Cracksman

Yes mate I'm aware that Sensei now hides amongst your political section. I dare say attempting to educate fools such as I, contributed to his early retirement or at least sent him into sabbatical with a few less hairs on his head :lol:
 
Last edited:
I have a feeling your Sensei may temporarily come out of retirement on this subject. It's one he and I started discussing 15 years or more ago.
 
I might get round to giving it some thought later (then again, I might not as horse racing is kak - sorry to break it to you!)

Basically you need differentiate between 'speed' and 'acceleration'. The two things are different. Understanding how horses deploy either to win a race, and what type of race too, holds a key of sorts. A couple who come to mind were George Washington and Ouija Board. Both had similar top speeds to the contemporaries once they were in full flow, but both had a devastating burst that could open up advantage they could then defend. Where these horses can occasionally come unstuck of course is if they're required to accelerate twice in the same race

It's a rare horse that can accelerate off a strong pace. Those that can are the very, very best, or otherwise called Mr Frankel

The other key thing is to understand the relationship between stamina and speed. Outside of sprint distances, where you're on anerobic running, stamina (aerobic) is the very expression of speed. That is to say the horse that can sustain its top speed for longest (the last one to begin slowing down) which is stamina in any other name.

Contrary to what a lot of people think, stamina is not necessarily an expression of distance. If you want to use the athletics equivalent, then look no further than 400m and 10,000m runners. In the 400m, the winner will often crash through the line, fall to the track, and be violently gulping in oxygen. The 10,000 metre winner can probably give you an interview. The reason is because the 400m runner is out of stamina for having had to sustain a punishing speed to the point where they're running on empty.

A lot of horses have a remarkably similar top-speed in their class. Horses do have a ceiling above which they can't go. What sets them apart is the duration for which they can sustain that top speed, and the amount of time it takes them to reach that top speed (that's the parable of Ulshaw for you Paul)

Horses like humans are fuelled by oxygen and their ability to process it into the blood stream and get it circulated. All horses have a cubic capacity therefore over which they can't go (unless you believe Hollywood westerns!)
 
Last edited:
Warbler said:
I might get round to giving it some thought later (then again, I might not as horse racing is kak - sorry to break it to you!)
Click to expand...

I find it amazing that someone who was so into the sport now has this opinion. Particularly someone who still seems to like Cricket.
 
Indeed! It's still the sport of kings. Admittedly financed by murky capitalist dictators, regulated by rogues and gambled on by oily chancers, but still the sport of kings. :) Prefer it to the next football match anyday! Although snooker is growing on me.
 
Last edited:
Warbler said:
It's a rare horse that can accelerate off a strong pace. Those that can are the very, very best, or otherwise called Mr Frankel
Click to expand...

!sn't the corollary to that, horses that accelerate off a none-too-strong pace aren't necessarily Frankels;
eg, Cracksman, or Mendelsson tomorrow?:whistle:
 
Warbler said:
I might get round to giving it some thought later (then again, I might not as horse racing is kak - sorry to break it to you!)

Basically you need differentiate between 'speed' and 'acceleration'. The two things are different. Understanding how horses deploy either to win a race, and what type of race too, holds a key of sorts. A couple who come to mind were George Washington and Ouija Board. Both had similar top speeds to the contemporaries once they were in full flow, but both had a devastating burst that could open up advantage they could then defend. Where these horses can occasionally come unstuck of course is if they're required to accelerate twice in the same race

It's a rare horse that can accelerate off a strong pace. Those that can are the very, very best, or otherwise called Mr Frankel

The other key thing is to understand the relationship between stamina and speed. Outside of sprint distances, where you're on anerobic running, stamina (aerobic) is the very expression of speed. That is to say the horse that can sustain its top speed for longest (the last one to begin slowing down) which is stamina in any other name.

Contrary to what a lot of people think, stamina is not necessarily an expression of distance. If you want to use the athletics equivalent, then look no further than 400m and 10,000m runners. In the 400m, the winner will often crash through the line, fall to the track, and be violently gulping in oxygen. The 10,000 metre winner can probably give you an interview. The reason is because the 400m runner is out of stamina for having had to sustain a punishing speed to the point where they're running on empty.

A lot of horses have a remarkably similar top-speed in their class. Horses do have a ceiling above which they can't go. What sets them apart is the duration for which they can sustain that top speed, and the amount of time it takes them to reach that top speed (that's the parable of Ulshaw for you Paul)

Horses like humans are fuelled by oxygen and their ability to process it into the blood stream and get it circulated. All horses have a cubic capacity therefore over which they can't go (unless you believe Hollywood westerns!)
Click to expand...

Something we never explored in the past, but Simon Rowlands is working on stride length and frequency at the moment, which is a really interesting angle. Take a look as his recent article Alun and let me know what you think because I think this built in with some of your previous work gets very interesting.

http://www.attheraces.com/blogs/sectional-spotlight/12-April-2018

I think this is an angle you could consider exploring. I'm not suggesting for one second you can have another dive into horse racing, particularly the way you once did, but with the classics round the corner I thought this might be a piece of work that might capture your interest on the basis that it's the analytics that float your boat.
 
reet hard said:
!sn't the corollary to that, horses that accelerate off a none-too-strong pace aren't necessarily Frankels;
eg, Cracksman, or Mendelsson tomorrow?:whistle:
Click to expand...

Reet me old mucker why are you trying to stir the shitt pot. First of all nobody compared Cracksman to Frankel.

Second of all if you really want to use sarcasm to its highest degree you should be comparing every horse to the greatest race horse of the last 50 years, Secretariat, not Frankel. :ninja:

I think we might actually agree on Mendelsohn shudder the thought :) but for different reasons. We are going to find out tomorrow what that Dubai win was worth. My book says he won't be placed. If he is I won't be winning on any exotics
 
reet hard said:
!sn't the corollary to that, horses that accelerate off a none-too-strong pace aren't necessarily Frankels;
Click to expand...

'Necessarily' is the key word, as what you're saying is that they haven't demonstrated they have the ability to win a strong end-to-end race, but then this also requires you to take an accurate view as to how a race will be run

The best division I know for illustrating this is 2 mile novice hurdlers. Contrary to what people might think, at championship pace the 2 mile division is a test of stamina, but because its the minimum trip in the winter game people get seduced into thinking its a test of speed (parallels with the 400m again)

If you look at the Supreme in particular, it's littered with horses that went into the race as well fancied favourites. Most of these earned exalted reputations based around moderately run races which they settled with an increase in tempo from 3F's out, and then deployed a devastating acceleration from 1F out to earn the comment "impressive". They're invariably installed as favourite and considered a good thing come the Festival (often at a very short price). Now I'm not to say they're poor horses, they are after all winning races in prep, and doing so in convincing fashion, but that would only make them a good thing if the race is going to be run in a fashion similar to that to which they've demonstrated they can handle with aplomb. They might have a plan B, and they might very well be able to handle a searing pace from the tapes too, but you simply haven't got the evidence to know that

The one I'm reminded of (as it dragged me into a 10 week argument on neigh.co.uk when it seemed I had half of Ireland ranged against me) concerned two Irish horses who had developed just this type of pattern (Sweet Wake in the Supreme and Mister Hight in the Triumph). Now it suits me to dredge this one up (as I was vindicated - you tend to remember those) but the two horses I had in opposition against them based on twice running big figures that season were Straw Bear and Detroit City. This pair had shown they could sustain a strong pace, whereas the Irish pretenders had to be considered unproven but with potential. As it happens Straw Bear came second, and would have won had McCoy not made a complete bollocks of the last flight and bunny hopped the horse to a halt. Sweet Wake was an unplaced BF. Detroit City won the Triumph and Mister Hight was nowhere

What I think likely happens is that the horse which has no experience of a strong pace is suddenly thrown into something that they've never encountered previously and it comes as a shock to them. How will they respond? Distressed horses rarely perform to their optimum. Now with time of course, a class horse can learn, but on other occasions they simply aren't good enough
 
Warbler said:
'Necessarily' is the key word, as what you're saying is that they haven't demonstrated they have the ability to win a strong end-to-end race, but then this also requires you to take an accurate view as to how a race will be run

The best division I know for illustrating this is 2 mile novice hurdlers. Contrary to what people might think, at championship pace the 2 mile division is a test of stamina, but because its the minimum trip in the winter game people get seduced into thinking its a test of speed (parallels with the 400m again)

If you look at the Supreme in particular, it's littered with horses that went into the race as well fancied favourites. Most of these earned exalted reputations based around moderately run races which they settled with an increase in tempo from 3F's out, and then deployed a devastating acceleration from 1F out to earn the comment "impressive". They're invariably installed as favourite and considered a good thing come the Festival (often at a very short price). Now I'm not to say they're poor horses, they are after all winning races in prep, and doing so in convincing fashion, but that would only make them a good thing if the race is going to be run in a fashion similar to that to which they've demonstrated they can handle with aplomb. They might have a plan B, and they might very well be able to handle a searing pace from the tapes too, but you simply haven't got the evidence to know that

The one I'm reminded of (as it dragged me into a 10 week argument on neigh.co.uk when it seemed I had half of Ireland ranged against me) concerned two Irish horses who had developed just this type of pattern (Sweet Wake in the Supreme and Mister Hight in the Triumph). Now it suits me to dredge this one up (as I was vindicated - you tend to remember those) but the two horses I had in opposition against them based on twice running big figures that season were Straw Bear and Detroit City. This pair had shown they could sustain a strong pace, whereas the Irish pretenders had to be considered unproven but with potential. As it happens Straw Bear came second, and would have won had McCoy not made a complete bollocks of the last flight and bunny hopped the horse to a halt. Sweet Wake was an unplaced BF. Detroit City won the Triumph and Mister Hight was nowhere

What I think likely happens is that the horse which has no experience of a strong pace is suddenly thrown into something that they've never encountered previously and it comes as a shock to them. How will they respond? Distressed horses rarely perform to their optimum. Now with time of course, a class horse can learn, but on other occasions they simply aren't good enough
Click to expand...
I remember you latching on to Detroit City at Newbury after his less than auspicious start on debut. You went pretty high for it as I remember, and then higher again in its third run at Sandown. I also think you ranked the Sandown race better than any of the 10 previous Triumph Hurdles? I half recall you having a progression theory too?

I don't think I was quite as sweet on Straw Bear though, and I'm pretty sure I was one of those in opposition. I think the reason was that he was campaigned at gaff tracks prior to the Festival, and horses that had previously done so had never won a Supreme. That remained true, but as you say without the mistake at the last he may well have broken that trend and beaten Noland. Unless I'm mistaken, I think that trend still holds up a dozen or so years on by the way.
 
Marble said:
Indeed! It's still the sport of kings. Admittedly financed by murky capitalist dictators, regulated by rogues and gambled on by oily chancers, but still the sport of kings. :)
Click to expand...

Brilliantly put Martin.
 
Wow Cracksman wonderhorse..


S0rry Avengers have you tried Suicide squad? No way would this horse be remembered for 5 min after this season
 
Given how he ran at Epsom the twice before, it was slightly surprising he was given the go ahead.
I had a suspicion he would make heavy weather of it. That said, it was to his credit his class got him home.
 
Frankel said:
Given how he ran at Epsom the twice before, it was slightly surprising he was given the go ahead.
I had a suspicion he would make heavy weather of it. That said, it was to his credit his class got him home.
Click to expand...

Scraped past Salouen ? The Enable of 2017 would have won this race ten lengths on the bridle .

De Sousa threw that away his failure to get to the rail when he had the chance cost him the race.
 
Last edited:
Ardross said:
Scraped past Salouen ? The Enable of 2017 would have won this race ten lengths on the bridle .

De Sousa threw that away his failure to get to the rail when he had the chance cost him the race.
Click to expand...

10 lengths on the bridle - errrrrr no.
But yes she would have dealt with him.

Wouldn't be slagging the ride. Was a good ride in defeat.
 
Ardross said:
Scraped past Salouen ? The Enable of 2017 would have won this race ten lengths on the bridle .

De Sousa threw that away his failure to get to the rail when he had the chance cost him the race.
Click to expand...

De Sousa said afterwards his horse was tiring and "rolled away from the rail". I think to label the ride a failure is harsh. He came within a head of pulling off a real shock of a result. It's not as if he was riding the second favourite who would have been entitled to beat an off-form Cracksman. He was not expected to beat many - if ANY - of that field.

The most ridiculous comments of the day - and not for the first time - have to go to Chapman who seriously tried to argue that Cracksman had run his race. That kind of incompetence deserves sacking.
 
I don't know about tip-top condition (I can't judge these things in the flesh let alone on TV) but I thought he was never travelling. It was going through my mind listening to the immediate post-race interviews about him not coming down the hill that he wasn't travelling up the hill in the first part of the race either. I thought Dettori's arms were fairly active on him from the start and wondered if all was well.

I don't imagine we'll see him at Epsom again. That was too close for comfort. Dettori's immediate post-race gestures of relief were refreshingly honest.

Let's not forget that the Brigadier was run close a couple of times in bad ground and was beaten by Roberto when there was no obvious excuse until some time later, and Nijinsky lost his last two races.

Horses are only human after all...
 
Last edited:
Back
Top