apologies but i meant to put the following but turned my laptop off last night and couldnt motivate myself to turn it back on.

Further clarification - objectivity is not about the opinion itself it centres solely on the absence of motive behind the opinion. This is why in previous posts i have used football as the arch enemy of objectivity as fans, players and managers alike nearly always have motive for their opinion. Both managers thought they deserved to win - at least one is lacking objectivity --- i get that betting puts pressure on objectivity but other than this i believe it should be far easier for racing fans to be objective.

Secondly i meant to clarify better the Cue Card thing - and believe me this is not a 'defend cue card' thread - its just the most profound recent example for me and is front of my mind.

People have questioned the merit of his recent Haydock performance, i dont know if that is with complete objectivity, if it is fair play though i think it a very harsh criticism. Real objectivity comes when the same people that questioned the haydock performance would have questioned every horse that put up an identical performance that day. In  other words hypothetically someone is a fan of Coneygree (could be any of the other contenders) and it was Coneygree not Cue Card that smashed SC and rather than say what a great performance they say i am not sure what they achieved - that is objectivity and that is what i would love to see much more of on this forum.

thanks cyclops

I am to blame i think beacuse i have been a little lazy and used cue card as an example too often because my intention  was not for this to be a thread about cue card, nor was my intention for it to be a thread about which gold cup contender is best.
That said i am happy to respond to you comments

lets take your comments re cue card first he has run 27 times and posted an rpr of 170 or greater on 9 occasions (33%) he has posted an rpr of > 175 4 times roughly 14% (sorry havent got calculator)

lets take the other contenders

Vautour > 170 once out of 12 runs (8.5%) > 175 = 0/12
Djakadam > 170 3/14 runs (29%) > 175 1/14 runs (7%)
Don Poli >170 0/11 runs > 0/11 (obviously)
Don Cossack > >170 5/24 runs (21%) >175 4/24 (16.5%)

This suggest that he is more likelyon runs to date (on a rate basis) than all contenders to post a 170 + performance  and only Don Cossack is more likely to post a performance greater than 175 - so his haydock performance was a lot more typical and not as isolated as you suggest. Also more data to suggest either Don Cossack and Cue Card are not getting the credit they deserve objectively or others are getting more than they deserve objectively - (if you remember my original post i called out cue card and don cossack as being harshly traeted on the 'whats he beat' comment.

of course others are improving as they are younger horses which increases their relative likelihood of posting higher rprs in the future. But that is what i meant on my original post maybe some still have a little to prove. it doesnt mean they wont but the possibility exists that they wont.

With regard to your point re beaten by have i not addressed this in my objective assessment of cue card when i put 'if he turns up on an off day he has no chance'??? (post 6th dec 23:28) yes he gets beat a lot his win ratio is much less impressive than vautour for example however his best performances and even average perfomances according to rpr is much better than vautour and get this cue card has obtained a higher rpr in defeat  than vautuours 2nd highest career rpr in victory on 4 separate occasions suggesting he has run good races in some of those defeates you mention.

There are reasons - hard to get high rpr as novice and all that but i have included all cue card novice runs in his data and if i took them out his high rpr ratio would be even more impressive (as would some of the other contenders) (also his rpr as a novice compare well with other contenders as a novice) and remember it is possible to get a high rpr as a novice if he runs against the big boys i.e. coneygree (and lets face it he was technically a novice but older and a brute of a horse - not like the other contenders when they were a novice)

look rprs are not everything of course they are not, and i understand emotion, bias and so on - i just would prefer more objectivity

you miss my point i am not using them to imply don cossack and cue card are better or that i prefer them i am using the data to suggest they both are perhaps not getting the credit they deserve (particulalrly cue card). in other words i am trying to provide balance thats all and its interesting that merely trying to apply balance is seen as favouring the horse i am trying to get balance for - this completely misses the point

of course if you just use rprs then you will lean toward older horses - i made that very point myself which should tell you that i am trying to be objective - the reason i used rprs is to put out there that cue card has actually achieved in rpr terms more than some other horses show promise to achieve and that this should be acknowledged in a balanced debate. Balance also tells me that the younger improving horses are more likely (again a point i just made in previous post) to record higher rprs in the future.

my expectation is that Djakadam highest rpr is still to come, same with Don Poli, i am less sure about coneygree but have an open mind (and truly hope he does) and cannot make my mind up about vautour = - he could produce an rpr in 180s absolutely or not come on like many think - i hope he does and many are certain he will - all this should not however detract from the high rprs that cue card (for example has already achieved on more than an isolated occasion which you stated)

for the record i am a huge fan of don cossack - i actually dont care if he doesnt like chelt as much as other courses because i admire him for what he has already achieved and i dont need him to pass any more tests - the reason i admire him so much is the recent performances that you refer to. Failure to win the GC will not take those away it will just mean he didnt win the GC

Achievement is tangible potential is just that - until potential is turned into reality it stays as potential - the rprs were used to illustrate achievement and to showcase the difference between achievement and potential. they were not used to suggest (and i certainly did not suggest that the horse with the highest rpr will always win a race). That is not objectivity that is a linear interpretation of one data point when we all know many data points are needed to assess the most likely winner of a race.

do i think some of the contenders will turn out to achieve more than cue card - yes i do - does that diminish what cue card has actually achieved no it doesnt

As a searcher for objectivity i often find myself trying to obtain balance or fairness for horses i feel are not getting a fair deal from people - this should not be interpreted as me thinking they are better than they are or even better than horses that get a better deal - i am just trying to be balanced

perhaps this simple illustration will help (its just an illustration to help clarify not real)

lets say the forum marks coneygree 85/100 and cue card 50/100 and gives the reasons why for both - and i absorb everything the forum says and believe there has been a lack of objectivity or balance. i might point out the lack of balance but still agree coneygree deserves a higher score than cue card - it is the objectivity that i seek not the final judgement.

i am not sure i can find any more ways to clarify what i am trying to say

if you reach for the stars you may not get there but you will come back with something - perhaps the moon

in other words i am not expecting or necessarily desiring 100% objectivity but hoping and perhaps asking that it is a something we value more than seems apparent at the moment and evidence a little more than we do at the moment. Emotion as you rightly say has its place but i feel the balance between emotion and objectivity is a little or perhaps more than a little in favour of emotion and that this is impacting on the quality of the debates.

in other words i am an idealist trying to improve the quality of debates and i feel increasing objectivity will achieve this.

again i am not talking about 100% objectivity - i dont want this nor do i feel it would be good - i feel like i am having to repeat myself - there is room for everything including gut feeling - again i am talking about a different balance - i.e  more objectivity and a less (not no) gut feel or emotion (or bias or wind up) please say you understand before i commit myself

i just feel that the QUALITY of our debates - and any debate in life improves when objectivity plays a significant (not total) role. they are enriched even further by emotion and instinct - very little by bias and bigotry - but when emotion and gut feel play the leading role the quality of debate drops and this is why football debates often lack quality imo

??

that's about the long and short of it