Forum Replies Created
- Posts
IF as you state the 2000 Guineas was truly run, and a good field at that, how come the time was 1.5 seconds above standard if the ground was good – firm?
A. Simon says it’s a monkey time, gotta gotta bouta monkey time
Not "all" races, just most races.
On the first day only the 2000 Guineas was truly run. On the second day again most were slowly/slowish. The sprint hndicap pace was overly strong.
Did you not look at Simon Rowlands sectional debrief IB? It gives proof of sectionl times.
The 2000 Guineas was truly run yet the winning time was over 1.5 seconds above standard time.
Seriously, I wouldn’t waste your breath on him. He doesn’t make numbers. I had this out in watering at newmarket thread. He was so in a corner at the end he said guineas was slowly run, instead of admit the ground wasn’t quick lol.
I see Charm Spirit also won at Chantilly to maintain the 100% record of that slow run average guineas on quick ground.
I bet the UK man never told it like it actually is – only as it was once decades ago.
You mean the good old days when we all paid 9% on stakes or winnings.
Eddie, the raw race time is equal to a Topspeed rating of 81 (excl. RP WFA) on ground being called good to firm.
So, to actually go on and normalise for that good to firm ground, you’d have to _lower_ that 81 rating a good deal more still.
So, if the guineas winner lacks scope, in due course, I’d be hopeful for it to sneek into a Wolverhampton 0-75 handicap.
Obv JC is slow. Sole Power could’ve run 2 stone slow and still it wouldn’t be g/f, lol.
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.
If your time-to-going correlations are wind adjusted please accept my apologies Ginger
Raw times are not just wind un-adjusted Drone, they are also going un-adjusted, which is why using them to postulate going itself is well…
On the 3 e.g.’s you gave STS & GW were both slow, CR wasn’t, but was on ground ~.2s/f faster than yesterday.
I’m out. But really, g/f is not even up for question yesterday imo. It simply wasn’t.
It is quicker today though.
Making time based going arguments on the basis of raw race times is about as useful and informative as the going stick is itself.
Must have been one of the best 2000 Guineas ever yesterday, as the winner covered the mile on that overwatered, verging on good to soft ground in a time 0.7 seonds faster than Frankel managed on good to firm.
I wouldn’t go off that, wasn’t it windy when Frankel won and he was hardly ridden to produce the optimum time, would have been a much faster time ridden more efficiently.
Presumably the going stick figures mean something or there’s little point in having them otherwise.
Frankel 24kmph headwind. Ground was comfortably g/s yesterday imo.
…as quite simply why race for 1900 or 2000 quid and get a new Hcap mark
Ricky
In Jamie Osborne’s case to get qualified for the UAE Derby! I’m surprised no one commented on his post race interview, where he states they had two plans. One to "protect" ToNY’s mark for the Britannia at Royal Ascot, the other to go for noughts in Dubai. On deciding on the UAE route they had to "blow" his mark apart to get in to the race which is why he told Adam Kirby to win by as far as he liked at Wolverhampton (he ended up getting 2 days for whipping after winning by 16 lengths).
Lydia Hislop @LydiaHislop
Jun 27
@Emmet_Kennedy Pretty much agree with all that. (That Murtagh buzzer loon definitely wins the prize to date.)
There must have been someone banging on about it too around the time it happened, unless I am interpreting this aged tweet wrongly.
