Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Godolphin Vs. Coolmore is it?<br>Then let me predict that Giant’s Causeway sires more stakes winners in his first crop than Dubai Millenium.
A losing bet is a good bet so long as it has systematically been arrived at and when application of the system yields a long term profit.
The objective of this particular ‘handicap’ is to attempt to provide an objective assessment of the world’s top horses and to compare the respective abilities of different generations, regardless of geography, gender and preferred distance.<br>A horrendous job, but one which is of value and, broadly speaking, they are usually not that far away, particularly when viewed at a distance of a few years.<br>An outstanding performance in a top level race, such as Hawk Wing’s Lockinge rout, normally guarantees a lofty rating, as is often the case with the Timeform ratings, so it was no surprise to see good old HW up there at the head of affairs, where he belongs.<br>I’d also be wary of talking down Mubtaker’s mark as his Arc run was a fantastic effort and thoroughly deserving of a 130 perch.<br>Falbrav, tough, game and genuine as he was, never displayed the sort of brilliance necessary to break that barrier and although 127 may be a shade low it is only a pound or two light.<br>L’Ancresse’s Breeders Cup effort was another example of the handicapper using one excellent performance to arrive at a rating but, again, if it can be argued that the race reflected the pure ability fo the horse, then the rating is justified, even is she failed to run to that, or near it, on each occasion she ran. It is not an ‘average’ rating, merely a reflection of the horses ability, as illustrated by their best performance.<br>My main problem with the ratings is that sprinters and stayers are almost always under-rated in comparison with milers and, more particularly, middle distance horses. This is probably due to the traditional bias towards middle distance runners and the emphasis placed on this category by racing professionals, mainly driven by commercial breeding interests.
(Edited by cormack15 at 9:20 pm on Jan. 12, 2004)
There we are then – A clear winner –
The 2003 Racing Forum Flat Horse of the Year award goes to :-
FALBRAV
Hawk Wing apparently joint-best with Dalakhani, based on ability, according to Racing Post Flat Horses of 2003. Now there would be a talking point – if it hadn’t already been talked ad nauseum on here over the past eight months or so!
High Chapparal not only raced race over a mile Ian, he won a Group 1 race at the distance!! <br>
Interesting debate surrounding Dawn Run. It very much depends on how you view things really. If you rate her on ability alone then she does, as Ian has pointed out, fall short of the very best at both two miles over timber and three miles two over the bigger obstacles. However, she is revered not for her ability alone. Her toughness, bravery and, in particular, her versatility combined to  make her extremely popular with many racegoers and her wonderful achievement in winning the two great championship races should not be underestimated. It is a rare champion hurdler who makes the transition to fences at all, never mind winning the Blue Riband event of the discipline. Her speed meant that, to these eyes anyway, she would in all likelihood have been a serious contender for the QM Champion Chase had she been aimed in that direction.<br>Her untimely demise, as is the case with many rock stars, has also added to the ‘legend’ and ensured that her memory will burn ever more brightly in our collective consciousness.<br>So, in terms of pure ability, yes, she fell short of the best. But judged on other characteristics she was a truly great and memorable racemare who is deserving of her place in the history of the sport.<br>Much the same can be said for Wayward Lad although, like several other grand steeplechasers, his best distance may well have been two and a half miles and the absence of a true championship test at that distance has meant that his merit, if not his popularity, is perhaps somewhat distorted.
(Edited by cormack15 at 11:17 pm on Nov. 4, 2003)
One of my very favourite horses from the NH code. Brave, talented and game, he was a credit to the Dickinson yard. Reading here about him has brought many happy memories flooding back, including the 1986 Gold Cup which, like many people, is one of my favourite races.<br>Glad he had a long and comfortable retirement. He certainly deserved it.
Ian – wide of the mark here my friend. Owners coming to this country to race their horses are perfectly entitled to name their horses as they wish without regard for the preferences of you or I. Moreover I find it adds to the glamour and aesthetic of racing to have Arabic, Gaelic, French, Italian, German etc names in the pot. It isn’t a recent phenomenon either. Caracalla II, Souverain, Supertello, Aquino II, Souepi, Elpenor, Macip and Zarthustra were all ‘foreigners’ who won the Ascot Gold Cup between 1946 and 1957.<br>My personal preference is for horses to be named in a way which somehow reflects the beauty, grace and bravery of the thoroughbred so ‘Sadmadbad’ isn’t in my top ten. <br>I think Sal’s point may be that you cannot claim to be ‘multi-cultural’ on the one hand and then debar names which are unfamiliar in the ‘local’ culture. Are you saying multi-cultural is OK so long as it’s something Ian Davies has heard of? Depends on what you define as global culture I suppose. Are you excluding, in Bush-esque fashion, the Middle East from this ‘global culture’ of yours?<br>
Awful news. A stark reminder of the risks all jockeys take on a daily basis. Thoughts and prayers with his family and friends in this dark hour.
Enjoyed the race and, in particular, it was nice to see Cumani back in Group 1 winner’s enclosure once again. Not sure if I totally agree with the Francome critics. I wasn’t sure Falbrav had been that unlucky at Ascot and I wouldn’t have been keen on him yesterday on the basis of that run. However, I do agree that he has some top level form in the book though and is a worthy winner.<br>Regarding the three year olds, I wouldn’t be too pessimistic about their quality simply as a result of yesterday’s result. I liked Norse Dancer as I felt he looked promising in the Guineas and a bit unblucky in the Derby but he disappointed badly yesterday and I bow to Ian who raised questions about him in the chatroom earlier in the week. Balestrini looked uncomfortable most of the way and Hold That Tiger patently isn’t the horse some of us thought he might be. Alamshar and Dalakhani will be much harder nuts for the older brigade to crack though.<br>As for Kris Kin, I’m beginning to get the uneasy feeling that the vibes are looking ominous and that something may be amiss. Hope not.<br>Anyway – well done Luca – good to have you back where you belong!
Nayef looks a worthy fav with Balestrini looking too big also. Grandera has plenty of questions to answer.
(Edited by cormack15 at 2:06 am on July 5, 2003)
Paul – you reading the same posts as me because I don’t see apracing stating his opinion as fact – simply having firm opinions which are articulated strongly. I’d be more interested in your opinions on the issues rather than your critique of other people’s failings.
Good thread this. The ‘market’ is in a state of flux at the moment and while this continues there will continue to be lots of profit-making opportunities around. However, as apracing points out, those ‘holes’ currently being exploited will gradually minimise, as with the spread betting opportunities, and the market will flatten out. Once this happens the hunt for ‘value’ or ‘profit’ will once again be inextricably linked to relentless study of the formbook etc.<br>Meanwhile, make hay while the sun shines.
Any successful punter, and by successful I mean profitable, is getting ‘value’ one way or another. However I do have some empathy with the view that the term has been glibly bandied about so much that, for many, it has lost it’s meaning.<br>Having given it a little thought I also realise my earlier comments dissuading people from ‘winner-finding’ and promoting ‘value-seeking’ may be misguided. To find ‘value’ I suspect you don’t necessarily have to consciously set out with that as the over-riding driver of your strategy. A good ‘winner finding’ strategy, where the strategist has developed a methodology which can pinpoint winners more accurately than others, may well be profitable, whether the devloper has set out with the pursuit of ‘value’ as his number one criteria or not. He will be finding ‘value’ of course, but the point I am making is that it can be a by-product rather than the main thrust of the methodology.<br>Clear as mud!<br>Many ways of skinning a cat is what I suppose I’m saying. Each to his own.<br>
(Edited by cormack15 at 9:50 am on June 27, 2003)
Interesting thread with some good points raised.
Dealing with a couple of these :-<br>The thrust of DL’s original post is correct, there are an infinite number of variables. However some variables are of much, much greater significance, generally, than others and it is these that those should be our greatest concern. I agree with tooting that we can tie ourselves up in knots at times and in my experience detailed study of the key factors (ability,distance requirement, going rqmt and running style) is much more rewarding than less detailed study of a wider range of factors.
Paradoxically, it is true in my experience that there is a direct correlation between the amount of time I spend analysing races and my success in making profits (the longer I spend the better my results). I agree strongly with Hawk on that point. It is important though, as mentioned already, that this time is focussed on the key indicators.<br>But the biggest mistake people surely make is that they are always searching for the WINNER of the race. They are obsessed with what is going to win. I have learned, to my advantage, over many years (and many hard lessons) that finding the likeliest winner is NOT the approach to take. Ian is spot on with his assertion that the search for value is what the game is about. Our obsession with finding winners leads our judgement to lose clarity as, subconsciously, we are drawn towards horses we shouldn’t be because we want to win and, even though we know we can’t, we want to win EVERY SINGLE TIME and our subconscious attempts to try and make that happen for us!
If you are finding value the winners will take care of themselves, they are a statistical certainty. However, you can find as many winners as you like but if the price isn’t right (if you haven’t found ‘value’) then the games up. <br>
