golden horn 130 - seems a bit steep

I reckon he's worth 130. First 2 in the Derby pulled well clear, second lagged up in the Irish version and he beat The Grey Gatsby readily enough.

i agree with OP........130 is a litle too high

on what basis do you think the rating is too high?

I'm not so sure.That Eclipse win was hugely impressive....took me back to the King George won by Grundy.

beating the grey gatsby in what was effectively a match was certainly not an improvement on his derby win and yes the epsom form was held up in ireland but that was basically the placed runners from epsom with a few o brien second strings thrown in, hardly a strong boost though.

the true tests will come when he faces better older horses and encounters different going

Same rating as Frankel at 3yo?

TGG is an excellent yardstick (points to 130), only western hymn of the others would point to a slightly lower figure, thats the slide rule approach, the sectional time analysis by simon rowlands suggests this was a well above average eclipse

*eclipse winner

Frankel rating was laughably low if that is the case.

if this was a well above average eclipse (and I'm pretty sure it wasn't - forget times and sectional analysis, if that meant anything then james willoughby would be richest punter in UK and all american races would be won by favs!) then it shows how much this race has fallen over past 10 years when it regularly attracted the best of the older horses, now they're all kept for KG, either of the champions stakes and Arc

no tell a lie, the line through TGG is the most prudent on OR in the race, the rest point to a higher marks

i doubt it was an above average eclipse - and even if it were, then its more a reflection of how far this race has sunk in past 15-20 years as most of the better older horses now follow KG, one of the champions stakes and Arc.  and forget the times and sectional analysis because if that meant anything then james willoughby would be the most successful punter in UK and all american races would be won by the favs with all their beyer ratings

yes

130 definitely too high.Jack Hobbs merely confirmed his own rating of 119 in Ireland and TGG on 123 (and possibly declining)simply confirmed Golden Horn's rating of 126 albeit with possibly a higher rating to come

I doubt it was an above average Eclipse and even if it were then it shows how far this race has sunk in past 15+ years as most of the older horses seem to target KG, one of the champions stakes and then Arc

and forget sectional times and analysis, if they meant anything then JW would be most successful punter in UK and all american races would be won by the favs and the beyer ratings

Jul 7, 2015 -- 1:46PM, HarmonicaPhil wrote:

130 definitely too high.Jack Hobbs merely confirmed his own rating of 119 in Ireland and TGG on 123 (and possibly declining)simply confirmed Golden Horn's rating of 126 albeit with possibly a higher rating to come

? on RPR figs, last 4 runs of TGG on gf in g1 company at 10f are 125,125,126,125, the last 2 of those being his prev 2 races this season

Frankel rating is the one after the Eclipse, not the final one, obviously, but Frankel would still be on the bit while Golden Horn, was 'quickening twice' as I've heard some pre-pubescent pundits say recently, imo...

Jul 7, 2015 -- 1:50PM, Gordon63 wrote:

I doubt it was an above average Eclipse and even if it were then it shows how far this race has sunk in past 15+ years as most of the older horses seem to target KG, one of the champions stakes and then Arcand forget sectional times and analysis, if they meant anything then JW would be most successful punter in UK and all american races would be won by the favs and the beyer ratings

if you read his article you'll see he's gone back as far as mill reef in 1971! for relative comparison, any method of rating horses has its limitations, but when you consider both form and time in conjunction its a stronger argument, I'm certainly not taking the evens for the KG just suggesting the available facts seem to suggest a fair assessment

a slow Dante winner ,an unimpressive derby winner ,quietly hit six times after frankie put his stick down to go clear of the grey goat that needs produced right on the line ,130 ffs ....must be some angry students around

if you take the eclipse as being the time of their rating then I'd have Sea The Stars, Dancing Brave, Pebbles, Brigadier Gerard and Mill Reef all at least 5 lbs clear of Golden Horn and all of them subsequently enhanced their reputations (and possibly ratings too but I don't follow ratings that closely, prefer to rely on my eyes and the form book)

Comfortably beat the world class and consistent The Grey Gatsby , quickening away after a ding dong battle.

Jack Hobbs dotted up in Ireland from the 3rd and 4th in the Derby.

Fully deserving of a high rating.

Thank goodness we have not got another Kris Kin , Shaamit ,  Erhaab ..........

See: Sprinter Sacre

Impressive performances, against not so impressive opposition, seem to get higher and higher ratings in recent years.

Media headlines and media chat attract free publicity and therefore more revenue for Ratings companies.

(It's like those (online) IQ tests where everyone gets a huge score and then ushered to sign up/pay with us for more info)

130 and on a par with frankel

its no wonder that nobody takes their ratings seriously

I presume you are not referring to The Grey Gatsby as 'not so impressive opposition' ?

The most ludicrous one was Master Minded's insane Champion Chase mark.

What on earth would Badsworth Boy have got for an almost double winning margin over the previous years champ .

TGG is a solid horse, worth taking his place in any 1m 2f group 1 race imo but to rate GH at 130 for the manner and distance that he beat TGG is fantasy land imo

The Grey Gatsby: 3 (unfancied) wins from 14 (since it's debut)

3yo's first half season ratings are unreliable, and plus real champions stay in training as 4yo to confirm their ratings. When GH will beat a 5xG1 winner by 5 lengths at the end of July then I'll believe he's capable of at least 130, until then he's just another flash in the pan.

Jul 7, 2015 -- 2:21PM, wondersobright wrote:

TGG is a solid horse, worth taking his place in any 1m 2f group 1 race imo but to rate GH at 130 for the manner and distance that he beat TGG is fantasy land imo

so which horse would you take a line through? if not the ultra consistent TGG, or are you saying all the other horses were below par and just giving the owners a day out?

What ratings did Dancing Brave pulling well away from Tryptych, Nashwan smashing Indian Skimmer and Warning
and Brig Gerard in the mud, get?

"taking a line" through a horse is a fundamentally flawed approach to handicapping
I am not a private handicapper but the BHA marks would be the last place I would look for ratings

as said all methods of measuring ability have limitations, but why do you consider collateral ratings to be 'fundamentally flawed'

Frankel rating is the one after the Eclipse, not the final one, obviously, but Frankel would still be on the bit while Golden Horn, was 'quickening twice' as I've heard some pre-pubescent pundits say recently, imo...


Frankel never ran in the Eclipse.
Surely you mean 130 was allotted to Frankel after the 2000G?

He then went on to beat Zoffany a half length beating and stayed on 130.
Only when he beat Canford Cliffs was he upped to 135.

You can`t mock Golden Horn being rated 130. The Derby form is probably close to 130, where was Frankel in his Derby?

sixtwosix
sixtwosix 07 Jul 15 14:15 Joined: 23 Jan 06 | Topic/replies: 13,964 | Blogger: sixtwosix's blog
Comfortably beat the world class and consistent The Grey Gatsby , quickening away after a ding dong battle.

World class my @rse

not all horses run to their form on any given occasion - the track, distance, going, weather, hormones (especially for fillies/mares), jockey, fitness are all variables which will have an influence, therefore when you are taking TWO or more horses then you are multiplying the variables - i'd say something close to fundamentally flawed

Jul 7, 2015 -- 2:42PM, Rider wrote:

as said all methods of measuring ability have limitations, but why do you consider collateral ratings to be 'fundamentally flawed'

rider, it is flawed because if you are wrong on the horse you are using as a yardstick, then all of your ratings will be wrong

there is a lot more evidence available in a race than using 1 horse as a guide

You can`t mock Golden Horn being rated 130. The Derby form is probably close to 130,

some of us indeed are and time will tell

Jul 7, 2015 -- 2:46PM, wondersobright wrote:

Jul  7, 2015 --  2:42PM, Rider wrote:as said all methods of measuring ability have limitations, but why do you consider collateral ratings to be 'fundamentally flawed'rider, it is flawed because if you are wrong on the horse you are using as a yardstick, then all of your ratings will be wrongthere is a lot more evidence available in a race than using 1 horse as a guide

couldnt agree more wondersobright if it was true but thats no the way it works,

TGG is very consistent and had conditions to suit, but he could have under performed and thats why the method of collateral form takes into consideration other horses who pointed to a winning rating of 133,137 and 132, so 130, as said, is the most pessimistic view, to suggest they all didnt run a race is possible but unlikely

western hymn - 1 x G2, 3 x G3
cougar mountain - no group wins
the grey gatsby - 2 x G1, 1 x G2 (incidentally all when ridden by ryan moore)
tullius - 1 x G2, 1 x G3

all decent horses but proven highly beatable and defeating them does not warrant 130 and beating jack hobbs (twice), storm the stars and giovanni cannaletto doesn't either

that being said many derby winners never win another race, so he's better than many

rider...it works exactly how I explained, all you have done is repeated the method for all horses in the race

you haven't even considered how the race was run, sectional times etc
that is what I am talking about when I said there is a lot more evidence available in a race than using 1 horse's rating as a guide

I don't dispute the figures you have put up...hope you can see how 1 dimensional they are

gordon,  western hymn is a group 2 winning horse who ran almost exactly to form with TGG for his group 1 ascot running, 10f on gf, (if you consider TGG didnt get a clear run)...

if only all races were this straight forward

yes time will tell - sure the owner is delighted at the rating and only makes retirement this year more likely

i think this particular rating is more about potential than substance, I simply don't believe either the derby or eclipse warrant a 130 rating in comparison to some of the champions mentioned earlier in this thread

Jul 7, 2015 -- 3:09PM, wondersobright wrote:

rider...it works exactly how I explained, all you have done is repeated the method for all horses in the raceyou haven't even considered how the race was run, sectional times etcthat is what I am talking about when I said there is a lot more evidence available in a race than using 1 horse's rating as a guideI don't dispute the figures you have put up...hope you can see how 1 dimensional they are

i stated the case for sectional times and it approves

but lets consider them in the context of these collateral ratings, the race was tactical and run at a steady pace (compared to the winning time of the 10f handicap), anyone who follows racing knows that slow run races can result of the rags finishing closer to the winner than they should (or would do in a truly run race), so if anything the other horses are potentially flattered by their proximity to the winner and therefore makes the collateral ratings potentially more meritous and not detrimental

Jul 7, 2015 -- 3:18PM, Gordon63 wrote:

yes time will tell - sure the owner is delighted at the rating and only makes retirement this year more likelyi think this particular rating is more about potential than substance, I simply don't believe either the derby or eclipse warrant a 130 rating in comparison to some of the champions mentioned earlier in this thread

the rating fits together like a jigsaw ffs

have you ever rated a race?

no but sea the stars, dancing brave, pebbles, brigadier gerard and mill reef would all beat golden horn over 1m to 1m4f

so if golden horn had gone off harder he would have beaten them further?

you are talking out of your fkin arse my friend

have a good day

wonderbright one minute you point to the sectional times (or pace) affecting the accuracy of the collateral rating then when your logic is applied and doesnt work for you you suddenly do a u turn,

anyway look on the bright side, i'm sure golden horn will get beaten at some point and you'll be able to claim you were right all along, rotfl

Remember this is the forum that rated Sire De Grugy 180+ for winning a 3 runner handicap.

The rating is not far off I dont think all things considered, the farcical race scenario and WFA in the Eclipse muddies the water but I think had he been allowed to race more naturally off the Championship gallop that you normally get in the Eclipse, he would have won in a more visually impressive manner and by further.

128 seems about right to me but he could improve on that in a properly run King George, 130-132 potential in that race. The POW and Queen Anne form got destroyed in the Eclipse, two of the best races for older horses first half of the season, and with the Derby form backing up in the Irish equivalent its hard to argue against a high rating at the minute, there isnt a horse in Europe just now who would beat Golden Horn on a conventional track.

Golden Horn, Gleneagles and Jack Hobbs appear to be a level above any of the older horses who admittedly, are nothing special. I think Golden Horn will win the King George and Jack Hobbs the Arc and they will both end up overrated as a result of the lack of quality in the divisions .

yeah, sire de grugy one hundred and eighty was a particular highlight of last season
using v similar principles as demonstrated on this thread...x beat y 10 lengths therefore its rating is z...bowlarks

i think solow, treve, free eagle and any number of potential Japanese/Australian challengers will have a say in who ends up winning the major autumn races.

The POW and Queen Anne form got destroyed in the Eclipse, two of the best races for older horses first half of the season, and with the Derby form backing up in the Irish equivalent its hard to argue against a high rating at the minute, there isnt a horse in Europe just now who would beat Golden Horn on a conventional track.

it really doesn't matter the 'prestige' of the race, i doubt anyone considers TGG, WH, CM or T as champions so until and unless GH beats one who is, then for me he's behind some of the eclipse winners I've mentioned and far behind many of the KG/Champion Stakes/Arc winners. let's hope he gets a chance to prove himself worthy of the rating because till now i can't see it