Coral Eclipse

Whilst it was by no means a dawdle, I would have expected So You Think and Workforce to run a second or so faster compared to the later handicap in a proper true-run contest. A fine race, but 2009 it certainly wasn't.
 
Gareth Flynn said:
Whilst it was by no means a dawdle, I would have expected So You Think and Workforce to run a second or so faster compared to the later handicap in a proper true-run contest. A fine race, but 2009 it certainly wasn't.
Click to expand...

they ran nearly 4 seconds faster..which is correct for the class levels involved..the handicap was only a 3yo class 4
 
Disagree - So You Think's time works out as only ~31lbs faster than the handicap winner, who will be rated in the low-mid 80s. That leaves So You Think and Workforce in the mid-110s (on the official scale).
 
EC1 said:
the first 3 furlong of the race ..think they reported it was a bit slower on that part in the RP

from 8f onwards..which comes from a short chute anyway.. the track gets more racing..then from 7f point even more racing making the ground quite compacted over time..the 10f race has fewer horses flattening it basically

i know that most will use those shorter distance times for forming a GA..but the 10f handicap shows that at least part of the 10f was slower than the rest..that race was truly run..and is a far more accurate marker for the big race than any of the shorter trips...but it looks 10lb slow when compared to the other distances.
Click to expand...

I disagree. There is no evidence that the 10f course was slower on Friday - quite the contrary, in fact - and the Post today says there was no overnight rain and the only watering done was 3mm in the home straight. There's no reason in my view not to take the times on the round course at face value and come up with one going allowance for the lot.
 
Gareth Flynn said:
Disagree - So You Think's time works out as only ~31lbs faster than the handicap winner, who will be rated in the low-mid 80s. That leaves So You Think and Workforce in the mid-110s (on the official scale).
Click to expand...

using 10.9 lbs per second which topspeed use at 10f...TF maybe higher I believe....its 41lb difference just on time..Cool McAvity will be rated about 83/85 after that win as has not run many times..which is where i get 125..using one method..also using my own...wfa is negated as SYT gave 1lb more than wfa..so in effect with wfa + time is 42lb

Gus..i didn't do Fridays so will check that out

if you are correct then it would need some explaining how the handicap and Eclipse just happen to both be about 10lbs slow..when both were run to suit a par or better figure..both decently run early...seems quite a coincidence..the 3yo handicap using the ga from all races would make the handicap 10lb slow on your figures i'll guess..but it was a true run race?

if you are correct then SYT is only a 115 horse at best..which i think a few here may argue with
 
Last edited:
using the correct course figures ;)

98 - HIGHLAND KNIGHT
125 - SO YOU THINK
86 - CHILLED
82 - COOL MACAVITY
82 - NAHRAIN

apologies for talking more guff than usual ;)
 
I don't think SYT is any super horse..if he was..he would have run much faster given that the race was run to suit a very decent speed figure if those taking part were capable.

For me WF on easier ground and over 12f will always beat SYT
Click to expand...

I agree that SYT is a very good horse, but almost certainly not a super horse, but why should he have run any faster than he did? It was Workforce who was setting the pace, and Heffernan had no worries about anything in behind, so he could wait and pounce at a moment of his choosing. Are you perhaps suggesting that Ryan Moore should have gone a bit faster?

I also agree that a rematch over 12f on easier ground could see a different result.
 
Hamm said:
I was emphatic SYT is massively overrated prior to Ascot.

It seems people will listen to O'Brien rather than the evidence of their own eyes.

Workforce is 4-5 pounds better than Rewilding, and more suited to 10 furlong than the Godolphin horse.

The market is upside down. What an opportunity.
Click to expand...

Do you still think that SYT was massively overrated prior to Ascot? I think his RPR was 129 at the time.

His RPR is now 132, by the way. Is this overrated?
 
I completely underestimated him coming into this race - he was impressive and won with a deal in hand. You and one or two others stood against the tide with this horse. You were correct - fair play Bar ... your reputation is suitably enhanced..
 
Last edited:
I think one or two of you..Bar..tut tut;)..are buying into the hype.

SYT is a mid 120's horse..on OHR's..thats not exceptional

In the Eclipse he had basically a slam dunk..WF was never going to relish the going and 12f is probably his trip..don't forget WF ran miserably last year in the KG on ground like Saturdays..the filly ran way below form...WF can run about 10lb better than Saturday..can SYT?

This isn't knocking the horse..but is knocking the ridiculous hype i'm seeing about the horse
 
EC1 said:
I think one or two of you..Bar..tut tut;)..are buying into the hype.

SYT is a mid 120's horse..on OHR's..thats not exceptional

In the Eclipse he had basically a slam dunk..WF was never going to relish the going and 12f is probably his trip..don't forget WF ran miserably last year in the KG on ground like Saturdays..the filly ran way below form...WF can run about 10lb better than Saturday..can SYT?

This isn't knocking the horse..but is knocking the ridiculous hype i'm seeing about the horse
Click to expand...

In the spirit of Melendez's earlier post, I am one of the few people who championed the ACTUAL WINNER of Saturday's race. It is amazing how many people who believe they are right when they are wrong.

I have admitted I was a little bit wrong, when I was right.
 
Bar the Bull said:
In the spirit of Melendez's earlier post, I am one of the few people who championed the ACTUAL WINNER of Saturday's race. It is amazing how many people who believe they are right when they are wrong.

I have admitted I was a little bit wrong, when I was right.
Click to expand...

now you know full well there is no credit on here for being right..just plenty of stick when you wrong;)

unless you a racing name.. then even if you posted 2 years ago someone will dig it out and bid you well done;)
 
I am struggling with the idea he won cosily - Heffernan hit him 11 or 12 times in the final furlong and a half .
 
if needing 1/2 more length he could have find, similar to Canford beating Goldi, but the later was carrying 2 pounds overweight.
 
I haven't read this thread fully .. so sorry if this has already been aired.

What did you think when WF kicked on? Obviously, with 120yds to go, he looked to have won. ... SYT was plenty quick enough to look as tho he always had WF covered, as it turned out.

Should the pace have been higher? Should WF have gone even earlier?

As it was, it looked perfectly set up for SYT.
 
Soary Stars said:
I haven't read this thread fully .. so sorry if this has already been aired.

What did you think when WF kicked on? Obviously, with 120yds to go, he looked to have won. ... SYT was plenty quick enough to look as tho he always had WF covered, as it turned out.

Should the pace have been higher? Should WF have gone even earlier?

As it was, it looked perfectly set up for SYT.
Click to expand...

I think it was an intelligent ride on WF..went at just the right time..probably will never beat SYT under these conditions
 
Timeform give the winner a performance rating of 132+, with a timefigure of 121.

Racing Post give the winner a performance rating of 132 with a timefigure of 120.

Both would appear to back up the suggestion that the race wasn't quite truly run.

Workforce's standout timefigure remains the 134 (Timeform) and 128 (Racing Post) awarded for his Derby win on fast ground.
 
Back
Top