Coral Eclipse Stakes

davidjohnson said:
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.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant or not, it is unlikely that STS has performed better than these (already being part of a very select historical group).

I think we also have to say that the likes of Conduit has not run to his best at this trip at this stage of the season, while Twice Over hasn't run any sort of race close to what he can.
 
Last edited:
If you were not rating on the conservative side DJ, just a balanced opinion, what would you rate Sea the Stars?
 
SteveM said:
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.
Click to expand...

Has Sea The Stars revised official rating been released yet? I was under the impression that it hadn't and the 131 was the Racing Post rating, which can be very different from the official rating.
 
Phil Smith confirmed to the Telegraph that his official rating is now 131 (link is earlier in the thread).
 
Shadow Leader said:
Has Sea The Stars revised official rating been released yet? I was under the impression that it hadn't and the 131 was the Racing Post rating, which can be very different from the official rating.
Click to expand...

The 131 is the OR. The 133p is Timeform. I've not got access to the RPR on the computer I'm working from, but I believe that is the same as the OR (i.e. 131).
 
My suspicion is that the handicappers are simply incredulous about STS and RVW being 138 and 136 at this stage of their 3yo careers. It's pretty much unheard of and therefore logically unlikely but I maintain the lines with the beaten horses are accurate, just as they were when Mark Of Esteem was under-rated by 8-10lbs in his day.

I suspect the handicappers have had a chat and said, 'Look guys, we're gonna look stupid if we say 138 and 136, even tho that's what the fiugres are saying. What was Nashwan after he did the treble? 131? STS has done the same as Nashwan. Let's go with that, play safe and not start a controversy.'

I'm not being paid to be conservative so I'll re-state the first two are brilliant horses and the form is accurate.
 
Desert Orchid said:
My suspicion is that the handicappers are simply incredulous about STS and RVW being 138 and 136 at this stage of their 3yo careers. It's pretty much unheard of and therefore logically unlikely but I maintain the lines with the beaten horses are accurate, just as they were when Mark Of Esteem was under-rated by 8-10lbs in his day.
Click to expand...

RPR's for the 1991 Irish Derby:

Generous 133
Suave Dancer 129

As usual (unless the horse is called Master Minded) ridiculousy conservative. Timeform gave Generous 139 for that race - and that is why I always turn to them when I want an accurate rating that recognises brilliance.
 
Rip Van Winkle should be the highest rated horse Ballydoyle has ever had? That is quite a turn around in general consenus!
 
SteveM said:
Irrelevant or not, it is unlikely that STS has performed better than these (already being part of a very select historical group).
Click to expand...

This is a moot point as far as I'm concerned and the type of logic that leads to capped ratings when other evidence suggests otherwise.

Hamm - I don't find it at all difficult to believe that Sea The Stars could have run to something like 135/7.
 
Galileo said:
Would you fancy Rip Van Winkle to give his stablemate Mastercraftsman 10lbs and a beating over the trip?
Click to expand...

No. I think if STS is a 138 animal you can't give RVW 136. He gave him a four pounds beating at least on saturday. And MCM has a lot of scope to improve for the step up in trip in any case.
 
Euronymous said:
No. I think if STS is a 138 animal you can't give RVW 136. He gave him a four pounds beating at least on saturday. And MCM has a lot of scope to improve for the step up in trip in any case.
Click to expand...

That is fair enough. I have long held Rip Van Winkle in high regard (higher than most on here) but 136 does not sit well with me but I bow to the knowledge of some of the ratings buffs on here.
 
Euronymous said:
No. I think if STS is a 138 animal you can't give RVW 136.
Click to expand...

That's not exactly what we're doing, though.

We're saying that we're assuming those in 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th have run to form, therefore RVW has run to 136, therefore STS has run to 138 but it doesn't reflect what STS had in reserve, so STS is 138+; what the '+' represents will be entirely subjective.
 
LoL. The Moscow Flyer +

I don't think Conduit ran to his best, but he was only shy by two, maybe three pounds for me.
 
Euronymous said:
LoL. The Moscow Flyer +

I don't think Conduit ran to his best, but he was only shy by two, maybe three pounds for me.
Click to expand...

Initially I thought Conduit ran miles below form...but looking back at it he won a Leger from a Group 2/3 filly and won a Breeders Cup Turf coming from last off a suicidal pace set by Soldier Of Fortune and co. Likely to be better over further but probably by not that much....one to oppose in the King George.
 
Galileo said:
That is fair enough. I have long held Rip Van Winkle in high regard (higher than most on here) but 136 does not sit well with me but I bow to the knowledge of some of the ratings buffs on here.
Click to expand...

TBH, it wouldn't normally sit well with me either but every time I re-examine the form I can't find logical grounds for bringing the figure down. The time rating works out at a similar level. That's why I'm so gobsmacked. Every once in a long time we do get a superstar. In 1972 we got Brigadier Gerard and Mill Reef in the one year group. Why isn't it possible that nearly 40 years on we get another two greats together.

RVW wasn't hard trained as a juvenile and wasn't prepared with the Guineas as its main target. It was obviously prepared with a summer-autumn campaign in mind. It was targeted at the Derby because they knew it was in the mould of Hawk Wing: brilliant at its distance and possibly good enugh to win a Derby despite not being bred for it and they engineeered the race to suit it the best they could. It's just their misfortune to have come up against a very special horse.

Take STS out of the Eclipse and I'd guarantee RPRs and Timeform would be rating RVW 136 on direct lines with Conduit and the others. It's simply that two horses are within a length of each other that's forcing them to go conservative.
 
Desert Orchid said:
RVW wasn't hard trained as a juvenile and wasn't prepared with the Guineas as its main target. It was obviously prepared with a summer-autumn campaign in mind. It was targeted at the Derby because they knew it was in the mould of Hawk Wing: brilliant at its distance and possibly good enugh to win a Derby despite not being bred for it and they engineeered the race to suit it the best they could. It's just their misfortune to have come up against a very special horse.
Click to expand...

RVW was also beaten by Delegator and Gan Amhras in the Guineas, and Fame and Glory and Mastercraftsman in the Derby so I can't quite have it that he is just unlucky to come up against one special horse. He most probably wouldn't have won either of the first two colts' Classics on current evidence, Sea The Stars or no.
 
He has run 6 times. In his last 4 races, he has failed to place 3 times and 13 horses have beaten him to the judge. He is not the second best thing since sliced-bread.
 
Please compile the Bayer figures if it makes you feel better . Just admit that Sea The Stars is the new generation champion and will be for some time
 
betsmate said:
He has run 6 times. In his last 4 races, he has failed to place 3 times and 13 horses have beaten him to the judge. He is not the second best thing since sliced-bread.
Click to expand...

Very harsh. Surely the Dewhurst and the Guineas are irrelevent in assessing this horse now.

For me Saturday's performance was the equal at least of anything Duke of Marmalade laid down last year. He's been beaten by an outstanding animal.
 
Back
Top