Coral Eclipse

And so, ratings are horses now are they?
Being sarcastic there hope you don't mind too much.

On the day, STS beat all comers 6 times from whatever he won before the 2K to the Arc & it was a blissful progression, wasn't it?

adding a bit: did he ever bother to beat any horse by much?
 
Last edited:
I get you, reasonable.
Are you sold on ratings?
They have an attraction where it looks like you can measure horses in numbers.
Maybe you can I wouldn't know & you can have the fun of trying ...
Evidently, STS and cases like his, aren't co-operating. (neither some trainers!)
 
Soary Stars said:
Oh can you have that? SYT only 2lbs behind STS?
Do I read that right?
Click to expand...

Its not quite that simple.

Sea The Stars' Eclipse was rated 136+. That was his highest single performance rating. However, when publishing his Master Rating, finalised in their Racehorses book, they settled on 140 (I guess you could call that '+' worth 4lbs).

So You Think's Eclipse was rated 132+. His current Master Rating is 134. So really, he's rated 4-6lbs inferior to Sea The Stars (3-4 lengths?).
 
Bar the Bull said:
I agree with you. I am just saying that it is not surprising that STS is 2lb ahead of SYT, when the former never put in a performance to show quite how good most of us believed he was.
Click to expand...

Like I said immediately after the race, if those two had run in STS's Eclipse they'd have been nearer Conduit than Rip Van Winkle. They're both nice horses but a true tip top performer like a STS or a Sakhee or a Dubai Millennium would have mullered them.
 
Euronymous said:
Like I said immediately after the race, if those two had run in STS's Eclipse they'd have been nearer Conduit than Rip Van Winkle. They're both nice horses but a true tip top performer like a STS or a Sakhee or a Dubai Millennium would have mullered them.
Click to expand...
Sakhee, of course, was beaten hands down by the mighty Shiva in an Eclipse, rendering the previous analysis rather confusing.
 
Montjeu. We should put his name up. Plus, there's that man again: Michael Kinane.
(not an Eclipse runner, sure, but well ...)
 
Last edited:
Gareth Flynn said:
He was injured in that, had a knee op, and came back a world champion the next year.
Click to expand...
Fair enough Gareth, although I always thought the knee problem materialised later in the year, but certainly Sakhee shouldn't be judged on that Eclipse run. The point I'm trying to make is that any defeat for a horse under the microscope now is put forward as evidence of that horse's limitations, whereas we look on the stars of yesteryear with the benefit of hindsight, forgiving their (often frequent) failures, and comparing today's stars with the perfect version of the greats that went before. Yes, Sakhee would have stuffed this lot in a mythical Eclipse, but it's not top trumps, is it? :p
 
Actually, I've read differing accounts over when the knee injury cropped up, so you could be right. Regardless of the injury, he was clearly a different horse at 4. Completely agree with your point though - even Dancing Brave lost twice as a 3yo!

I used to love Top Trumps when I was a kid - did they ever do a horse racing one? :D
 
SteveM said:
I wouldn't disagree with this... My point is that since Timeform have been owned by Betfair it is not adverse to making up a figure and adding the number they first thought of. There is no rhyme or reason to what they come up with on these headline horses anymore.
Click to expand...

Gareth Flynn said:
I used to love Top Trumps when I was a kid - did they ever do a horse racing one? :D
Click to expand...

Good job they didn't, could you imagine the endless debate and arguments, the game would never of ended. :whistle:
 
Back
Top