As Twain said, it is difference of opinion that makes horse races. As I do not know the world horse population, I could not comment on the latter hyperbole, but I did quite clearly identify it as such. Virtually every season some football commentator will declare that they have seen the greatest goal ever scored or the greatest performance by a player but within moments everyone will have forgotten it. No different in horse racing. Pinatubo was going to be the next Frankel.
Holding Racing Post ratings in no particular regard, why would I care about their assessment after the fact? Clearly you feel that I was referring specifically to you when I stated “some will crab her achievement” in completing the King George hat-trick or perhaps you just did not read what I wrote. I was only referring to the circumstance of her victory – no British opponents, a three runner field – not the manner of her victory. The record book will show “2020 winner Enable (3 ran)”. As I do not back odds-on in any circumstance, I have done nothing but watch most of Enable’s career rather than profiting from wagering on her.
Clearly you seem to have done little actual reading of my post where I made my observations about the race, which included my disagreeing with a couple of your observations. I am not sure how that constitutes a ‘rant’ or what was illogical about them. This is supposed to be a debating forum. Perhaps you should learn to read what is being written rather than just cherry-picking a few words so that you can tell me how wrong I am by quoting third party opinions as rebuttal to things that I never stated. I think I can fairly say that other contributors here do value your racing assessments but not everyone is commenting through their pocket.
Sorry to be guilty of cherry-picking two questions from a post that you addressed to Grendel. I wait to be proven wrong when the horse next runs, but I do not believe that Serpentine will win another race unless he turns up and proves that he is above average. He got a soft lead in the Derby and took full advantage of the other jockeys’ stupidity. Had he run in the King George, Dettori would have used him as a pacemaker and the race would have turned out as it did. I do not know why English King was stood in his box on Saturday but I am of the opinion that we may find that this year’s Classic generation are an ordinary bunch and their trainers are avoiding the older horses for as long as possible because WFA favours them more as the season progresses. It will be interesting to see what happens in the Sussex Stakes that currently could see two Classic winners facing the best of the older milers, although as usual they are the late developers because the Classic winners are packed off to stud. In theory, Love and Enable will clash in the Yorkshire Oaks. I wonder how many others will be in the field. If Gosden and O’Brien do not run two or three each in pursuit of black type, it could degenerate into a virtual match. It could make for an interesting tactical affair or Frankie could end up making the fractions and showing the three year old a clean pair of hooves if she is ordinary.
That's easy. Put them in a race together where the distance and conditions do not favour either, on level weights; see who wins
Exactly my point. Times are irrelevant in many occasions. In those two times you've got Enable as horse A and the 80 odd rated winner of the race after (carrying more weight) being faster by 6 lengths in the last 3 furlongs.
Probably the most ridiculous sentence ever written on this forum! I dont believe Jesus will turn up again....unless of course he does and proves me wrong!
Which one of those timings is horse A Nass? Enable was carrying effectively about 5lb less and completed the 12f in the best part of 6 seconds faster time. Incidentally, I wouldn't be surprised to see that 88 rated handicapper on a higher rating. That horse is unsuited to undulating tracks yet last year ran Logician to 7l at Newmarket, having started slowly. He will win again on a galloping track Re comparing the times from different years. Pretty pointless if you look at all the historic times of the KG which vary by about 20 secs with plenty of highly rated horses achieving slower times than yesterday's KG (ran in driving rain)
Enable was the horse with the slower final 3 furlongs. The point being that if you only take one aspect of a race at face value you can get to a very different answer than what you actually see.
Cheers. So horse A is horse 2. So what you are saying is that despite running the race in almost 6 secs slower than Enable, and Enable's last 2f being the fastest recorded in a KG, the handicapper ran 6l faster than Enable over the last 3f. I've forgotten what 6l equates to in seconds but, given the first part of the KG was fairly slow, I can only conclude that there is money to be made backing this handicapper in running in a race that has had no pace and where he is within a few lengths of the front with 3f to go. That is the only conclusion I would draw from the interesting data supplied
It shows that this stupid thing about Enable being fastest ever last two furlongs is a ridiculous statement to use to suggest how well she has run. She ran it slower than a 80 odd rated handicapper over same CD on the same card.
On the other hand Nass, you have to put that in the context of the handicapper's time over the 12f was nearly 6 seconds slower. Did they walk the first 10f in that handicap? Based on these little exchanges we are having, we agree on one thing; times are irrelevant taken out of context
Yes they did, from the stalls to 6 furlongs from home = Enable - King George - 73.99 seconds Look Closely - Handicap - 78.98 seconds Then Enable ran three quick furlongs to dominate the King George, whilst in the handicap they crawled further and only went fast in the final 3 or so furlongs. The 2 mile handicap that closed the card was the opposite in that they went very hard throughout the earlier stages of the race and the winner ripped the field apart with a taking performance.
You make me feel as though I said it, not Brough Scott on ITV! However, from me, I have never believed that so-called 'sectionals' mean a bloody thing in UK and Irish racing, mainly because of the extreme differences in the conformation of tracks. Left-hand, right-hand, galloping, sharp, fair and flat, undulating, and God knows what. How on earth can 'sectionals' be of much use overall? USA and Canada, that's a different kettle of fish. I did use 'sectionals' in Canada when I lived there, and had some good successes 'place' and 'show' betting using a pretty hefty stake. Worked on this with a good pal who was an honours maths guy at the University of Alberta. He did the quick calculating at the track's odds board, as I was in no way quick enough! However, we got terribly 'wounded' one awful day when our choice for a 'show' broke its leg in the back straight at Edmonton. We both had $500 (a bunch of money in those days) on the 'show', so we were badly bruised after this race. It was pretty awful to see the accident too (slow to put the screens up), as one was very close to the action at this small racecourse, only a bit bigger than a greyhound track. Just a general opinion from me. Workwise, spent far too much time in some strange places abroad to even start to continue being seriously interested in horseracing. When I was in Kingston to visit my mum, usually managed a bit of racing. Used to go early, buy a Raceform and a Timeform, and sit-down in the Tatts restaurant and try to work things out. Very enjoyable!
And Grendel accused me of being pedantic... What was ridiculous about stating my opinion that the horse will not win again but giving the caveat that the horse could be better than current evidence suggests, in which case it could prove me wrong? Jesus will not turn up again – you can have an Even £10,000 with me that he will not be seen in your lifetime (unless you are referring to the Man City forward). At best he was a carpenter and a magician who some numpties told stories about that eventually got written down in the most enduring work of fiction known to man. Jesus Christ v David Icke for the undisputed Son of God title sounds like a fight nobody is interested in seeing. God clearly does not think much of his followers. He has rained down the plague on them and a fifth of his devoted staff at Westminster Abbey now face time on the dole because of it.
