Epsom Derby 2021

The Coolmore mafia scratched every horse (6) of theirs except Bolshoi Ballet from the race. No mention of this by ITV Racing instead the success of Galileo (Coolmore) as a sire. Who cares?

the ITV staff probably get a fee for saying "beautifully bred" every time there's a Coolmore runner

I really haven’t got a lot between all these. I had one ruler near top rated along with bolshoi...John leeper is a lovely type but I’d want better odds to play him in an open heat

hurricane lane is a nice horse who should just go well but I’ve decided to have a little on the rag youth spirit here who I just believe is a dour stayer who will like the ground and is slightly over looked in the market and might just surprise a few, unlike a lot of derbies I haven’t a strong opinion so wish you well

Impressive winner? Bolshoi Ballet ran out of puff; Mac Swiney still feeling his exertion in the Irish 2000G.

Bolshoi Ballet 7th.

Well it stunk of a a boil over and it was...no damage done but well done if you found him

Frankel sired the 1st and 3d.

Great for Kirby good stuff

Only consolation the child kidnapper of Dubai is not here to greet his horse.

The winner was drawn in stall 1.  Unpossible.

That’s why I hate stats kincsem

I'm chuffed for Coolmore. Their charge clearly did not stay!!!!!!!!!!

It doesn't say much for the five horses Ballydoyle withdrew.

that was some  market move in the last 10 minutes only the thing i got right was easily dismissing mac swiney's chances, didn't win on the race, that was a very good result.

As High Definition ran Hurricane Lane close at York and looked as though he might pass him over another 2f, and as HL ran well enough although looking again as though 10f might suit better,and given that Bolshoi Ballet looked like he didn't stay (unless something was amiss), I wonder whether Coolmore might be regretting withdrawing High Definiton? He might well have gone close today. It leaves him looking good for the Irish Derby and if Adayar runs at the Curragh, we might eventually find out whether HD is the best  3yr 12f horse at Ballydoyle and might in fact have won today.


In any event, one might conclude that Karma played a part today.

that race at york was the reason i never put HL in any bets, with problems HD had before that race and the way he run that day, looked like he needed the run,
if i was right, HL wasnt going to be good enough to win a derby , talk afterwards was that HD was built like a tank and might not have the tactical speed to win the derby.

That's five years in a row now the FAV has been unplaced.

Sandown I have to wonder whether all was well with that horse high definition?

Just doesn’t stack up to me and I liked him, so I just wonder all is well with the horse and the Irish derby was just an excuse. We will know after the Irish derby I suppose

Not surprised that BB was beat but very surprised he ran as poorly as that. I can't have lack of stamina as an excuse (unless it turns out that he's really a miler ) as he was already being pushed quite hard turning into the straight with very little response. And lets's be honest they weren't world beaters he was running against. I've never fancied High Definition, as for all the talk about his finishing you don't see many Derby winners who struggle to go the early pace with the kind of third raters he's been running against. But as we saw today these young horses can improve markedly, so you never know.

I can see why people fancied a few quid on the winner at a big price, although personally I never would've even considered backing him after the trials. Amazed there was such a big late move for him though, so you'd have to think he was impressive in his most recent work. The Derby has always been one of my favourite races to punt on, but a few more results like today and I might have to give it a swerve

Personally, I really didn't rate this Bolshoi Ballet, and it wasn't just his too-short price.  The way (some) people were talking, particularly Jason Weaver, it was as if he was already a world beater.  He was a businesslike winner of Gp3's, whose also rans did little to frank the form - another Ballydoyle non-stayer classic fav.
Talking about Frank, there is a new racing phrase born today.  It is
GIRUY Frankie!
PS  We love you Frankie but justice was done today.

the winner reminds me of Old Vic - absolutely massive stride. Time was relatively fast - the closest to standard all day.

For me the single biggest change I have seen in the Derby, in my lifetime, is that the race is now a form "maker" as opposed to a form "franker".
I simply never seriously considered the winner.  Did anybody?  Not the race of old it used to be.

had a good bet on him after Sandown.

thought he'd run well today but the place
was what I was hopeing for.

LoyalHoncho. Agree with you 100%. It's always been hard to work out given its early period in the calendar. I know that's always been the case. That said, both today's and yesterday's Oaks winner could turn out well above average. I'd say we'll have a fair few of that post the Ebor meeting, taking into consideration all the G1 1m2f/1m4f races we will have seen by them.

At this early stage I am beginning to think there is no standout 3 year old, unless Snowfall is the real deal and can do that on better ground.

agree loyal honcho

too much attention was paid to the favourite - Nashwan went off at 5/4 for the Derby - did we really think BB had proved himself similarly?

"the veterinary officer reported that a post-race examination had shown evidence that Bolshoi Ballet had been struck into on his right hind leg in the early stages"

Well done all winners.

How does the vet know when it happened did he ask the horse?

O'Brien has released a video snippet of the injury. As to when it happened, from the race video it appears it may have happened very early when Mac Swiney went up BB's backside. If it happened later it's difficult to tell when. Whether that was an excuse for the performance it is impossible to say. O'Brien had earlier said he had no explanation and words that basically amounted to horses aren't machines. Personally I don't for one moment believe BB would've beaten the winner anyway. However, I also don't believe that BB is really 17 lengths inferior to him and only marginally ahead of Youth Spirit, he undoubtedly didn't give his true running yesterday, for one reason or another.

Over 300 posts on this thread before the race and I don't recall seeing one tip for the winner, any mention of a decent bet or even a speculative punt on him for value reasons. Must do better next year

read the Youth Spirit thread further down.

Well done, not a thread I'd looked at.

mojo star running a big race didn't suprise me as much, reason was because only had the two insignificant runs and r hannon does occasionally get a horse in
the big races that run like bullet trains and usually never perform to that level again, the winners top speed of 116, bodes well for future hopefully

We believe you roadrunner - thousands however wouldn't.
I'd love to know what readers feel about this article, published by Racing TV and written by James Willoughby.  It didn't take long for me to feel like I was losing the will to live.  Suddenly, Adayar is a wonder horse!

Here it is.
https://www.racingtv.com/news/james-willoughby-adayar-s-visceral-derby-victory-bore-hallmarks-of-frankel

I would say that Snowfall is a better racehorse than Adayar because her deviation from even pace was greater in the run

As I've said before, trying to analyse final times or sectionals on one race or two is no good if you can't get an accurate handle on most of the other races on the card in order to compare them. JW may be proved right and I may be wrong, but, in my opinion, in regards to the other races on the card he's comparing with, JW has failed miserably here.

thankfully ive never had to hear/read his thoughts years gone by those facts  might of interested me more, definitely not in that writing style

Agreed roadrunner - it's just too sensationalised/overhyped.

James Willoughby has imo always pursued an intelligent approach to understanding the factors influencing race outcomes, and full disclosure here, the use of sectional timings in that respect is something which I have made full use of since the early  1990's. That said, he can over-complicate matters.

What has been missed in the story of the outcomes of both races is the poor showing of the 2 favourites, Bolshoi Ballet and Santa Barbara.  In both cases their inability to come within  20 lb SB and 21 lb BB of their PB which is relatively unusual ,is quite something and needs explaining.

Snowfall was given a rating 6lb higher than her PB, which is not dramatic, but every other horse in the race was given an RPR below their previous PB which should be taken into account when assessing Snowfall's performance. Initially, my take on her run was to conclude that she could be very good (129?) but I may have that too high.

Adayar was raised 15lb on RPR , quite an unusually high lift, and certainly unexpected. Mojo Star was given an even higher uplift of 22 lb, for which there was no real previous indicator that such an improvement might occur. Could 2 horses show such improvement in one race? We shall have to see on that score. It could be that first impressions for both races might be on the high side.

AOB won the French Derby with Saint Basilica so I can't rush to conclude that there is a problem, especially as he did win the Oaks too, but the gushing support for both these beaten favourites has left a somewhat bitter taste. Was the injury sustained by BB sufficient explantion given that he did run a big race unitl the final couple of furlongs. And what is the explantion for SB's poor showing? Ground and/or trip? Possibly or maybe not as good as advertised?

As for the beaten favourites, there must be some serious concerns now and I wouldn't like to take a shortish price about either until we have seen them again to see whether they are as good as the Ballydoyle team said they were.

I can understand people getting carried away with the visual impression of Snowfall's win. I don't, however, understand anyone trying to convince that she achieved anything more that a good up to scratch performance on the clock. First of all, you have to be satisfied that the Coronation Cup was fought out by two genuine Gp1 runners. I would argue that it wasn't and that neither horse had run to genuine Gp1 winning level beforehand. Nevertheless, let's accept that it was possible they did on Friday. You then have to believe that the 10f handicap was won by a horse running close to Listed winning class at the age of 5. Ok he won decisively and I would be one of the first to argue that some runners can still improve at that age. However, the second horse comes out very similar at the weights carried.

If people are saying that the ground slowed even more by the time the Oaks was run, then fair enough, it's debatable in this case because of the fast time last race on the card, but it's a possibility I sometimes factor in myself. I've not seen people saying that though. It seems to me that some people have lost the plot if they're comparing this year's Oaks win with what Enable did and reaching a favourable conclusion.

As I said elsewhere Sandown if Bolshoi Ballet ever wins another race we can all afford not to be on.  And only one line needed to say it! 

As for the beaten favourites, there must be some serious concerns now and I wouldn't like to take a shortish price about either until we have seen them again to see whether they are as good as the Ballydoyle team said they were

Sandown, whether Bolshoi Ballet is as good as Coolmore seemed to think is very debatable, and I think most of us had firm doubts about the potential of him being anything more than a very ordinary Derby winner anyway. That said, surely you still must think he's better than his Derby showing? His Leopardstown win wasn't brilliant but we know it wasn't that bad. I believe if he'd run to the same mark on Saturday he'd have finished where Mojo Star did.

Figgis, it's not a figure I would bet the mortgage on, but I'm quietly confident about it. The problem with horse racing is that it's a game of small sample sizes. We may never see this filly again in such conditions, so I guess we'll never know. But I'd be more confident in her future that in Adayar's, much as I would love to see the colt prosper.

I'm quietly confident about it

Howellsy, I have no problem with taking a positive view of a performance even when there might be doubts. It often pays to go out on a limb about a figure, wait until there is enough evidence for everyone to agree and any value there was will be gone. In this case though if you take a strong view about Snowfall then you also have to be sure about the merits of the Coronation Cup form. You also have to take an extraordinarily positive view about the first two in the handicap. Not impossible but pretty unlikely I'd say.

Was this you penzance?
https://www.racingpost.com/news/40-1-down-to-16-1-the-curious-case-of-the-derby-winners-epsom-starting-price/494391
(More) respect! 

I said in my post of June 9 5.01 that Snowfall improved her RPR PB by 6lb. Correction, it was 14lb. I was looking at the wrong column. It matters because  14lbs is the 2nd highest rise in PB given in the past 33 years second only to Ramruma in1999 . The 123 rating is co-third behind Salsabil on 126 (1990) and Ouija Board on 124 (2004) making her the same rating as Enable (2017) and  Ramruma (1999). Pretty elevated company.

On the otherhand, Adayer was raised to 123 also , by 15 lb, making him 20th top rated Derby winner in the same period, the top rated being Generous (1991) on 133 and  Authorized (2007) and High Chaperral ((2002) both on 130.

What it shows is that Adayer is being rated as a below average Derby winner by 2lb (average 125) in the past 33 years whilst Snowfall is rated as an above average Oaks winner (average 119) by 4lb.

Bolshoi Ballets's run in the Derby can be completely ignored due to the injury that he sustained early in the race.  The video shows that skin was ripped of his hind leg exposing the bare tendon.  When he put weight on he affected leg, his leg was trembling, suggesting that it was causing him pain.
As long as he is given a long rest and good treatment (which he will get) I think he is worth another chance.

i dont think there is much between adayer and snowfall, both have a highest top speed of 116 , both rated 123 RPR, only difference is adayer 121 & snowfall 120, having watched
those races again, both horses finished like their could be more to come, their racing styles imo they differ slightly, as for the arc as potential targets, would say its a no-brainer backing both of them, without knowing the other horse very well, you have love from last year that was very useful and is rated superior to both at moment

Sandown, that's all very well, and I'm not knocking those RP ratings that were produced for the Oaks at the time. But as the season went on we can see that they vastly underrated Enable compared to Ouija Board. Ouija Board was my favourite Oaks winner, for financial reasons and the confidence I had about her going into the race, but she was about 7lbs behind Enable as a 3yo. She could only finish 3rd in a very ordinary Arc after having a fairly easy time beforehand racing against her own sex.

Snowfall's performance was unexpected and freakish - like Jet Ski Lady and Turtle Island - neither of whom won again. Would not surprise me at all if the same fate befalls Snowfall - her time was slower than Pyledriver on the same card.

Go and pleases explain to me how the logic of how it is a "no brainer" backing "the two of them" for the Arc when there could be any number of superior horses out there, and worse, they might not even go?      This is Coolemore and O Brien we're talking about!  It's only ten days ago that you were all greetin' your eyes out about them pulling horses out of the Derby and damaging the "integrity" of racing.  lmao.

Both Adayar and Snowfall will need to prove themselves next time for different reasons before I take their Epsom performances as gospel. Similarly, Bolshoi Ballet - injury or not.

it was a tongue and cheek comment, think said as much when saying that don't know the other horses, plus thrown in love into the equation, try and remember this is the horse antepost forum didnt bother me pulling horses out of the derby, anyone can see how the coolmore operation is damaging racing with their antics, you can agree with
that last statement or not, never mentioned the derby or the favourites poor showing , maybe got that injury when ryan moore rushed it to the front, change a tactics from him

Ok mate.  Sorry if I offended.  Live long and prosper.

Figgis. To be clear, I don't know, nor does anybody else, just how good the winners and others in the Derby & Oaks will turn out eventually. We can have our own opinions, of course, using our own experiences, to take a stab at guessing and betting accordingly. what I wanted to showw, by referencing previous top winners, is to provide the context using the past outcomes.

To my mind, Adayar does not rate amongst those Derby winners who went on to perform to a higher level, let's say KG or Arc, given where he comes on the rankings. That is not to say that he can't improve further, of course he can, especially when stamina plays a bigger role than it did at Epsom. On the other hand, the filly does rank highly, and the case for further improvement is perhaps stronger. This is all supposition and much will depend on how they develop over the summer and how they are trained with which races in mind. The filly also has the advantage of the receiving the sex allowance and given the recent success of 3 yr old fillies recently in the Arc, I would be surprised if she isn't aimed at that race. Adayar would have a strong case if aimed at the St Leger which might be better option but desirability of winning a KG or Arc might be stronger attraction.

On the other hand, the filly does rank highly, and the case for further improvement is perhaps stronger

If this is just an opinion on what you feel you've seen, then ok. But you appear to be saying this is based on times. If this is so then you're also rating the front two in the Coronation Cup as genuine contenders in the later Gp1s? You also must think the front two in the handicap are well ahead of their marks?

I agree that it is all speculation at this stage. However, sometimes as a punter you believe you've seen enough to stick your neck out. As for them improving later this season. In my experience very, very few horses actually ran faster that season after winning the Derby. Beaten horses like Cracksman have, but hardly any winners. And the same goes for Oaks winners. When the likes of the RP have them improving later it's usually just that they didn't rate them highly enough on the Epsom win. Enable being a particular case in point.

As long as he can avoid having too many hard races beforehand (which sometimes can be down to luck as well as planning) then I'm saying Adayar has an outstanding chance of doing the Derby/Arc double. I don't see Snowfall doing anything more than beating her own sex. Apparently Dettori told O'Brien that with all the allowances they should aim her at the all age Gp1s. It will be interesting to see if Coolmore have as much confidence in Snowfall as Gosden had in Enable. Personally I hope they do, as I'd love the opportunity to oppose her, but I'll believe it when I see it.

im not offended, you just attributed stuff about the derby and included me, was very happy with derby result, 1/2 my bets were void before the start of the race, like to think
would of backed the market mover and winner, learnt alot about markets, when i done tipping threads for a couple of years, the patterns and manipulations of how markets work,
usually when i have an interest in the race

If this is so then you're also rating the front two in the Coronation Cup as genuine contenders in the later Gp1s? You also must think the front two in the handicap are well ahead of their marks?


You've mentioned this comparison before and it's worth addressing. I don't have any problem with the Coronation Cup figures because I don't have a high figure for the race even though I am using the same going allowance as for the Oaks, the reason being that I apply a calculation based on sectionals which returns a high rating for Snowfall and a lower rating for Piledriver. Snowfall finished the last 2f in 23.53 secs and Piledriver did so in 25.91 secs which gives me a much higher rating even though the finishing times are almost identical. I've been applying this calculation for many years now and I have great confidence in its accuracy. The same comment applies to Blue Cup's figures.

The example you give of Enable being under-rated may be correct but that would be cherry picking one example out of 33 races but even so she made considerable improvement subsequently and without  the benefit of hindsight we wouldn't have known that at the time.

Regardii=ng Snowfall, the factor that would worry me is her less than compelling 2 yr old form which didn't hint at all of her 3 yr old progress.

As for Ayadar, I have already said that I rate the horse higher than the RP, although not quite as high as the filly - yet. At this stage I couldn't even begin to make a case for the Arc it being still 5 months away, for either horse, although as I've said it wouldn't surprise me if either is targeted at the race. The record of horses taking in the KG on the way to the Arc is less than cast iron and I much prefer the French strategy of giving their Arc hopes a mid-summer break.

without  the benefit of hindsight we wouldn't have known that at the time

Highland Reel, (maybe not the best 12f older horse in recent years but certainly better than the likes of Al Aasi and Pyledriver) ran a fast run Coronation Cup in an up to scratch Gp1 time. Enable ran a comparative time putting her only 8lbs behind. She did this in driving rain, but even without any add ons for that it was obviously a high class performance in the knowledge she'd be receiving a stone off her elders in the near future. Compared with this Snowfall ran a time that puts her 5lbs behind the Gp3 horses Pyledriver and Al Aasi
.
Snowfall finished the last 2f in 23.53 secs and Piledriver did so in 25.91 secs which gives me a much higher rating even though the finishing times are almost identical

I'm aware that faster than expected late sectionals can mean a horse was capable of better. At least that's the theory, it certainly does not work out in every scenario. But I often find the expected improvement is often overestimated. Having already run most of the race more than 2 seconds faster than Snowfall, if Pyledriver could've then finished anything like as fast as her his rating would've been sky high, so it seems a strange comparison.

In my view Snowfall isn't even as fast as Coolmore's Alexandrova, who put up one of the best Oaks winning performances up to that time (until Enable and Love came along), but still wasn't deemed good enough to beat the colts. It might start to dawn on people when Pyledriver and Al Aasi go on to prove they're not really Gp1 standard, that they've gone overboard on this one

Figgis and sandown.. I’m interested why either of you want to make a time comparison with pyledrivers coronation win and snowfalls oaks win, when they raced on different parts of the track pyledriver(inside) snowfall (stands rail) and it was pizzing down with rain between the 2 races…

Anyway I don’t get it myself, with 2 factors of the rain and where they raced in the 2 different races, figgis you seem more keen to make the point in how you are rating snowfalls win so interested how you can come up with a positive outcome without guessing your figures. Enlighten me please

Figgis

I take it that you would agree that the fastest overall time between two points is achieved with a pace that is as close to even splits as it is possible to achieve.

Anything less than an even pace must therefore result in a slower overall time.

Very few horse races are run in an even pace, however, that being the nature of competitive horseracing, which makes the task of evaluating the merit of an individual performance using the single figure of finishing time (with or without weight adjustment) as one in which confidence levels drop proportionate to the degree of variance from an even pace.

Put simply, the faster the overall time, the greater the confidence can be, that this measure represents the full merit of the performance. i.e. trust fast times, suspect slow times.. Indeed, any final time slower than the fastest time possible for an individual horse cannot really tell us what that fastest time might be. We need another metric for that, and that is where sectional times can help.

There may still be flaws attached to the use of  sectional times in assessing horseraces but in the last few years, with extensive availability of electrically recorded times for individual horses within a race, we can be more certain of accuracy.

The use of sectional timing adds another dimension to measurement rather like looking at 3D as opposed to to 2D. However, as you say, things do not always work out as suggested but that is in the nature of chance with numerous random outcomes being possible which this game possesses in abundance.

Apologies if this seems like teaching grandmothers to suck eggs but I have written this for a wider audience than yourself.

We still have to make a final judgement on whether a horse at a certain price represents a good bet, but that is another story.

Harry

You raise an interesting point about the different sides of the course taken by Snowfall and Piledriver. We don't have access to Trakus figures for  Epsom. If we did we would know exactly how far each horse ran, but assuming that Snowfall added extra yardage by coming nearside, then for every 10 yards extra she ran, and assuming the same going allowance,  then you would have to add 5lbs to Snowfall's rating compared to Piledriver. However, you might have to deduct something for the nearside being faster, if indeed it was. Net net, there might not be any difference to the comparative ratings.

Sandown my only point is I really don’t see how handicappers of horses, can draw a figure they are confident in when dealing in 2 races run on 2 strips of ground with rain in between races, as I just don’t know how the going is on the 2 different parts of the track.

They as handicappers of can only guess the figure the detain horses have achieved, drawing on their experience to come down on a figure, however you can’t be confident so guess work has to be used. Personally I tend to sit on the fence when handicapping such races as I just can’t be confident when we had weather and a track that played how it did on oaks day

They as handicappers Of horses

Certain bl00dy thing

Sandown my only point is I really don’t see how handicappers of horses, can draw a figure they are confident in when dealing in 2 races run on 2 strips of ground with rain in between races, as I just don’t know how the going is on the 2 different parts of the track.

They as handicappers of horses can only guess the figure the certain horses have achieved, drawing on their experience to come down on a figure, however you can’t be confident so guess work has to be used. Personally I tend to sit on the fence when handicapping such races as I just can’t be confident when we had weather and a track that played how it did on oaks day

Sorry computer glich

Snowfall finished the last 2f in 23.53 secs and Piledriver did so in 25.91 secs which gives me a much higher rating even though the finishing times are almost identical


This is what I’m talking about sandown when trying to come down on a figure either with sectionals or any other method of handicapping.

We are dealing with a course with a camber, where in the oaks they have gone up a hill to reach the better going, whereas in the coronation they have raced on the swamp rail the last 2 furlongs…

As much as it is interesting to try and come down on a positive figure using both races, it is seriously flawed to any handicapper without pure guesswork adding in the rainfall as well.

Track biases in racing imo are a massive no no for me on such days, especially when dealing with the course on oaks day, although obviously we try and come up with something figure wise as is our want, however the figures spurned out on oaks and derby day have to be treated with serious caution this season imo with the track how it was on the 2 days.

Can't really argue with you Harry as you are right in saying "proceed with caution, rocks beneath the surface". We do the best we can, with what we have got but then that applies to the whole business of evaluating horses. For me, it's one part skill, one part guesswork and one part chance, which is why , on the average, favourites never do better than winning between 1 in 3 races.

Why do we bother? Because we like taking risks?

interested how you can come up with a positive outcome without guessing your figures. Enlighten me please

Harry, ALL racing analysis is educated guesswork. Whether it is using form ratings, time ratings or those people who never use any kind of rating and just form an opinion in their head. We never know for sure which horses ran to the same form as before (or even if we handicapped them correctly before), which improved, which regressed, how many, etc. To be clear, time analysis HAS to be linked to form analysis. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about. There is no magic formula for producing a going allowance.

In my opinion time analysis of all the races on the card adds an important dimension as it gives a framework to support each race, rather than trying to analyse each race in total isolation. On this thread I have mainly stuck to comparing the Oaks with the CC as they were over the same trip. The point you make about different parts of the track is a valid one, but I have taken into account every other race run on the track that day. As I said previously, if people are saying the Oaks was run on slower ground due to the extra rain that's a possibility. It's just that the fast time for the final race throws some doubt on that. The point I was mainly trying to make is people seem to be comparing the Oaks with the CC as though the CC was a true Gp1 benchmark race this year. I don't believe it was and see very little evidence to suggest otherwise.

None of us know for sure how good the Derby and Oaks were this year. However, these weren't just trials where the pieces of the jigsaw need to be fitted together. These were the jigsaws completed. As punters I think we should be able to take a view by now, whether we are proved right or wrong in future. Of course we can take the view of impossible123 and wait until further evidence, but by that stage most people will be in agreement, which as a punter seems pointless to me, unless you just want to keep backing odds on favourites.

This year I have taken a strong view about both races and intend to bet accordingly. On these occasions I see the forum as a test of confidence. Possibly somebody else will see an angle I didn't and cause me to rethink. I find the more I'm inclined to argue a point then the more my confidence is strengthened, or weakened when I'm not prepared to back it up. I'm not trying to say I know for certain. I'm just another punter with an opinion. On this occasion the opinion is very strong, we'll see if it's right or wrong.

I think it was Jimmy Lindley who used to say forget the winner it won too far

I’m certainly not knocking it sandown, I just find it incredibly difficult to be positive about my own stuff when dealing with such race days, where the ground was different all over the course and changing by the hour either Friday or Saturday for that matter. So coming up with positive handicapping stuff just isn’t easy and ???.? Come up everywhere

Anyway I like it when people are positive (not you just all handicappers) as it will lead to guesswork when the said horses are priced next time, hopefully we can profit

None of us know for sure how good the Derby and Oaks were this year. However, these weren't just trials where the pieces of the jigsaw need to be fitted together. These were the jigsaws completed. As punters I think we should be able to take a view by now, whether we are proved right or wrong in future. Of course we can take the view of impossible123 and wait until further evidence, but by that stage most people will be in agreement, which as a punter seems pointless to me, unless you just want to keep backing odds on favourites.


Don’t get me wrong figgis I’ve certainly got an opinion on it and enjoy reading yours and sandowns posts dissecting the race, i certainly don’t want to stop you 2 breaking in into bits as it’s interesting, I just wanted to keep it honest…

I have a figure but I’m no where near where others are on the different races but I always tend to be a lot lower anyway…however I’m in the camp that says be wary of your figures on such race days and especially these 2 days with different parts of the track playing differently depending where you raced, making exceptionally difficult to get a good figure…I have mine but I’m questioning it to much to be positive.

You have to remember figgis you have your way and I have my own way, you love times I like all the other differentials a race may bring and I’m sure it is extremely difficult to put a positive number on the Epsom meeting. You never understood years ago how I came up with my numbers but we weren’t far out as memory serves

You’ve used impossible figgis, I don’t read his posts no disrespect to him, like I say I have a number for both races but I’m not pleased with them because of the track biases so have to drag them all down…we will see how they pan out I suppose

I have mine but I’m questioning it to much to be positive

Nothing wrong with that harry, I wouldn't expect everyone to have a very strong opinion about every race, in fact I would regard such a person as an idiot. These early ratings are always reassessed as further evidence comes in and this could be an instance where it is me who has lost the plot and I have to do some serious revisionary work. I have no problem going back and re-evaluating a position I took earlier. As I've said before I'm more interested in being right about future events, rather than to cling on to proving an earlier opinion was correct.

I can pat myself on the back about Enable as a 3yo. I don't think I've ever repeatedly watched a race video as much as I watched her Chester win. I backed her in the Oaks believing she had a reasonable chance of beating the short priced favourite and was a value bet at the price, but nothing more than that. After analysing her Oaks win I said on here she put up the fastest Oaks winning performance I'd seen. I wouldn't expect everyone to agree with that, but I think we can say she proved herself much better than the average Oaks winner.

However, there are occasions when I completely mess up. The horse who I now regard as narrowly the fastest Derby winner this century, Golden Horn, was one I got embarrassingly wrong at the time. After watching Jack Hobbs win only a Sandown handicap I believed I'd very likely just seen the Derby winner. When he was then beaten by his stablemate in the Dante, instead of taking the result at face value, I tied myself in knots thinking well either Gosden has an even better horse who has just put up a performance in a trial equal to Authorized's Derby win or there was something wrong with Jack Hobbs on the day. Regrettably I went with the latter view. I had no problem reassessing later on though, and if Snowfall proves to be a truly outstanding filly I will do the same.

if Snowfall proves to be a truly outstanding filly I will do the same.

I'm not stating that opinion Figgis, that's a step beyond where I am. I am saying that she is most probably better than rated (123RPR ) and most probably better than Alydar who has the same RPR but who is also better than rated, but like Harry, I am holding back on going that far for the time being.

To be outstanding requires  mid 130's for me so for the record I have them at 133 and 129 potentially subject to confirmation. With the sex allowance of 3lbs that puts the filly ahead of the colt in any clash.

I'm assuming from what you say that you see it in the  reverse order. Interesting. It still depends on the relative prices in such a clash as to which I might be backing.

if Snowfall proves to be a truly outstanding filly I will do the same.

I'm not stating that opinion Figgis, that's a step beyond where I am. I am saying that she is most probably better than rated (123RPR ) and most probably better than Alydar who has the same RPR but who is also better than rated, but like Harry, I am holding back on going that far for the time being.

To be outstanding requires  mid 130's for me so for the record I have them at 133 and 129 potentially subject to confirmation. With the sex allowance of 3lbs that puts the filly ahead of the colt in any clash.

I'm assuming from what you say that you see it in the  reverse order. Interesting. It still depends on the relative prices in such a clash as to which I might be backing.

Sandown, I don't use the official scale, and often don't agree with their ratings anyway, so can't really compare on that score. I think Snowfall was a good winner of the Oaks, in fact take out Enable and Love and she was up with the better winning performances this century, a little behind Alexandrova and Ouija Board and alongside Taghrooda. Although Taghrooda won pretty comfortably and I have her improving 3lbs on that when she won the King George. I have no reason to think Snowfall will improve similarly. The point is that a filly usually needs to be more than just a good Oaks winner to go on and beat the colts that year. That is unless, like Taghrooda, they encounter colts that are not quite top class. In normal circumstances I wouldn't expect Snowfall to beat the colts, and I wouldn't be surprised if Coolmore don't fancy her either.

I rate Adayar's Derby win as the joint 4th fastest this century. Even with Snowfall's allowance I would expect him to easily beat her about 4 lengths. This doesn't make him a sure thing for the Arc at this stage. It depends how fresh he remains when that race comes along. It's also certainly not out of the question that an older horse could give him 6lbs and a beating in October. But he's an above average Derby winner who has better prospects than most, in my opinion.

I treated the first 3 and last 4 races on Friday's card as separate, mini-cards. I haven't even given Blue Cap an especially high figure. Rhoscolyn works quite well with the figure I'm postulating for Snowfall. But I'm far from confident.

https://www.racingtv.com/news/angus-mcnae-snowfall-will-be-almost-impossible-to-beat-in-group-ones-this-season

“A repeat of this performance – she doesn’t even have to improve - and she will be virtually impossible to beat in all-age Group One races getting all the allowances."

Come on Coolmore, you know it makes sense

Interesting that McNae said that Snowfall covered 21 yds more than Adayar which would equate to around 10bs BUT he made no mention of the effect of racing on faster ground

Saw on ITV  OS this am that TF rate Adayar at 125 and Snowfall at 122 so you are in good company Figgis.

Sandown, they're way off my marks. I have Adayar 11lbs ahead of the filly.

"she will be virtually impossible to beat in all-age Group One races getting all the allowances."

it's really annoying how the allowances get mentioned all the time now - as if the 3lbs for the fillies makes that much difference over 12 furlongs. Discussions about the Arc now seem to invariably feature a statement that it's a race for 3yo fillies - well I make it 4 winners in the last 40 years and the fillies' allowance is nothing new.

Figgis, how are you rating Mojo Star compared to Snowfall?

Sandown, purely on those 2 races alone I have him 2lbs ahead, meaning if they both ran to the pound next time she'd narrowly beat him with the allowance. Personally I don't go in for all this stuff about a horse being a '135 horse', etc. I'm rating that particular performance in that particular race, not putting a figure on a horse for its entire career. Just because I rate him 2lbs ahead on that race does not necessarily mean I think he's a 2lb better horse full stop. Horses sometimes run above their regular ability in certain races and under certain conditions. Others can run to a mark repeatedly.

Snowfall achieved her figure comfortably, therefore I would be more confident about a repeat. I'd be far less confident about Mojo Star.

I'd also add that thinking of a horse's mark in one race as a type of career figure or regular ability figure leads to underestimating a lot of good performances. People start to think they can't rate a performance as high as 135 because that means the second horse is a '130 horse', etc. It's nonsense. Just because an inferior tennis player can match an in form Djokovic on an occasion doesn't mean he can do it regularly.

Consistency/variability is just another variable to factor in.

As to the top rating achieved ,I always take note of Phil Bull's comment, that the top rating tells you how good a horse isn't i.e he can be anything below that number but he is no better until he proves it. He said that about time ratings but it applies equally to collateral ratings.

I very rarely see a horse delivering a performance that his PB rating suggests. Invariably it's less, occasionally more.

Consistency/variability is just another variable to factor in.

As to the top rating achieved ,I always take note of Phil Bull's comment, that the top rating tells you how good a horse isn't i.e he can be anything below that number but he is no better until he proves it. He said that about time ratings but it applies equally to collateral ratings.

I very rarely see a horse delivering a performance that his PB rating suggests. Invariably it's less, occasionally more.

Also collateral form ratings can confuse the issue as to what is possible. Horses can be given high form ratings without necessarily having to run fast. Whereas, on the whole, I find most horses can only run a peak speed figure twice, maybe three times a season. More than that is very rare.

Also collateral form ratings can confuse the issue as to what is possible. Horses can be given high form ratings without necessarily having to run fast. Whereas, on the whole, I find most horses can only run a peak speed figure twice, maybe three times a season. More than that is very rare.


Figgis. I see time ratings and collateral ratings as being the 2 sides of the same coin. If a horse could run every time at the fastest even pace that it can, then the time rating would equal the collateral rating.
.

Unfortunately, most races are run at less than an optimum even pace so it's rare for a time rating to match the collateral rating. As you say, it is unlikely that a horse would be able anyway to run at top pace more than once or twice in a season anyway and as most races can be run sub-optimally then the collateral rating may exceed what its time rating should be  on most runs.

Collateral ratings are far easier to produce which is why they are the most used whilst time ratings are much harder to produce and subject to far more variables. IMO no rating system has the monopoly on what is best. They are best used when both are used together.

Sandown, but let's say a horse is rated 140 on collateral form but not on time ratings. What use is that in reality? As until it actually proves it on the clock we don't know if it can run to that mark. Only an accurate time rating is proof.

Sandown, an example I would give is Battaash. No question that he's a seriously good sprinter and it's great to have a top speedster doing it season after season as he has. But he was beaten twice at Ascot fair and square by Blue Point. I accept that Battaash didn't quite record his best figure in either race. Nevertheless, on the first of those Kings's Stands Blue Point put up a speed figure that Battaash has never come close to equalling. Yet, due to other pieces of collateral form, excuses were made for Battaash and he was rated higher than BP. A travesty as far as I'm concerned, as I know which was the fastest horse, and it was the one that proved it in those races.

https://www.timeform.com/horse-racing/features/previews/aidan-obrien-greatest-racehorses-2932020

Sandown, but let's say a horse is rated 140 on collateral form but not on time ratings. What use is that in reality? As until it actually proves it on the clock we don't know if it can run to that mark. Only an accurate time rating is proo

In the TF top 10 greatest AOB horses they list(see link) Hawk Wing is top on 135 , 2 lb greater than Galileo. That to my mind, is absurd. They also list Rock Of Gibraltar on 133 , a horse who won 7 G1's on the bounce. This horse was a nightmare for me because at that time (2002) I never got a decent time figure for the horse and opposed him almost every time to my cost by others who had better figures. It wasn't just me that never had a decent G1 figure for him.( Racing Post Top Speed best figure was 116 on his 10th run.) So, here is an example where for me the horse never ran to the kind of time figure that matched his collateral form, which shows that it isn't necessary to prove ability on the clock to be rated highly or to win top races.which is why I also use collateral ratings as much as time figures these days.

As for Bataash and Blue Point, their best RPR's are 129 and 127, which is less than one fifth of  a second over 5f so I'm not able to argue the case in either's favour really.

Sandown, I had some decent figures for ROG as a 2yo and a 3yo. Although I can say that ROG as a 3yo never even reached the heights that HW did as a 2yo. And that is even based on figures not skewed with WFA additions. The problem, for me, with Hawk Wing was that in a nutshell, he went slightly backwards from 2 to 3. I use a 100 scale, where most Gp1 older horses will hit 90s figures. Figures of 100+ will rarely be hit. This century the 100 ceiling has only been hit or broken by two horses. One was Frankel, of course, who did it multiple times (he even hit it as a 3yo, which is very freakish), the other was Hawk Wing in the Lockinge.

I believe in measuring a horse's performance against itself (its career profile) as well as against the opposition. Given HW's whole profile it wasn't a total surprise when he bombed out after the Lockinge, and I think we've both said we opposed him next time. As for Galileo, I have him on 85 for his best performance in the Derby (no age or distance allowance included). As he retired as a 3yo there is no way of knowing if he'd have improved 15lbs to match HW, but I'd say it was extremely unlikely.

Soba and Habibti? Caravaggio?

What a great thread,excellent contributions from many,thoroughly enjoyable read.

Figgis. I've been contemplating your remark that "only an accurate time rating is proof (of an ability to run to a mark". I can't deny that a good time rating backs up i.e. proves, a rating. I've said the same thing on this thread. Yet, that isn't all we have to go on these days. I know that you are still somewhat sceptical of the use of sectional times whereas I have been using them for years (in a more useful ratings related form than the current fashion of using % of average pace.)

One example that springs to mind where I ignored the official rating and TS is that of Galileo and the Epsom Derby in 2001. I had an exceptional sectional uplift for Galileo's  run at Leopardstown prior to the Derby. With it, I was able to rate the horse as at least 125+ whereas without it I couldn't get anywhere near that figure. His best RP Top Speed was 82 and his PB RPR prior was 119 (I've looked this up - I didn't use the RP back then!) which made him the best horse in the race for me . With Golan JF a probable non-stayer, I went in very large and to top it up I had it in awin double with  Imagine for the Oaks.I watched the race from the paddock because I could sit down and watch it calmly win comfortably. (It won me a fortune which helpped to establish the pot for my pension so I remember it well. Sorry for the after-timing bragging but it was that important.)

What were your time figures  on Galileo prior to the Derby? Did you back him?

Sandown, I had Galileo down as a likely Derby winner straight from his debut performance. I backed him ante post at 20/1 and 16/1 (which would be impossible these days), but unfortunately I backed him in various classic doubles with other horses, all of which bit the dust. As his price tumbled in the lead up to the race I talked myself out of playing him again. There were excuses for him not being as impressive in the trials as they were slowly run. But as the debut figure was on atrocious ground I reasoned that I didn't want to take a much shorter price without further evidence. Obviously I regretted that decision afterwards.

The way I see things now has changed since those days, so I would like to think I'd play things differently given the same circumstances. Concerning Galileo, on his best form I could only ever rate him the same as O'Brien's other best two Derby winners, High Chaparral and the much maligned Camelot (Camelot went backwards after the Derby). I thought Galileo had a fairly easy task at the weights in the King George and proved he wasn't truly exceptional later against Fantastic Light, who I did back that day. For what it's worth, the highest figure I have for an O'Brien Derby winner is Australia, but that was achieved in the Guineas, and I don't make allowances for distance.

Jun 10, 2021 -- 8:07AM, roadrunner46 wrote:

i dont think there is much between adayer and snowfall, both have a highest top speed of 116 , both rated 123 RPR, only difference is adayer 121 & snowfall 120, having watched those races again, both horses finished like their could be more to come, their racing styles imo they differ slightly, as for the arc as potential targets, would say its a no-brainer backing both of them, without knowing the other horse very well, you have love from last year that was very useful and is rated superior to both at moment

pmsl didnt avail myself of the prices at the time, those prices would be looking very good right now, still a long way off