Horse Antepost
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 1069 comments are related to the topic:
Juddmonte International York
Juddmonte International York
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 1,069
|
By:
|
|
By:
I don't believe Camelot would have won the 2012 Juddmonte (without Frankel). Ballydoyle effectively used St Nic as a pacemaker in the Arc.
|
|
By:
Every time I try to have a reasonable debate you attack me Figgis. It's not unreasonable to think this years Juddmonte is weaker than Frankel's. Is it?
AT AOB obviously thought Camelot was better than St Nic. And as far as pacemaking is concerned it was only at the end of St Nic's career that his owners said they should have made more use of him in his races so making the running may have brought the best out in him. |
|
By:
Camelot was preferred to St Nic because they were trying to cling on to Camelot's hype as a wonderhorse with his stud career in mind. St Nic was totally exposed by then.
|
|
By:
It's not unreasonable to think this years Juddmonte is weaker than Frankel's. Is it?
You're switching the point be argued, as usual. Whether this year's race is weaker or not was never even mentioned by me. It isn't unreasonable to think Camelot would've won that year without Frankel. I doubt too many would agree in light of Camelot's subsequent runs, but that doesn't mean your opinion is wrong. All you can back it up with, though, is O'Brien's opinions and races where the form obviously doesn't stand up to scrutiny. |
|
By:
Brigust everything Ballydoyle do is about promoting a colt as a potential stallion - I would have though you above all people would konw that.
|
|
By:
That's rich. Switching the point. Who brought Camelot and Frankel up in the first place?
But seeing as you brought him up why is he there not to be debated? My point was completely valid and reflected on the forthcoming race. Win or lose. If Australia doesn't win the Juddmonte against what appears a weaker field than in 2012 then he could not be considered as good as Camelot. On the other hand if AOB is right and Australia is the best he has trained, including Camelot, then the chance of Australia beating what appears to be a much weaker field is blindingly obvious. Wouldn't you think? AT there is only so far they can go in promotion. What a horse does on the track is more important. |
|
By:
A_T is right. If Camelot had won the St Leger then it would've been job done and nobody could be categorical that he wasn't O'Brien's best ever as he wouldn't have been beaten, although many of us would've strongly suspected he wasn't.
|
|
By:
I couldn't agree more that placing horses in the right races against the right opposition is vital. But as AOB learned running a horse outside the safe zone can be costly.
|
|
By:
If Australia doesn't win the Juddmonte against what appears a weaker field than in 2012 then he could not be considered as good as Camelot.
Why not? Camelot didn't actually run in the 2012 version, you can't go rating horses on races run in your head. If Australia doesn't manage to win then which piece of form puts Camelot ahead of him? |
|
By:
When I pointed out the form of an actual race, the Arc, you said I would have to be on hallucinogens. It was an actual race.
When I used a hypothetical race you said you cannot run races in your head. Well let me tell you Figgis before the 2014 Juddmonte lots of people will run the race in their head. If Australia doesn't manage to win then which piece of form puts Camelot ahead of him? Oh so now Australia is better than Camelot. Confused? You should be. You just argue for arguments sake Figgis. Can we get back to the 2014 Juddmonte now please? |
|
By:
In that Arc Camelot was well and truly beaten by Yellow and Green, Masterstroke and Haya Landa, I don't see how that could put him ahead of Australia.
Oh so now Australia is better than Camelot Read the words. I don't think Australia has achieved anything more than Camelot at the same stage of their careers. |
|
By:
AT there is only so far they can go in promotion. What a horse does on the track is more important.
Exactly Brigust - that's why St Nic was sacrificed to try to produce the best possible placing for Camelot. At that stage in their careers a big run for Camelot was far more important than one for St Nic. If Camelot had won the Arc he would have been retired as a wonderhorse with the St Leger defeat dismissed as down to lack of stamina. |
|
By:
So AT do you think St Nic was better than Camelot?
|
|
By:
yes
|
|
By:
Based on what AT?
|
|
By:
For me, the best 3yo middle distance colt O'Brien has ever trained is still Galileo. He wasn't a superstar but was a better than average Derby winner. He lost his unbeaten record against Fantastic Light over 10f. It could be argued that these older horses aren't as good as Fantastic Light but Australia hasn't proved he's as good as Galileo yet. Camelot and Australia were both hyped up as Coolmore's best ever but Galileo still holds them, imo.
|
|
By:
based on their results Brigust
|
|
By:
St Nic was a coupel of lengths short of absolute top class - but left-handed he was formidable.
|
|
By:
I agree the hype is frustrating and is something I have been going on about for quite a while but it is only ever going to get worse. But in Australia's defence it could easily be argued he would have been unbeaten if with another trainer/jockey format. Plus we wouldn't have had to suffer the 'best ever' tidal wave. He is obviously going to be likened to Camelot et al because of the Coolmore connection.
Anyway my original point was that using the Camelot/Australia hypothesis and considering the strength of the 2012 and 2014 opposition it is reasonable to deduce that, if correct, Australia's chance is blindingly obvious. Because we have so little evidence to go on it is a tangible method to use. And if Australia wins easily the above analogy can be pointed as how his chance was calculated. Alternatively, should he be beaten, then the reason for his defeat could be a) he is not as good as Camelot or b)the opposition is better than we thought. Among other probabilities. It is just another way of looking at the 2014 race for clues. |
|
By:
AT I loved St Nic. I went to Newmarket especially for his 2000 Gns and even complained to the obvious suspects when they rated Farhh a long way his superior. They did say at the end of his career, when he won in Meydan beating Gentildonna, that they had been riding him wrong all the time ffs. They obviously were oblivious to all the complaints about the way he was ridden in the King George.
|
|
By:
The 2012 KG ride was inexplicable. Yes I did back him but in this case I wouldn't say it was pocket talk, as in hindsight I overrated him slightly and I'm now doubtful he'd have won anyway. I always wonder what the riding instructions are when I see such a ride. Just drop the horse out last and well off the pace no matter if there's a moderate pace on? It's hard to believe people who use the clock as a guide to judge homework wouldn't be more sensitive to the importance of positioning and pace. Hopefully there will be a good pace on at York.
|
|
By:
Alternatively, should he be beaten, then the reason for his defeat could be a) he is not as good as Camelot or b)the opposition is better than we thought.
Brigust I really don't think any race this year will tell us anything about Camelot. |
|
By:
Sorry AT but almost everything in racing bears comparison. We have already had Camelot, St Nic, Fascinating Light and Galileo brought up. That's how racing works. This horse or that horse. This race or that race will be compared to another, loosely or directly. Is this Juddmonte stronger or weaker than last seasons etc etc. We all do it. It may only be food for thought but it is a common practice.
|
|
By:
Camelot didn't run in the Juddmonte
 |
|
By:
It's a pity he didn't AT because even with Frankel in the race I feel he would have been thought more of than being beaten by Encke.
|
|
By:
I doubt getting spanked by frankel would have made him more thought of brig imo
|
|
By:
A_T 09 Aug 14 17:15 Joined: 27 Jan 06 | Topic/replies: 5,896 | Blogger: A_T's blog
based on their results Brigust AT, are you saying you have used evidence to come to this conclusion  This is totally an alien concept to dear Brig.So what if AOB thought Camelot was better than St Nic (at that moment in time it has to be said, he might not now). St Nic was a better horse. |
|
By:
Camelot's 10f form was diabolical. He would have been spanked by Farhh, let alone Frankel!!
|
|
By:
Diabolical is a bit harsh tbf, but he only managed a G3 win at the distance.
|
|
By:
I think oz, Camelot or st Nic have a long way to go to match the Giant. The horses he beat or got beat by and being raced every week is above what they achieved. Admittedly he was fortunate with the injury to Dubai Millennium he was a very high class animal.
Its all a pr stunt with this crowd. |
|
By:
Sin I would think Farhh would struggle to beat Camelot over 10f. I think most sensible opinions would say Camelot and St Nic would be pretty close and as Farhh and St Nic virtually dead heated at York then no spanking would be carried out. Farhh was never a classic horse and I think he was pretty fortunate with the success he did have. Also I think AOB erred by running Camelot in the bottomless ground in the Irish Derby and he never recovered. I've always said Camelot make too many mistakes and this was one.
And anyone who thinks these are pr stunts just doesn't understand horse racing. There are so many other stables around for this to be a pr stunt. I do think they hype their horses but I think the press are as much to blame. AOB should tell them to go away. Stoute and Gosden seldom say anything. |
|
By:
*Coolmore
|
|
By:
Faarh would struggle to beat Camelot?
|
|
By:
I would be really interested in a form line that puts Farhh in front of Camelot Wickedt. In your own time.
|
|
By:
You are such a patronising fool Brig. Anyone who disagrees with you ''does not understand horse racing''. Btw, Farhh was considered a classic horse, he was just injured and could not run until the end of his 3yo career, something else you have forgotten or just made up. But regardless, you put far too much stock in what the trainers opinion is, all of the time. The evidence will always win and you seem to love all this conjecture without throwing up any real facts.
Just to give you an example of how hypocritical and biased you are towards your own opinion... you are happy to excuse Camelot's runs over 10f and say he was below his best ( 3 runs btw ), and he may well have been, but yet you take St Nicks run in the Arc at face value when everyone else can see he was sacrificed that day. |
|
By:
I think most sensible opinions would say Camelot and St Nic would be pretty close
it seems to be only you that seems to thinks this |
|
By:
And it makes no difference whether or not a horse was considered classic material. They improve ffs! And you think you know history of racing.
 |
|
By:
You take St.Nicks run at face value mostly because it suits your petty argument to do so, but also because you have no idea about tactics, e.g the recent Sussex Stakes debate, and also no idea about breeding.
|
|
By:
don't expect Brigust to ever give any credit to horses than finished behind Frankel
|