I expect Nathaniel to be rated at one of the lowest King George winners we have seen in many years reflecting a view many clearly hold about the race and how it unfolded. He may go on to prove he is class and improve on that rating but he has'nt done it today, which is not his fault. What he has done today is come out on top on a very unsatisfactory race.
Shergar, you're probably right that the best horse won on the day. Re. there being only five runners and your point about "the massive gap between the cream and the rest," I should put it somewhat differently. Firstly, the number of horses that make up "the cream" has seriously declined in quantity. Secondly, this "cream" has gone sour- in this century, I think only Harbinger, Sea The Stars, and Hawkwing are rated in Timeform's top 100 'All-time Highweights." I'm not pushing Timeform as the ultimate guide, but simply using it to indicate that the overall quality of top flat racehorses is in decline. Thirdly, the minuscule number of races the top horses run is, putting it mildly, laughable. We all know the logic of "whipping them off to stud as soon as possible," but that's not working either, is it, vis-a-vis the end results on the racecourse? Maybe one of the major reasons is the Sangster/O'Brien and Sheikh Mohammed consortia cornering the breeding market from the seventies onwards- resulting in an exclusivity beyond the reach of ordinary breeders and owners. Let's face it, if Coolmore and Godolphin closed down their operations and went out of racing altogether, what would remain of flat racing? It used to be the "Sport of Kings," but now it's the "Sport of Magnier versus Mohammed." You take a view as to whether they're good for racing or, as a friend of mine said when all seven runners ar Ascot about fifteen years ago were owned by the Mohammeds- "that's ultimately the death knell." Yes, we do have to accept matters as they stand- and enjoy racing for 'what it is.' Sadly, for me personally, flat racing just doesn't give me the same feel and buzz it used to. What do you think?
The Stewards enquired into the fall of Frankie Dettori, the rider of REWILDING, two furlongs out. Having viewed the video recording of the incident, they were satisfied that the fall was caused by REWILDING sustaining an injury and that no other horse or jockey was involved. bha website. bluesky9, i expect nathaniel to go to 127 ,sna stays on 123,workforce as then ran to 124ish,seems about right to me.
If Nathaniel is a 127 horse then I am giving up on the official handicapper completely. In regards the stewards they are only talking about the cause of the fall and the reasons behind it and not its likely impacts on other horses. There role is to find out why it happened, which they have done. For what its worth I wouldn't rate either SNA or Workforce as running to their marks, both had excuses in regards the pace and I think the handicapper will have to suggest that its nearly impossible to give the winner a true rating on that run. I still think he is no better than a 120 horse at the minute given that So You Think is a 126 horse and Frankel is rated 122 and finally Fame And Glory 120.
Well it's all been said really, and a few times over. I made sure that I logged on to the replay of the race, without knowing the result. The first couple of furlongs shocked me. What the f**k was going on? Godolphin enter a pace setter and then are reticent to use him. They amble around most the course, then sprint home. The winner was the only horse in the race with a half decent turn of speed, when full pressure was applied. Nathaniel's turn of foot left the rest in his wake. Workforce stayed like an unwanted mother in-law, but sprinting is not his go. If he's to be seen at his best, he needs the pace to on from the get go. Yesterday's race can be forgotten as an Arc form guide, but I have to say that for me, he's quickly becoming a bit of enigma. As for poor Rewilding, I'll long remember him. His demise was sickening to watch and does nothing to advance the lot of racing to the greater public. If an unknown horse perishes in a non event in the sticks, it goes into history almost without a mention. I can almost hear the gasps of relief of the powers that be when nothing is raised on a front page. But when an animal loses it's life in the glare of the spotlight, racing comes off as being little more than brutal and self serving to the public at large.
nass, isnt frankel 130??? i thought SYT is beyond 126 as he beat workforce who is still 128? its 128 WF and SNA 124 yesterday so if SNA as ran tthat,then nathaniel must be 127 with WF running below form as what looks very likely?
http://www.britishhorseracing.com/goracing/blogs/head_of_handicapping.asp SNA didn't run to a mark of 124, not a chance. To suggest that you would have to suggest that he matched his performance in the Coronation at Epsom, and did so in a race that was falsely run and looked not to suit his style. I can't have this at all and I think this years King George has a bit of a parallel with its previous renewal. Both small field races, with a very impressive winner who won because he was the best horse in the race, be it how the race panned out or because they were the best. Their form is hard to find a level with because of how the race unfolded, this year because of the pace and last year because of horses running badly. You can suggest as you are doing, that both winners were of a very good level, Harbinger 135 and you are suggesting Nathaniel at 127. The bare form previous to the race suggests that both would have had to improve by a stone to get to their marks. Harbinger is a case that we will never be able to test, but at least with Nathaniel we hopefully will get to see him test his mark. He could be that good, but for me he has to be a major doubt at the minute (bear in mind I marked him as the St Leger winner after his defeat earlier in the season). To put Nathaniel in context, he lost to Treasure Beach who went on to win the Irish Derby and finish placed at Epsom and is rated 120. Is Nathaniel really worthy of 7 lengths on the official handicap against Treasure Beach?
I know nothing about the ratings, but I find it hard to believe that as things stand now, Treasure beach could beat Nathaniel. I think that the latter has come on in leaps and bounds. The fact that they paid a small fortune to get him into the race, suggests that the stable probably thinks the same.
ok wasnt aware they used 1.75 per length over 10f(used in the eclipse),thought it was 3lb for sprints 2lb for milers and 1lb for middle distance.
Cyc, I don't disagree that Nathaniel probably would beat Treasure Beach, but I don't think in the races since their meeting we have seen anything to suggest that Nathaniel could beat him by 7 lengths. That is to say that he would have to improve 7+ lengths more in the period than Treasure Beach has, and I think the form of both show they are both progressing very nicely. I think I would have to put them on similar ratings for what they have achieved given the nature of the race yesterday and the way Treasure Beach raced at both Epsom and in Ireland.
You know more about this than I Nass. I just have a problem with the way the race was run yesterday. On what we saw, I really can't see Treasure Beach getting close to either Nathaniel or Workforce. I don't know what to make of St Nicholas Abbey (rider aside but I have to believe that he'd give Treasure Beach a towelling.
I largely agree with Tam's view on the whole thing. Farcical race really. Unfortunate for the winner it won't be remembered for his win but the sickening sight of Rewilding losing his life in the spotlight like that. The way I feel at the present time I'm sufficiently uninterested in the outcome to debate the merits or not of the winner. A race I'll look to forget. P.S. So as not to offend posters I am not seeking to belittle anyone else who are debating the race it's just my personal views are I don't wish to.
Nathaniel won a race because a horse hung worse than I've ever seen in a long time and another tragically died! Not to mention he was receiving nearly a stone in age allowance in the process! Very forgetable with what happened but well done to the winner for what that was worth!
Very sad end to a good race, Nathaniel will go well in the Arc if he gets his ground. He is continuing to improve and Mr Gosden doesnt throw supplementary money away very often
I think it will be very interesting to see what the handicapper does with the race. Workforce supposedly ran to 124 in the Eclipse (but still rated 128) and it is perfectly feasible to argue that he ran to the same mark at the weekend. SNA (rated 123) was a length and a quarter behind. They both could have run to those sort of marks, and therefore Nathaniel has to be given a mark of around 126. I don't think this is ludicrous because he is undoubtedly improving at a rapid rate. The course at Chester was never going to play to his strengths so i think it is perfectly reasonable that he can have improved to a significantly higher mark. And it is also fairly straightforward to argue the opposite. I am merely playing devil's advocate!
Zenyatta, there appears to be some confusion about ratings in this discussion. The official BHA ratings are a best performance system for the top horses and they do not get revised downwards with each performance like the normal handicap system. Once a horse achieves a rating of 120 or more they do not get revised downward until the end of the year. Workforce's 128 rating comes from last season. He has not run to that mark this season yet. No matter what mark the other three finishers are rated to after the King George, Nathaniel must have achieved a performance worth a mark of more than 122 in winning by two and three quarter lengths, so he did put in the best performance by a three-year-old middle distance horse in Europe this year. There ought to be general agreement that Nathaniel has improved significantly with each performance this campaign as on the official ratings going into Saturday's race, he was rated at least seven pounds behind the favourite and gave him a beating worth around three pounds in receipt of the accepted weight-for-age allowance. Flyingbolt is entitled to his opinion that Workforce lost the race by taking a left turn inside the distance but personally I do not think that he would have bridged the gap to the winner, which was not stopping.
Sorry for not expressing myself clearly. I know that Workforce's 128 comes from last year, i was merely confirming that he ran below his mark in the Eclipse (trip too short, ground too firm etc.), and that the handicapper still believed him capable of the 128 of last year. However, he appears to have ran well below that rating once more so perhaps it might be revised on this occasion? The 'normal handicap system' is exactly the same as 'BHA ratings'. They are both handicap marks determined by the BHA's team of handicappers. It is also the case that a 'normal handicap' rating is not necessarily revised downwards after a defeat. Obviously the 'ratings' for the top horses will never be used as a handicap mark in a handicap race because those horses will always contest the top level weights races.
if there is some clever maths people out there,using Pythagoras theory and using youtube/atr replays, it would be so invaluable how exactly many lengths workforce lost by his diagonal move. no one it seems as a clue how many actually lengths he lost by drifting?also the winner drifted,but not as bad??? if for example workforce drifted 25 meters across 200 meters out it works out to 1.5 meters (about a length) he lost ,which seems lenient.if he did this over 2f out(400 meters) the ground loss would seem excessive. to me he drifted in different stages where's 2.5f (500m) from home ,he went a bit across(1/10th approx).from 2f to 1f (400m) he drifted to about 4/10ths approx of the track and inside the final furlong(200m) he was almost on the other rail (9/10ths).he lost by 2.75 lengths but how much can we say he lost by not running straight?????????
Can I just get something off my chest, ratings are a load of bollocks and mean absolutely nothing, they are someone else's opinion of a horse. Any serious punter should have there own opinions on horses ability's and not follow the ratings system like a flock of sheep. Seriously all this if horse A is rated 122 and horse B is rated 128, then horse B should win by 6 lengths is absolute tripe. End of the day Nathaniel did not win a sprint race they still clocked 2.35 on soft ground so the finish was not under any circumstances a sprint, maybe it was more like the finish to a 10 or 11f race but it certainly wasn't like a 5 or 6f sprint as some donuts are suggesting. Workforce and SNA all have form over shorter, in G1s were as Nathaniel doesn't, so the argument is a pointless one. Flyingbolt.....Do me a favour, Workforce was never getting to Nathaniel, and Buick was even dragging Nathaniel to the stands side as Workforce hung to make sure his horse seen Workforce, as he knew if his mount was challenged he had more in the locker to battle, what he didn't want is his horse idling thinking the race is won and Workforce getting past on the stands side. Just face it the best horse won the race fair and square, just like I told everyone he would
Shergar, since you don't appreciate my cynical humour and are now referring to me as a "donut," I shall now award you the BAFTA award - for tipping the winner of a three horse race and telling everyone twice in the same Article......"just like I told everyone he would " Well done PS. For the uninitiated, BAFTA stands for "BLOW A F-CKING TRUMPET AGAIN."
