Coral Eclipse Stakes

HughC said:
Taking horses out of races could make a hundred horses in the last 10 years worth a 135+ rating.
Click to expand...

You've got to take out the right ones, though ;)

Actually, if you go through the Eclipse and take any one horse, you end up with pretty much the same conclusion: the firt two must be very very good.
 
Last edited:
I think my frustration comes from handicappers essentially eschewing what their ratings tell them because they don't "feel" right. It doesn't even matter to me if they're right or wrong - I guess I just don't understand the point in doing them if you're going to throw logic out the window every time the fear of ending up with egg on your face becomes too strong.
 
SteveM said:
I can only agree with this... If RVW were rated 136 (which he isn’t) he would rate with Ballydoyle’s top-rated colt Hawk Wing officially rated 136. No one can tell me that finishing runner-up in the Eclipse, with the older horses Conduit and Twice Over visibly performing below their best (Conduit at an inadequate trip) is equivalent to Hawk Wing’s best performance. There would have to be at least a dozen you would want to rate above RVW from Ballydoyle alone over the years. Less than 50 thoroughbreds have recorded an official mark of above 136 in the history of thoroughbred racing and much less at three. I can't see a case on what I've seen to rate RVW anywhere in the 130s. He is a mid-120 performer at best.
Click to expand...

I accept ORs are much more conservative than my own figures. However, if people accept that the likes of Timeform and RPR represent a more accurate measure of performance/ability than ORs (otherwise why would they subscribe to them and/or set so much store by them) then they shouldn't really be holding back, as Gareth suggests, when everything else points to the higher figure.

SteveM said:
Less than 50 thoroughbreds have recorded an official mark of above 136 in the history of thoroughbred racing and much less at three.
Click to expand...

Given that official marks only came into existence in the late 1970s-early 1980s and that ratings of any sort only started with Timeform in the 1950s/1960s, that's a bit of a statement, Steve. Put it into its proper context and you have probably the majority of the 'greats' in the last 50 years: Sea Bird, Ribot, Nijinsky, Brigadier Gerard, Mill Reef, etc etc.

It doesn't seem that long ago we were agreeing that Dubai Millennium was up there with that elite. because that's what the figures were telling us.

I maintain it's because there were two horses clear in the Eclipse that people who really should know better are, again as Gareth suggests, afraid they might end up with egg on their face. I could feed the forum with an omelette with the egg I might have on mine.
 
Gareth Flynn said:
a) For accuracy's sake, his OR was 137 but in the International Classification they couldn't get it more than 133.
Click to expand...

Thanks Gareth. I should have said this was off the top of my head (haven't got access to half this stuff at work). Checked last night... the 136 was actually the Timeform mark.
 
Desert Orchid said:
I accept ORs are much more conservative than my own figures. However, if people accept that the likes of Timeform and RPR represent a more accurate measure of performance/ability than ORs (otherwise why would they subscribe to them and/or set so much store by them) then they shouldn't really be holding back, as Gareth suggests, when everything else points to the higher figure.



Given that official marks only came into existence in the late 1970s-early 1980s and that ratings of any sort only started with Timeform in the 1950s/1960s, that's a bit of a statement, Steve. Put it into its proper context and you have probably the majority of the 'greats' in the last 50 years: Sea Bird, Ribot, Nijinsky, Brigadier Gerard, Mill Reef, etc etc.

It doesn't seem that long ago we were agreeing that Dubai Millennium was up there with that elite. because that's what the figures were telling us.

I maintain it's because there were two horses clear in the Eclipse that people who really should know better are, again as Gareth suggests, afraid they might end up with egg on their face. I could feed the forum with an omelette with the egg I might have on mine.
Click to expand...

I accept that the Eclipse was a good renewal but the winner won with a fair bit up his sleeve (and I've already said how deserving STS is to have broken 130, which is rare at this stage). But to accord the runner-up with 136 seems completely inappropriate to me, not just because I think there are probably a good handful of 3-y-os better than him this season and that he hasn't actually won very much, but because he just doesn't look that good to me (and this is from someone who expected him to be runner-up). To place him as the top-rated (or joint top-rated) Ballydoyle horse ever seems wrong.
 
Now that the form book instalment has come in, I’ve gone back to the race with a blank sheet, a fresh mind and started again.

I didn’t have the times of the last two races on Saturday when I did my figures. Now that I’ve done all the races I’ve found the going to be faster again than I’d thought and the time rating for Sea The Stars has come down to 119 (+11 wfa), which is still very fast.

I went back to the Brigadier Gerard and looked at that race again too. I had originally marked ‘+3’ above the ratings column based on my previous figures of 112 for Steele Tango (from the Gordon Richards over course and distance, won by no less than Tartan Bearer from Pipedreamer), form that seemed pretty solid, including using lines with Buccellati.

I had carried the 112 from Steele Tango into the Brigadier Gerard along with Cima De Triomphe’s best rating from last season (118). It also had Staying On running to the 113 for which a case could be made via Doctor Feemantle running to its OR 113 at Chester. Looking back, that was a very slow race and probably shouldn’t be taken literally. Those lines seemed to tie up nicely but it did mean Drumfire running to 114 first time up compared with a previous best RPR of 111. Drumfire’s subsequent outing was over 12f, a trip he’d never tried, and he was held up off a moderate pace, so lines via him are inconclusive.

Removing the ‘+3’ from the Brigadier Gerard pegs Steele Tango back at 109, one pound below its OR, pegs Conduit back at 121, well below its US win, and pegs Cima De Triomphe down 3lbs on my best rating for it from last season.

Rating the Eclipse via Steele Tango on 109 puts Cima De Triomphe back up by one pound to 116, and brings Conduit up to 125, still below its US win (on RPRs).

This still puts Rip on 133 and Sea The Stars on 135+, and I’m going to go with these figures for the time being but it will always be in the back of my mind that there’s a fair case for arguing that the figures should all be 3lbs higher.

 
Thanks for this. As ever interesting. Still think you have RVW too high in relation to STS. I don't wish to quibble with STS's rating, but believe that Timeform are at the top-end of what I would consider right, at about 133p.
 
I can't have Conduit running below form - he beat C de T very comfortably and more than the 7lb switch would allow . He may well be much better over 12f but he ran to his 10f best .

Seems a much more reliable race to rate horses than the set up exercise race that was the Irish Derby
 
I can't have Conduit running below form - he beat C de T very comfortably and more than the 7lb switch would allow . He may well be much better over 12f but he ran to his 10f best .


but his 10f form is below his best Ardross

I would agree, he ran to his 10f best..but thats a few lbs below his 12f best
 
EC1 said:
I can't have Conduit running below form - he beat C de T very comfortably and more than the 7lb switch would allow . He may well be much better over 12f but he ran to his 10f best .


but his 10f form is below his best Ardross

I would agree, he ran to his 10f best..but thats a few lbs below his 12f best
Click to expand...

Quite so. Also Stoute implied that he was using this to sharpen him up for the KG and said he would come on for it, which is the reason I wasn't tempted to back Conduit for the Eclipse.
 
Desert Orchid said:
Nashwan's Eclipse can lead to some questions. Opening Verse was a 200/1 shot that day (pacemaker for Indian Skimmer?) but beat the latter for second place. Surely that must cast some doubt on the form. No pacemaker got within 28¼ lengths of the winner on Saturday!

I suspect Nashwan was over the hill and on the slide by the King George. Maybe the Eclipse bottomed him. STS arguably hasn't had anywhere near as hard a race in any of his three G1s this year and may well be fancied to go on improving.
Click to expand...

Willoughby conducts a fascinating split screen analysis of the two Eclipses in the Media section of the RP site. Well worth a look.
 
The problem would be that it doesn't take into account going differences. It could be described officially as good-to-firm both days yet easily be different by the equivalent of a length per furlong or more.
 
Desert Orchid said:
The problem would be that it doesn't take into account going differences. It could be described officially as good-to-firm both days yet easily be different by the equivalent of a length per furlong or more.
Click to expand...

Thing is it does just that going differences and a whole lot more besides.
 
It mentions the going was different but doesn't say by how much.

Interesting nonetheless that Nashwan's final furlong was over 14s - about ten lengths slower than STS's.

He also makes the same remarks as I did earlier in the thread, that the Eclipse may have bottomed Nashwan for the season and that STS couldn't possibly have had an easy race and run that time.

Watcing it agin, did anyone notice that while Conduit was only a length behind Rip at the furlong marker and a length or so ahead of CDT, he was five lengths ahead of the latter at the line but almost the same distance behind Rip. Conduit and CDT were pulling away from the others yet the front two were pulling away from them.

Also, it now looks to me like Rip shied away from Kinane's whip when he got to his quarters, losing a good half-length. When he moved a breadth wide again he closed the gap a little close home.

For all that Willoughby clearly hold STS in the highest regard on the basis of this performance, he conveniently omits to mention that to have got so close Rip must be a beast as well.
 
Most reports on the race have it that STS quickened away from Rip in the last furlong, but having replayed it several times, I think it was more a case of Rip losing ground temporarily, as he first moved across onto STS's quarters, shied at Kinane's whip, Fortune changed his whip hand and Rip moved away again sideways a length, before regaining his momentum and closing again on STS. I think Rip is still maturing both physically and mentally. Aidan O'Brien would appear to be restarting his season, aiming for a Gr 1 at a mile in the Sussex, before moving back up in trip to 10f, probably in the Breeder's Cup Classic.
 
It will be interesting to see if they can sustain this level of form. I'm inclined to agree with DO that STS, at least, may well be able to improve again. He seems to have won on good terms with himself. You would hope that they can find RVW a decent race - his record doesn't stand up to his supposed ability and he is in danger of being forgotten in historical terms unless they can find him something decent.

The phenomenal burst of speed from Nashwan to catch a subsequent BC Mile winner may well have bottomed him (despite going on to win the KG on ground he hated). This accounts for the slow final furlong. Willoughby also made the point that Nashwan beat a higher class field going into the race. The races were very different from a number of aspects, although rated identically in terms of the winner.
 
I think this talk about Nashwan beating "a subsequent Breeders Cup Mile winner" is a load of sh*te, though.

Factually, it may be true but in his first outing after Sandown Opening Verse was still a 40/1 shot when beaten five lengths by Zilzal, and he was then beaten out of sight in a listed race at Windsor. In fact, it was fully two years and four months later that he won in the US! (So he was probably doped to the eyeballs as well.)

Willoughby also stressed the presence of Warning in that Eclipse, conveniently omitting that Warning was beaten out of sight next time (his last outing, therefore it seems reasonable to conclude he was pretty much finished as a top class racehorse) at 7/4f in that same race behind Zilzal.

I could probably have run past Opening Verse in that Eclipse, carrying you, Steve!
 
Last edited:
Desert Orchid said:
I think this talk about Nashwan beating "a subsequent Breeders Cup Mile winner" is a load of sh*te, though.

I could probably have run past Opening Verse in that Eclipse, carrying you, Steve!
Click to expand...

That I’d like to see! :lol:

No need to be so down on Nashwan btw… STS has nothing to fear from him. You are quite wrong about Opening Verse who was extraordinarily good despite a big price on the day (RPR of 131). Willoughby makes the point that turning in the times were virtually identical in the two Eclipses (and this on significantly slower ground) – i.e. Opening Verse (who was running in his own right) matched the time of the pacemakers in this year’s renewal turning in – unlike this year when the pacemakers having done their job dropped tamely away Opening Verse sustained his effort to hold the late charge of his stablemate Indian Skimmer (previous Champion). Nashwan’s sections show an incredible burst of speed to catch and pass a subsequent convincing BC Mile winner.

However, this is missing the point… I’m not looking to knock STS and can’t really understand why you are so keen to knock Nashwan. I just find the two races, that were like chalk and cheese but in their own way high class, fascinating to watch. There is more than one way of skinning a cat for the great horses and these two show such different ways. Willoughby actually bears out a lot of what you say yourself.
 
Last edited:
I'm not that down on Nashwan, Steve. Nashwan was a top class horse. I'm just not convinced he was any better than many other top class horses, whereas I think STS is.

What's holding my argument back for other people is Rip's proximity to STS. I think time will show STS put up an even more impressive performance than even I believe it to have been when Rip reappears.

However, I have to take issue with one or two things you say.

Opening Verse was not extraordinarily good the season he was second in the Eclipse. He was in fact very ordinary. I'm not convinced Opening Verse's pace was as fast as JW claims. The camera angles at the start of the straight are different and he's working from very old VT which may mave been edited.

Indian Skimmer never raced again so there has to bea doubt about her having run to form. Maybe she was carrying an injury that day?

I'm going back up the loft. I'm determined to find the form book for 1989. In those days I was working via the weekly Handicap Book/Update pullouts and adding the figures etc into the annual when it came out. When I find it I hope to be able to do a time comparison with the rest of ther aces that season. I've found the Raceform Notebok for that season but not the form book itself, which was published separately.

For the record, Nashwan was a top class horse. I'm not convinced it was a top class Eclipse that year.
 
Back
Top