Coral Eclipse Stakes

Hamm said:
I also disagree with this.

By the same misguided criteria, you could also say not only should a great horse go on anyground, but should be able to win at a variety of distances.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. Depends on how you define 'great'. Brigadier Gerard won on heavy but hated it. Likewise Nijinsky. Should the fact some of the highest-rated of all time failed on unsuitable ground diminish thier greatness? I don't think so.

Great horses don't have to be able go on any ground but it makes their 'greatness' more solid if they do.

Great horses should be able to win at a variety of distances, and they often do.
 
Desert Orchid said:
Yes and no. Depends on how you define 'great'. Brigadier Gerard won on heavy but hated it. Likewise Nijinsky. Should the fact some of the highest-rated of all time failed on unsuitable ground diminish thier greatness? I don't think so.

Great horses don't have to be able go on any ground but it makes their 'greatness' more solid if they do.

Great horses should be able to win at a variety of distances, and they often do.
Click to expand...

Interestingly both Hern and Carson rated Nashwan ahead of BG for just this reason "versatility". while BG's rating was actually higher than Nashwan's.
 
It's not unusual for ORs to be conservative - that's why horses win handicaps.

I'd love the UK or Ireland to have a handicap worth half a million to the winner for horses rated 115+, with the bottom weight set at 8-0. That way something officially rated 131 would 'only' have to carry 9-2 but if it was a 3yo it would come down by the wfa scale.

I'd rather see a firm like Betfair sponsor it than the Betfair Million, etc.
 
The impression I have got this morning is Rip Van Winkle might well be stepping back to a mile next time.

Some effort to get a 130 performance already in the year from Sea The Stars...reported to have come out of the race fine.
 
Galileo said:
The impression I have got this morning is Rip Van Winkle might well be stepping back to a mile next time.

Some effort to get a 130 performance already in the year from Sea The Stars...reported to have come out of the race fine.
Click to expand...

Indeed if they are going to get a mark like this at this stage they need to run against the older horses in the Eclipse. Nashwan's mark was either the same or slightly higher at this stage, having gone the same route, and I believe I'm right in saying that STS has achieved the best OR at this stage since Nashwan (I think there may have been something to this effect in today's Post - haven't got a copy to hand).
 
Last edited:
They're getting there...;):cool:

It would be interesting to know how they rated Conduit and Cima De Triomphe in the Brigadier Gerard. It looks like they're also (as well as Raceform/RP) saying these two were below that form on Saturday. I just can't buy it. We saw two genuine superstars on Saturday.
 
Last edited:
Melendez

Set Sail was second bottom-rated on Timeform Ratings, the complete outsider of the field and favourite for Coral's novelty market on who would finish last. He has made the running on 5 of his last 6 starts. I'm really not sure he could have done any better however he was ridden.
 
davidjohnson said:
In the context of the race it is a conservative view. Much as the RPR and BHA ratings are conservative views.
Click to expand...

I don't see 133p as being conservative either in terms of the race or in terms of historical performance, particularly as it is 2lb (and a p) above the official view. 133p is an extraordinarily high rating for a 3-y-o at this stage of its career.
 
...I guess we'll have to, but 133p at the beginning of July places STS with a very small elite of thoroughbreds. Nashwan was on this or about this mark and finished his season on 135 after winning the KG. Unless you believe STS is better than Sea-Bird, I find it hard to see how 133p can be construed as conservative.
 
I think the difficulty now for STS might be finding opponents good enough to make him run to more than 133-134. It often seems that horses that dominate early in the season often get similar ratings in the latter races that season, while horses that put in one real solid performance later in the season beating these horses are awarded ratings above what they should be, especially in races such as the QE2 or Arc.
 
I didnt have my ratings in Nashawan year, but my feeling is that STS is a better horse than Nashwan was.
 
SteveM said:
...I guess we'll have to, but 133p at the beginning of July places STS with a very small elite of thoroughbreds. Nashwan was on this or about this mark and finished his season on 135 after winning the KG. Unless you believe STS is better than Sea-Bird, I find it hard to see how 133p can be construed as conservative.
Click to expand...

I'll come back on this because you've missed the point again. In the context of the race in question, 133 is a conservative view.

Conduit -8
Cima de Triomphe -11
Steele Tango -11
Jukebox Jury -17
Twice Over -29

The figures above are the performance ratings of the individual horses against thier master Timeform rating. As I say, if you weren't of the opinion that all bar the first 2 were below their best, you could rate the race higher. RPR and BHA assessors are also of the opinion that Conduit and the rest were below form. Given the evidence of the clock, I maintain such ratings are conservative views of the individual performance. I'm certainly not suggesting that they are necessarily wrong.

Comparisons with Nashwan and Sea-Bird are completely irrelevant to the point I was making.
 
Back
Top