Review of the 2015 Epsom Derby

So many of us felt that this year we were about to witness a poor Derby. Having watched the race and had time to reflect on the results of the day I thought it might be worth getting some reactions from our learned members. In fact, I'll include the not so learned so that I can join in.

My thoughts are as follows.

At the time of the year a 3yo should be receiving 19lb from a 4yo.that is the equivalent of 11 lengths (approx) or nearly 2 secs

Today we had the Coronation Cup, with 2 group 1 winners run in 2m 33.76s (fast by 0.74s).

Golden Horn won the Derby in 2m 32.32s (fast by 2.18s) - carrying the same weight as the winner of the Coronation Cup. So if we adjust that timing for WFA then, by interpolation, we can speculate that Golden Horn's time was the equivalent of over 4 secs faster than standard.

In other words had Golden Horn been running in a "hypothetical" Coronation Cup today, benefiting from WFA, he would have won by over 20l.

Put like that and given the way he won that must give him one hell of a chance in any WFA contest.

Although well beaten today, Jack Hobbs will run much better on an easier surface and a less undulating track and he is still improving. So there is every chance we will have 2 live candidates in the Arc this year

What do you folk think?

 

I would not read too much into those calculations Ron as the Coronation Cup was a four runner affair with little pace on whilst the Derby had Hans Holbein make it a testing gallop.

My view is that Golden Hawn looks good but not much better at this stage, I am always careful not to get carried away with Derby winners immediately afterwards as they often turn out ordinary. What is clear is that he could have done no more nor any more easily than he has been asked so far. My main reason for questioning the form is I am not of the opinion that much else behind him looks much good at all. The proximity of Storm the Stars did not please me as his form does not hold up to classic standard.

I would put him in the mid quality of Derby winners at present - I don't think we have seen a superstar ( Shergar) but nor a fortunate to win a Derby horse (Sir Percy). What is exciting is that we have alive contender for the big races to look forward to. I would love to see a 10f race against Gleneagles and a 12f race against Treve as Golden Hawn has made very clear that he will test those two.

 

This

Could happen in the Coral Ecilpse. You can be sure Coolmore will be gunning to bring down another son of Cape Cross (just as they kept banging their head against a brick wall taking on Sea the Stars!). I would probably lean towards the Guineas winner as I feel he SHOULD stay the trip and being a top miler I'd expect him to have the better turn of foot. Golden Horn seen out the Derby trip so well if he was unsuccessful he could clean up the King George, possibly Juddmonte, then take on the Queen in her own back yard.

I hold my hands up the winner looks pretty dam good, but similar to last year, the race itself may not have been that strong. I'm not sold on Jack Hobbs being a proper Grade One horse. When he wins one I may change my view, but until then I'm not convinced.

 

I'm not reading too much into the calculations Blue; I never do. But, whichever way you look at it:
(a) the Coronation Cup was run in a pretty fast time so the sectionals will be interesting. I don't think they were hanging about in the last half mile and neither of the favs could give any more.
(b) 20l is a fair old amount to account for
(c) the Derby was run in a very fast time and donkeys don't run fast

We all agreed that Golden Horn was the class act but had doubts about the stamina. To run the Derby in that time there can be no stamina doubts. So the way i look at it Golden Horn could win a tactical 12f race because he has the speed to win a G1 over 10f and he could win a truly run 12f race because he has proved he can get from a to b faster than most Derby winners (only 2 in the last 60 years have done it faster).

Whatever anyone says against times it can not be disputed that for anything to have beaten Golden Horn today they would have had to have run it in a faster time (probably close to the fastest in 60 years)

 

I can't get too caught up in times Ron as you may recall my wayward Guineas bet on Intikhaab which was not only based on a visually impressive maiden win but the fact that his time over that mile was only bettered by a 10th of a second (Mister Baileys) when compared to every 2000 guineas winner since the race began in 1066 and only one horse in Rakti had ever won the Group one Lockinge over the same course and distance also. If times were really that relevant he would have beaten Gleneagles cold. As it is the record holders of the Guineas in the afore mentioned Mister Baileys and Workforce are not really in the top 10 - 20 winners of either race by most measurements that would hold water with regard overall form lines.

If we take the Guineas I would not back old Mr Baileys to beat Gleneagles once if they ran the race 20 time in a row, yet the record books suggest he would have beaten him, whilst I would also have Shergar over workforce despite being over 12 seconds slower, See the stars and Sinndar were over 5 seconds slower but I would also have them any time.

When I look at form I like a visual to provide an overall feel of the win and the race, and then I like that to be backed up by the form book with regard who was behind. If both these things check out then I don't mind what the watch says. Princess's way of measuring the form of a race is the best I have come across, in which the amount of victories in Group company of the horses behind is measured. Golden Hawn will hopefullyget to prove himself, Imagine how his form would look if beating Gleneagles and Treve ? two multiple group one winning horses, should he go on to run with credit but no more in another 3 races this year then we can only summise that he was best on Derby Day in 2015.

 

Agreed comparing times over decades is pretty meaningless Blue and was only put in for "effect", appreciating that the name Workforce would quickly come forward . A time only shows what a horse is capable of and is no indication of what it may achieve subsequently on a different course, different conditions or, indeed, in a race run differently. Similarly, the fact that a horse wins in a slow time does not mean it can't run faster, although it probably does if every time it runs in a faster race it finishes down the field.

But comparing times with all other races of the day on the same course with identical conditions can't be dismissed out of hand, especially if there are significant differences. I can't knock an exceptional time unless it was assisted by favourable conditions.(eg following wind, ground so fast that the relative times are not significant).

Until evidence to the contrary emerges, the time of the race, the way in which the race was run and the manner of Golden Horn's victory leads me to believe that this was not an average performance.

However, history shows that sometimes, a very fast run race on a fast surface can have a lasting effect on a horse and the performance may never be repeated. So we will have to see how he comes out of the race and how he performs next time.

 

Very interesting thread, the time figures are intriguing. The first two are very good racehorses, no doubt about that. I have a gut feeling , though, that the winner might be caught out over this distance on softish ground, that's if they ever run him on it?

 

Agreed Swanny. I had the same view about Sea The Stars but he was never subjected to it. I suspect if the first 2 ever met on softish ground Jack Hobbs would reverse the placings.

That is one of the difficulties of comparing "Greats".. Some of the candidates were never subjected to distance/surfaces where it was conceivable they might be beaten.

 

Virtually every year before the race the Derby is talked down as being of poor standard. After the race if the winner put up a good performance it is the next Nijinsky.

Time will tell. The test that actually matters is when the three year old meets the older horses. They have a proven track record against which the Classic generation can be measured.

There is no surprise that the time for the Derby was fast because there were effectively two pacemakers. As they left the gate heading uphill for the first half mile, Elm Park would not settle, pulled his way to the front and lit up the expected front-runner Hans Holbein. The pair of them cut each other’s throats until Andrea Atzeni finally managed to get his charge to switch off, leaving Hans Holbein with the lead. His chance had realistically gone also because he kept going full tilt and it was obvious as they rounded Tattenham Corner that the winner (whoever it might be) was going to come from the back because those up front had gone too fast.

It is impossible to make any comparison with the Coronation Cup because that was effectively run like a French race. Dolniya set a pace to suit herself because the field was devoid of any pacesetter. The fact that the time was quick was more down to the resultant sprint to the line, which clearly worked in favour of the winner Pether’s Moon.

Just to pour some cold water on the stopwatch addicts, Workforce won the 2010 Derby by seven lengths in 2:31.33, which was five seconds faster than New Approach (2008) and Sea The Stars (2009) but we know the pecking order of those three colts.

Once Golden Horn has raced against his elders, we will be able to properly gauge whether he is top drawer (as a basic time and distance assessment of the Derby suggests) or whether this year’s three-year-olds are a mediocre bunch and he is the best of them. Remember how wonder horse Camelot dodged the top older horses all season because I think that they secretly knew that he was not all that great but after defeat in his Triple Crown attempt in the St Leger he was well beaten in the Arc on his first meeting with his elders.

Looking at the bare form of the Derby, the first two were the same first two as in the Dante Stakes but with the margin increased by the greater distance. Accepting that they will both have put up an improved performance and that the third seems to be improving with each race, there have to be big question marks against the early season form that most of the others brought into the race. The trouble with much of it was the slow ground in April and May compared with the comparatively quick ground they encountered at Epsom.

I would not be in any hurry to back 7/1 Golden Horn for the Arc at this stage as I think he may turn out to be best on quick ground during the summer months and by October he will have been on the go for a long time and possible soft ground at Longchamp may be one race too far. That said, I could have backed Golden Horn at 20/1 for the Derby on 17th April but I did not think he would stay as well as not holding an entry...

 

Certainly have to agree with most of those comments, QMII. However, not worried about your cold douche, as I never ignore fast times, whichever way they are achieved (the comparison with the Coronation is of no consequence in this instance IMO). This was quite an impressive Derby, but, as you point out, we just have to wait a bit to be absolutely sure.

 

Interesting thread. Could be a very good horse, we'll wait and see. the 4yos do not look that strong.I was on the side of the non-stayers and he clearly stayed 12f better than anyone else.
While I agree Sea the Stars was a FAR better horse than Workforce, he was no camel. He did win an Arc and he probably would have won 3 or so of the other Derbies of the 2000s.

 

Quite and it makes one wonder how some of the other Derbies may have finished had they been run at the same pace.

I used to win any "distance" race if there was no mad early pace because I could wind up the pace in the later stages and out-sprint over the final 200 yards. However when upped in grade and they went a bloody fast pace from outset it was a completely different story.

It is easy to get a false impression of a horse's ability when it competes and wins "impressively" in races that are not truly run. If they never prove they can do it in a truly run race we can only speculate as to what may have happened in races run at a fast pace, resulting in fast times.

Strange how we never have this aversion to the clock in athletics

 

That's right Ron. The clock is important but maybe it's just one factor. Everyone seems to think Frankel could not be beaten yet he never broke a course record.

I think this was a true run Derby on proper going and he had the class and speed to do it in a fast time. No reason to believe he can't win other ways and on other goings.

Strange sire Cape Cross. He's now had 3 Epsom classic winners yet he's not a sire people tend to get excited about..

 

Analysis:

(+)
Best horse romps in and makes mockery of stamina doubters.
Great ride from Dettori, who has been back to his best this season, whether you like him or not.
Visually impressive, has gears.

(-)
Storm The Stars in 3rd will produce form questions before we get the answers against the older brigade and/or those who swerved the Derby (Zawraq, Sir Isaac Newton, and even Gleneagles?)

 

I was not suggesting that Workforce was a bad horse merely that clocking a quick time does not make a horse great. I deliberately picked the two horses that won the Derby in the previous seasons because their best performances were not at Epsom and their Derbies were appreciably slower.

Workforce ended up with a rating of 128 for winning the Arc but was rated 126 for winning the Derby. Sea The Stars ended up with a rating of 136 for winning the Irish Champion but was rated 131 for winning the Arc and the Eclipse, 121 for winning the 2000 Guineas and 124 for winning the Derby.

 

How many course records did Sea Bird II or Shergar hold? Many of the top horses never got anywhere near course records because they won so easily that they were not ridden out to the line. Plus if they do not make the running themselves, the race time is dependent upon how quickly the others went.

Remember the 1975 King George – hat-trick seeking Dahlia was beaten five lengths into third but still broke the old course record because Dick Hern had employed two pacemakers for Bustino.

I am not so sure that Storm The Stars effort in finishing third was necessarily grounds for crabbing the form. The horse has put in markedly improved performances with each race this year. The day that Golden Horn won the Feilden, he was beaten in the following maiden race. After winning in a poor Leicester maiden race, he finished a close second on soft ground in the Chester Vase and then won the Cocked Hat at Goodwood.

 

Possibly. Only time will tell but I think that will be the consensus until we see otherwise

Would be nice to see a big field in an Eclipse and a Juddmonte for once- here's hoping

 

If this article on SportingLife.com is correct, Sandown is the next stop for the Derby winner.

For the Eclipse I would be delighted to see those quoted in the sponsors betting show up! We would have a clash between the Prix Du Jockey Club winner New Bay and the Epsom Derby winner Golden Horn for starters. Throw in the 2000 Guineas winner Gleneagles and how about the evergreen Cirrus Des Aigles. I bet the ticket prices have gone up since I got mine!

I note that on Oddschecker the favourite for the Irish Derby is now Zawraq ahead of Jack Hobbs but Golden Horn is not quoted.

 

If the races were in relatively slow times and there was nothing in the race to push the leading contenders any faster, maybe that could indicate that the opposition was pretty poor?

Here is an interesting question (well I found it interesting) - in 2 parts (cough)

Had the first 3 in the Coronation Cup been allowed to run in the Derby this year, giving away WFA, and the race being run exactly as it was, how do you think they would have fared? Had they managed to finish in front of Golden Horn, what rating might they have been allocated by (say) Timeform as a result?