whats he beat?

intresting post and a different way of looking at it.
You make fair points about people knocking Horses when they favour/have backed others....it's a habit on this forum.

Personally when I look at a race like the Gold cup I do look at form I think relates to horses that ..I think or have proved ..are Gold cup types......course and staying ability required plus of course the class required.
Interesting and a refreshingly different way of looking at things.

With Cue Card, I have questioned the type of horses he has form with,Cont and Dynaste and First Lieutenant probably the best he has form with and I don't think any are a guide to his Gold Cup winning chance. That is probably more like down to how he is on the day as a mate of mine pointed out to me after his latest romp at haydock,and I must admit has got me interested in CC now,cos when he has been in rude health (as his trainer put it) he has been very good.will he stay?not sure,but I do think looking at the horses he's run against is maybe not the way to go when accessing his chances. So he has course form,we know that,he has the class,and staying ability?? I think he has shown enough to suggest he just could stay ok.
With regards the Gold cup last March,I am going on mu gut feeling and visual impression that it was a darn good one,and I fancy all the top 3 to have big chances this time,maybe Holywell as well if ground is decent. If I am wrong,and one of the Dons ,Vautour,Xue Card or someone else proves better than them....fair enough,I happen to think it's possible,but not likely.

Meant to say as well..........I echo your last comments and we should all relish everyone of the contenders,as this just could be the best Gold Cup we have ever had. We should be respecting all of them and discuss the merits etc without too much knocking,cos it's clear to me that none of them deserve that,they all look to have chances based on what they respectively have shown thus far.
I guess it really depends on ones personal way of trying to work the race out.
Sure that can be done by not having to resort to knocking a horse.

Meant to say as well..........I echo your last comments and we should all relish everyone of the contenders,as this just could be the best Gold Cup we have ever had. We should be respecting all of them and discuss the merits etc without too much knocking,cos it's clear to me that none of them deserve that,they all look to have chances based on what they respectively have shown thus far.
I guess it really depends on ones personal way of trying to work the race out.
Sure that can be done by not having to resort to knocking a horse.

my post was not about who i think will win the gold cup or about cue card, it was about the way people claim to be using facts when they dismiss a horse when in fact they are using bias, gut feeling as you put it, emotion e.t.c. horse racing imo is not pure science but nor is it a pure art form and my experience is so much rubbish is stated as fact when it is just opinion. For me there are a number of possible winners of the gold cup next year and i am ok admitting they i havent got a clue who will win. On good ground i can see Cue Card and Road to Riches and Vautour running huge races, if it becomes gruelling (either ground or way race is run) i dont think anything can or will stay better than Don Poli.if there is soft in the description and his preparation is ok Coneygree can force others into mistakes and win again. If Don Cossack acts around Cheltenham and is as good left handed he could be a superstar. Smad Place ... no way for me - place perhaps. The point is they all have 'ifs' they are all very good horses and can win if things fall into place on the day so at the moment it comes down to where value lies today and the only two horses whose price underestimates their chance of winning imo is Road to Riches and Cue Card. Do i think they are the likeliest winners no but the rest are far too short recognising they all have 'ifs'. The likeliest winner is the one with the unlikliest 'if' i.e Don Poli i.e. almost certain to be a true run race but  a) too short, b)he is not my favourite horse (bias).

whatever wins unless he wins by many lengths will probably have had more things go his way either on the day or between now and then than others. it may not mean he is a better horse merely better on the day on under the conditions and on a different day under different conditions we may have had a different winner that is what is so great about horse racing. what separates horse racing from football and fans of each is that racing fans can like, respect and appreciate more than one horse  and we dont have to slag off any horse that we havent backed and i have to say reading through this forum i see behaviour from some closer to football fans than i would see from racing fans at a track for example.

btw get the holywell thing probably other horse where price slightly underestimates chance.

You should post more often, interesting thoughts. Unfortunately, objectivity disappears once a bet has been struck or an opinion has been stated.

Interesting post, a pretty selective list of horses that Coneygree has beaten.

Forgot Silviniaco Conti, Many Clouds, Smad Place, Holywell, Bobs Worth, Road To Riches.

thanks GI MAC .. the most ironic thing is the way  imo to be a good gambler over a sustained period is to be smart enough to know you are not smart enough to know what will win. to recognise and be humble enough to know you will be wrong far more often than right and realise that the main opinion that you need to be right is the one of VALUE and not the one of who will win. in other words complete and pure objectivity which is so difficult in such an emotional sport. And you are 100% right once that bet is placed we lose all objectivity and become bigots (not your words - mine)

ibrahima - please read my post again i didnt say beaten i said runner up to no selectivity at all just fact

if i had meant beaten every horse would have a different list not just coneygree - i think you have proven my point brilliantly

millions sophie - nice balance and perception in OP.

IS - you walked straight in to that ! Slam Dunk. Made me laugh so much I nearly choked on my cornflakes....

miltons - apologies. Spellcheck !!!

is this the new trend? to say Don Cossack doesn't handle Cheltenham? Anyone who watched his race in the Ryanair with his own eyes and arrives to that conclusion I think needs a new pair of eyes. As for the RSA 2 years ago, anyone can make a mistake, he was traveling the best at that time. I guess its the same as last year with Faugheen, when you have a horse well above anything around people try to find anything to knock them. The problem of course is that Don Cossack price is not an issue like it was with Faugheen's, so why knock the Don with such a ridiculous statement that he doesn't handles Chelt? I could take the criticism of end of season form not worth much, I can take the maybe he won't stay 3m2f, but doesn't handles Chelt?? Jesus...

"......when you have a horse well above anything around people try to find anythingfini to knock them."

I don't think people crabbing his course form is finding anything as you put it. DC is 0/2 at the festival (fact ), and as you know course form, and in particular festival form is a huge advantage. Your obviously keen to forgive him those two runs, fair enough, but those who look upon his course form as a negative have every reason to think that way.

Don't think their is anything wrong with having a gut feeling about a race,as I have with the last Gold cup,as long as it does not cloud judgement and use it to dismiss others that did not run in it...after all those could perform better in the conditions on the day.
Bias on the other hand is just plain daft and is really used by people who are on here for a wind up and to upset those that just want a proper and reasoned discussion.
This thread has the potential to do a lot of good in that respect,be nice to keep it near the top.
We just could have a real good informative chat,without the usual nonsense.

The race itself........I think the King George could be fairly crucial,particularly as the current fav for the GC could end up a non runner after it,depending on how he stays. We could be looking at a different market after the KG. we could also see Vautour shortening if he's impressive.
ground as always will be crucial,the way the race is run as well,and as MS says......which horse/horses are best suited to conditions on the day and things falling into place on the day.
Fascinating race as is the build up to it.

.

timtin - is this what you got from my post - seriously -  you are totally misunderstanding my post - i am not saying don cossack doesnt handle cheltenham i am merely reporting what i have read others post on here. on other threads i have read people state there are question marks about whether he acts around cheltenham and whether he is better going right handed. whether i agree or not is not the point, the point is people state similar things like they are facts when they are opinions and often ones based on gut feeling, bias or worse still because they have backed something else. For what its worth i think Don Cossack is a brilliant horse and i will continue to think this even if cheltenham isnt his favourite track - there is more to racing than cheltenham (though i absolutely love it)  and there is more to 3m chasing than the gold cup and i would like nothing more than every horse to turn up on the day and run to its absolute best.

your opinion re Don Cossack is clear and you are entitled to it, i think smashing into the opinions of others the way you have is exactly the kind of football fan attitude i dislike - for what its worth i really hope you are right because i backed him ap a long time ago but just because i love the horse and have a financial interest does not cloud me to the possibility (however small) that he may not like cheltenham quite as much as other tracks nor does it give me the right to smash into people that believe cheltenham may not suit him - if they dont however i would prefer them to admit the real reason why they have this view (this being an adjective for other similar situations)

who has said DC does not handle Cheltenham....as fact?
It's possible he could not win the Gold Cup because he does not handle Cheltenham as well as others,and it's also possible that the reason he did not win there so far is the course.Will say though that As far as the Ryanair is concerned,Uxizandre would have beaten most horses around on that performance,and it's probably too short for DC.
Personally I think the jury's out on DC and Cheltenham.
Put it this way,for me I would not use the course as a reason not to back him.

I quickly realised that if you say anthing remotely negative about Don Cossack or Faugheen, Timtin gets quite upset!

It'll be a fascinating Gold Cup; I've nailed my colours to Cue Card (14's) and Road to Riches (40's), and I probably won't bck anything else.  In such a competitve race, I'd want double figure odds for whoever I backed, keep the stakes small and just enjoy the race.

I'm relying on decent ground for either of them to have a good chance, but then that will play into the hands of some of the others too.  I think whoever wins the King George and Lexus will be quite a bit shorter than they are now, so the market will be quite a bit different in January compared to now.

timtin - is this what you got from my post - seriously -  you are totally misunderstanding my post - i am not saying don cossack doesnt handle cheltenham i am merely reporting what i have read others post on here.
Exactly, the new trendy stuff to replicate, I'll look forward to hearing it more and more until the festival arrives.

the problem is GI MAC that people are very selective/inconsistent about when they use certain facts such as course form - and my experience is that the inconsistency is driven by either bias/financial or deliberately being obnoxious. in other words if it suits their opinion they site something like course form and when it doesnt they ignore it or defend it. Don Cossack fans/bettors will defend it detractors or bettors of opposition will make a big thing of it - mutliply this a million times for different races and different horses and so on

Personally with Don Cossack i simply do not feel there is enough evidence either way. It is possible his ryanair performance and fall were track related bit it is equally possible that a fall can happen anywhere no horse is perfect and the ryanair was other factors (a little trouble in running, mistake e.t.c.). What is wrong with being objective and saying i dont know - i love the horse , i understand why people fancy him and i also understand why people dont - great thats horse racing

timtin - yes but why did you put this on my thread

wellchief, i said I accept any critic of Don as long as it doesn't involve the lazy reading of course form and saying it means he doesn't handle it.

should say this thread - clearly not mine

indeed it is Milton.

tt - highest rated horse in training in UK&I. Two runs at Cheltenham. Zero wins. He may well handle the track but it sure aint his favourite. I think he handles it OK but it is not to his benefit whereas his main market rivals could claim to handle it better - Coneygree is 3/4, Don Poli is 2/2, Vautour is 2/2. My view, DC is a great horse, but net net the Cheltenham track is not a positive for DC but it could be a positive for the other three. Just one factor in making a selection. Plenty of other positives for DC of course. But we are talking about handling Cheltenham. Food for thought. If they all show up it is going to be a great race. FWIW my selection is Don Poli. I think he has all the attributes for a Gold Cup winning horse. And I am so confident I think he could be the first back to back winner since Best Mate. Now there's a bold claim.

well chief - got rtr at 40 too but missed cue card - i am soooo angry with myself - still backable of course but still make mistakes after 35 years of gambling quite pathetic really

I suppose Don Cossack could be a bit like Kauto Star in that respect.  Have the ability to win the Gold Cup, despite others in the lineup preferring Cheltenham as a track.

If the Gold Cup was run at Kempton or Haydock, Kauto would have won twice as many Gold Cups, but it was his raw ability that won him two at Cheltenham.

Another example is Hurricane Fly - had the ability to win two Champion Hurdles, despite the course.

Both acted around Cheltenham, but preferred other courses; maybe the Don could be in that category after March??

good point wellchief - i actually think the idealist in me would like a horse to win despite not having all ducks in a row - thats one sign of a true champion as opposed to winning because he had more in his favour. I like the idea of one horse being able to win left or right handed, good ground or heavy, kempton or cheltenham true pace or not - the reality is this is very unlikely because this all rounder would have to be better than at least one extremely good horse that has everything near perfect on the day - the one horse for me that still has this possibility today is Don Cossack though i think it unlikely - but it is possible - realistically the winner of the gold cup will not necessarily be the best horse but the horse that ticks most boxes on the day - reluctantly if you put a gun to my head today thats probably Don Poli and i imagine myself after the race saying this is a perfect gold cup horse but imo not the best horse

Buddeliea - who has said DC does not handle Cheltenham....as fact?

my point is people state opinions as if they were facts - its the language and tone- facts in horse racing are mainly data most of the rest is opinion Don Cossack 0-2 at cheltenham is a fact, Don Cossack not handling cheltenham is an opinion using data to support but still an opinion - however often (and this is made up just for example sake) people will say something like Don Cossacks worst two performances have been at cheltenham so he clearly doesnt handle the track - this is an opinion worded like a fact - thats the kind of thing i mean and its the kind of statement that is imo often driven by bias, financial gain or deliberately to wind up

Don Cossack runs at Chelt: in first he fell midrace(any horse can make a mistake, it doesn't mean ti doesn't handle that course) when travelling really well and second run he got badly hampered 2-3 times and still stayed on for 3rd. He handles Cheltenham for me.

Speaking of `what he beat` I fancy Ptit Zig to get found out today and what will that say about Vautour? my bet is on Pepite Rose at 11/2 fwiw

I understand your point MS, my question was aimed at Timtin who seemed to be saying that someone on this thread said DC does not act at Cheltenham. I could not find that anywhere on this thread that quoted that. People saying it a a possibility maybe,but not in a factual way.

budd

haven't read all the posts but when you said in your first post that knocking horses you don't fancy is a habit on this forum I'd actually say that it is actually human nature, that type of thing happens in all situations generally in life.

In fact we shouldn't look at it as knocking because what we are actually doing, is, rightly or wrongly simply pointing out the reasons we haven't backed that particular horse, it's a non story.

But do we have to actually knock horses to justify backing horses Duffy?
By all means give reasons for backing horses and not backing them,but knocking horses?? Which some do quiet strongly at times.
Maybe we should not look at it as knocking,but that can be a tad difficult with some things I have read on here over the years.

Can you give an example of knocking?, I can understand it if someone was saying all manner of horrific things about the horse, but in general it is aimed at the horse's ability or capability in that persons opinion.

By definition if you haven't backed the horse those reasons are present.

I've just put on another thread that in a GC I think that DP will switch himself off at some point and leave himself too much to do, here I am probably questioning his ability to you can call it knocking, but to me it's a credible point so can't be knocking.

questioning his ability to keep his mind on the job throughout.....that should say.

That's a reasoned opinion not to back him.
You are not saying he's no chance because of ....blah blah.
You saying you have never read anything like that on this forum ?

Perhaps I have in fairness but I suppose it goes in one ear and out the other, I don't take it personally or I don't get offended by it as such, not criticising anyone who does mind you...but even in the cases of people who say such and such has no chance blah blah blah, there will usually still be the genuine questions behind the bluster, it's just that some people are more that way inclined....Chapman would be one of those people for example, they want to be "out there" if you like when they have an opinion.

duffy - i mentioned knocking in my opening thread - i do not mean opinions where reasons are given (even if i do not agree) - i mean where criticism lacks objectivity for example where a horse is criticised essentially for not being perfect and yet another imperfect horse is given a free pass for whatever reason (most commonly i believe bias, financial attachment, desire to wind up, stir things up, be controversial e.t.c.).I assume people like forums because they are in principle a great vehicle for objective and stimulating debate. Once objectivity stops becoming a prerequisite there is very little left other than people stubbornly sticking to their viewpoints irrespective of how many salient points others make and while i do not post often i have read much and see this over and over and over.

I mention Cue Card in my thread as an example as i feel he is a horse that people often lack objectivity about. People that are not a fan of the horse  use his bad runs as evidence and tend to ignore the good stuff or if not ignore react with great scepticism or defensiveness (he beat a poor SC,winning at haydock on that s*** track means nothing, i cant believe he is suddenly  a new horse just coz he had an op and so on - this is a lack of objectivity in my view. An objective view would be something like this if he turns up on an off day he has no chance but if he turns up on one of his going (high 170 rpr days) he is a danger to all. Fair comment whether i like the horse or not

To highlight objectivity (or lack of it)is precisely why i used the 'whats he beat' theme (in reference to next years gold cup contenders) because the irony is there for all to see in that the horses that have been criticised for this have generally beaten better or at least as good horses as those that have not been criticised or have been favoured by those criticising.

I for one would love it if we held each other to a higher standard of objectivity and perhaps others feel the same.

Also Its interesting that knocking goes in one ear and out the other and yet criticising knocking has grabbed your attention.

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.

Miltons, enjoying your thread. Plenty of food for thought. A couple of points.

Firstly, as relevant as who horses beat is who they have been beaten by. If you're aiming at objectivity, that has to be included. Which is why some, including myself, wonder if Cue Card's wonderful win can be isolated from just about all other performances in his career. He's simply been beaten many times and seems a difficult horse to place your faith in on a consistent basis. Of course, the epiglottis operation may now reveal the true horse. But is drawing a line through his previous races because of this objective?

Secondly, developing this theme, the horses in your list that have not been beaten by others in the list are:

Coneygree - narrowly beaten Djakadam and Road to Riches

Don Cossack - beaten Djakadam comfortably, beat Road to Riches as a novice and again last season by a long way, thrashed Cue Card twice.

Vautour - never met any in the list

Don Poli - Ditto

With the top nine in the betting having won all eleven races they've competed in this autumn, and having managed to avoid each other in doing so, something has to give soon and, with all nine entered in the Lexus, King George, or both, surely the Gold Cup picture will clarify by the New Year?

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

Interesting stats, but does following them imply objectivity?
Almost by definition, you would, therefore, always prefer an established contender to an up and coming one.
And Don Cossack, for example has scored 5/5 over 170 in his most recent races, having failed to achieve that mark previously. Indeed, if objectivity derives from RPR's, then he's past the post, as his last four RPR's are higher than anything any other horse in the field has ever achieved.
My Don Cossack thread explains my enduring allegiance to him but, in this stellar age of staying chasers, while my heart and head are both anticipating a DC win in the Gold Cup, with the best will in the world, I'm not sure I could ever say I was being objective!

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

You'd probably get what you ask for if you took all the emotion out of it and took someone away and calmed them down.

Then before they said something were first asked to detatch themselves from any previous allegiances and think about it first, but a lot of things are said in the heat of the moment and whilst perhaps may do a disservice to certain horses or doesn't weigh things up entirely, I think though that it sounds a bit too much like trying to "sanitize" too much the content that is said.

You will probably find all the correct objective content in various discussions on here but not perhaps in the same place.

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.

Probably need to be more of a realist on here , what if you are someone who doesn't rely too much on stats, rpr figures and such like, but tend to rely on gut feeling more from the impression you get from what your eyes tell you, there's no place for that type of approach when it comes to being objective...right?

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

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

@duffy, you sound like that ATR commercial 'horses don't have fingers'

??

that advert, gut feeling: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynQywRUtAok

that's about the long and short of it