|
By:
I think Poquelin had had 23 runs before Sat - i accept this track brings the best out of him, but cannot accept the horse is suddenly improving. Regarding bettr ground, i think this makes a difference, but i think Alberta's also likes it decent.
|
|
By:
RC
Poq new BHA rating 170, higher than both AR and MG - improvement or mistake? Has he ever beaten either of them? |
|
By:
Hi The Sawyer - they know far more than me, and as I said above, I have got this horse wrong repeatedly, but that surprises me. He obviously just produces his best on that track with decent ground. Not going to have a chance to look up results, so uncertain about their history against other. Woolcombe Folly up to 169, which also surprises me.
What do you think TS? |
|
By:
Off topic, but off the top of my head, WF ran off 154 (minus 5lb claim) and beat a 135 rated horse 6l. WF has risen to 169 and Thanks for That has gone up 142. FF has been kept on the same mark 145, beaten by Thanks 14. FF was having his 4th quick run. Seems excessive for WF for me. Sorry, this is all totally off topic.
|
|
By:
RC
As I said before, I was shocked with Poquelin's "apparent" improvement, and on what he he achieved in the time recorded, 168-170 is "correct" on how the handicapper makes his number up - sorry assesses the relevant merits of a race. Rarely do I agree with them but I could reluctantly almost give Poq 170 (well more like 169!). The same applies to WF, although I have plumped for 165, making full allowance of the claim. Both exceptional weight carrying performances, however you interpret the form - and believe me I use every possible angle to lower a horses figure. Still they are only numbers (and I was told once that it is not a time trial) but if Poq has improved that much, he is a leading Ryanair player (I think he was sent off fav last year) and WF a lively outsider (although I do not know what his current price is) for the CC. |