Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Of course it’s all about opinions. I just don’t see how a lower rated horse coming in and winning it makes the race better than if the top rated one wins it.
That’s misinterpreting what I’m saying.
Golden Horn can win and run to the same mark in the Dante (118)… that makes it a poor race if the average Derby winner runs to 120+.
Golden Horn can run to his Dante rating and not win. That makes it a better race. (Because the winner has posted a higher figure.)
Golden Horn can fail to run to his Dante rating because he didn’t stay and be beaten by a 117 horse. That makes it a poorer race.
What I’m saying is if we’re relying on the Dante as the key race, we’re up sh1t creek without a paddle.
UNLESS
Jack Hobbs improves for the step up in trip, or Elm Park does, or both do.
Or
Hans Holbein runs them into the ground from four out.
Or
The sectional gurus are right and Giovanni Canaletto is 130+ horse, in which case we have a superstar in our midst.
That makes it 3/1 against it being a good Derby.
SteveC,
I wouldn’t rule out the possibility of Golden Horn improving naturally. In fact, I’d be surprised if he didn’t but I would be surprised if he improved on his form at this trip.
I’d bank on more than one of his opponents improving past him, not least Jack Hobbs, and if the sectional analysis of Giovanni Canaletto’s last run is accurate then he might just win by clear daylight.
I’d take the Timeform Dante ratings with a serious pinch of salt. A shovelful, maybe. The race fell apart although I concede the time was good. But I only get the winner on 119. That in itself would be a very commendable level if I could be guaranteed not just natural improvement but also improvement for the step up in trip. Only exceptional horses win the Derby despite not being quite at their best at the trip. They tend to be among the best of all time.
I don’t think Golden Horn will beat Jack Hobbs at 12f, hence my opposition to him. And I’m not sure JH will win the race.
It’s all about opinion. That’s mine.
No, you have not “given the ratings of past winners going into the race to provide the comparison”. You gave the ratings of the winners after they’ve passed the post and been reassessed by the handicaopper. Not comparing like with like.
In the post you begin by saying:
“I’m sure we’d all want to see a great race in which the subsequent form goes on to prove it was a cracking renewal but when it comes to form I find it pays not to get carried away but look soberly at what we’re faced with.
Anyway, as for the week’s race, How do they line up in terms of their current official ratings”?This is the post:
I’m sure we’d all want to see a great race in which the subsequent form goes on to prove it was a cracking renewal but when it comes to form I find it pays not to get carried away but look soberly at what we’re faced with.
So far I’ve got two bets in the race, HH ew at 66/1 with the win portion laid off at 11/1 and I plan to lay the place portion off while the a/p market is still there. I also took GC a couple of weeks ago. I’ll need to check my accounts for the price it was either 16/1 or 20/1 as I may have been confusing the price with the one I took about HH for the St Leger.Anyway, as for the week’s race, How do they line up in terms of their current official ratings?
Golden Horn (118) might stay well enough to win but that, for me, would mean it’s a poor race.
Elm Park (117) is tipped by Steve Miller in his dosage article. That would be strong grounds for optimism if I fancied the horse but I also found Simon Holt’s case against Elm Park’s overall form quite compelling leading up to the Guineas. Golden Horn’s fine performance in the Dante – it was well up there with past winners – still leaves Elm Park with 10lbs to find with the winner and then there’s Jack Hobbs likely to improve past Golden Horn anyway. Better judges than me are expressing doubts about JH’s maturity at this stage and EP’s ability to handle the track (based on the Breakfast gallop) and they’re saying he might not even run if the going quickens up again.
Success Days (117) looks like his OR is based more on the history of the Derrinstown than on the actual performance which was in heavy ground against very ordinary opposition who probably didn’t act in it. By Jeremy, he has to be a doubtful stayer although I wouldn’t have given him much chance of staying the 10f. He might be a freak, in which case he’s overpriced, but connections seem to think he needs it soft, which won’t happen.
Jack Hobbs (112) – see above
Epicuris (112) – is here due to technicalities
Zawraq (111) is the only other entry with an OR in the teens and he might not stay and has a late scare to set aside.That’s 5 entries with ORs of 110 or more, the best of which is 118.
2014: 7 of 16 had the rating, the top two of which were likely stayers and were first and second and the winner emerged with a new OR of 123.
2013: 6/12, 125 (Dawn Approach, miler), Ruler Of The World won, new OR 120 (Libertarian, Dante winner second top, second)
2012: 3/9, 120 (Camelot, won)
2011: 5/13, 117 (Seville unpl), Pour Moi (115) won, never raced again.Need I go on?
It all points to this being a very ordinary renewal.
BigG; I’m following you in with Moheet; supposedly has the right dosage for the race [not that I understand dosage]and only falls down on one stat. There may or may not be a big priced winner but I’m pretty sure there’s a nice priced placed horse in there somewhere.
I’ve been toying with that idea myself. There’s an item in the Weekender about big-priced outsiders making the frame.
Look at it another way.
Take the last 30 years.
Name the 5 best Derby winners.
How were they rated beforehand and what did they do subsequently?
What are the chances of any of this field emulating them?
That is exactly my point Maurice.
I am comparing the ratings of Saturday’s horses as they are going in to the stalls before the Derby with what past Derby winners were before the Derby.
You are comparing Saturday’s runners ratings before the Derby with with ratings of Derby winners AFTER they’ve past the post (after those past Derby winners had been assessed by the handicapper).Read my post again, Gt. I gave the ratings of past winners going into the race to provide the comparison. I also gave an idea of what they did subsequent to the race to show how the form of the race panned out. That has nothing to do with this year’s race other than illustrate what we might reasonably expect of them going forward.
God help us if the highest rated horse in the race winning means it’s a poor race.
The highest rated horse in the race is a doubtful stayer. To hit 125 he would need to improve for the step up in trip (and it would be a pretty exceptional Derby winner that hit 125 anyway) which is unlikely.
I’m saying if 118 is as good as he is and that is good enough to win a Derby then it is probably the poorest Derby I’ve rated since Oath, and he was pretty poor.
Where’s the beef with that?
2014: 7 of 16 had the rating, the top two of which were likely stayers and were first and second and the winner emerged with a new OR of 123. Australia was 119 going in to the race, but he’d already had the opportunity of running in a 3 year old Group 1.
2013: 6/12, 125 (Dawn Approach, miler), Ruler Of The World won, new OR 120 (Libertarian, Dante winner second top, second) Ruler Of The World was 109 going in to the race.
2012: 3/9, 120 (Camelot, won) Camelot was 121 going in to the race, but he’d already run in a 3 year old Group 1.
2011: 5/13, 117 (Seville unpl), Pour Moi (115) won, never raced again. Pour Moi was 113 going in to the race.
2010: Workforce was 108 going in to the race.
2009: Sea The Stars was 121, but he’d already run in a Group 1 3 year old race.
2008: New Approach ?
2007: Authorised (another Dante winner) was only 116 going in to the Derby, 2 lbs worse than Golden Horn.
2006: Sir Percy was 121, but again had already run in a Group 1 3 year old race.
2005: Motivator (another Dante winner) was only 117 going in to the Derby, 1 lb worse than Golden Horn.
2004: North Light (another Dante winner) was only 115 going in to the Derby, 3 lbs worse than Golden Horn.Saturday’s Derby doesn’t look so bad.
I’d argue you’re proving my point here.
Australia was a proven G1 winner. Nothing else was. He won because he had no opposition. Ordinary race.
Ruler Of The World was only 109 yet still won. Ordinary race.
Camelot – same as Australia
Pour Moi – won a poor race
Workforce – had been below form in the Dante but did end up a good winner and progressed well afterwards
Sea The Stars – a proper candidate and a brilliant winner.
New Approach – a proper candidate and a brilliant winner. Maybe these two are why I’m cautious about praising ordinary types.
Authorized – good candidate (likely stayer, unlike GH), good winner
Sir Percy – good candidate, won poor race (blanket five-way finish, iirc)
Motivator as Authorized
North Light – fair candidate, fair winner, probably about the same as this year’s.Maurice,
You’re not comparing like with like. It is not fair to compare Saturday’s pre-Derby ratings with post-Derby ratings of Derby winners. Three year olds going in to the Derby will invariably improve. If you want to compare ratings then compare Saturday’s runners ratings with the PRE-Derby ratings of past winners.Surely you would have expected previous runners to improve beyond the race?
Leaving that aside, what happens beyond the race is largely irrelevant. We’re trying to see what the race is like going into it and how it comapres with the form going into previous renewals,are we not?
I’m sure we’d all want to see a great race in which the subsequent form goes on to prove it was a cracking renewal but when it comes to form I find it pays not to get carried away but look soberly at what we’re faced with.
So far I’ve got two bets in the race, HH ew at 66/1 with the win portion laid off at 11/1 and I plan to lay the place portion off while the a/p market is still there. I also took GC a couple of weeks ago. I’ll need to check my accounts for the price it was either 16/1 or 20/1 as I may have been confusing the price with the one I took about HH for the St Leger.
Anyway, as for the week’s race, How do they line up in terms of their current official ratings?
Golden Horn (118) might stay well enough to win but that, for me, would mean it’s a poor race.
Elm Park (117) is tipped by Steve Miller in his dosage article. That would be strong grounds for optimism if I fancied the horse but I also found Simon Holt’s case against Elm Park’s overall form quite compelling leading up to the Guineas. Golden Horn’s fine performance in the Dante – it was well up there with past winners – still leaves Elm Park with 10lbs to find with the winner and then there’s Jack Hobbs likely to improve past Golden Horn anyway. Better judges than me are expressing doubts about JH’s maturity at this stage and EP’s ability to handle the track (based on the Breakfast gallop) and they’re saying he might not even run if the going quickens up again.
Success Days (117) looks like his OR is based more on the history of the Derrinstown than on the actual performance which was in heavy ground against very ordinary opposition who probably didn’t act in it. By Jeremy, he has to be a doubtful stayer although I wouldn’t have given him much chance of staying the 10f. He might be a freak, in which case he’s overpriced, but connections seem to think he needs it soft, which won’t happen.
Jack Hobbs (112) – see above
Epicuris (112) – is here due to technicalities
Zawraq (111) is the only other entry with an OR in the teens and he might not stay and has a late scare to set aside.That’s 5 entries with ORs of 110 or more, the best of which is 118.
2014: 7 of 16 had the rating, the top two of which were likely stayers and were first and second and the winner emerged with a new OR of 123.
2013: 6/12, 125 (Dawn Approach, miler), Ruler Of The World won, new OR 120 (Libertarian, Dante winner second top, second)
2012: 3/9, 120 (Camelot, won)
2011: 5/13, 117 (Seville unpl), Pour Moi (115) won, never raced again.Need I go on?
It all points to this being a very ordinary renewal.
Ladbrokes must be getting plenty of hints then…as they are shortest on the first 3 in the betting and 5 out of the first 6.
The magic sign are clearly ‘in the know’.They have a direct line to Coolmore. Obviously there will be plenty of horses in plenty of races they would prefer to avoid. They’re just accountants nowadays but more informed people than me have been telling us for years they are very close to the Coolmore operation. They were shortest about HH until GC re-emerged as a market positive in the past few days.
I suspect the gamble is down to inside information that Moore was favouring GC. He’s probably faster than HH as he should be, based on breeding, but it wouldn’t be the first time the Coolmore ‘best’ horse hasn’t won (Hawk Wing, anyone?) That said, I have a very nice price and am looking forward to laying it off.
Whether GC now represents value is again questionable but I think you have to respect that he is representing the most formidable operation on the planet.
I don’t imagine any of the bookies have taken massive amounts of money for GC. I don’t believe it is a genuine gamble. It’s info getting out Moore and the bookies reacting accordingly, preempting public money and minimising their liability.
On the subjects of stats and trends, hows this one? How about the good name theory?
Over the years the derby has been won by horses with fantastically lyrical names, like:
Nijinsky
Troy
Golden Fleece
Sharastani
Nashwan
Generous
Commander in Chief
and so on.
Seven names going back 45 years? One ‘good’ one every 6-and-a-bit years? Is this really the basis of a good system?
Obviously it’s entirely subjective and not meant to be taken seriously but what was lyrical or whatever about any of the names since Commander In Chief?
If you were just going by names the only ‘naff’ names you’d rule out this year are Jack Hobbs and Rocky Rider. Unless you’re a cricket fan, of course, in which case Jack Hobbs would be a brilliant name.
If there was a runner called Muhammed Ali would we dismiss it as naff? How about Bobby Moore? Roger Federer?
The reason why ‘good’ names win the race is because most horses have good names.
Just a thought…those judging horses on the basis of the Breakfast workouts might want to bear in mind how far from the inside rail they were on passing the post. The camber from that centre point to the rail is pretty severe.
Good point.
Ladbrokes have been shortest about GC for some time, suggesting they’ve had hints all along that he’s a lot better than his recent run or that maybe Moore ha reservations about HH.
I said earlier if Moore was confirmed as GC’s jockey his price would collapse. That might be what’s happening.
Either way I don’t mind!
I think two of the three best horses ran in the Dante and even if it was all three I’d have reservations about two of them on stamina grounds.
I always look for the best horses in the race beforehand. It’s the safest way but if they don’t stay their chance will be at best compromised, at worst eliminated.
Thanks for the info about Epicuris. As soon as I started reading it, it started ringing bells. I was going to check his ground requirements later, before committing myself to a bet.
