Love

Without doubt probably the best filly I`ve seen.

the statement from Aidan might be more credible if it look like when he runs 4 colts in a classic the stable has no idea which will be the best

*didn't look like

Wasn't Australia the fastest horse he had trained?

"We always thought this horse was special from the very first day he worked," said the bespectacled O'Brien, a racing wizard with the hint of an older Harry Potter about him.

Before the race, he had told of the horse clocking 11-second splits for four furlongs running. In other words, covering half a mile in about three quarters of a minute. Breathtaking.

"The way he goes from A to B so easily makes him unique. Horses like that don't normally get a mile-and-a-half," he said afterwards.

"To get a mile and a half like that at Epsom, every sinew in his body was going to be tested - he had to settle, quicken and handle the hurly burly and everything but what makes him different is his natural pace."

On fast ground he was beaten over 7 furlongs by Rennaisance Art, over a mile by Night of Thunder and over 10 furlongs by The Grey Gatsby and he only ran eight times.  The guy certainly knows what he is talking about, that's a fact.

at least with Love the hype won't be down to trying to sell stallion nominations

You are right AT.

I had a few quid on Raabihah at nice prices after Love won at York and shortened up.

On form through Cloak of Spirits, Alpine Star, Savarin, Tawakeel and Wangari she has a live, live chance. Lightly raced, unexposed three year old filly as well.

I think what O'Brien actually said about Australia was he was the fastest Derby type horse he'd trained. I'd be inclined to agree with him as I couldn't see any of his other Derby horses running so close in that Guineas.

Apologies SOF, yes I'm well thanks, hope you're the same. O'Brien is right, at least as far as middle distance fillies go. She's already clearly the best he's trained, although personally I'd put Minding's Guineas performance slightly ahead of Love's.

Aidan O'Brien: Australia Epsom Derby win seals legend of trainer
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/horse-racing/27748900

Quadrilateral franked the form again today.

One Thousand Guineas. One listed win from the next 5 home in 11 starts.

Oaks. One listed win from all other runners since.

Passion won a GP3 today,Naas.

Oaks. One listed win from all other runners since.

Well she did win it by 9 lengths

Figgis, it is you who told me "it is not the name of the race it is the quality of the opposition".

"The way he goes from A to B so easily makes him unique. Horses like that don't normally get a mile-and-a-half," he said afterwards.

As I said, he was talking about a mile and a half horse showing such speed, and all that article does is substantiate what I said. I can't see anywhere that he said Australia was faster than his best milers.

Figgis, it is you who told me "it is not the name of the race it is the quality of the opposition"

Exactly. In most people's view a horse beating Listed horses by 9 lengths+ would be better than beating a Gp2 horse a length. It's basic maths.

I am only telling the facts. You are free to interpret them any way you like.

And A O B is the biggest bulls  hitter to look through a bridle.

And A O B is the biggest bulls  hitter to look through a bridle

I'm certainly no Coolmore sycophant and I agree that he's said a fair amount of crap about horses, but so have I . So have all of us. It's perfectly reasonable for anyone to have doubts about how good Love is. All I'm saying is, at this stage, the form can also reasonably be interpreted to say that he's not talking nonsense. O'Brien hasn't had what you'd call a great middle distance filly before so it's not as outlandish a statement as it might sound. For me, she's the joint fastest winner of an Oaks in my time. Even that isn't as fantastic a statement as it may seem, as I'd argue most Oaks winners just aren't good enough to win an Arc. She hasn't run quite as fast as Treve did when winning the Arc as a 3yo, but then she doesn't need to win by 5 lengths, a short head will do

I don't buy this 'fastest' thing so it is completely wasted on me. I could go into a lot more detail but it would be wasted on you so I won't waste your and my time F.
We all know Love has a great chance because she is a three-year-old with the allowances because Enable has always looked beatable. Because Gaiyyath won't be allowed a soft lead and, as yet, does not have the form, because Stradavarius is not good enough, because Raabihah is unknown, because Mishriff is unknown, because Magical isn't good enough and the rest have no hope at the moment unless something unexpected happens.

Try not to wrap this up into something it really isn't.

Try not to wrap this up into something it really isn't

No reason why I would try to do that. I've seen others do it though from races of years gone by. A mythical land where all horses miraculously ran to form in each race. Racing reduced to a simple schoolboy equation, where if A beat B by 2 lengths and C beat B by 1 length then A must automatically be 1 length better than C. No mention of some horses going into a race in peak form and others on a downturn. No mention of any track/pace bias. A race called the best in history, ignoring the fact that the only horse fancied to beat the favourite was an unspectacular winner of a French classic and you could throw a large blanket over the winner and some ordinary horses behind. And on it goes.

Brigust, in the last 35 years which Oaks winning filly would YOU say was the fastest YOU'D seen? Please no cop outs of how you have no opinion on the matter. As if that's true then you're in no position to comment on Love in comparison.

It was fast ground at Epsom and wind behind and from the left in the straight.
Love hasn't beaten one colt and only one horse older than three.
She could be the greatest ever, but then every Ballydoyle horse is the fastest ever.
Heavy ground at Longchamp or fast ground and a high draw will test her.

Love hasn't beaten one colt and only one horse older than three

Treve and Zarkava had beat no colts going to the Arc. I think Zarkava had only beaten 2 ordinary older fillies. That obviously doesn't mean Love is going to win an Arc but it shows it's no barrier.

She could be the greatest ever, but then every Ballydoyle horse is the fastest ever.

But she doesn't have to be the greatest ever, or even close to it, just good enough to win an Arc.

Figgis I really do not buy 'times'. If I told you Frankel, a front running, free running, pacemaker led racehorse ran 14 times but only managed to beat average time on two occasions and both were on newly laid racecourses with a definite history of those improvements improving the times you would poo-hoo it. And he never broke a course record, another poo-hoo.
I would normally have thought that it was important but when I mention it no-one cares. That's time for you.
Invisible Man, for example, has a faster time on the straight mile at Ascot than Frankel and he is, quite rightly, rated 40lbs below Frankel and if they met would be treated accordingly. The instances are endless. I am not sure 'times' even work in the US when all of the courses are flat and the same so what chance is there here?
I am sure 'times' are fun and interesting if you like that kind of thing but I don't buy it.

only managed to beat average time on two occasions

This has been done to death, but still you choose to ignore it. ALL times on a day's racing are compared to the standard times. Just to repeat, ALL times. To compare one race on a card to a standard time is forgivable for a novice, but unbelievably ignorant for someone to keep banging on about when they've supposedly been following the game for years.

newly laid racecourses

See above

Figgis I really do not buy 'times'

I never asked you who had done the fastest time, I asked who YOU considered the fastest. Shouldn't be too difficult should it? I mean in a race where 2 horses are both suited to the trip, track and going I assume you back who you think is going to run fastest on the day? Or do you use some other abstract criteria? So, again, which filly would YOU consider the fastest YOU'VE seen?

That is, fastest Oaks winning filly from the last 35 years?

Aug 23, 2020 -- 7:24PM, Figgis wrote:

That is, fastest Oaks winning filly from the last 35 years?

That is the bo ll ocks you time guys talk. Fastest over what? A furlong, a yard, ten furlongs? Fastest where at Epsom? The Clerk of the Course cannot even tell you where the fastest place on the course is. How many days were the same? How many races were run the same? How many horses tan the same? It is total nonsense. You just cannot see it.

I'll tell you what Figgis. I have had a bet on Raabihah and I have pointed out the form lines I used for everyone to see and they can work them out for themselves, positively or negatively. 

You think Love will nearly win because of times. Show me the time lines you used so I can work them out for myself.

Like pulling teeth. If 18 of what you consider the best Oaks winners of the last 35 years were to meet in a race over 12f at Epsom on good ground at equal prices, which would you back?

Show me the time lines you used so I can work them out for myself.

The times are obviously in the results section, for anyone to interpret however they want.

Ha! Why did I think that was going to be your answer?

It's like you have lived in a cave all of your life.

Don't you know all horses are different? Some are lazy, some are free running, some are hard pulling, some are cowards, some are dogs, some are used to just win on the line, some like being allowed to run, some are not allowed to run but still win?  The possibilities are endless but you think every winner is the same horse. Do you know how stupid that sounds?
How do you know how much the jockey has in hand? How do you know how much the horse has let themselves down? How do you know how many had the correct action for the undulating track at Epsom?
It is nonsense. Get over it.

How do you know how much the jockey has in hand? How do you know how much the horse has let themselves down? How do you know how many had the correct action for the undulating track at Epsom?
It is nonsense. Get over it.

As good a reason for never having a bet in a race as I've ever heard. Would make perfect sense it was for anti gambling campaign advert. Strangely enough, not absolutely knowing such things for certain is what makes a betting market. And it never stops us punters from having an opinion or backing that opinion. However, as I've suspected for a while, you're not really a punter. Just some weirdo with a Frankel obsession

Lost the 'time' argument have we? I wondered how long it would take?

It's rubbish and you know it. Oh 'I've got this down as the fastest Oaks winner' look at me!

There is no time "argument", only in the mind of an imbecile. A time based interpretation of form is exactly that, an interpretation. No different from anyone saying that "I think A can beat B due to..." whatever reason. Not everyone is going to agree with the conclusion. When somebody puts up a horse because they think it can beat another horse for whatever reason, no sane person expects them to prove it before the race. It's accepted as an opinion. The punter thinks horse A is going to run faster than B on the given day using whatever methodology they choose. When someone has used times as part of their analysis it is no different. That person's conclusions might be right or wrong. However, there are some truly odd individuals who once times are mentioned expect concrete proof to the satisfaction of everyone. Bizarre.

I think Love is the joint fastest Oaks winner I've seen. I'm not expecting anybody to agree, that is just my own main reason for fancying her for the Arc. There are other ways of finding the best horse, and each to their own. I usually think Oaks winners have very little chance. The first time in years I fancied an Oaks winner for the Arc was Enable straight after Epsom and I posted it on here, so that time I was right. The only time before I backed an Oaks winner in the Arc was Ouija Board. Even though she had a troubled run she wasn't quite good enough, and I was partly backing her out of affection anyway. I think Love is better than any Oaks winner I've seen apart from Enable, who I have equal as a 3yo. I might be wrong as I was when backing Ouija Board, but I have never made a penny on Love before so at least there is no loyalty clouding the issue this time.

O'Brien has a very poor record in the Arc with his 3yos - remarkably bad given his domination of the classics. I think High Chaparral in 2002 was the last to get placed. But maybe Love is the fastest he's had since then ;-)

A_T, very true, he does. He actually has a pretty poor return with any age group. For me his horses were always campaigned too aggressively in preparation for the Arc, so even if they were good enough to at least go close they were cooked by the time the race came around. To be fair, it seems that the way his horses were campaigned the Arc was more an afterthought than a priority. Dylan Thomas was remarkably resilient and still managed to run well after a hard season. Even though Found had a busy season, in my view, she went there on the back of an improved effort at Leopardstown.

This time things look very different. After Love won the Oaks I think we can say the Arc was uppermost in their minds. She goes there relatively fresh.

Figgis, as I have already said, I have had a bet on Raabihah and pointed out my form line interpretation of her form.

So why don't you point out your time based interpretation of Love's form?

O'brien's got a good line through Raabibah,with
his filly Peaceful.

So why don't you point out your time based interpretation of Love's form?

The Racing Post have Topspeed time based interpretation figures. Timeform have their timefigures. Others have their own version. I have mine. These will often differ just as any kind of form ratings will differ. Just as anybody's opinion of a race will often differ to someone else's. I understand how they reached their conclusions as they have their own standard times and have made their own judgements on the merits of all the races on the cards and arrived at a going allowance. I have used similar, but not exactly the same, methods and arrived at different conclusions. Anyone who understands time based ratings will understand that their accuracy is often based on the judgement of the person doing that analysis. Sometimes they'll be right and sometimes wrong. Just as any other kind of race analysis will be hit and miss.

I have checked ALL the races on the Epsom card and that has led me to a going allowance that shows that Love is a much faster than average Oaks winner. You either understand time analysis, and all the potential pitfalls that can come with it, or you don't. It's hardly Einstein territory but it can only be explained in more depth than I'm prepared to go into here. There are plenty of books on the subject. From your constant references to individual times compared to standard times you clearly don't understand them. Anyone who understands how the other firms go about their figures will know how they're arrived at, and also understand why they're not all the same.

You could be right Penzance. I'm hoping the time of year and the extra distance will help. This is an unusual year with 3-year-old form lines limited. I'm thinking she may run in the Prix Vermielle first. She has some good form lines that give her a chance.

Figgis you are a snobby tw at. I have told you many times I don't do 'times'. So to continue to insult me because I don't waste my time trying to interpret something I don't believe in, is clearly you.

I don't do times Figgis. Got it. And all of the bulls hit you have written above you should have saved your breath because 'times' don't work on British racecourses.

Anytime you want to PROVE me wrong please do not hesitate to speak up with clear information BEFORE the event and where it is NOT based on FORM, just TIME.

So why don't you point out your time based interpretation of Love's form?

I have told you many times I don't do 'times'

I don't waste my time trying to interpret something I don't believe in

I don't do times Figgis. Got it

you should have saved your breath because 'times' don't work on British

do not hesitate to speak up with clear information BEFORE the event and where it is NOT based on FORM, just TIME.

Matron, I think it's time for his pills again

You are absolutely right Figgis. It was immature of me to get involved and I apologise, unreservedly.

It was wrong of me to call you a TW AT. I know you can be ANNOYING and I know you can be an ANNOYING TW AT but I am old enough to know better.
 
Please accept my heartfelt apologies. Have a good day.

I'm not a great one for times but Love certaily put up a fast one in the Oaks. It's a pity that there was no Coronation Cup the same day to compare. When Enable won it Highland Reel won the CC on the same day putting up a faster time by about 0.8 sec (they both carried 9st). But in a theoretical race between the two Enable would have been getting a stone from HR so her adjusted time was probably better.

The 7f listed race was run on the same day as the Oaks in 2017 and this year. In 2017 the winner was slower than the average by 1.67 seconds whereas this year the winner was fast by 0.42 secs. So I think an argument could be constructed that Enable was a faster Oaks winner than Love :-)

A_T, that's a fair interpretation. There is no right way or wrong way. Judgement calls have to be made on which races were up to scratch, and even if they were up to par on paper, did they in the event fall apart, as I believe the Voltigeur did the other day. Which horses ran to form, improved, regressed, etc. But these are judgement calls that have to be made when assessing any races or producing form ratings. The only difference with using times and allowances is you have an added framework.

Sometimes this will give a bum steer. Or, more specifically, the person analysing all this will give themselves a bum steer, just as I did with the International the other day. It's beyond me how anyone could call the winner below par, as for me it was up there with the better older horse performances in the race. In fact I reckon if he repeated that form to the pound in the Arc he'd win. I just think it's unlikely.

Back to that Epsom card and those Listed races. In Enable's year the race was confined to 3yos, so you'd normally expect this year's running and the runners involved to achieve a better time.

Actually I thought Ghaiyyath ran well and won well I just thought the horses racing on his inside would have been closer, they wouldn't have won, if they had raced further off the rail. Simple enough.
As far as the older horses performances in this race are concerned I have Ghaiyyath (good going) 12.43 seconds per furlong, Frankel (g/f) 12.35 seconds per furlong and Brigadier Gerard (good going) 12.15  seconds per furlong. Sea the Stars (g/f) 12.22 seconds per furlong currently holds the course record and once held by Roberto who beat Brigadier Gerard and won in 12.1 secs per furlong carrying 8st 10lbs.
The race distance today is shorter by 54 yards than the original. BG carried 9st 7lbs, Ghaiyyath 9st 5lbs, Frankel 9st 5lbs and STS 8st 11lbs.
Brigadier Gerard was found to be suffering from a virus and this was his 6th race in twelve weeks. It was Ghaiyyaths 4th race in 24 weeks, Frankel's 4th race in 14 weeks and STS 4th race in 16 weeks. Not bad eh?

Back to that Epsom card and those Listed races. In Enable's year the race was confined to 3yos, so you'd normally expect this year's running and the runners involved to achieve a better time.


Disagree. The older horses this year were carrying 5lbs more than the 3yos in 2017 - and even if not quite the official 8lbs WFA that would't account for a 2 second difference in the time.

Brigust, you seem to be suffering from short term memory loss. As even though you repeatedly make references to other peoples posts about times you then categorically state that you "don't do times", "That is the bo ll ocks you time guys talk". Well it may be bollocks but at least it's not hypocritical bollocks. Back on your own ward please

Disagree

That's fair enough. Unlike some I'm not trying to convince the world to agree with my judgements. In fact as a punter I prefer it when there are disagreements. I'm only putting forward my own reasons for backing Love. Is she the fastest filly ever? Not at all. I just say she's one of only two Oaks winning fillies good enough to win an average (as in reasonable standard) Arc for many a year.

ive slagged off love more on here than anyone, or should i say knocked her form, and i still insist she beaten nothing, but i was more impressed with her last week than her 2 previous runs this season.ive also laughed at her price of around 7/2 for arc few weeks back, but ive had more of a laugh now, i havent been on the arc market for a few days and love is now nearer 2/1, i wouldnt have her that price even if enable wasnt running.

I agree. The price of 'Love' is pants. Without doubt it's mainly due to the lack of depth of the race except Enable eg Sottsass, Magical and Japan all have been underwhelming; Enable is no spring chicken herself (for a racehorse); Ghaiyyath (unlikely/wrong distance); Stradivarius (trip too short/start a day early still will not win); Mishriff (10f/poor French form). As such, 2/1 'Love' and 4/1 Enable (here) would look generous (Enable) on the day.

I think the rest will only get in the way if ground is no worse than good.

I've backed Raabihah. The French have absolutely nothing at the moment at any distance so I think, in there, must be hiding something.

i think thats pricewise tip this morning as well, brigust

Morning Elsjohn. He sometimes rings me for advice.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the French find something reasonably unexposed to be thereabouts. There are a few horses up there in the betting who really shouldn't be expected to win.

sorry brigust, i got it wrong, im not 100% certain but i think hes tipped up stradivarius in todays post, and not Raabihah, apologies all

, start again this from horse racing thread this morning


leashleigh • August 26, 2020 12:23 PM BST
stradivarius e/w, raabihah win.
what is the point of putting up prices that are not obtainable?

Thanks Els. I didn't think I told him Strad e/w but it makes my bet look a lot better already. If it turns up I think it will be a lot shorter again. Let's see.

just reading through this thread now after yesterdays kg, some of us correct and some us way wrong

The point needs to be made that just because some of judge a horse as a good 3yo, does not necessarily mean we think it will be the same force as a 4yo, without all the allowances. As was pointed out on the POW thread.