Prix Jacques Le Marois - Sunday.

WD figgis,intello not quick enough over the mile,while DA probably a race to far

Toronado still the best miler in Europe though. In theory would have won by a length or so.

The best miler in Europe has been sidelined for the best part of the season, imo.

let's not ruin a good day Fig, eh?

well done Figgis  you thought she might just stay the  mile trip and she did , she is a five year old now  , the Track   is fairly  flat and the early pace did not look too strong , these factors  helped  her to last home , she is a  great filly  and has already  proved that over the last two or three years . Dawn Approach  probably  wants a fairly  long break and a try at ten furlongs , three intense battles against   the best of the  three year old milers   which  include Toronado  have left  a mark. 

imo  there is a real distinction to be made between three year old Horses  Horses  who have  had two or three  battles with top class opponents of their own age   and  older Horses/fillies  who have been  given a planned  summer  campaign  in terms of  being at  their peak   next time out .

DOW ran well  but to my mind the one to take out of the race is Intello   who is on course for   a  good run in the Arc

The first and most important conclusion to draw is that DA ran so far below form (at least 14-20 lb) that I would guess that he is done for this season now, unless his Goodwood run took a huge amount from him and he had insufficient recovery time. He looked well, he was well positioned until half-way, he may have run a little free but nothing like in the Derby, but he had nothing left over the last 2f.At his best, the last run,he would have won this. That's not sour grapes and doesn't detract from MC's effort which showed that fast ground is not a problem for her and on a flat track 8f is within her scope.

Olympic Glory improved significantly and was a little unfortunate not to win. How good is Toronado then?

Intello ran a big race over an inadequate trip. Fabre has a strong hand for the Arc with this one and Flintshire.

Olympic Glory is obviously a decent horse as he's shown previously but I wouldn't back him in anything but a weak Gp1 on that showing. When he did get a clear run Moonlight Cloud was quickening away from him, it was only when she tired that he started to gain significantly on her. It could just as easily be argued that had Jarnet been able to hold on to her longer she would've won more comfortably. The Olympic Glory run is the type that always gets overrated, imo, as a horse with more immediate tactical pace uses its speed, begins to tire, then one with lesser ability eats into the winner's advantage late on. We shall find out next time.

You may be right Figgis but he had Dawn Approach form beforehand and on form through DOW he would have confirmed that. The fact that he was favourite for the French 2000Gns in front of Intello backs that up. He hasn't just arrived from the woodwork like some outsiders do.

My reading of yesterdays race is somewhat different to yours. I think TJ knew Frankie was going well because he was right beside him and when Frankie changed direction to go inside Dawn Approach TJ seized the opportunity and kicked on. Frankie got held up in traffic then, when clear, confirmed TJ's view.

Brig, yes but when OG was in the clear with no excuse it was the filly showing the better acceleration, she went away from him, it was only later when she tired that he really gained on her. As I said, OG is no mug but I wouldn't be rating him too much higher on that run than anything he's done before. Intello is a good middle distance horse, he's done me a couple of favours in the past so I have no reason to crab him but he's not got the speed of a Gp1 miler. Zoffany was also a horse with previous decent form but he was also flattered by his SJP run. Ok, that was a more exaggerated example of an inferior horse gaining late on a worthy winner but it still appeared a good run by the second, he finished in front of Excelebration that day, but didn't really go on from that. It's all about the price, the chances are that OG will be overbet next time, if he is I'll be looking to oppose him.

*mare

I see Dawn Approach is entered in the Irish Champion Stakes on 7th September.  I hope he runs.  Free money.

Before people get too excited about the free money.
Do you remember when Dawn Approach was going for the Derby and was classified a C.C type?
C.C type winning distances: 5-6f 58%; 7-8f 40%; 9-10f 2%.

Is their a video of the race online anywhere - can't see it on Youtube yet?

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x12yq93_11-08-2013-deauville-fr-5-race-prix...

Another point, brig, is that when Jarnet made his move OG wasn't travelling as well as he had been a bit earlier, Dettori was already riding before his path was blocked. Anyway, like I said we will find out next time with OG, MC is being given a well deserved rest.

Couldn't disagree with that Fig. My view is that Head has often said MC gives everything and finds nothing for the whip whereas the colt definitely found for the whip. I also believe had they both had straight, unimpeded runs to the line from 3 out he would have beaten her comfortably. It may just be an 'on the day' thing but there are form lines that say it wasn't the fluke the prices suggest.

Thansk for the link Figgis.

All I can say as an Intello place layer is

I also rate it below her Prix Maurice de Gheest win, whether that was due to the pace aspect of the race, her not being quite as good over the trip, or the race coming so soon after the big effort last week (OG and Intello were relatively fresh horses) I can't say, maybe it was more than one of those factors.

I couldn't do that Fig. It is a specialist distance and the 2nd horse clearly didn't run his race. Take the 2nd out and the race looks ordinary.
If you can't be good be lucky they say.
The three De Gueest's she won she beat Society Rock on his unfavoured ground, Whizz kid is a 5f horse and Lethal Force never ran to his best (I don't think). She was unlucky in the Marois last year and possibly lucky this year. Never ran to form in the US or the 1000 Gns and in the Golden Jubilee the where she finished 2nd to Black Caviar the 3rd and 4th home have been well beaten since and are not Gr1 horses.
Only the race against Farhh looks like a clear cut success.

Posted 12 August 2013, 15:11 GMT
Dawn Approach is being treated with antibiotics following a poor scope after his disappointing run in the Group One Prix du Haras de Fresnay-le-Buffard - Jacques Le Marois at Deauville on Sunday, August 11.

Godolphin's racing manager, Simon Crisford explained: "Jim Bolger told me that Dawn Approach scoped with mucous after the race but he had been fine when tested before he left Ireland on Saturday.

"Dawn Approach is now on a course of antibiotics and will be rested until all is well with him."

How was it Society Rock's unfavoured ground?

I know that Lethal Force was below form, I expected as much before the race and the clock backs it up. It was, however, still a very good  time performance, and even for the clock naysayers, take Lethal Force out and Gordon Lord Byron is a good marker for those that prefer benchmark horses. The time of Sunday's race wasn't as good for one reason or another, which is another reason I'm negative about OG's proximity.

The way she put travelled and then put clear daylight between herself and some of the best milers in Europe was devastating - as widely expected she was gasping for air in the last 100 yards but at 7f she was different gravy. Given her ideal conditions (6 1/2 to 7 1/2f on goodish ground) she is the best horse in Europe imo.

I know Society Rock won the Jubilee on soft ground but Ascot soft isn't the same as anywhere else and the form is pretty poor anyway.

I just like to see races run fairly and squarely where all are suited by the trip, ground and fitness.

When horses win races where there are question marks then they are not clear cut successes and Moonlight Cloud has her fair share of those as does CDA. And when that happens I have my doubts.

When a race is truly run without excuses the formbook is a good guide.

They are not uncommon.

brigust1     
I just like to see races run fairly and squarely where all are suited by the trip, ground and fitness.

Races such as that are very few and far between and always have been. I remember reading some research that in most races somewhere around 50% of runners don't run to their very best marks, seems roughly about right to me.

Not surprised about that DA news Turnip. He ran so far below form there just had to be a physical reason.

Tbh, it wouldn't be the first time Bolger has burned one out early. Finsceal Beo was the best 1000 winner I've seen in recent years and no I'm not talking through my pocket as I was on Arch Swing at big ante post prices. I didn't like the way he campaigned her, though, and it was no surprise to see her form wane. Maybe I'm wrong and he's doing the right thing by striking while the iron's hot with a horse unlikely to develop further anyway. It was noticeable to me though how much DA improved after being rested after the Coventry last year. As I said before I'm not a fan of his aggressive campaigning.

I suppose it's a fine line for a trainer Fig. I think DA came out in April last season and because of that stole a march on fitness and strength on the later maturing types. They may pass him now but their strategy has worked. Had they hung onto him and waited for the others they may have lost out altogether. I wonder what the end if season results will show.

Brig, it paid off to get him out early last year as he was a good Coventry winner but nothing outstanding, but with a near 3 month rest afterwards I had him as a well above average National Stakes winner, which he franked in the Dewhurst. People are saying how good is Toronado, best miler in training, etc, but on his latest run he was only a 1/2 length better than DA so it's not like he's been totally left behind by late maturing types. And even if Toronado is considered superior to DA the Hannon's still reckoned he needed a rest after the Sussex.

I'm responding without checking but in the National Stakes I think he beat a handicapper and in the Dewhurst he beat his pacemaker. In the Guineas he beat a 150/1 shot. Fortune favours the brave. And they managed to sell him the Godolphin. Not bad eh?

That reads like I'm knocking him Fig, but I am not. It's just how the form book reads.

I don't look at form the same way as you, brig, if looking at it your way then it would've been hard to make a case for ever backing him in a good race, in fact he ought to have been a lay, the results, however, mostly proved different.

Another point is Bolger campaigns all his good horses in a similar manner, are we to believe that all his good horses are precocious types without the scope for development? I find that hard to believe.

You are right about Bolger and it works for him. As far as form goes almost all of the horses are in the same boat that is because there are too many Gr1 races. Toronado's form wasn't great but then it comes down to style when substance is lacking.

There has to be more Group races, though, just because there is more racing, we can't just have more ****, there's enough of that already. Personally I'm in favour of less racing altogether.

* sh1te

Tony Morris wrote an excellent article in the RP the other day about the effect the substantial increase in Group races throughout Europe and still there has only been one horse in the last 40 years capable of being considered against those of the early 70's. I disagreed with him on one point and he knows it but that's what racing is about.
And my good friends the ratings agency told me the reason the second coming came along was because there is so much racing it was statistically likely. I disagreed with that as well.

I've always thought the difference between the highest rated Gp1 horses and the average Gp1 winners is too exaggerated. I believe it was as true years ago as it is today. Ratings like 144 for an end of season slow time soft ground win seem well over the top imo, as there are many exaggerated wide margin wins on soft ground and we all know the form is often suspect and can't be take literally. The same is true of Frankel's 147 rating, but at least it's in keeping with the overrating that went on years ago, so I have no problem with it on that score.

The news about DA being found with mucus alters the analysis more than a little. What I do find interesting is that Da reurned an official SP of 4/1 after being much shorter earlier. Surely there isn't anything untoward here, is there?

Sandown, Moonlight Cloud also drifted markedly on here, over 4/1 before the off.

Sandown

Not sure why it would alter the post result analysis, though? As it was obvious that DA ran below form, whatever the reason, whether he was over the top, bounced, had mucus, etc, the result analysis would be the same, or are you talking about a different analysis?

Figgis

With mucus the reason he could make a faster recovery than if he had been bottomed so he might still be a contender for the QEII

Ah right. Don't think you could ever rule a horse like that out, I suppose it depends again on the price, but I think I would have to leave him alone in future (wouldn't be comfortable laying him) and just take it on the chin if he beats my selection.

With due respect I think the system has stood the test of time well. I know I disagree with the 147 but only on a calculation basis. It was pointed out to me that winning 'named' races is not necessarily the best guide but in the 70's they were the races most hotly contested. Because there are so many valuable alternatives races like the Derby have become weaker in my opinion.
I think it is too contracted and that is where the problem lies.
Phil Bull started out with a rating system and decided to set the bar for his highest rated horse at 145 for some reason. It should have been at least 10lb higher but he probably never expected the number of horses in training would grow. Hence we have horses crowded around the 135 mark that are not equal but there is no room for manoeuvre.
When Brigadier Gerard came along it was probably in Bull's mind that he couldn't put him above a Derby and Arc winner in Sea Bird 11 because they were the races to win but because BG had beaten Mill Reef his hands were tied. I'm convinced had BG not been born Mill Reef would have won the 2000 Gns and would now, still be the highest rated horse ever.

Bull was more of a time man, it was Whitley who devised the form ratings, and his ratings, just like anybody else's, can be wrong. In fact as they were still pretty much in their infancy all those years ago there would be more chance of errors.

Sorry, Whitford, not Whitley.

Timeform swear they use exactly the same calculations now and it is the benchmark they stand by, if anything, they were more accurate then than they are now. If it ain't broke don't fix it comes to mind. There was a robust handicap system where even classic contenders would run regularly therefore testing their ratings to the full on the racecourse. Arkle went through the same system and, if I remember correctly it didn't do Desert Orchid or Denman any harm. Many of today's second tier horses couldn't win off their marks and their trainers regularly say so.
Nowadays there are a host of Listed and Group races all around Europe, Singapore, Hong Kong and Meydan to go for. All worth good money and often competed by concealed handicappers. I wonder what would happen if they introduced a Melbourne Cup type race where Group horses could run against each other carrying their rating?

Blanket finish 8)

Can't believe Olympic Glory has been rated on par with Farhh by Timeform and joint second best horse in Britain by RP. I do hope Farhh is back for the QEII, personally I can't see Toronado getting within two lengths of his backside on those wfa terms.

always pleasing when the RP and timeform agree with each other and differ from your own ratings.

Figgis as you've been doing your ratings a long time how would the likes of Farhh compare to say milers of the past like Warning and Zilzal?

What would that rating be Fig? 132?

I think they have completely lost the plot.I know the central area is congested but sometimes they defy logic. I hope these horses race again and against each other there may be some more clarity. But with all said and done Toronado has won a single Group 1 that could have been achieved under auspicious circumstances. The fact is they have over rated horses for the last couple of years and now that error could come to pass. I can easily see horses being rated very highly without actually achieving anything like what would normally be required. They are in a mess and it is going to get worse.

I hope Toronado goes to the Breeder's Cup at the very least.

Two words Stevie. Different class (so far that is)

I really wouldn't like to say, Stevie. At the time of Warning I was using Ken Hussey's figures, pretty good they were too. I remember some disagreements between him and John Whitley in Raceform about the mathematics of it all, etc. Whitley made some valid theoretical points but in truth Hussey's speed figures were a far superior betting tool than Whitley's, as he was simply a better speed handicapper. Whitley's timefigures were rarely more than backup for the form figures. I've been using my own figures entirely for a good few years now but during that time it's been a learning curve (still learning) and I've altered the scale along the way. I have occasionally tried to retrospectively rate horses from years ago, but you can never be completely confident in the results and sometimes distances have changed slightly. It would also be difficult to compare those two with Farhh because of wfa and your view on the wfa scale.

yes it's hard to say isn't it but some of those performances in the 80s seem to stick in the mind. Did Hussey use weight in his ratings?

Yes, brig. Translating my scale to a similar one, where 130 is a benchmark for a decent Gp1 performance, Farhh would be 133 on his Lockinge win, which is pretty good. Toronado in receipt of 3lbs wfa terms would still be 5lbs behind him. Which is just under 2 lengths on my scale, I slightly exaggerated when I said he wouldn't get within 2 lengths . I have OG 3lbs behind Toronado. I believe 3yos don't have to achieve nearly as much as an older horse to break the 130 barrier, but that's partly a fault of the wfa system.

No, Stevie, not wfa but he used weight carried. My scale is more compressed than the commercial ones. The only 140 performance I've ever rated from an older horse was Frankel, bang on 140. I believe when a horse starts hitting mid 130s on the clock the race often gets blown wide apart and distances get exaggerated, leading to inflated ratings.

yes you can get a strongly run race and wide margins with horses finishing slowly and yet collateral ratings will still try and pinpoint a horse that ran to form. In those type of races I may get a good figure for the winner but the beaten horses will get lower ratings.

I've noticed that particularly happens in the Derby, took me a few years to realise it, though. A strong pace often produces a wide margin winner, the horses with suspect stamina get exposed even more and the difficulties in handling the track are more pronounced. I found that usually there's not as much difference as I thought between an average Derby winning performance and a good one, just that some go on from it and some don't.

I couldn't have Farhh on my mind Fig. A rating by association only. His wins would never give him that rating. Ever.

Lets look.

After the Thirsk Hunt Cup.

3rd to So You Think behind Carlton House and beat Reliable Man a head.

2nd to Nathaniel. Nathaniel's first run of season with Twice Over out of form and first run for long time in 3rd.

2nd in Sussex with Gabrial 3 lengths away 3rd.

2nd in Juddmonte with St Nic, unsuited by trip and way race was run in 3rd.

2nd to Moonlight Cloud who won on the line. Ridden to do so. 3rd horse was Sarkyla.

Won Lockinge beating Sovereign Debt.

If that isn't a case of rating by association I will eat my hat.

Brig, I'm talking about his Lockinge rating, his previous figures are immaterial, apart from providing substance that he didn't have too much to build on. The Lockinge was a very big performance on the clock, I have no doubt whatsoever about that, there is just too much proof on that card for doubt. Horses like Sovereign Debt can and sometimes do run out of their skin in one race run at a fast pace, maybe the run bottomed him, I don't know, but I do know he ran his best ever that day. As I've said before, if you're looking for unequivocal proof by association then I don't see how that could lead to backing anything other than favourites and underpriced horses, or horses that have proved so much they're already past their sell by date, like CDA. When Harbinger annihilated the Hardwicke field bar Duncan in a very fast time there were those who said it couldn't be that good because Duncan held the form down, Harbinger more than proved them wrong next time.

For a start Harbinger beat a quality field and was on a winning role.

But back to Farhh. Lets say he is the same horse as Moonlight Cloud and Olympic Glory.

Declaration of Wat was 3rd two lengths behind them.

He had just been 3rd in th Sussex Stakes beaten two year we cannot gauge yet with Trade Storm 4th.

He was 2nd in the Eclipse possibly fortuitously wit Mars 4th.

He won the Queen Anne beating Aljamaheer (not Gr1) with Gregorian (not Gr1) in 3rd.

He was beaten in the Lockinge. Ignored.

He beat Bold Thady Quill (not Gr1).

And last year's form is possibly Gr3 in Ireland.

Two lengths behind Farhh is he?

It is rubbish everywhere. Try to find some good form for me Fig. Not times on a track that was lightening fast and most trainers discounted it. Form.

Not times on a track that was lightening fast

Brig, there is no point in discussing times with you, as you couldn't possibly have made that comment if you understood them. Stick to what works for you and I'll stick to my methods

C'mon Fig. You cannot possibly only rely on one time to rate a horse. Can you? Surely form must be the leading factor?

The Queen Anne looks the likely target for Sovereign Debt after this career-best effort. Trainer Michael Bell said: "That was a terrific run. I'd have been happy being beaten four or five lengths. He hasn't won at Listed level yet, but as he likes Ascot I expect we'll go for the Queen Anne."

Declaration Of War got upset in the stalls and, after seeing him come in a well-beaten fifth, trainer Aidan O'Brien said: We'll take him home and see; obviously there must be an excuse."

The other leading fancy Cityscape was among the first beaten, eventually trailing in last of the 12 runners and trainer Roger Charlton said: "He hated the quick ground."

On the back of that how can anyone rate the race seriously? And I haven't included John Gosden's comments.

form wise brigust, would you not say Aljamaheer and Chill the kite ran to the same form in the lockinge as in the queen anne?

If we're talking about form, no times, then why have you conveniently ignored Aljamaaheer? He has franked my Lockinge figure for him twice since. Why look to horses that have obviously performed below par in a race to rate it around when there are others that ran to form?

For a start Harbinger beat a quality field and was on a winning role.

I am also intrigued by this statement. As Duncan had won nothing higher than a Listed race the previous season I would've thought a 3 1/2 length defeat of him would be well short of your criteria for measuring a good horse?

I haven't conveniently missed Aljamaheer. He was Listed class last season and I suggest being beaten by Sovereign Debt, beating Gregorian narrowly and beating Mull of Killoch just about confirms that. Maybe a genuine Group 3 performer.

The Duncan point you make is not well made. The ratings were Harbinger 120, Duncan 115, Barshiba 110. Distances 3.5 lengths and 6 lengths.

Farhh rating 124, Sovereign Debt 111, Aljamaheer 110. Distances 4 lengths and a neck.

Brig, if you're using other people's ratings to back up your own opinions then it's a bit hypocritical to beat them with a stick when they're not in tune with you.

perfect read of the form by figgis for moonlight cloud. exactly how the form looked in the book. only horse i wasnt familiar
with was intello, that has only won group 1 over 11f, MC had a 2nd to black caviar/ win over farhh at 8f group 1/ unlucky
against excelebration / win over the amazing lethal force. with DA'S recent exertions and weaknesses exposed. the eventual
2nd olympic glory was a group 3/2/1 winner as a 2yo, was always going to improve with age with a profile like that.

I'm not using other people's ratings per sa Fig.It just saves me listing all the form points, that's all. When a horse wins easily it is easy to dismiss if the opposition is weak. It is the subsequent wins that prove or disprove the point. Harbinger proved the point albeit only once and at Ascot but the opposition was pretty strong and among them form lines were confirmed. I am not alone in wishing he had run again.

It may be that Farhh goes on from here but to rate him 132 on what he has done to date is silly in my view. We may well see how wrong I am in the future but I am talking about now.

Erm 133 actually , as I've said before though, I don't agree with the historical context of the ratings, Sea Bird's 145 and all that, so I'm not really comfortable transferring to their scale.

The race you were referring to at Ascot was a Group 2. The 2nd and 3rd are at the very best Group 2 horses so not really out of their grade. Whereas, on the other hand, the Lockinge is a Group 1 and the horses placed are at best Listed/Gr3 class so they were out of their class. There is a huge difference there.

Aljamaaheer has won a Gp2 last time I looked, you can't use the accumulation of graded races to fit when it suits and ignore them when it doesn't.

Brigust the 124 rating of farhh is the official rating which are several pounds lower than the timeform scale which Figgis has converted his ratings to.

I think it was you Fig who told me last year to ignore the name of the race and look at the contenders. It was a Group 2 in name but in name only. With so many Group races many of them are not what they say on the tin. I could give you a long list of Group 1 winners who couldn't win a proper Group 1 and sometimes not even a Group 2 or 3. Such is the state of the Pattern.

Yes I know that Stevie I was just relating how the Official Ratings compared in the two races in question.

ok brig fair enough so what rating would you give farhh on the timeform scale?

I would give him something around 126. Just behind St Nicholas Abbey and Nathaniel and more behind So You Think. The letter two beat him comfortably and St Nicholas Abbey was more inconvenienced by the Juddmonte conditions and has won six times more Group 1 races.

Yes, I did say that, well something similar. I didn't say completely ignore the status of the race, as it usually has some bearing on the quality, I just meant they're not all equal just because they have the same grading. I was using the Gp2 winner example for Aljamaaheer because that is the only reason you have given for Duncan, you haven't explained any other reason why beating him should be regarded as much better than beating Aljamaaheer. Actually my Hardwicke rating for Harbinger would translate to 135, so I already know it was better than what Farhh did.

And St Nic beat better horses in his Group 1 wins which included Midday, Gentildonna, Dunaden, Red Cadeaux and Sea Moon all of the better than what Farhh has beaten in his races.

And Duncan did win a Gr1 and a couple of Gr2's so I was prepared to give him the Group 2 benfit of the doubt. He wasn't Group 1.

All those races were last year, horses can improve at 5, but if you're waiting for unequivocal proof then it'll be proof available for everyone, hardly a betting proposition.

Now compare them with Reliable Man, Twice Over, Gabrial, Sarkiyla and Sovereign Debt.

I know you will disagree but the ratings for the horses St Nic beat were 117, 122, 116, 124 and 121.
The horses Farhh beat were 116, 119, 108, 108 and 111.

How can Farhh be rated 133 ffs?

And St Nicholas Abbey only 128?

The Racing Post Ratings do agree with Brigust as they have Farhh's Lockinge the same as his International and his eclipse runs. I'm more with Figgis as I have him improving a couple of pounds in the lockinge.

Brig, I think me and Stevie are coming from a totally different angle than you. You seem to be coming from some kind of John Randall historian type view. While I think historical ratings are important, me and Stevie are looking to be ahead of the game and the proof is in the predictive quality of the ratings.

I cannot have that. JR wouldn't be happy either.

Being ahead of the game, as you say, is all very well providing you know what the true rating is. Working on a ficticious 'possible' rating that is unconfirmed is all very well for punting but reality is vital otherwise you are doing what everyone else does, speculate.

Do you agree that Farhh deserves to be rate, at this moment in time, 5lbs in front of St Nicholas Abbey and the same as So You Think?

But all you're doing is trying to prove something in hindsight, which as it's ratings of horses we're talking about then it's always open to personal opinion so can never be "proved" to everybody's satisfaction. I still maintain that the only true reflection of how good a person, or company's ratings are is their predictive accuracy. If they don't do well in advance then sorry but I'm not going to have much respect for them used in hindsight. I had So You Think on 134 for the Eclipse, it was a quality performance.

I don't know about deserved, I just rate them on what I think they achieved on the day. I have Farhh's Lockinge win 3lb above anything St Nic did.

3lbs here too, Stevie. Great minds, or two mugs?

well 1 day you can feel like a complete mug and the next day a genius.

That makes SYT a pound ahead of Toronado. With Olympic Glory rated the same as Novelist.

And Stevie you rate Farhh's 4 length defeat of 111 rated dual handicap winner Sovereign Debt to be better by 3lbs than St Nicholas Abbey's 2.5 lengths beating of multiple Group 1 winner Gentildonna rated 122?

Oh dear, oh dear.

OK I'm hooked. Good fishing boys.

brigust1
That makes SYT a pound ahead of Toronado. With Olympic Glory rated the same as Novelist

Eh? Taking one person's ratings for one horse and comparing them with somebody else's rating of an entirely different horse is illogical.

Brig, do you think Very Nice Name is a better horse than Gentlildonna?

More to the point do you think Sovereign Debt is better than Gentildonna?

Or maybe you think Gabrial is better than Gentildonna?

Or maybe Sarkiyla is better than Gentildonna?

Or maybe Reliable Man is better than Gentildonna?

Or maybe DUAL HANDICAP winner Sovereign Debt is better than Dunaden? Or Midday? Or Sea Moon?

You are having a laugh aren't you?

The ratings I reproduced above are Timeform's alone.

Stevie Gerrard

well 1 day you can feel like a complete mug and the next day a genius.

Very true

Why should Sovereign Debt have to be better than Dunaden, Midday or Sea Moon for Farhh to be rated higher than St Nic?

Anyway brigust I don't want to get into a long discussion about this, basically I just rate horses for my own betting purposes to gain an edge. Tbh I can't really see much to be gained from these discussions and I think it is a waste of our time. Have a good night brigust.

You are right Stevie. G'night. Hope you have many more genius days.

Goodnight all, ratings to be done

That applies to you too Fig.