That one hit the target Dunlaying

Of the 12 horses who have run against Australia this season and subsequently run against older horses only one has won a race at that is Kingman in the Sussex.

Of the 12 horses who have run against Australia this season and subsequently run against older horses only one has won a race at that is Kingman in the Sussex.

So what? The average for all horses winning any race is 10%. Another example of misuse/misunderstanding of stats by you? Why draw an inference that the 3yr olds must be poor which is what you are suggesting?

S I wasn't drawing an inference I was asking if anyone is bothered about it. Read the question. It doesn't matter a jot what the average is. The main attack on Camelot was that the horses he beat didn't win anything. Explain to me the difference?

And Figgis for someone who spends his day rating one 3 year old against the next that is a pretty odd answer. What do you rate your horses against? Garden ornaments? How do you give one 3 year old a rating of 95 and another 94? Not that I ever understood why anyone would need to put a number against a horse to remind him he thinks it is better or worse than another horse.

I just sometimes think you guys sit at home trying to pick arguments. If you aren't bothered about the results just say so. You needn't try to make a comment about me, personally. I don't do that to either of you.

And for good measure, I wouldn't be worried if it was zero or 12. Why worry about something  as trivial as that? Much worse things in the world to be worried about.

And, brigust, if you are surprised that people may get a little irritated with you, consider that you consistently have a negative viewpointand your interpretation of form is so primitive being based on selective collateral  form lines, that it leads me, at least, to become exasperated with you. It's not that I think you unintelligent,clearly you are, but merely blinkered and and resistant to any other modern tool or technique. Your attitude towards the use of numbers is stoneage.

And Figgis for someone who spends his day rating one 3 year old against the next that is a pretty odd answer. What do you rate your horses against? Garden ornaments? How do you give one 3 year old a rating of 95 and another 94?

I rate them against other horses, whatever the age.

So the question still hasn't be answered, why are they being judged as a whole group?

Perhaps I am just being honest with myself and everyone else S. Perhaps I think the tidal wave of hype is unnecessary. It would be dishonest of me to say Telescope is top class for example if I don't believe it. Or that Mukhadram ranks highly among Group 1 winners. What you need on a forum is varying points of view. I get it right sometimes and I get it wrong but I try to be honest with myself and others.
And what then exasperates me, as you brought it up, is when people talk as if they are more superior than anyone else. They just plan their route to a winner in a different way than I do. If I followed the ratings experts I would be skint so why would I waste my time doing that?
JG has quite openly said race times are irrelevant in British racing. So why would I disagree with that? J W is always talking about race times yet his selections almost invariably lose. Why would I follow that?

I believe backing horses is a hands on, touch and feel thing. Add personal experience and a little bit of an input from interviews, papers and friends. By blinkering yourself to ratings and times you nullify all of that personal opinion. I am not saying my way is any better than others but it's is annoying when others tell you their way is better than yours.

But for no apparent reason you have to talk down to people. You may be the greatest thing since sliced bread in selecting winners so I have no intention whatsoever of criticising you.
What you fail to understand is that I am trying to talk to average punters like me. I don't do race times or ratings. I simply work the form out and make a personal judgement. I spend the rest of my time either enjoying myself or working.

Fig if you go through your comments last year about War Command etc I suggest that is not correct.

Why are they being judged as a whole Group? Well so far the horses Australia has run against have run against the older horses 12 times and only one win has been achieved. Australia possibly runs against the older horses for the first time next week. Please don't try to tell me that if the three year had done particularly well against their elders, instead of particularly poorly, it wouldn't reflect on Australia's chances.

Fig if you go through your comments last year about War Command etc I suggest that is not correct.

If I remember rightly I judged him on what he had achieved on the clock at that stage. From many of your posts regarding times, such as referring to faster tracks, etc, you seem to be under the misapprehension that a comparison against the clock is a permanently set measurement, it isn't, it still requires comparing horses against each other on the day.

Why not talk about the race guys.

Eh, that's why most people have migrated to the other thread because you seem unable to that,  talking about everything and anything else, and doing people's heads in. Mine at least.

If you read the comments it was you and Figgis who referred to me not the race.

I still don't understand why the 3yos, or any age group should be judged as a whole group, can anybody explain?

No referral to you, just a point that was being made that was supposed to have some bearing on the outcome of the race.

*could have

when people talk as if they are more superior than anyone else


But for no apparent reason you have to talk down to people.


What you fail to understand is that[i] I am trying to talk to average punters like me. I don't do race times or ratings. I simply work the form out and make a personal judgement. I spend the rest of my time either enjoying myself or working.[/i]

Exactly the issue. I think that you are damn lucky to get so much feed-back from people who have had to be just that much better than anyone else in order to not just survive but make a living from this. But do you ever show the least indication that perhaps they might just have something to say that you could learn from? No you don't. If people have varying levels of skill and ability just how do they communicate to each other if those who clearly are less well versed are so sensitive that they don't know when they are being told something useful or not?

Ok brigust1, my patience how run out, so no matter how much I find myself typing a reply, I must close down any future discussion with you.

That's perfectly reasonable and really what I think. I just hoped the 3 year old form would look a bit better against the older horses considering I am backing Oz next week if he runs. About Kingston Hill I think he is quite good actually. And I'm not utterly convinced Australia is significantly better than him. The Irish Derby confirmed nothing for me. So that really puts me further into the 'follow stable confidence only' group. And as you know I do like to follow form.

What do you think about Amazing Maria this afternoon?

Brigust, I'd certainly give her a good chance on her best, but I'd like to have seen a bit more from her in the Oaks even though she probably didn't stay anyway. Maybe she needed the run but beforehand Dunlop was saying she was ready to do herself justice, she's obviously had training problems and again she's been away from the course a while since the Oaks. It's one of those occasions where you wouldn't be surprised to see a horse finish last or first and I rarely bet under those circumstances unless I'm getting a very big price. I have very little between her, Bawina, Evita Peron and Kiyoshi on best form, then there's the possibility of the French crawl and sprint, much too difficult for me.

The Bawina form may be exaggerated by her making the running so I hope Amazing Maria makes it a true test. She obviously stays further and she will love the ground. I fancied her for the Group 1 Nassau but the going was too fast for her and they withdrew her. Add to that she was shorter for that race at 8/1 than she is for this Group 3 against her own age. I haven't gone too mad because there are a few unknowns and I am ashamed to say I went each way at the 9s on 356.

In the earlier race the betting has Prince Gibraltar slightly ahead of Western Hymn, personally I'd have it the other way around but there isn't enough difference there for me to make it a bet.

I know exactly where you are coming from Mac. Ed really fancied her for the Guineas but she wasn't right. He ran her in the Oaks knowing there was every chance she wouldn't stay and Frankie rode her accordingly. I thought she would go close in the Nassau, it wasn't a great race imo, but with my hand on my heart I thought a mile on soft would be her ideal. Ed really rates her as a class filly and Moore knows her and she can make the running. We should see today just how good she is. Unlike in some French races. I didn't want to sit on my hands and watch her win at a good price.