Ocean War ?

Regarding the breeding issue, last years' Derby was significant in that Workforce was the first derby winner ever to have a sire coming from the Mr Prospector line.  You used to be able to draw a line through any Derby runner with Mr Prospector in the top half but he changed all that.  However I'm working on the theory that Workforce's sire King's Best is an exception (out of Allegretta who is German-bred - ie. ultra stamina laden influences).  Street Cry is nothing like so stoutly-bred so I'm opposing Carlton House.  With trepidation.  One of the reasons I think some pedigree students are looking at Ocean War is because his sire is from the traditional Derby-friendly Shirley Heights line.  He's a decent horse but is he good enough?  Apparently he's surprised Zarooni.  I think it was John Oxx who once said that if a horse was 100% guaranteed to get the trip then they were too slow.  I like Recital 'cos he's quick and I'm a Mordin man at heart!   Nathaniel looks a nice type physically too and he should enjoy a strongly run 12f.

you dont think high chaparral was a good derby winner?

Lammtarra not a good Derby winner and was too slow hence why he broke the track record which lasted until up last year and subsequently won a King George and Arc...please.

Christ almighty High Chaparral was a class horse.Only better Derby winner since been Sea the Stars.

Agreed John - Anytime the horse put his head in front in the final 2F he was never passed

I won't knock cryoftruth's post as there is truth in it.  You do need a bit of zip in a pedigree.  An important quality in the Derby is having the pace to get a good position early in the race.

High Chaparral was a Jeykll and Hyde betting horse for me:  I had him in an Oaks/Derby double with Kazzia, and the Derby trifecta, but he beat Falbrav (my bet) twice luckily imo (Irish Champion and Breeders Cup).  High Chaparral imo needed the slow Derby ground.

Physically Carlton House in the Dante looked a Derby horse, Seville looked a little burly imo, a bit like Yeats.

Good breakdown there cryoftruth, although I have to weigh in with a few defending Lammtarra and High Chaparral, both top horses that I backed in the Derby. Not that there was any pedigree analysis with Lammtarra I was 11 and just picked it out of the paper.  I generally look one generation back with sires so would look at Benny The Dip and Kris Kin together as from the 'Roberto' line which is a fantastic line for classic horses year after year.  Didn't realise how much stamina there was in Recital's pedigree till you pointed that out so cheers for that although he showed so much ability over 10f in the Derrinstown that if he runs to his pedigree and improves for the trip he's a monster bet at 8 or 9/1 at this stage by my reckoning.  Also interesting how many Derby winner's dams have French or German relatives and Recital fits the bill there.  I just hope he's not too green to do himself justice.

At Newbury as 2yo i was impressed with the way Carlton House demolished his rivals by a long looking 9l on soft ground, winning his race along way out. At York the race was not run to suit him or World domination in fact to my eye Seville had the run of the race. The way he quickened through the gap when it appeared and then quickened again when Seville came back at him only bodes well for the future. On pedigree nothing is crtain but we must remember Nashwan whos dam was out of a Bustino mare and his sire was the miler Blushing groom who failed to stay the Derby trip finishing 3rd Nashwan won the derby. Blushing grooms sire was Red God a speed influence as is Street Cry Machavellian. Blushing grooms dam was out of the exceptional stamina sire Wild Risk where as Street Cry dam is out of Troy derby winnerby 7l. Street Cry dam Helen Street won the Irish Oaks and further back inthe dams line you will find a Park Hill Stakes winner. Talented the dam of Carlton House won over a mile and a quarter and the best she did over a mmile and a half was to finish 3rd beaten a length and a half. The 3rd dam came 3rd in the Oaks and her 6th dam Singing Grass produced Never Say Die who won the Derby. Will history repeat  itself, I believe it wll.

I never said High Chaparral was a poor Derby winner just not in the "very good" class. Having done some research he ran a Racing Post rating of over 130 once (130 exactly in the Derby), so I think he was a top class consistent horse but not a "very good" Derby winner; but its how you classify these things.

In respect to Lammtara, he only ran 4 times I think and never ran above 129. He was a bit lucky to beat Pentire in the King George I seem to remember. Of course he was game and tough and obviously was loaded with stamina, but he was certainly not as good even as High Chaparral. He would have made a cracking Cup horse at 4 though with all that stamina in his pedigree!

Duncan Idaho; the analysis is simplistic. If the 3 immediate relatives in a  Derby winner's pedigree were 12 furlong pedigrees or stamina influences then I called them or classified them as "too slow". A bit hypocritical as its the sort of half baked theory the loony Mordin tends to try out with all has data bases.

What I showed is that in the last 20 years, the Derby winners with at least one of the three primary ancestors having 8 furlong pedigrees or less won 15 of the last 20 Derbies.

I am not saying (as the tossspot Mordin seems to do too often) anything dogmatic about what that will mean for the next 20 Derbies, but my guess is that the speed is necessary and that there was more than a grain of truth in the John Oxx claim that someone referred to earlier and started me off.

In respect to Recital, his pedigree is by Montjeu, stamina index 11.6, out of a mare by Kendor (stamina index 12). Its exactly the sort of pedigree that seems logically to suggest that 12 furlongs would be ideal, but does seem to be too stout for the Derby in 3 out of 4 years. I would though, as Duncan points out, have to insert a word of caution and retract my initial superficial observations about Recital's stamina as some half sibs that would give him half a chance of actually not staying, so its not as clear cut as it might be. The grand sire Kendor was actually a french guineas winner so his stamina index of 12 may be seriously misleading and he could in fact, as Duncan sort of points out, be in the "not too slow" category after all. personally I suspect Recital is hard to fancy for the Derby as he does seem to do a pretty passable impersonation of a very talented dog; hanging, head in air and unco-operative with the jockeys. I really cannot remember a "dog" winning the Derby - ever.

I have always myself liked 2 things about my major Derby fancies. First is a horse I am pretty certain on breeding must stay 12 furlongs but who show top class form over shorter particularly over a mile in the 2000 Guineas. Nashwan, Sea The Stars, Nijinsky, Mill Reef, Generous, Sir Percy and New Approach (& others) fit this profile.

Then there are the ones who show real promise in trials (like Galileo, Shergar, Troy, etc etc). These are the ones I worry about when they seem to have too much 12 furlong blood in sire, dam and dam;s sire. They always look like they will need 14 furlongs to me, a bit like Soldieroffortune did imo (sorry soldier to call you slow again!).

This year aside from Native Khan there is nothing from the Guineas; and Native Khan although bred to stay I think, may just not be quite good enough. The reason I worry about him is that the Guineas as a matter of form was just destroyed by frankel, as everything that was supposed to have a chance knackkered themselves utterly by trying to keep tabs on Frankel, whereas the ones who let him clear off and then come through at the end did easily the best. It just makes the form of the beaten horses very dicey indeed and I am almost sure that if Frankel had not done his Tudor Minstrel impersonation, the result would have looked a bit different. I mean look at the distances - they were much more like the ones you see at the end of a Sedgefield heavy ground 3 mile chase.
To me this leaves my choice as Carlton House. Its boring and I personally did not get much by way of fancy odds, having to top up my book at the 5/2 after the Dante. I do though think he has a very good chance. Whether he's value at 2/1 as Tom Segal suggests is another matter.

Good luck to you all though.

"In respect to Lammtara, he only ran 4 times I think and never ran above 129. He was a bit lucky to beat Pentire in the King George I seem to remember. Of course he was game and tough and obviously was loaded with stamina, but he was certainly not as good even as High Chaparral. He would have made a cracking Cup horse at 4 though with all that stamina in his pedigree!"

Sorry but this is just dreamland stuff and you should really not place too much faith into official/timeform figures as they are seriously flawed when it compares to time and other analysis...'lucky' to beat Pentire lol ? Lammtarra was 4/4 in his lifetime including a listed race at 2yo, Derby, King George and Arc...you just don't get that kind of horse come around every year...Sea The Stars has been the best since with his Guineas win added into the mix for his versatility although I believe Lammtarra beat better horses in his races...but those two stand head and shoulders above everything since Dancing Brave and Nashwan, the rest were just 'good' Derby winners...although I am still waiting with bated breath to see what Workforce does this season.

All you have done is fit your 'analysis' in around the misguided concept that 'slow' or rather horses bred to get a trip, don't win the Derby.

As for the 'slating' of Mordin...I agree wih jair1970...I think the man has done more for alternative handicapping and ideas in this country than most other 'experts'. Certainly better than the tosh you have just spouted on the Derby and the pedigree 'analysis'...and I use that term loosely.

Pentire had to go widest of all, mainly cos Lammatarra looked like he was too slow to get out of his way approaching home turn, then used his energy up too soon hitting the front 2f out...i have little doubt Pentire would have done Lammtarra for speed if he had been held on to and not gone via car park

cryoftruth


I think that you are wrong if you see comparative form ratings as merely  a (superior)alternative to time ratings instead of as one being a complement to the other, with each having different advantages and disadvantages, and which help to add light and shade to a single bare figure.It is not necessary to discard one over the other with one being more "right" than the other.

I have no doubt that collateral ratings are very solid and reliable when assessing past form especially when used for horses with plenty of form in the book.

Their greatest weakness however,is when assessing lightly raced horses, and here time analysis can add another dimension. As you know, I have spent many years delving into the use of sectional times, and whilst I accept that errors can abound, their usefulness for getting a fix on how much improvement there is to come or perhaps more accurately, how much a rating may be under or over-rated is beyond dispute for me.

The main limitation of relying solely on collateral form, to my mind, is that European markets are largely founded upon the collateral ratings and therefore the chances indicated by collateral ratings are reflected in the prices and finding the value depends upon interpretation of other factors.

I certainly don't profess to get it right every time,but by and large manage to get ahead of the game, especially at the top level.So, I must be doing something right.

I agree with Figgis's comments re Ken Hussey but in further defence of "time " as an aid I offer the following points:

1. Phil Bull, who was no mean backer, relied heavily on time even his Timeform ratings are based on collateral form. To quote from his biography "From the late thirties, Bull's most successful period of betting was based on a simple theory of time..."

2. Alex Bird, another no-mean punter, is quoted is his autobiography with "..race course timing was so important in my assessment of horses, especially two year-olds"

3. One or two serious punters of whom I have an acquaintance base their betting heavily on their time ratings

4. The whole of US racing uses time ratings, either Beyer or The Sheets, with no presence of collateral ratings. Surely it is arrogant to suggest that they are all wrong over there?

I hope that one day you have "time" on your side to re-assess your views.

I'd love to be won over by time ratings/speed figs but i struggle to see how they can be sufficiently reliable when many races are not run at anything like a true pace. I dabble with sectionals myself but only to illuminate as to the way the race has been run pacewise (sounds like you produce a rating based on your sectionals, sandown). Anyone who goes to the trouble deserves to gain a bit of an edge, tho.


(ps i believe Alex Bird used to manage no more than a 4% return on turnover of around £2mill pa, dodgy photo betting and all)

One of the best quotes i heard regarding speedfigures is "It tells you how bad a horse isnt"

That quote is attributed to Phil Bull

It cannot assess the value of a horse's merits as accurately as collateral form. T


Funny, but I would put it the other way round

COT, once in a while even an exposed horse will put in a figure that is totally out of line with its previous ones and it may never have the conditions to ever replicate it again, where i find they are a essential tool is with unexposed ones.

As with everything it should be used with regard to a risk/reward scenario and thats where personal preference lies within ourselves.

Agree with Figgis last post

I'm no expert on time figures but surely it would have been impossible for any horse in the Dante to clock an impressive time figure. Nick Mordin suggests that CH is a bad favourite but how is any horse supposed to clock a good figure when the race is run at such a slow pace.

I remember Bosra Sham being undone at Sandown because of a slow pace and she was exceptional. Surely the fact CH still managed to win even though there was no pace is more relevant.