Forum Replies Created
- Posts
He was a fast finishing 3rd in the Prince of wales stakes before an excellent 2nds in the Eclipse/Juddmonte. I would say his form is of higher quality over 1 1/4 then 1 mile.
His price was bizarre to me. 5 times placed in very very strong Group 1 races last year, where the form stacks up again and again. The competition yesterday was significantly weaker than the horses who beat him last year. Classic hype vs substance race where substance once again prevailed.
From a selfish point of view, i would like him to have a very successful year, simply because it adds even more strength and credibility to Frankel. The last 2-3 years has really been a special period for Milers IMO. Canford cliffs, Paco boy, Goldikova, Makfi, Excelebration, Moonlight cloud, Farhh and Frankel. Serious quality there IMO.
The coverage is very poor. Balding and her paddock routine is both redundant and difficult to watch. Connections are discussing plans etc and having a random microphone jammed in can be quite rude. These interviews are largely useless too, with awkward questions and often even more laborious answers. It’s niether good TV or productive. Then we have even more useless interviews with random semi-famous people who happen to be at the event. Why do i care why they are here? Should i be interviewed when i’m eating lunch and inform people i am eating lunch because i am hungry?
Then we have Mr Luck. Balding has IMO very little interesting or insightful things to say regarding horse racing and likes to indulge in cliches and rhetoric, but Mr Luck takes it to such a new level that one could say he isn’t even speaking English anymore. The drivel and the cliches …. there are old people in the bank at 10.30AM on a Monday morning who offer more coherent and useful observations which are doured in less 19th century cliches. His voice always has this particular tone whereby it’s difficult to imagine him engaging in a normal conversation. How does he speak to his mother? Mr Luck may know his racing, but it is masked behind an eastern bloc of useless and romantic idioms. I also have an irrational hatred of his forehead/haircut, but alas i cannot particularly hold that against him.
Then we have Mr Fitgerald. During the replays of the grand national, i believe he said "he’s having a whale of a time" at least 4 times within one minute. That rather sums up his role in this merry gang. He’s Mr Luck, after they have beaten him up for 10 years, taken off the box suit, beaten away all form knowledge and ability to reason, and added an irish accent.
Cunningham and Mcgrath do IMO work quite well together. They offer well reasoned arguments and clearly know their stuff. Cunningham has offered an outlet that Francome didn’t for Mr Jim. He now has somebody to engage with, rather than asking an interesting question and having Francome come back with a joke. The only gripe i have with Cunningham is that he looks like a vampire when he smiles.
I’m afraid the coverage has patently leaned towards the BBC style coverage i so disliked. The coverage is regular and "free"/available however and i will gladly take it. After all, i watch horse racing for the races, and no matter how many times Mr Luck decides to tell us a modern day fairytale story, they cannot present an actual race.
Many stats in racing have meaning, it is simply understanding the limitation of the stat and how or if the stat can be implemented and integrated into a wider perspective.
Stats are horribly misunderstood, but people tend to overcompensate for that fact.
Any singular stat, unless very profound and obvious with significant data behind it, should simply be a background piece of information that can hopefully aid the creation of the entire painting. A large sample size is very desirable, but inferrence can be drawn from smaller sample sizes. With 40 or 50 hands of data on an opponent when playing poker via my computer i can use common sense to logically deduct a sensible and advantageous strategy going forward.
In regards to the classic trails today, i don’t expect we’ll see anything significant today. The Greenham is a two horse race, with one protagonist already likely to avoid the race. The other has question marks over the trip and his relative precociousness combined with not even being the bst 2 yr old sprinter last year.
The Fillies trial has a similar feel. A tough, genuine, very fast filly who has stamina doubts/likely to have been passed by later maturing types. Her competition lacks any real unexposed maturing types, at least on the surface. Think it’s most unlikely we see a Guineas winner from this trial.
I think it’s somewhat hyperbolic to suggest Dawn Approach is overated. Whether he wins the guineas remains to be seen, but it is really really difficult not to see him running very close. Concerns over acceleration aren’t that warranted.
Toronado put up an excellent performance and i think is a plausible winner of the Guineas.
Hot Snap is a progressove filly who shall need to improve again. The concern would be whether she is comfortable with the early pace.
Battle of Maringo i cannot have for the Derby. O’Brien has better colts surely judging by various quotes and implications.
Telescope and Mars are definitely poor prices relative to performance. Whether they are poor prices in a few months remains to be seen, but i wouldn’t be keen to take those prices as of now.
[
Your first sentence has me baffled, (It’s a little inane.
) but assuming it means what I think then all I was pointing out was what you have in your third paragraph. As I said I’m not certain of the exact rating but historically no horse over a particular rating has been the most successful stallion in any year, or at least that’s what I think I read.I assumed the champion stallion was that stallion who’s offspring produced the highest prize money for any given year, but I’m not really clued up about the subject. I’ll happily bow to your superior knowledge.
Imagine GingerTipster and myself in a room …. now that would be inane.
Ratings are a subjective human produced number. Correlating that to stud success is like correlating penis size to success in picking up women in bars. If you aren’t certain of the exact rating threshold and aren’t willing to evolve the point then it becomes rather spurious don’t you think?
I asked you for your definition of Champion because A) different people will have different definitions B) I am curious. I too would have expected that to be the particular measurement. The randomly created threshold of 136 with this strict restricted definition really provides no context at all. Many horses will have very successful stud careers without being "Champion" or topping the total earnings list.
We should simply wait and see what happens, rather than a somewhat redundant airy fairy stat with no context behind it. If you wanted to go very in-depth on that piece of data, Hammy, i’d be interested to see the results. Not that i expect you to, since i hope you have better things to do with your time
I seem to remember reading that no horse rated over 136 (Not 100% sure of that figure.) has ever made up into a champion stallion. If that is true the prospects of Frankel replicating his track career in the covering yard might not be too great?
As an arbitary number assigned to a racehorse can have any useful correlation to success at stud?
How do you define champion?
The chance of Frankel replicating his track career at stud isn’t likely for the sole reason that inate racing ability as a pecking order doesn’t translate itself to the same pecking order at stud.
No one knows how Frankel will do at stud, and no one has any useful data to really project any realistic success. Perhaps we should wait 5-6 years instead of inane projections.
That’s not acceptable. I don’t expect horses to be killed in this sport. It should be possible to run a Grand National that doesn’t have horses dying every other year. And if it isn’t possible, then the race ought to be shut down.
I’m far from an animal-rights activist, but I don’t take the deaths of horses (and the injuries/deaths of jockeys) lightly.
Horses will die in this sport. Accept it. Don’t be so naive to expect otherwise. Pre-cautions to minimise the numbers is of course important.
Horses die on the gallops. Do we hear this reported? Do we have to hear whining about how we shouldn’t train race horses because of this? If people complaining about the racing, they should surely also complain about the training, yes? Thus, they may as well simply say … don’t breed race horses.
I’d be more comfortable with someone having that idea rather than simply cherrypicking certain data to support an illogical argument. Hypocritical people picking on the Grand national when if they are going to do that, then criticise everything to do with horse racing from every race to their training.
People mis-use data so much. No horses dying this year is as reliable as 2 dying last year ; on it’s own it is simply worthless data that doesn’t implying anything. The sample size is vastly too small.
Edit ; Good post Ginge. The data has its limitations, but it does somewhat highlight the fallacy regarding the national and fatalities. The national i assume (A guess) will have a slightly higher attritional rate than other races, yet that % differential i imagine isn’t significant, and if one disproves of the national, then they should also disprove of every single race run … since a race horse can and will sometimes perish in any possible conditions race at any time.
TNO looks like being another horse who’ll need to work awful hard to get credit from some people.
Zarkandar probably ran to 170 or more today. TNO’s rated 155 – he made 2 mistakes and, arguably, he might have done better being held up a bit longer. Had he won a neck, I’d have thought he’d be fav with a few bookies for next year. 9s is a daft price, especially NR free bet.
I was the crazy man who said some months back he would win a Gold Cup or two and I stand by that. He didn’t fail for stamina today imo, and his chasing career could be 3 years away. As to his size, I’ve seen neither horse in the flesh, but I’d be surprised if he was much smaller than Bobs Worth.
Our Conor looks a great prospect, but there can be no doubt whatever now as to which has the best form between him and TNO.
Roll on next year
The New One was beaten by a better horse on the day. No excuses. He’s a better proposition than the winner for the Champion Hurdle, and cannot be ruled out of contention, but he does require some improvement.
The New One won’t be coming anywhere near to winning a Gold Cup.
Bob’s worth won the Albert Bartlett, then the RSA. It was never even thought to try him out in a Champion hurdle. Outside of size, Bob’s worth and The New One have nothing in common.
The form of this race is good, but not outstanding. Oscar Whisky/Grandoeut have patently run well below form.
The meer fact we are able to pose this question and think allows us to deem ourselves a superior, unique species.
Human life is superior to any form of life, since we are human beings, and the question is posed through us.
Rob makes an excellent point. You don’t hear widespread media criticism and an underlying society anxiety against the the development and culling of animals for meat. Meanwhile, horses in horse racing, who recieve a comfortable existance, and are also bred for a job, reside in the world of cruelty? Alas, one is functioned through something we all "need" and use, the other is a sport primiarly governed and participated by a small defined sector of society.
This desire to create a perception of morality (Usually entirely flawed and illogical sense of morality that contradicts itself) in society is beautiful in it’s stupidity.
The article is very blunt, and it’s descriptions and analysis is very harshly put, however it is entirely accurate. I’d struggle to agree more.
Frankly, i don’t care if Staci from Grimsby was raped and murdered outside Q bar on a Saturday evening, or Ricky from Brixton was savagely mauled to death by a Sasuage Dog in a park. I imagine most with no linked experiences to either would truely care, or show anything but empty empathy. Thus, it is ridiculous the amount of coverage and "concern" when a horse dies in a race. Without even trying to apply reason and context to the situation of any particular horse racing fatality, i find it impossible to fathom who the majority should care. The author is apt in saying that a need for society and political correctnes to create agendas drives the negative perceptions and media attention of these deaths, rather than people actually caring that these horses did die.
Horses are not human. The perpetual desire to humanise animals becomes fustrating. I often hear "It’s inhumane" in reference to animals in supposed plight. Correct, it is inhumane, since they aren’t humans.
The horses wouldn’t exist if the sport didn’t exist. People see a horse fall and think "Oh isn’t that awful!". What do you think they were bred for? These animals aren’t a natural development. These horses would not exist if not for racing. I don’t hear ideas resonating in the sentiment that it would be better for these horses not to exist than race within animal welfare corners. Secondly, the majority of these horses live in excellent conditions, are well treated to and live as a generic rule, a context life. Their job has a certain peril to it of course, but it isn’t life horses are being jammed into ice cream trucks and gassed to death ….
The majority of society and it’s people really seem to lack any cognitive ability to develop a realistic perspective of life and logic.
J17 Star
‘Hype’ seems to be one of your favourite tropes – wasn’t it you who accused me of hyping The New One some months ago?
I don’t remember the exact quote, but it was something akin to saying The New One would win at least one gold cup. It was spoken almost as a guarantee. Pure nonsense of course. Considering he’s likely to go down the Champion hurdle route, it looks all the more ridiculous. If you want to be rude Joey, don’t throw turd in your own house.
As one whose secondary obsession is a constant demand for ‘evidence’, your certainty that CC doesn’t stay 3 miles is laughable.
Evidence is usually a prequisite when making a claim. Maybe you live in a field whispering to horses all day and as such doesn’t require "evidence" (Humerous use of quotations), but in the real world, it can be quite useful.
The only data we have on CC over 3 miles saw him fail to stay.
As for most of the rest of your assertions, I refer you to my signature line.
Joe
Joey, does your quote pertain to discussions with yourself? You can be as rude and dismissive as you want, but when your fanciful little theories are questioned, all you could apparently do is give useless and poor little jabs.
Just an update on my previous post: it now looks like Cue Card will go for The Melling Chase. It should be a cracking race. I see PPower go 7 Cue Card and 4 Flemenstar – it should be the other way round in my book and even with 6 runners, I think Cue Card is well worth an EW bet.
The angle will be we know Cue Card can’t beat SS assuming both are at peak abilities. Flemenstar has never raced against either.
As mentioned, Flemenstar might not react well to travelling. He is 2 lbs inferior on official ratings. He did not finish off his race last time, with connections blaming a lung infection. He has been in just two close battles and lost them. Cue Card has been in one when he went down by a nose to the Gold Cup winner to whom he was conceding half a stone.
A race over 3 miles in soft ground is entirely different to the proposition Aintree will offer. I don’t see what losing "two close battles" has to do with anything. Horses aren’t humans.
Cue Card losing to Bob’s worth a season and a half over has no relevance to this race at hand.
Still, both horses might well be examples of what I mentioned in my last post – excellent travellers who don’t find much off the bridle.
Cue Card isn’t a bridle horse.
Anyway, it’s a monster task for Cue Card to beat Sprinter Sacre, but he should not be a 7/1 chance to do so in what is effectively a 3 horse race imo.
Whether it’s a 3 horse race or a 29 horse race, the odds are based on the chances of Cue Card winning. He has very little chance of beating SS.
After his Cheltenham display, I’d want to see SS put in an error-free round before considering him a betting proposition at 1/4 in any race, let alone a hot Melling Chase.
You mean a display where he beat a reliable yardstick by 19 lengths on the bridle to record one of the highest national hunt ratings of all time? You must be difficult to please.
Error free round? He didn’t look remotely close to falling, and never has. You’re being pedantic for the sake of it.
He’s 1/4 for a very very good reason.
In fairness to Quevega’s connections – the mare suffered a serious suspensory ligament injury at Auteil in May 2009. They feared she’d never race again and promised that if she did, she’d be kept for only the best races.
I wouldn’t say the Mares race at Cheltenham complies with the idea of the "Best races".
Whether that ‘promise’ was made because of the potential for further damage to the suspensory, or simply to reduce the chances of some other mishap befalling her on course, I don’t know. But the owners are entitled to honour their promise to themselves/the horse, without being castigated imo.
The owners can do what they wish. Their horse, their decision. Doesn’t mean one can’t find the hype around the horse a little ludicrious. I’ve seen many better horses who recieve much less media hype and discussions. 5 is great and all, but it’s going to be taken out of context by the media for years to come.
In the QM, he was fairly keen till after the 4th when he settled nicely. He took hold of his bit halfway along the back but BG had little trouble settling him again. Whether he’d behave so amenably in a slower-run race (as you’d assume anything above the minimum trip would be, all else being equal) remains to be seen.
The horse was still absolutely tanking going round the bend. BG still had a grip. He’ll pull at Aintree, no question, but then he’s beating quality 2 milers by sar far that the question is, does it matter?
Two things struck me at Cheltenham: it was the worst round of jumping I’ve seen him put in, and BG was able to pull him up quite easily (I’d say Sizing Europe took a few strides longer to pull up).
Don’t really understand how easy it was to pull him up means (Especially relative to Sizing Europe). The margin between the two was increasing right until the line. Not sure what you’re tyring to imply.
I’ve never thought him a great jumper. He’s often a spectacular jumper but he’s seldom economical. I suspect those leaps take a fair bit out of him; he’ll regularly show noticeable lateral movement in the air too. Maybe that style of jumping, in the energy used V ground gained, is not ideal.
Economical isn’t the best term to describe his jumping. He is however a great jumper in any context. He’s fast despite the height he often gives fences, he’s incredibly athletic and flexible and almost never loses ground at a fence. Although having a different style of jumping, i remember people used to say Kauto star wasn’t a great jumper, which was entirely wrong. It’s perplexing to say SS isn’t a great jumper.
If those leaps take a fair bit out of him, why does he win every single race by a signifcant distance on the bridle? Seems like conjecture rather than anything based on evidence.
It’s to be hoped that he is not one of those whose jumping deteriorates with racing (Voy Por Ustedes would be a classic example).
Voy Por Ustedes was an economical low jumper. SS has an entirely different style, and is quicker. It’s not an apt comparison. Voy Por declined for numerous reasons. He raced frequently from a young age, he had an injury that was diagnosed later and he was ridden by Thornton (Who seems incapable of riding chasers these days) amongst other things.
Sprinter Sacre and Voy Por Ustedes are different animals in every imaginable way, outside of the fact they are both horses, and both ran over the same trip.
For those who wish to see the horse ‘tested’, I suspect like many ultra-strong travellers, SS will find little off the bridle.
It’s true that horses will find less "off the bridle" than one would think, though it can often be linked to jockey style. Harchibald was unfairly maligned, when in actuality, Carberry simply made it look like more was there. In the Chmapion Hurdle the horse was simply flat out after the last, but Carberry wasn’t moving.
Of course, to get Sprinter Sacre off the bridle, a horse needs to be close enough to him at the end of the race. We’ve yet to come close to that scenario. In every singe race over fences to date, BG still has some form of a grip on the horse at the end of the race. He’s never been fully extended. Unlike Frankel, who was always asked to extend for maximum output, it’s quite obvious SS has truely had the gun to his head for maximum exertion yet. For that to happen, you need higher quality competitors, or for connections to want to create a spectacle. The latter is unlikely to happen.
The Flemenstar camp seem keen to take him on at Aintree despite their doubts about their horse not being a good traveller (as in making the trip from Ireland). The wily Mr Tizzard seems much less inclined to face SS at Aintree and says he might reroute Cue Card to Punchestown, although I think he’d relish a crack at the big horse in the King George.
Cue Card doesn’t stay 3 miles. It’s quite obvious. Although having never been tested, Sprinter Sacre has a greater chance of staying 3 Miles/being competitive in the race, since A) We categorically know Cue Card won’t stay B) Sprinter Sacre will be good enough to cruise/tank around longer than Cue Card, before the stamina button is truely pressed.
Sprinter Sacre would in my opinion beat Cue Card over any trip.
Hopefully the three horsed do meet at Aintre, since it’s simply a new angle to see how awesome SS is.
Whether it happens or not, the race i would truely love to see is SS versus Simonsig in a Tingle Creek. Simonsig has incredible speed and scope and would in my opinion provide a set of characterstics and attributes in a rival that SS has yet to meet.
I think we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that Quevega has become only the second horse in history to win the same festival race five times in a row. This was not lost on her connections when, Big Bucks’ withdrawal notwithstanding, she was still aimed at the mares’ hurdle. The record books now show only her and the great Golden Miller in an exclusive club of two.
Whilst there is an argument she could have been campaigned more adventurously, I respect her connections’ for targeting the record books in the same way the Coolmore team sportingly sent Camelot to Doncaster last September.
Respect? What are we to respect? Going for a useless and boring record when she could have been in a better race? Mmm kay. Her connections have willingly gone for this record in an attempt for public glory, when better and harder challenges exist elsewhere.
Who honestly cares that Quevega has won 5 Mares Hurdle races? They wern’t special races. They wern’t compelling races. She’s not a horse you’re going to remember in 20 years time because of a particular race. Goldikova got a little overstated because of total Group one win’s, but she was campaigned in the best races regularly.
Couldn’t agree more with that Betlarge, to me Quevega is the most depressing horse in training.
apart from winning the Punchestown 3-mile hurdle 3 times; C’ham is not the be-all you know. BB could have come to Punchestown
7 races in 4 seasons. 4 of which come in and egg and spoon races.
The Punchestown 3 miler. An ordinary Grade 1, beating the likes of Mourad, Bensalem and Voler La Vedette.
Quevega is undoubtedly a very talented horse, but her campaign has been about as mundane and dull as one could possible imagine. Winning 5 times at the Festival is obviously a very good training performance, but she’s winning egg and spoon races.
Big Bucks is a little over-stated in the media, but let us be clear here ; he deserves far greater accolades than Quevega.
Makes constant mistakes whilst immersing himself in annoying, useless and redundant cliches. Don’t particularly think he has a great voice either. Has to be one of the worst commentators around.
To argue for or contest the theory that horses as a breed are improving requires an incredibly large amount of data to even begin to have some merit. I wouldn’t bother touching the subject frankly, since i’m going to out on a limb here and suggest that no one on this forum is even remotely equipped to begin to tackle the question, nevermind have a plausible and useful answer.
Sprinter Sacre’s rating seems plausible, and i wouldn’t cite his rating as evidence for Timeform inflating their ratings. He has demolished what we presume to be a constant and accurate performer in Sizing Europe. You can pick a few holes in the race, but i think it works out relatively well.
) but assuming it means what I think then all I was pointing out was what you have in your third paragraph. As I said I’m not certain of the exact rating but historically no horse over a particular rating has been the most successful stallion in any year, or at least that’s what I think I read.
