Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Apart from connections.
Many iffy jumpers have run in that race and the outcome is different. It was simply an unfortunate incident.
Don’t let that get in the way of a chance to criticise and whine though.
The way
Camelot
shaped at Royal Ascot makes me of the opinion that he did not show anything like his true form. For a horse to go from travelling smoothly to beaten in a few strides suggests some physical or mental issue.
The question remains, what is his true form?
As for training mistakes, I don’t know if this is one of the worst of all time, but David Pipe’s decision to run
Grands Crus
in the Pillar Chase this year strikes me as a shocking one. To run a horse with very suspect stamina – who recently recovered from some physical issues and is probably low on confidence – in a gruelling soft ground 3m 1f chase defies all sense. Grands Crus then missed the Cheltenham Festival and ran a very unhealthy-looking race at Aintree. Well played, Mr Pipe.
Grand Crus bombed in the RSA and the Paddy power. Who knows what the issue is with the horse, but the issues clearly manifested themselves before the Pillar.
This might be a controversial one, but Jonjo O’Neill’s decision to run the ill-fated
Synchronised
in the Grand National is jarring in my memory too. Sure, he was a Welsh and Midlands National winner, but the horse took home a piece of almost every fence in the Gold Cup! I have no idea why connections thought this was a suitable horse for the race.
A fluke accident cannot be construed as the greatest training mistake ever.
Don’t be silly J17 – there is no hyperbole from me – I am arguing a rational case. It is you using words like "palpably false and disingenuous" when it is anything but. All form experts that are to hand have his Derby win rated as his best performance. I am talking about Racing Post, Timeform, Topspeed, The Official Handicapper. I am sure you can find someone somewhere who’ll disagree – good for you but it is not hyperbole. For you to start talking about races before then is desperate as he was, firstly a 2 year old, and then secondly running first time out over what I would have thought we could all sensibly agree was an inadequate trip for a middle distance horse.
There will be various reputable people who believe his Derby form isn’t worth that much either and that clear regression hasn’t happened. So yes, you’re exaggerating.
I have discussed his 3 yr old and 4 yr old races. I haven’t discussed his 2 yr old season, so go and put your words in a different mouth. The 2000 Guineas is a classic and needs to be judged. Perhaps the race doesn’t fit within his optimum needs, but it is there to be judged. If we don’t judge the majority of a body of work because it may not have totally suited, what are we left with? His Guineas form doesn’t rank particularly highly, certainly no higher than his current form.
So what do we have? We exclude the Guineas because he is a middle distant colt. We exclude the Irish Derby because of the ground. We exclude the St Ledger because of the trip. We exclude the Arc because he wasn’t right. So this regression concept is fundamentally based upon one race, a race that has fallen apart as a form measurement, on a unique track.
Maybe you pick strawberries and believe in fairies, Joni, but you need more than one piece of dubious data to base a hypothesis over.
He was progressive up to the Derby and has not improved since then. I argue he has regressed, you disagree. Fair enough but don’t dismiss my points as false and disingenuous when they are not. I’ll leave it at that if you don’t mind.
I dismiss your points because i do not agree with them.
Not all form experts i agree, i imagine, so easy on the hyperbole.
His Derby is at 124. Marginally his best performance. Of course, this performance is based more visually than substance. The second is consistently assesssed to be a 115 type horse at his peak.
His Guineas win is no further ahead of what he is producing now. Nor is his Irish Derby ; a victory over Born to Sea by 2 lengths all out.
So, the idea that he has regressed solely lies on his Derby run. All his other 3 year old runs are palpably no better than his form this year. His Derby was impressive visually, but i am not willing to found a reputation around that piece of form nor am i willing to accept this notion of regression based around that piece of form.
Horse data is usually relatively consistent. If we exclude that derby win (because we clearly have slightly different views on it) what evidence do you have for this suppossed regression?
Some good points here as usual J17 but I fear you are missing the point of the thread. I’m not sure anyone is trying to argue that he isn’t overrated. You are absolutely right that The Guineas was a poor one as was the Derby and all the races that followed up to the Arc. But a look at his ratings, the form book AND the visual impression would show that he has, at the very least not improved a pound since the Derby but more likely has regressed.
The form book doesn’t indicate he has regressed (outside of the Ledger). He hasn’t progressed, but i think it’s difficult to prove he has regressed.
His RPR in the Derby was 126. Since then he has recorded 119, 120, 107, 112, 120 and 116 – a regression according to them. The official handicapper, Timeform and Topspeed agree that the Derby was his best performance. You may not agree but I’m not sure you can say "it is palpably false and disingenuous" when the "concrete data" actually say’s the argument has merit.
A 126 with an asterix, since the form is absolutely worthless.
You have no concrete data. This magical 126 isn’t concrete data, since when assessing the merit of those behind shows us it’s palpable not worth much.
His reputation and the hype surrounding him are all valid points but are not relevant to the question. His form HAS regressed and Corm is asking what the reasons might be. It is perfectly reasonable to suggest that a hard race on very heavy ground plus trying him over a trip beyond his optimum may have been significant contributory factors.
He hadn’t shown anything that is clearly above his run behind Al Khazeem in Ireland this year.
A trip beyond his optimum? So the trip where you cite his "best performance", a performance supposedly rated above anything else has achieved, is a trip beyond his optimum?
Instead of conjuring up ideas and illusions as reasons for Camelot, let us just be frank. His 3 yr old form wasn’t great and his 4 yr old form isn’t great. He’s been placed twice in Group 1’s at 4, races stronger than those he won at 3. He clearly hasn’t progressed.
Camelot hasn’t seen any deterioration in form since his Derby win.
His Guineas was poor. There is no genuine Group 1 miler from that race. French Fifteen hasn’t won since, nor Hermival, Trumpet Major a couple of Group 3 races before being disptached in higher grade once more. Fencing, Abtaal, Caspar Netscher have all been disptached in all aged company. Power only subsequent Group 1 winner in the field excluding Canelot … the Irish 2000 Guineas.
His Derby win whilst visually pleasing amounts to little more than his Guineas win. Main Sequence beaten in his next 5 races by solid but non-elite Group horses. Astrology dispatched at Ascot comfortably and beaten at the Curragh by Camelot again. Thought Worthy wins a Ledger trial in between losing at Ascot and being beaten by Camelot again in the Ledger. Mickdam not raced since. Bonfire has been murdered in all aged group races. Minimise beaten in the Queen’s vase then thrased by Noble Mission. Rugged Cross raced once since, beaten in a listed race at Ponte. Cavaleiro beaten 4 times since, most recently at Nottingham.
To put this Derby into perspective, only 3 subsequent races have been won by contestants since the Derby. Only 1 outside of 3 yr old company … Camelot winning a penalty kick race in Ireland this year. The Gordon (Thought Worthy) saw many similar horses compete and the Irish Derby likewise, saw no new competition for Camelot (Beat Born to Sea, a genuine but exposed horse he beat in the Guineas).
He’s then beaten in the Ledger. Won’t bother going into the form here, as the form is clearly just an arm extenstion of the generation he has already faced.
His 3 yr old form is very very average relative to the cream of a usual 3 yr old crop.
Since, he has run 3 times in all aged company. In good company. Defeat in the Arc has it’s excuses (although have legit who knows). Dispatched by Al Kazeem in Ireland has few excuses, since he was beaten fair and square after a prep run against a horse who had a significant lay-off before his prep. Beaten comfortably by this horse next time out.
It is palpably false and disingenious to suggest Camelot has regressed. I think it is also unfair to say O’Brien has made any mistakes in training him. Perhaps the Irish Derby didn’t help and was somewhat needless, but the disappointment surrounding Camelot is purely down to hype and vaulted expectations that do not align with concrete data. The data we have of him at 3 and 4 indicate he is not an exceptional race horse. His reputation was built on foundations of hype and words masked by circumstance and a favourable generation, not substance. Camelot should not be mentioned in this thread.
Well, the front page of this forum describes it as "intelligent discussion".
Do you believe the Daily Mail too? You’ve gone from constructive to intelligent. Where to next, gentle?
Maybe I was mistaken to expect more than insults of Nick Luck, Emma Spencer or Rishi Persad regarding their physical appearance. Obviously, you are entitled to your opinions, but comments like yours about Nick Luck make you sound like a school bully.
I haven’t made any reference to the appearance of either Spencer or Persad. Whomever did, so what? Are you offended? Why should you be?
School bully? I must have missed the memo whereby Luck recieved the remarks and inturn was personally offended. I’m not particuarly fond of the term "grow a pair", but really ….
In any case, i don’t imagine it would be possible to lift his underpants over that perfectly square head of his.
Maybe I am being too sensitive here, but your post (and some others as I mentioned) come across as very unpleasant and needlessly personal.
Clearly it is tongue in cheek. It’s also hardly hurting anybodies feelings. Unless your seriously telling me a user on this forum is deeply disturbed by the discovery that pottery head and Mick Fitzjabberald aren’t very good at their jobs.
I’ll never forget the replays of the grand national this year. Four times in a minute Mick Fitz said "look at him, i bet he’s having a whale of a time!".
I think this thread has gone beyond being constructive now.
In the past few posts, there have been comments on:– Nick Luck’s hairline
– Hairy hands
– Emma Spencer’s alleged promiscuity
– Weight of various presentersAre we analysing Channel 4 Racing here, or are we gossiping over a garden wall?
When was this thread ever constructure? As if any criticism or praise mentioned in this would have any credence and relevance to anything.
Nick Luck has a head shaped like bad pottery. If anything, it helps my perception of him, since it generates such an irrational annoyance that i forget what a truely inept and annoying racing presenter he is.
here are certainly some areas that still need improvement, but some of these criticisms make me wonder if you are being reasonable. For example, I think Rishi Persad did a competent job as the roving reporter and main presenter yesterday. He was fluent and conducted the interviews with the standard questions. That is all his job entails. It is hard to expect much more from a person in his role when presenting a program so pressurised and condensed by commercial breaks. Likewise Tom Lee, Tanya Stevenson and Emma Spencer. They do their repetitive jobs quite well, but are restricted by Channel 4 Racing’s structure. What exactly do you expect from these people in the 30 second bursts of camera time they get?
Some areas? It’s like discovering an underground sex ring and saying "Well, this doesn’t seem legal".
The presenting is bad. The drivel, cliches and hype are annoying. The point interviews ; whether it be in the ring or of random celebrities or the groom of those horse …. "WHAT DO YOU THINK … DO YOU LIKE YOUR HORSE!!!". Or the lack of horses in volume ; let us concentrate on a select few that is fundamentally based on hype or because it’s a good story. Shall we discuss the feel good factor. The betting ring performs about as well as myself chatting up the F1 grid girls.
T
I concede that Mick Fitzgerald needs to hold back on the cliches, though. The clunky touchscreen needs to be retired, too. These annoyances do give a sloppy feel to the overall production, as with Emma Spencer’s recent gaffe when speaking to Neil Callan. ‘Props’ to C4 on the filler features recently, though. The mini feature on Emily Wilding Davison was particularly interesting. I hope they make more use of Simon Holt in this capacity.
Mick Fitzgerald needs to be fired into space.
It’s a Saturday afternoon and he loves the sound of his own voice. When he was reviewing the Pastoral Pursuits race.." We thought the owner might know it, we thought the trainer might know it, all those who backed him knew it and now we know the jockey knew it "
Shut up waffling. He could get a job on Ladbrokes in-house radio. " Waffle, waffle, waffle, waffle…oops – the horses are off ! There’s one left at the start, it’s the favourite ! No, it’s the 100-1 outsider. Now where was i ? Oh yes, the Ashes…"
There is too much post race analysis with all the presenters vying for airtime to bestow their wonderous insight on us and i’d prefer someone in Cunngingham’s position – the colour man – to be brief occasionally. Succinct.
Fitzy should be outside talking to jockeys and connections because he useless in the studio. The same platitudes week after week.Cunningham has some genuine interesting thoughts, and frankly, it makes a chance to the generic cliche riddled sensationalism from the rest of the team.
What has a Saturday got to do with anything? I entirely disagree with your premise of his waffle, but at least connect it to this Saturday concept. Probably being slightly pedantic and petty here, since i fear i know the absurd implication behind it, but i want you to explicity say it.
Persad may not be particularly great, but at least he is somewhat likeable.
Nick Luck looks like he is doing a dramatic reading everytime he is on screen. "You just sense that …" every sentence. I wonder if during intercourse he speaks to himself, progressively getting louder and louder until a hype crescendo ; "You just sensed TODAY MIGHT BE THE DAY". No matter how annoying he is, the thing that irks me the most about him is his head/hairline. It’s like a mini fridge with a bad wig.
Fitzgerald actually wasn’t too bad on saturday. Or rather, he was simply an idiot, not a babbling idiot, on Saturday.
Someone had a complaint that Cunningham gave too much analysis/thought for a saturday? What on earth is this supposed to mean? That you want less diligent and intelligent thoughts and replaced with more babbling nonsensical cliches?
Why don’t we just get Louie Spence on the show. We already have a bulldog, a fridge, a vampire and a drunk (Fitzy must be surely!). Lets add some razzle dazzle.
I almost miss Plunkett. Maybe Luck could wear one of her hats.
Although his Guineas win was as spectacular a race as i have ever seen, the winning distance understates his dominance over that field. If Frankel had been ridden like he was later in his 3 yr old season and 4 yr old season, he’d have demolished that field by 10+ lengths. Over a mile Native Khan wouldn’t get within 5 lengths of Frankel ; simply the unique way that race was run actually flatters everything but Frankel.
In the end, who cares if he would have won the Derby. He didn’t run and it’s not a decision you can criticise. Perhaps he would have annilihated the field, perhaps he would have been beaten. Perhaps it would have had a negative impact on his future career (and no 4 yr old career), perhaps it would have led to an Arc campaign. Doesn’t really matter. We got 14 races over 3 years from an absolutely fantastic race horse. The best horse of all time is a title we cannot quantify, but he’s the by far the most exciting horse i’ve ever watched. My favourite racehorse who brought significant pleasure to me as a racing fan. That is all that should matter.
Instead people predictably argue over the most minute details using logic that Staci, the mother of six with a tattoo on her face and a recent Jeremy Kyle appearance, would be proud of. He didn’t run in the best races? Entire nonsense. Races aren’t rated and ranked by the horses that run in them specifically that year, not whatever prestige or history that is attached to it. He murdered the bets horses around. It is nonsense that he wasn’t tested.
If you’ve reached the conclusion of CC etc because you’ve done some heavy research into it, then well done, and please share that information, because it fascinates me.
Hi J17star, have you seen the interview At The Races did with Jim Bolger after the 2000 Guineas? There’s a brief discussion on genetics where Bolger says he’s reduced the number of TT’s in the yard to 5% form something like 15%. I too find the work Jim Bolger and Dr. Hill have been doing to be fascinating, and the tests have even been extended to NH horses, where unsurprisingly the majority are TTs.
Interesting and thankyou. I will find the interview. I know very little on the topic. I found out about it as recently as "What it takes to be a national winner" on C4 (which frankly was quite a poor show).
How many horses have they tested, how many fit within the criteria these new genetic boundaries supposedly guide us to and what % of the gene types have attempted to race outside of these set distances and how many have won. I would assume the data is out there somewhere, and Mr Bolger and co seem astitute enough that there must be sizeable data.
Was Munir ever a large investor for Nicholls? Henderson is his main trainer with King seemingly his second trainer.
Nicholls is having a down period. All trainers have this. Henderson up until the last 4-5 years wasn’t close to the talent pool he has now. King has seen a decline recently. Pipe didn’t have the ammunition he has now. It’s cyclical and in some cases entirely variable on factors you cannot control.
Nicholls isn’t going to disappear. Perhaps he has a few medicore years by his standards, but he’ll still be one of the top trainers in the country.
Am not concerned with who is a CC or CT type. Find it best to look at the pedigree, make my own assessment of how far pedigree suggests a horse should stay and then before a final decision consider temperament. In my opinion Dawn Approach’s pedigree alone suggested he’d near as definate get 8f, fair chance of getting 10f and outside chance of 12f. However temperament, being seemingly so relaxed means he’s almost certainly get further than pedigree suggests. In my opinion Dawn Approach has now an excellent chance of getting 10f and good (I estimate around 60% chance of staying (not neccessarily winning)) 12f on a sound surface. With an increased test of stamina, strong pace on soft or heavy would place a greater emphasis on stamina, estimate less than 50% on soft, considerably less on heavy.
I may lay part of my 5/2 back if Epsom softens.
I find it bizarre you give these arbitary 60% and 50% estimates but dismiss CC/CT etc so quickly. How did you come to this 60% estimate of him staying (and if staying doesn’t incorporate winning, how do you define staying, since a horse can stay a trip but be less effective at it than a shorter trip). Assigning such a specific equity if you will is quite curious.
It’s rash to take much heed of CC/CT etc on the basis of some quick fire stats, but it’s also somewhat ignorant to not want to look into it with great detail and understand it’s importance and use.
If you’ve reached the conclusion of CC etc because you’ve done some heavy research into it, then well done, and please share that information, because it fascinates me. If however you haven’t, may i ask why you’ce consigned such an avenue to the proverbial trash heap when you pride yourself so much on apparent math and statistic assessments.
What is the sample size of this study? How many "CC"’s do they have on record and how many have attempted this distance?
An interesting angle, but an angle that i would need (and very much want ; intersting topic) heavy data on before reaching any conclusions.
Battle of Maringo – Not entirely impressed, or to be more accurate and fair, not entirely open to the idea he 125+ horse. I can envisage him running a solid race but you aren’t left with any remarkable feelings about the horse when you watch it run.
Chopin – Know nothing about him.
Dawn Approach – A spectacular winner of a mediocre Guineas. Without question a horse who compares favourbly with the "average" best 3 yr old cost year on year. Will handle the track, has speed, settles and is vastly superior to the opposition on known evidence. Stamina is somewhat of an issue, but then, we aren’t looking for an improvement of his form here, simply a close replication.
Galileo Rock – Not quick enough.
Libertarian – Not quick enough and concerns over how he handles the track. Cannot entertain the idea of him being good enough.
Magician – Very impressive last time out, but concerns over quick reappearance (assuming he runs) and distance are legitimate. Gets 10F, but it’s an unusual route to take and you couldn’t be confident the Derby is the type of race that suits the horse. Still, he’s clearly an extremely talented colt and probably the only horse in the race who i think can challenge the favourite if they both stay.
Mars – Credible run in the Guineas and likely to improve for the step up/experience. Clearly isn’t the #1 contender from stable and has significant improvement to find if he is to challenge Dawn Approach. We can expect some improvement, but he has to improve a lot. I don’t see it.
Ocovango – Little opinion on the horse right now.
Ruler of the World – Staying type who fits the typical O’brien candidate who fill run into a minor place, but ultimately isn’t good enough.
Overall, quite a disappointing field once again. No British challengers and question marks over most of the field. Dawn Approach should be able to follow in Camelots footsteps here, but unliked the forementioned, Dawn Approach was much more impressive in his Guineas. If he stays, he wins. Magician and the French colt (admittedly little knowledge on him) look the main threats.
Endulging in self congratulatory, or waiting for the pat on the back, is a rather pathetic way to exist on an internet forum full of strangers.
If one of you backs a winner, why would anybody else care? Do i seek congratulations when i ate a large and filling meal, or had a winning session at poker etc.
Internet discussion is largely always going to be based around disagreements when focusing on sport results/predictions. Otherwise, there isn’t much to discuss, and it wouldn’t be particularly interest.
Just the judge won quite nicely and i remember thinking after the English Guineas that she wouldn’t be an ideal candidate for the oaks. Will be an interesting re-match at Ascot.
The Fillies classics are so far much more competitive (and last year too) even if of course the winners are inferior animals to the classic colts. Yet again i find myself yawning at the Colts classics, with a derth of competition outside of one stable and Dawn Approach.
