All fair points and you are clearly more knowledgable than me about all this, I have a lot to learn! I spent ages watching videos of Enable in the run up to this race and thought I noticed something with her action, I do get everything you say though so maybe it isn't anywhere near as clear cut as I thought. I think the softish ground in this one helped find the winner as much for Enable being able to handle it as for it inconveniencing her main market rivals. She's an incredibly well bred horse. And I still think Ulysses ran a hell of a race
I remember one of my old favourites Dream Ahead. Check out the crazy high knee action on him. How he managed to win the July Cup and Sprint Cup on good to firm ground with that action il never know
Bloody hell, some bollocks I've waded through on this thread. The only conclusion I can come to is that you flat lads are a bunch of touchy, sensitive souls
Ah here this thread doesn't have a scratch on all the ****e that's been written about the The New One on here!!!
Pretty sure the stats show that the Arc is a race in which 3yo fillies thrive. That doesn't mean the weight for age allowance - in October - is wrong or in any way unfair. But the records tell the story. 3yolds in general, & 3yo fillies in particular, are certainly at no disadvantage in Europe's greatest race.
You also have to remember, that generally speaking the very best horses get retired at 3. Not in all cases, but generally speaking they do. So you could argue that the very best 3yo is usually a more naturally gifted horse than the very best 4 and 5yo, as the best horses of the older generation are usually at stud by then. A lot of 4 and 5yo are only stilll running, because they didn't prove themselves enough at 3 to be marketable at Stud. All I'm saying is if all horses, raced until they where 4 and 5, maybe the 3yos wouldn't have such a good record in the Arc. Imagine had Sea The Stars had to take on a 4yo Zarkava, or the year after Workforce would have had to face a 4yo Sea The Stars. The 3yo for me definitely wouldn't have such a good record in the race if all horses raced to be 4 and 5. So I'm still not convinced the weight for age is in the favour of the 3yo, I'd still say it slightly suits the older horses. Frankel is a great example of a superstar who was given a chance again at 4, and you could say he was even better at 4. This was without having the advantage of the weight for age allowance he had as a 3yo. Imagine if all 3yo superstars where given a chance as a 4 and 5yo?
Precisely the reason that a lot of us find the flat so lacking in character. There should be a rule that you cannot breed from horses until they are 5. Would make the sport a good deal more interesting!
The same folk being blinded by the lights here too it seems. Can't see the wood for the trees. Shame to let it smoulder out now, carry on please folks
I don't disagree with that at all, it's not a rule that could be realistically enforced though unfortunately. Or geld them all before they first run. Frankel would still be demolitiong them all as a 9yo
Think of the financial implications stick. I like your idea but it's not feasible as long as there's a buck to be made. Partly the reason the flat is always scrutinised to a painstaking dullness, always looking for a superstar which seldom comes to fruition because they are whisked off as quick as they burst onto the scene, often leaving more questions than answers.
He would have made a heck of a 1 mile 7 furlong 112 yard bumper horse on decent ground around Towcester.
I would suggest that you go and watch the Oaks again. They were not “kicking up clads of clay”, they were kicking the rain-moistened turf off the top. The rain does not instantly soak into the ground and make it soft; it takes time. That is why horses that do not want soft ground can still win a race ten minutes after a shower whilst they cannot a couple of hours later when the water has actually soaked in and made the ground softer. This is why jockeys and trainers frequently talk about holding ground when it has rained the day before or overnight and has started to dry out, making the ground sticky.
I guess that is the official handicapper out of a job then. So there will be no more handicaps, just stakes and conditions races: loads of 1/10 favourites hacking up at level weights against horses that have no realistic chance of ever winning a race, one or two decent contests in the season. Rhododendron hardly had the best journey to Epsom for the Oaks and despite her pedigree it may be that she simply did not stay, so Enable was running away from a horse that was stopping in a race that lacked solid Group class competitors (hence the Guineas runner-up being odds on). Rhododendron was subsequently well beaten in the Prix de Diane but nobody is heralding the winner Senga as a superstar.
I'm not quite sure why this thread is still going to be honest. Surely the best horse in the race won? I know we can't always say that about races but this was a pretty easy and convincing win against some very good horses. End of!
I can see why people might want to crab the form; two of the front three in the betting ran like drains, & the only horse to give the winner anything like a race - or threaten to at least - was any price you liked before the stalls opened. However, Ulysses is an improving animal and (narrowly) beat a good one in the Eclipse. If you rate the form through him, it looks strong enough imo. Strong enough to win an Arc? Depends entirely on the rest of the field.
I never mentioned anything about getting rid of handicaps, though that doesn't mean to say the handicapper knows what he's on about. Well the form of the oaks has now been upheld, as she beat Ulysses similar to how she beat Rhodedendron. So you are arguing about something you've already been proved wrong on? Rhodedendron definitely stayed or she wouldn't hand been 6 lengths clear of everything else, she just didn't stay it as strongly as Enable did. a horse who doesn't stay would be along way down the field. As for Rhodedendrons race in France, she was pulled up with 4 furlongs to go, hardly her true running. Probably something not right with her that day.
Before the race, Ulysses was rated 121 (higher than Enable) and the third Idaho was rated 118. If the pair of them ran to that form, then Enable ran to a rating of around 128, making her the best middle distance performer of any age in Europe that has raced this year.
Seems to be one of those mediocre years. Enable seems good, and that was the performance of the year (so far). She may be a 130 filly. That is very good but it is not great. If she is tested more she may prove she is better than that, but on what we've seen so far you can't say more than that.
