Forum Replies Created
- Posts
I think your comment mainly applies to the juveniles regarding not sending our best horses, and the results were particularly poor. We normally put up a better showing than today.
I was really wanting to see if anyone thought that the calendar re-shuffle regarding the Ascot "Legends of the Fall" day or whatever it is called, has effected the way our horses are targeted / campaigned.
I’m not sure what type of response you are expecting. Are you attempting to imply this forms part of a wider predicament of UK/IRISH racing?
Much of it is circumstance. It hasn’t been a particularly outstanding year for UK/Irish flat racing, and the strongest division (3 yr old mile colts) didn’t participate here. Nor did any of the top 8-12F fillies. The 12F older horse division is very weak this year. It is what it is. Distribution of talent is cyclical.
It’s far too early to reach any conclusions on the impact of BCD on the Arc meeting. Ground will be a big influence on the decision making process.
It’s one day. Unless you are trying to apply it to a wider context/trend, then what is this observation?
It’s not as if the UK contingent today was particularly strong. The two year olds we sent aren’t outstanding. Sandiva has excuses, but maybe that is as good as she is.
Thistle Bird ran very well, whilst Secret Gesture just isn’t that good. Our best fillies didn’t turn up.
Al Kazeem ran ok, didn’t get the best of runs, but ran ok. Ruler of the World was a little disappointing, but ran on. Leading Light never had a hope in hell of winning an arc. Joshua tree the same.
Garswood and Gordon both ran very well.
Context is needed. We didn’t have any outstanding chances going in, didn’t send our best horses by and large, or simply ran into very good horses.
Yes i agree. I’m pointing out that the front two pulled miles clear and are both very useful prospects.
The newbury bumper Oscar Rock won was strong. Beat a newcomer in Gone Too Far and they pulled a mile clear. Gone Too Far has since won and is the best novice King has i think. A very distant third in that bumper ; O’Faolains Boy, since ran up a sequence before finishing 4th at the Festival in the 3 miler.
I would say that both seem more likely to be better over a little further.
Goldikova was an exceptional filly (better than Sky Lantern).
However, people have this romantic idea that she was better than she really was. Zarkava, Makfi, Dream Ahead, Canford Cliffs (Frankel), etc all beat her. Truely brilliant filly/mare, but we have seen numerous better milers in the past ten years.
I fully understand your point, and agree about St Nicolas Abbey. But he won weak group 1’s and a lot of prize money as an older horse….
Sky Lantern is only beating what is there, and although the form might be crabbed, to me it doesn’t matter what "dross" is left behind, the best horse keeps winning these races. Next year we will see if she is worth mentioning in the history books as great filly. The comparisons to older horses is premature until she becomes one herself. I just think she is an exceptional filly, and like previous posts on here….name one better in the last decade…Absolutely, it will be interesting to see how she compares against the next generation of Fillies and hopefully the colts.
By the same logic, St Nicholas Abbey became revered and hyped in the latter part of his career because of how many Group 1’s he’d won and the culminative prize money that came with those successes. Of course, 3 of those Group 1 races were the Coronation Cup ; the first, a victory against Midday (where i contest all day long that Midday was given a poor ride), the second against Red Cadauex and the third ; Dunaden. Some in the media discussed him as up there with the very best O’Brien has ever had.
My point? Group 1 victories and prize money shouldn’t equate to substance and standing. It’s like those who moaned Frankel didn’t run in the Derby or the Arc, because they are supposedly the "best races". Prestige ain’t so hot, it’s what they do. St Nicholas Abbey, for all the media basically pimped him out, was time and time again beaten when facing genuine top class middle distance animals.
Sky Lantern hasn’t run against the colts and it is unfair to hold that against her. Still, a Group 1 tally isn’t the way to measure her. It is what she does in those races. So far, she has displayed herself has a very very good Filly, but outstanding, exceptional? Too the point we will remember her in ten years?
No, i don’t think so. Not on the information we have today.
Stilvi it matters not one jot who Sky Lantern has beaten in winning 4 group 1’s, she is by far better than Elusive Kate and EK is by far better than the 4 y/o of her own sex at a mile imo, what filly over the past ten years or so is so much better than Sky Lantern?.
By far? Sky Lantern is an excellent filly, but we are beginning to stretch and fall into contemporary glorification when saying "far better". Arguments can be made all day about the merit of the Falmouth (and Nassau) and we can also make arguments excusing Elusive Kate in the Sun Charriot (i.e clearly below her best)>
Elusive Kate is a very good filly, but she herself isn’t a dominant Filly within her own time frame.
Sky Lantern is an above average top class Filly. She hasn’t raced against the colts yet and she has been beaten twice (well, three) against her own sex (yes, excuses) this year. She hasn’t recorded a level of form that one would say Moonlight Cloud, Goldikova etc have. Perhaps she will when afforded the opportunity, but for now, let us just enjoy a good looking filly (for once phrased about a horse) and not go over the top.
J17,
Did you here me mention it anywhere else bar my thread before Gordie Boy took yet another pop at me? No.Just used it to defend myself. Gordie Boy somehow thinks because I bet more than one horse in a race – I am somehow giving away money.
eg yesterday’s 3:40 Newmarket.
The bet to win most money was a 15 point bet on Miracle Of Medinah @ 33/1. I also backed 37 points @ 5/1 Silent Bullet,ie two main bets with an 18 points saver on Cable Bay @ 3/1…Yet if I only had one bet in the race it might have been Silent Bullet. So it is because I am willing to back two or three horses in a race that I spot the value amongst outsiders.
You don’t need to defend yourself. This need to defend yourself is a flaw many poker players (at all levels) suffer from. If you’re profitable, excellent, but the need to continually propogate this grows tiresome and predictable.
Successful gambling has a strong correlation with a temparament that understands variation and downswings, and one that doesn’t have this urge to prove oneself.
Profilability is profitability. Sometimes i feel you care more about the "prestige" and perception of yourself rather than the actual objective ; making money.
How about not telling us your betting proffiency for one day Mr tipster?
Generally "gamblers" who are quick to talk about their successes and abilities are those who are most fundamentally flawed.
Don’t worry Mike … er, i mean Mark. Diabetes.
Mark, you deserve to be vigorously defended.
(does anyone else hope Mark isn’t your real name?)
Interesting post Nathan.
Although he hasn’t run enough times yet, Galileo Rock is shaping as a contender. With only his debut maiden in the win column, he has placed in three classics, Epsom and Irish Derbies and the St Leger. Despite his trainer’s belief that he needs fast ground, his only win and two British Classic places came with cut in the ground. Will they drop him in grade, or will he be tried at the top level and come up short as Shirocco Star did?
Shirocco Star was dropped in grade at times. She was beaten in numerous Group 2’s and saw defeat in a Group 3 and listed race this year.
Galileo Rock is a good prediction. Certainly not good enough at the top level and will also find life tough in all aged Group races i fear. Will either meet better older horses with a gear or next year, less exposed types progressing. Then again, they may find a weak Group race in Ireland.
Name calling, refuse of a scoundrel.
I don’t know better than anyone else, but I do know that manners cost nowt sunshine.
The why haven’t you submitted a formal application for them yet?
Are you familiar with term "nobody likes a smartass"? Some people like 10 year trends, some do not.
Why don’t you proffer an opinion instead of analysing and ridiculing other posts?
Do you have Diabetes too?
Maybe you need to have a day with the dictionary.
I offered an opinion … an opinion that without actual understanding of the trend, the trend itself is limited in use. If you don’t understand a stat, don’t use it.
I gamble, not at horse racing, but outside of greater complexity issues or simple understanding, the most common mistake is misusing statistics and the unwillingness to challenge and look at statistics. I don’t imply anybody in this thread is this as such, but good old Peruvian Chump unzips his trousers before his witty mouth once again.
Good job buddy!
Much of the fillies lack of success may be attributed to simple variance. Whether there was bad luck in running, lack of the best fillies running due to circumstances/conditions, due to running into a very above average colt or because simply there was a few down years for fillies. I won’t profess to know the exact answers, but saying "don’t back fillies" because of their bad record for awhile, or "back fillies, look at the past 5 years" is far too simplistic a view. You need to know why either of those may have merit to them.
"stevecaution":29siacry wrote:
Handicapping is far from an exact science but I don’t believe any horse in history has ever been helped by carrying
more
weight than it should have done. There is fairly decent logic from Physics that stacks up regarding the principle that extra weight carried will have a negative effect on a horse’s performance. If we can’t accept that as fact then the whole concept of handicapping needs to be re-visited soon.
I have never backed Dazzling and don’t back odds-on shots anyway, so there is no rant.
Yes, there is a correlation, but when discussing relative minute amount of weight (2LB), it is difficult to prove that it affected the result. In the instance we are discussing, the extra weight likely made no different whatsoever. Putting up 2LB overweight will also vary in impact depending on the conditions of many variables IMO.
My point stands and I think it is unprofessional to put up overweight on a horse, particularly when asked to do 9st. Most times 2lb extra probably wont make the difference between winning and losing but the law of averages makes it certain that one day it will at least be arguable that it cost the horse the race. It seems odd to me that a team who have the best breeding operation and a shed load of money behind them would employ arguably the best trainer in the business and yet not have one of the best jockeys on board their runners. The choice is theirs to make but I know that I would want the best pilot available if the choice were mine and particularly one who can meet the weight requirements. It is a complacent man who looks at their success and doesn’t ponder about where it could have been better still and analysed where their weaknesses are.
He’s paid by his employers, not you. People are unprofessional at work all the time. There is no need to crucify and effectively bitch about these smaller mistakes. If the jockey in question wasn’t O’Brien, we wouldn’t having this discussion. Don’t wrap the conversation up in sheeps clothing, we know the agenda here.
You are entitled to your opinion regarding selection of jockey. Since however the operation thinks differently and continues to have success, can we not leave it at that? I happen to agree that there are better jockeys out there, but the perpetual moaning about Joseph on this forum is tedious. If you’re moaning (not aimed at you Steve, others moreso) because you backed a horse he was on, it’s your own fault.
[quote="stevecaution"It would be nice to think people could post their opinions on a forum without the label of "stupidity" being levelled at them. I hope you haven’t developed Diabetes JStar, it can lead to below the brassiere comments if you’re not careful
Steve, for now, i am just an ass****. Maybe at some point i will discover Diabetes and it will all make sense
I don’t know who you are insulting with your juvenile opening remark, and frankly I don’t care as your post has missed the OP’s point entirely.
The opening remark is how i refer to the press releases from AOB/Coolmore.
If the Derby was lost by a nose with JOB putting up 2lb OW on the RU then the result would certainly have been effected, unless the entire principle of Handicapping is pointless?
That didn’t happen. Furthermore, it is impossible to clarify whether the 2LB overweight would have cost ROTW a theoretical victory, since weight and its implication varies wildly.
Handicapping has a point in so much as it is how the system is governed. All i said was examples like the scenario you gave cannot have validation to it, since it is difficult to prove beyond doubt that weight altered the result. Unless we have multiple meetings of the protagonists and really really really understand their level. Otherwise, it is guess work to an extent.
Hence the relative stupidity of the original question/rant.
