I base very little credence on times in racing at all and there's a few reasons why. 1. As CYC says the pace the race is run at determines a quick or slow time. 2. The time a horse achieves is hard to guage against another's time. In simple terms one may have been all out to achieve it and was the absolute maximum effort he could muster, whilst another horse simply idled in front and coasted in. Similar to winning margins 'being value for more'. 3. Ground. Ground conditions very during the day as ground dries out, as well some strips of ground are 'better' than others. 4. Each horse will run slightly different distances dependent how wide round a bend their ridden. For example Australia's winning distance may only have been a length and a half but I wonder how many lengths further he travelled than Kingston Hill when you compare how wide Australia travelled round Tattenham Corner? No, I really pay little attention to times. Too many variables means you're rarely comparing like with like.
Why do people compare times in British racing as if its gospel. Races were run at different speeds on different ground and on different days.
I am not aware of anyone or organisation that treats times as gospel Nass. As long as they are interpreted sensibly they are a fair starting point but no more than a starting point. The points mentioned by Beefy, and plenty other points, are all things to be considered. But whatever factors one takes into account, there is only a reasonable amount of allowance one can make. Re beefy's point about "a horse may be all out", even that doesn't add argument to time "followers" because a horse (A) may be all out because it was a slowly run race and there was another horse (B) in the race that had better acceleration off a slow pace. In a truly run race horse A may beat horse B easily simply due to the fact that A is actually capable of running the distance in a faster time. Horse B may have looked impressive coming off a slow pace but is just not capable of travelling the distance in the same time as B in a truly run race. As mentioned, the clock is the only fact one can use as a starting point. Explanations may easily be found due to all sorts of factors. But, if one runs out of explanations you are left with the conclusion that horse A is quite simply better than horse B under the conditions measured, provided they have both been trained to their peak and will be ridden to win. Hence, for races that are not high value, times are just about irrelevant as anything else; apart from inside info. I agree completely that time means very little taken in isolation. However, for example, I think it could mean something if a horse can only win slowly run races and always loses when there is a true gallop resulting in a faster time. In such instances the clock has told us something.
Yeats? 4 x Ascot Gold Cups and that's still not enough to be considered a great?! What do they have to do to be considered a great...
Fair enough but I doubt AOB was comparing Australia (and Camelot) to a great stayer and a great hurdler.
Interesting point about "greats" on the flat. That mantle is usually reserved for Derby / King George / Arc winners. Outside of that sphere I can only really think of Brigadier Gerard and, more recently Frankel, who have made it into the pantheon of greats (although my memory is no longer what it was so apologies if I missed one). I've always though it most unfair and hopefully Frankel is the horse who changes that mindset - the fad certainly seems to be more towards speed these days anyway. For my money one of the greatest, and I would be prepared to argue the greatest flat horse that AOB ever trained was Rock Of Gibraltar. His turn of foot was incredible, real superstar material. But he was a miler which wasn't the sexy diviion when he was racing (and arguably still isn't).
Not seen this version before - ITV pictures of Shergar's Derby but commentary from Peter Bromley - "You'd need a telescope to see the rest" Enjoy [video=youtube;dpIzPuiDN60]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpIzPuiDN60[/video]
I certainly take your point Oddy that the middle distance races are viewed as the most sought after and are the most prestigious races to win. On that basis as Sea the Stars won the more prestigious races than Frankel did, does that make him the greater of the pair?! The criteria may alter I suspect should that one be debated The Ascot Gold Cup is hardly to be sniffed at though, we're talking the feature race of the Royal meeting which is arguably the highlight of the Flat season. To win the race 4 times on the bounce is simply an incredible feat. I suspect I'd need to live a long time to see that repeated. To win 2 or 3 Arcs or King Georges is a huge feat but there's a decent chance we'll come across that much more often, as great a feat as that may well be and again it takes a great horse to do that. However, Yeats was a one-off, a freak of nature and a truly great horse. We won't see what he done for a very, very long time. If ever.
Huge fan of Yeats Beefy, and ironically, had injury not curtailed his 3YO season, he may never have gone on to record such feats. He was already down the well-trodden Ballydoyle path for a 3YO colt (won a back end maiden as a 2YO, hosed up in the Ballysax and Derrinstown) and was hot favourite for the Derby before injuring himself just days before the race. Who knows what would have happened if he'd taken his chance in that years Derby? North Light might well have finished 2nd I can't help thinking the Gold Cup stuff was an afterthought for Yeats but fair play to connections for giving it a go instead of whisking him off to stud (a la Holy Roman Emporer - who? I hear you ask )
Times are pretty much pointless on UK turf tracks, unless we have the trakus or turftrax info on every horse, even if you had the leaders splits, trying to workout where everyone else is accurately to adjust the times when they are split across massive tracks is futile. I think the rain on Derby was not as significant as we first thought, and the ground had even dried out quite significantly before the Derby, it never really got in. We dont have the information to judge and compare the performances of Taghrooda, CDA and Australia on the clock, which is a disgrace really, the information available on tracks like Meydan and in America is incredible, we are stuck in the stone age. For people who do the work themselves as accurately as they can and have massive records of speed figures, I suppose they will be quite happy that the information isnt out there because if it was they would lose the edge they have worked for. But I think its about time we had every runner tracked at the major courses, and the AW, and any trainer who isnt using the technology at home is missing a trick I think. I think Ballydoyle have been using it and thats what Obrien is partly talking about when he says "the data" although not 100% on that.
Although he didn't have much opposition in 2 of his Gold Cup victories, there is no doubt that winning the Ascot Gold Cup 4 times is no mean feat and he is a legend in that respect. It's a pity he got injured before the Derby as he was strongly fancied to win it. But he did win the Coronation over the Derby C&D in his next season. Pity he didn't go for an Arc but he developed into one of the best stayers this century. I think I would rate Ardross and Le Moss as possibly better and had one not existed the other would have also won 4 on the bounce. Unfortunately we don't have anything around of that quality in the staying ranks and, as Beefy says, we probably won't see that feat achieved again. Maybe Poor SNA would have stepped up in distance and given us a thrill in the Gold Cups.
Treve will run in the King George if all goes well at Ascot, get Australia and Taghrooda in there and we will see if they still want to go to Longchamp after that 4/1 Treve for the Arc I think could be a gift, will be long gone when she leaves Britain after the King George, people expecting another one to turn up in the Prix de Diane but you just dont get fillies like this very often. I think the 3yo thing is overplayed in the Arc, you just need to look at Orfevre recently, the simple fact is the best horses come to the fore in this race, Orfevre was the best horse in the race in 2012 as a 4yo, he won the race and then threw it away and it was another 4yo who handled the ground that picked up the pieces. Last year, the two best horses in the race were Treve and Orfevre, and the 5yo beat every 3yo again bar the wonderfilly. The great 3yo Arc winners rarely stay in training, if they did im 100% sure there would be more 4yo and double Arc winners, look at Workforce for example, worst Arc winner ive seen, there isnt a chance in hell he would have beaten Sea The Stars if he was kept in training as a 4yo. Because the best 3yos on the flat are 9 times out of 10 retired, its odds on that most years the best horse will be a new 3yo, but not every year, not when a great one stays in training. If the day comes and Treve is the best horse in the race which I fully expect, the weight allowances will mean nothing.
Boris what a load of tosh ! The huge weight treve received against orferve makes a difference with 3 three year old fillies winning it in recent years proves that theory ! Also 15 of last 20 winners where 3 year olds ! With solemina and urban sea winning as 4 year olds again fillies ! Only 3 older colts have won it on 20 years marienbard sakhee and Dylan Thomas ! So don't give me dribble about how oferve done this and that and wasn't effected by the weight difference . For me the bet of the race is just a way this is Japan's year
The official handicapper has reacted to the Derby and Oaks by putting Kingston Hill on 120 (up 2), Romsdal 115 (up 8) and Arod 109 (up 1). In comparison to these Taghrooda gets a perch of 116 (up 13) and Volume 109 (up 11). Note, Irish runners not yet included in his assessment but, going on a strict Derby or Oaks formline, Australlia is going to be around 122 and Tarfasha 110. Personally, I wouldn’t ever want to get involved in any Arc debate until after the draw is known. I still can’t believe how the premier European 12 furlong race is run over a course and distance which gives half the field a massive, and I do mean massive, advantage over those ‘poorly’ berthed.
Zarkava, Danedream and Treve, 3 of the best 3yo fillies in years, Zarkava and Treve probably the two best 3yo fillies since got knows when, Oh So Sharp maybe? Danedream went on to win the King George as a 4yo. You think they won because the allowance? Not because they were exceptional horses and the best horse in the race on the day? Ive already gave my reasoning for why I think the majority are won by 3yo's and its not because they get an unfair weight advantage. Its called weight for age and I dont believe the Arc is different from any other race, the weight difference is less than the King George but it is later in the season and more 3yo's target the race. How many champion 3yo 1m4 colts ran as 4yo? How many 4yo+ ran in the race compared to 3yo? Look a bit more into the numbers before you make conclusions. You didnt even deserve a response to be honest and no doubt nothing will click again, even the fact that despite your rant you have tipped me a 5yo stallion for the race.
The draw is another overplayed element of the race, this isnt some 30k sprint handicap where the weight and draw decide the outcome, its the premier race of Europe, if the draw has any effect its a poor year and there is no real champion in the race, otherwise its irrelevant. If a horse is beaten by a draw, they are not worthy of winning the race, its as simple as that.
Glad someone pointed out to me it was 4 not 5 I always had the image of Johnny Murtagh holding up his hand after his last Gold Cup and had the number 5 in my head. I shall edit accordingly <whoops>
If Treve is drawn out in stall eighteen this year and gets beaten half a length by a three year old filly, can we be assured that you are not going to make any mention of the draw? You have already stated that the weight allowance will not be a factor.
