Horse Antepost
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 309 comments are related to the topic:
Coral Eclipse 5th July
Coral Eclipse 5th July
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 309
|
By:
|
|
By:
1. Probably
2. N/A 3. N/A |
|
By:
Found this quote recently when looking up Pebbles in the 1985 TF Annual. Don't know why, but I found it very amusing in the context of brigust1's frequent posts re the quality of current horses & form.
"A century ago a lament was heard in places about the decline in quality of the racehorse, and the thoroughbred must be remarkable if it can survive such a prolonged period of consistent degeneration without crumbling to nothing......But ...it (the breed) has not crumbled to nothing.Nor is it likely to,, despite what some of the Jeremiahs annually claim. We should be among the first to accept that not every year is vintage- there is no more reason to expect regular top quality in crops of thoroughbreds than in crops of vines-but all other things being equal we see no reason to believe that an outstanding performer in the eighties would not have been equally outstanding if sent back to race fifty or a hundred years ago." Plus ca change. As true today as when written in 1985.  |
|
By:
 |
|
By:
brig I just thought figs quick witted response was very funny, is that ok
 |
|
By:
Nicely put Sandown.
|
|
By:
My doubts about The Fugue at Sandown stem from last years Eclipse , she seemed to be going well but did not want to pick up turning into the home straight , the ground was g/f she had had a pipe opener in the POW all looked good for a great run
from her , maybe she was in season , backed her in this years POW because given the ground and her form revival in the Irish Champion she looked to good to miss at the price , she is a brilliant performer on her day , but the Sandown run puts me off her for this particular race and the price is poor , poor value imo |
|
By:
Belting sunshine tomorrow so it will be GF,F by close of play tomorrow. It should be anyway if they have not chucked too much water on.
|
|
By:
War Command is available at 10/1 now but only with that half-wit firm Sporting Odds.
|
|
By:
Grendel, do you have any historic draw data for this race when 10+ runners? I don't suppose there are that many runners all that often. It definitely cost Farhh a win in the race a couple of years back.
|
|
By:
WILLIAM HAGGAS is confident Mukhadram, his contender for Saturday's Group 1 Coral-Eclipse, is a better horse than when third in the Sandown showdown last year.
RELATED LINKS Card and betting Free bets Only Al Kazeem and Declaration Of War, the winners of a five Group 1 races between them, managed to master the front-running Mukhadram 12 months ago, when this year's favourite The Fugue trailed home in last place. The John Gosden-trained mare took her revenge at Royal Ascot last month but Haggas thinks his Dubai World Cup runner-up was below his best that day. "I don't think we saw the best of him at Royal Ascot but Saturday should tell us more," said Haggas. He added: "He ran in Dubai in March but effectively the Prince of Wales's Stakes was his first run back and it did not really go as we had hoped. "Admittedly, he was beaten by three of the best horses around at the moment. He plugged on and in no sense was it a bad run, but we had hoped for more." Assessing Saturday's race, for which The Fugue heads the sponsor's betting at 9-4 with Mukhadram available at a general 14-1, Haggas said: "I think this Eclipse is a stronger race than last year. It has more depth and the three-year-olds seem to be a good crop. "But I also think that Mukhadram is a better horse than a year ago - he's much more mature and focussed. A lot of people are going to see what the weather does and, just like The Fugue, Mukhadram would prefer it if there was no rain." In the opposite camp is trainer Roger Varian, who is hoping rain arrives for Derby runner-up Kingston Hill, a best-price 7-1 with ****, Betfred and Ladbrokes and whom missed last week's Irish Derby due to fast ground. Should Kingston Hill take his chance, Frankie Dettori will take over in the saddle for the first time, with regular rider Andrea Atzeni claimed to ride at Haydock as retained rider for owner Sheikh Mohammed Obaid Al Maktoum. On the latest ground conditions at Sandown, where the two-day Eclipse meeting starts on Friday, clerk of the course Andrew Cooper said on Thursday evening: "It's been a proper, drying sort of day when we put on 2.5mm of water." He added: "I have left the ground on the Eclipse course good, good to firm in places but I might reverse that to good to firm, good in places in the morning. "There is still a forecast for rain coming in late on Friday into Saturday but nothing is saying it will be more than 5mm maximum. Tomorrow will be another warm day and I think it's going to be a quick ground meeting." |
|
By:
My doubts about The Fugue at Sandown stem from last years Eclipse
I have the same doubts mate I also don't think she will be able to give that weight away to 2 potentialy smart 3 yr olds will KH run, as was withdrawn last week with similar ground, but avoided Australia in the process leaving him to have a crack at a weakish eclipse??? |
|
By:
I am surprised people are taking ante-post prices on Kingston Hill. There is a good chance he may not run if the ground is too quick. 5mm is not much when then temperatures are up, race goes off 3.50pm so plenty of time for it too quicken throughout the day if it's warm/sunny.
|
|
By:
How is it a weak race, Alleged? In the field is a Guineas winner, Dewhurst winner, POW winner, Irish Derby winner. What do people want exactly?
|
|
By:
just my opinion sint
Dewhurst was crap, derby was crap, pow winner is a good un but can she give the weight away... and as I say the 3 yr olds are potentially top draw, who could both improve at this trip |
|
By:
A very good point you raised there Sandown. Now here is another for you.
In the last 14 years only 3 European horses were rated 135 and over by Timeform. In the 1980's there were 24 horses rated 135 and higher. Puts what you say into perspective doesn't it? And they are not my ratings. |
|
By:
Dewhurst produced 1 winner
irish derby produced 2 winners |
|
By:
You see S I have grown up through a host of brilliant racehorses with season after season of champions. Even the industry says this is a poor era so don't blame me. It really is not my fault. I want to see champions as much as anyone else. And I hope Australia et al start the turn of the tide. It grieves me that we have had seasons of German winners and Australian winners and now we have the Yanks sending horses over and without them the races here would have been even worse so it's about time we started producing some regular top class winners of our own.
|
|
By:
Good reply brigust1. Do you know the horses, by chance?
|
|
By:
2000 -2014 Frankel, STS and Harbinger.
1980's Dancing Brave Generous Reference Point Dayjur Zilzal Bering El Gran Senor Habibti Old Vic Slip Anchor Sauve Dancer Warning Arazi Trempolino Nashwan Never So Bold Pebbles Petoski Sagace St Jovite Teenoso Shadeed Shahrastani Shareef Dancer |
|
By:
The Fugue in stall 1. Good but she'll want something to lead. Trading Leather most likely given his stamina for 12f and he's made the running several times before.
|
|
By:
If the ground is quick on Saturday then i can see the case for Trading Leather , he was mixing it with his elders at York and Leopardstown last summer and acquitted himself with great credit , an Irish Derby winner he is likely to go very well at Sandown , hope KH runs but either way agree a little e/w on this one is wise.
|
|
By:
brigust1
Your list looks impressive evidence but I'm nervous about drawing the same conclusions as you for several reasons. The first of these would be the arbitrary nature of the dividing line set at 135. I haven't got the TF ratings but I've looked at the BHA OR's and if for example you take a rating of 128 for example and take the years from 1985-2011 and divide the period into equal periods you will find that there were 12 European 3yr olds rated 128+ in the first period and 12 in the second period, giving a different picture.Similarly, for older European horses, you would find 10 and 10.From that analysis its possible to argue that there is no significant difference between the two periods. Why 128? Because it helps my argument. I'm not necessarily arguing against your theory, but any analysis needs to go a lot deeper. |
|
By:
I realise that I am biased when it comes to War Command but anyone surely looking at the video of the SJP would surely conclude that WC should not be 3 times the price of NOT.
|
|
By:
I've had a win bet on him at 13.5 now.
|
|
By:
Some funny goings on in the market at the moment on here. Big lumps were waiting to back Verrazano and WC but now it's all disappeared. The main shortener is Kingston Hill but I think that is mostly due to the fact he was well overpriced IF he runs. Nothing looks particularly strong at this stage.
|
|
By:
Sandown, it should also be noted Generous, Dayjur, Suave Dancer, Arazi and St Jovite were the 90s not the 80s. Companies like Timeform were under far less scrutiny or criticism before the days of the internet and I think you might agree that ratings like 139 for Reference Point would be harder to get away with these days.
|
|
By:
S what you will find when you aim at a lower figure there is and always will be a gathering of horses. This may be attributed to the way ratings are compiled. The fact is so many fewer horses are getting out of that 128 bracket.
The point Figgis raised about the years is correct in that the horses I listed were born in the 80's and 90's etc. So those born at the end of the decade will have raced in the next decade. It still doesn't get away from the truth that 24 horses rated 135 and over were born in the 80's while only 3 were born in the 2000's. So the facts remain the same because the 3 horses were born in the last 10 years. That was the point. And you will get some today questioning how certain horses were ever given such a high rating and I have to admit after presiding over Frankel's ridiculous 147 rating who am I to argue? That will be a rating destroyed in the future and that's a fact. At least Reference Point won recognised championship races like the Derby, King George and St Leger after win recognised trials like the Dante and Great Voltiguer. Not races like the Queen Anne Stakes for example. And that was at a time when Championship races were competed for. I don't know if you read Nicholas Godfrey in the week but there are now 459 Group 1 races worldwide that can be competed in compared to the 51 when the Pattern was started in 1971. So it is harder for ratings I suggest because horses can now so easily avoid each other. |
|
By:
Ratings aren't about the name of the races won, they are about performance. The point about Frankel's rating is it can be explained, not everyone has to agree, people can say the horses behind ran way below par, etc, and he was therefore overrated, nevertheless it can still be explained by those choosing to take a more literal reading of the form and times. I'd like to see somebody explain 139 for narrow beatings of Most Welcome, Celestial Halo (who never won a Gp1 incidentally for those that see such things as a must) and Mountain Kingdom.
|
|
By:
brigust1
I haven't much time today or for a few days so I'll keep this brief for now. Issues which come into play are whether top ratings by themselves are sufficient as a guide. If they were, we could say that as Frankel has achieved the highest rating ever then horses performance must have improved over any previous period. Clearly absurd, of course to say that, irrespective of whether we agree or disagree about the actual rating. Frankel was an outlier, a freak, and doesn't represent the broader picture.To that, we need to look at a much bigger picture, and we need to define our terms. Are we concerned with an average or not. If not, what percentage of the top would be relevant? The top quartile perhaps.As I've shown, choosing an arbitrary line can create a false interpretation. Are we interested in a finding which might show that there is a greater number of horses achieving higher ratings today than before, if that is the case? Is this more or less relevant than finding a greater number of horses at the top but with a much wider spread between top and bottom. It's a question of defining terms and you have defined yours but that is not the end of it. In any case, it is a question which requires access to a large amount of data and a number of statisticians to be employed. Perhaps TF or the BHA might provide a few answers. Have you asked them to comment? |
|
By:
I cannot believe I am using ratings as a guide but at least it is an answer to the question. You may not believe Reference Point earned a 139 and you may be right. I am certainly not going to defend Timeform. But my point is that Reference Point was running at a time when really good, highly rated horses were running so a clear guide can be established. Unlike Frankel when no good horses were around and the ratings is based solely on figures.
Back to Reference Point he easily won the now Racing Post Trophy, the Dante, Derby, King George, Voltiguer and St Leger doing it the hard way from the front. He was odds on for the Arc but firm ground and a leg injury put paid to his chances. Whether he earned 139 or 135 he still is listed in the group 135 and above and that was only my point. I certainly don't agree with the scrutiny on the internet fact because in the 70's and 80's etc horses had to take each other on in the few races available and step up in trip often to do so. So the ratings can more easily be complied because there are direct form lines to work on. S the only comment I have gleaned from either organisation, and I have written I can assure you, is from Timeform where I was told the probability of a champion racehorse is more now simply because of the number of horses in training. I referred to the dirth of highly rated horses and failed to get an answer. From the OH I was told that this was in fact a poor era and the best horse Frankel had beaten was a 6 year old gelding who had had 50+ runs. Make from that what you will. I have backed the 3 year olds in the Eclipse because I sincerely hope the trend is going to change. I obviously have no form to go on much but after listening to pundits and reading the RP talking drivel about great older horses that certainly are not great older horses is infuriating. |
|
By:
How did Trempolino achieve anything more than was achieved by Danedream or Treve? If those two fillies had been around in the 80s and packed off to stud at the end of their 3yo career, as he was, I have no doubts they'd be over 135 in those Timeform days.
I have backed the 3 year olds in the Eclipse because I sincerely [b]hope[/b] the trend is going to change. I would've thought any punter who sees himself as an authority on racehorses, such an authority that they can dismiss other people's opinions as "drivel", would be betting because he had a clue on the matter, not pinning his bets on mere hopes. Enough said. |
|
By:
Reference Point was running at a time when really good, highly rated horses were running
You mean like Most Welcome, Celestial Halo, Mountain Kingdom? doing it the hard way from the front |
|
By:
What is the matter with you Figgis? Is it your time of the month?
I am not defending ratings or those that compile them. The Official Handicapper is employed by the BHA to do it but the others do it for money. Not to make money from their ratings but to make money selling the ratings to others. That says about everything really. I am not an authority on horse racing and have never claimed to be. So stop making such childish points. I have been around a bit and seen some great horses. How many times have you been to Herridge to watch them gallop along the bushes. Or jump the 2 year olds from the stalls for the first time? Or fed them and let them down? How many times have you been in the winners enclosure at Royal Ascot or the vets boxes trying to take a sample? How many times have you been with a horse when it was put down? How many times have you discussed tactics with the jockey or made sure it went into the stalls? I am not an authority but I have been around a bit and like to think I have a view on some things. But the fact is if you cannot hold a simple conversation about something you consider yourself to know about then what is the point? And yes I have backed the 3 year olds to beat the older horses even though I have no cast iron evidence that is the right thing to do. And, may I suggest, neither do you. But anyone who thinks I don't want champions is wrong. What I don't want is hyped up horses by the media when the facts don't back them up. And your last point. You are like a kid in the playground. Are you totally incapable of having a sensible, down to earth conversation? |
|
By:
I am not an authority on horse racing and have never claimed to be.
This is obvious but thanks for the self admission. I obviously have no form to go on much but after listening to pundits and reading the RP talking drivel about great older horses that certainly are not great older horses is infuriating. So if you are no authority then why can you not accept other people's opinions? You openly take a bite at anybody else's opposing view dismissing it as infuriating drivel but when your own views are given the elbow you roll around the ground claiming foul. Comprendes? |
|
By:
Figgis the idea of a forum is to discuss opposing views. If we all thought the same there would be no point. Comprendes?
In the 1971 Timeform they wrote that the English language is in such a bad way because the word 'great' was used to often when discussing horse when in fact the horses were not 'great' as the term refers. It has not improved since then. I have a view that Kingman doesn't truly stay a mile. I have been laughed at because he has now won two races over a mile. But no matter I have no problem with that. If you have a view it can be shot down. In Wednesday's RP Willie Carson said Nashwan didn't truly stay 12 furlongs even though he won the Derby and King George. It happens. The whole idea of racing is based upon different views. Sometimes we will be right and sometimes we will be wrong. That's life. I won't be trying to take the p iss out of you when you get it wrong because the person who never had an opinion never had anything. Comprendes? |
|
By:
In the 1971 Timeform they wrote that the English language is in such a bad way because the word 'great' was used to often
Yes, as far back as 1971, not a new phenomenon confined to the post-millennium. |
|
By:
Did I say it was a new phenomenon? That was the reason I put 1971.
|
|
By:
So no difference than the 80s then, which was the original point.
|
|
By:
I never raised the 80's point. Sandown tried to poke fun by referring to a 1980's article. I simply pointed out that the powers that be concurred there was a shortage of high class horses since the 1980's. I never said it was necessarily my opinion. So 'no' no difference in the 1980's in fact if you read the point the word 'great' was being used too often, according to Timeform, in the 1970's. Therefore devaluing the horses that truly were great. That was their point. Yet even with the excessive use of the term by jockeys, trainers, press and media still the ratings experts, like me, have ignored it and still failed to find more than 3 horses in the last decade to rate higher than 135.
|