1000/2000 Guineas

I hate that race:lol: Mawj was always up there and ran on like a tiger.

Tahiyra was on the back foot after a poor start and used up a fair bit of energy to get on terms
but then failed to find that extra kick.

Rematch would be very interesting but both camps might want to avoid one.
 
Approximately 1 ½ furlongs out, the winner MAWJ (IRE) rolled quickly right-handed taking TAHIYRA (IRE), placed second, marginally off its intended line, but after viewing a recording of the incident, it was found that no riding offence was involved and that it had not improved the placing of MAWJ (IRE).

A bit surprised the stewards didn’t make a bit more of this. If you look at the mowing lines on the track Tahiyra got shunted across over half a mower’s width which is a tad more than “marginal” I would have thought. It was a close run thing in the end as well.
 
Last edited:
barjon said:
Approximately 1 ½ furlongs out, the winner MAWJ (IRE) rolled quickly right-handed taking TAHIYRA (IRE), placed second, marginally off its intended line, but after viewing a recording of the incident, it was found that no riding offence was involved and that it had not improved the placing of MAWJ (IRE).

A bit surprised the stewards didn’t make a bit more of this. If you look at the mowing lines on the track Tahiyra got shunted across over half a mower’s width which is a tad more than “marginal” I would have thought. It was a close run thing in the end as well.
Click to expand...

Yes I agree.
 
Desert Orchid said:
One of the first things I did within an hour of the race was to check the time. It was 5.74s slow, which equates to almost half a furlong, so either they ran quite slowly or the ground slowed them up or some kind of combination of the two.

Don't get me wrong. The 2000G is the 2000G and the form is always worth respecting. Maybe some didn't act in the ground, maybe some left their race on the gallops - it happens - maybe some just didn't like the weather but if the same 14 horses turned out in midsummer on fastish ground I would expect a quite different outcome apart from maybe Chaldean and Royal Scotsman.

I have to be honest, if I were the owner of either of the rags and I thought my horse was up to running to that kind of level I'd be targeting the Britannia, then maybe the Golden Mile, then maybe the Cambridgeshire. Winning the Britannia would be the equivalent of running third in the Guineas. But that's down to my love of big handicaps. None of this fannying about tilting at windmills :lol:
Click to expand...
 
reet hard said:
Guineas was slow and the ground was g/s I reckon.
Click to expand...

5.74s slow suggests a going allowance around 0.5spf, I reckon, assuming the pace was good. That would make the ground soft, I think.

We'll know more when/if the sectionals are published. I'm loath to diss Guineas form but probably once in a decade it's a moderate race.
 
Desert Orchid said:
5.74s slow suggests a going allowance around 0.5spf, I reckon, assuming the pace was good. That would make the ground soft, I think.

We'll know more when/if the sectionals are published. I'm loath to diss Guineas form but probably once in a decade it's a moderate race.
Click to expand...
Reckon proper sectionals wil show the pace was poor,if they're interpreted correctly.
 
Your link didn't work.
I looked at RUK sectionals earlier, and they're not telling me it was a strong pace, neither are my own eyes, which I trust more than any mechanical approach.
The only similar race was a h'cap (3.00) and which the RP comparison per furlong figures show that to be run slightly quicker p.f. even though a furlong further
 
Desert Orchid said:
I always understood a finishing % of under 100 pointed to a fast pace:
Click to expand...
So the mechanical approach shows that Chaldean and a 125/1 shot were up in the van for the whole race where they set a fast pace and stayed there.LBB also ran well applying that kind of logic.
I said, back in the day:
Guineas winner raced prominently and the 2nd led for much of the way, which suggests the pace wasn't all that taxing.
Ian Balding said, after the Dewurst "I'd be surprised if he got more than a mile" and his future entries give credence to that view.
Click to expand...
You pays you money and you takes your choice - race reading or mechanics.
 
Last edited:
I don't have a problem with the principles of sectional timing but I do sometimes with the application.

Even at 67, I reckon I could run a mile in about seven minutes. But if I ran the first half-mile in four minutes I'm not convinced I could run the second half in three.

I see Chaldean gets an OR of 119 and an RPR of 120. Those strike me as modest regardless of the overall time and sectional picture.
 
reet hard said:
So the mechanical approach shows that Chaldean and a 125/1 shot were up in the van for the whole race where they set a fast pace and stayed there.LBB also ran well applying that kind of logic.
Click to expand...

That would obviously be a mis-application of the logic and I don't think anyone is suggesting LBB ran well in any sense. LBB was eased down. That would explain his slow late section. I haven't checked to see but I reckon more than half the field were easing to some extent in the final furlong.

These are the kind of thing I have concerns about re sectional timing. I think to get the best out of the approach you really have to cherrypick which figures to rely on. In that sense it's not unlike reading the form; it's important to identify the good form from the modest form and we don't all always get it right. 'Specially me!
 
Desert Orchid said:
These are the kind of thing I have concerns about re sectional timing. I think to get the best out of the approach you really have to cherrypick which figures to rely on. In that sense it's not unlike reading the form; it's important to identify the good form from the modest form and we don't all always get it right. 'Specially me!
Click to expand...
But isn't that the whole point?
Don't trust the maths, and figure what's occuring by watching how it pans out - allied to final times.
 
Every course has a different finishing % to suggest a true run race DO. Depends on the nature of the last two furlongs mainly. 100/101% would be the ideal flat course finish for an evenly run race. The only way to know the % finish for a truly run race on any course is by recording them and working out a "norm" for ideal pace.

Epsom is a classic case of being very different to other courses, the downhill finish means that 106/107% over last 3 furlongs is par for a truly run race. On any other course that would suggest a slowly run race and that they were going very fast at the end.

Alternatively Sandown is a tough finish, so the ideal finish for a truly run race is about 95/96% because you can't go faster than that uphill late on unless a race is run slowly early.

100% finish effort is very different in what it suggests between such as Sandown and Epsom, then you have all the different tracks %'s in between.

From memory I think Newmarket is about 97/98% for last 3 furlongs to point to an even pace. 1000 guineas was a truer test than the 2000 guineas. They went 40mph in the 1000 guineas for a fair few early furlongs looking at the on screen mph. That is very stong for a mile race on an easy surface. There was no hiding in that race.
 
Last edited:
It was in my mind that the Rowley Mile final section for an evenly run race was just over the 100% mark, around 101/102, due to the dip.

No doubt Simon Rowlands will have something to say in due course.
 
Last edited:
Desert Orchid said:
It was in my mind that the Rowley Mile final section for an evenly run race was just over the 100% mark, around 101/102, due to the dip.

No double Simon Rowlands will have something to say in due course.
Click to expand...

They aren't that big due to the climb to the finish. I have them at 97/98% from the pars I made. I will check.
 
Back
Top