to Godolphin who do not seem particularly good at it eg Dandy Man. In view of this I thought Ancien Regime ran well. Maybe he will buck the trend.
Well he could have mentioned the good reason why Tamagin went to the far side in the Wokingham rather than make it sound like a funny move.
Oh sorry, the RP tries not to mention overwatering or uneven watering unless it is so blatant (Folkestone) that there is no choice.
Dominating against a right hand rail is Tamagin’s game. For those who were impressed we probably can’t expect things to go as well in different circumstances.
