chroniclandlord
Senior Jockey
That is the way I see it too. Imperial Monarch and Astrology may well be aimed at the Grand Prix de Paris.
Epsom Derby 2012
- Thread starter betsmate
- Start date
That is the way I see it too. Imperial Monarch and Astrology may well be aimed at the Grand Prix de Paris.
edgt
Senior Jockey
Correct. Bahram did not meet Omaha in1935 to my knowledge, the last time Triple Crown wins on both sides of The Atlantic.
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,014
Nijinsky suffered a bout of ringworm before the St Leger and was not at his best. That was probably why it took so much out of him and the fact he could still fight out photo-finishes in the Arc and Champion stakes in his next two outings is testament to his sheer class. A lesser beast would have been beaten out of sight.
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,014
So just how good is Camelot?
While visually impressive, I’m not convinced the form amounts to anything more than a very average Derby. Having said that, Camelot did it easily and he wasn’t given the most tactically astute ride, regardless of the praise being lavished on Joseph O’Brien in the press.
Comparative times suggest the race was moderately run and my gut was telling me he was further back than ideal throughout the first half of the race. That is not the place to be in a moderately run event. I’m always on the lookout for whichever horse is in the Piggott position, namely four or five lengths off the leader and two or three widths off the rail. On Saturday Bonfire and Rugged Cross had that area all to themselves as the field spread out behind but the latter’s OR was just 104 so there was little chance of his being involved at the finish. On the other hand, you could argue that he was positioned to run his race and rating the winner through him puts Camelot on 128 with something in hand. Bonfire was in the perfect position but he got a couple of taps down the shoulder just as they started to run downhill and Jimmy Fortune later reported that the horse failed to handle the hill at all, yet Bonfire moved into a challenging position about two furlongs out and I reckon at that point his stamina gave out, so we can’t use him as a benchmark.
So what other markers can we use?
Astrology made the running but I’m not convinced Moore went too fast on him. They looked to me to canter the very first furlong before Moore went on and injected some pace but it didn’t look anything more than even, which should have suited the pressers and shouldn’t have suited the hold-up horses, two of which filled the first two places, leaving Astrology in third, the runner-up being Main Sequence who came into the race officially rated 106 but who had put up a decent time in the Lingfield trial on the all-weather. Rating the race on that time rating would put Camelot on 125+.
There was a six-length gap to Thought Worthy in fourth. He had run well in soft ground in an iffy trial at Chester and had seemed not to run to that form when following up at Newmarket on faster going. His OR of 106 would put Camelot on 122+.
My gut instinct is to rate the race via the seventh-placed Minimise Risk. He came in with an OR of 96 but I’d rated him 101. He accompanied Camelot until the winner made his move but couldn’t live with him. If Astrology set the good pace they’re claiming, then Minimise Risk will have run his race. Spencer rode him as though he could pick up any scraps falling from the Coolmore table and tried to follow the winner from the moment O’Brien started his move. He stayed within a couple of lengths until hitting his wall but plugged on up the straight, probably running as well as could be expected. This would put Camelot on 122+ as well and would credit Astrology with an improved rating from 111 in the soft at Chester to 115 here. It would give Main Sequence the same rating, 9lbs more than his official rating going into the race, and a somewhat more credible mark than when winning the Lingfield trial. Cavaleiro, nearly seven lengths back in third then, was more than double that behind here but wasn’t persevered with late on.
The clock doesn’t really help us either. It was the fastest-run race on the round course on the day but that wouldn’t have been difficult. St Nicholas Abbey outclassed his field in a moderately run Coronation Cup and Fallon did his best to get Fiery Lad beat in the handicap over course and distance. I’m not convinced the opening extended ten furlong handicap for three-year olds was strongly run either but rating the race through this one would put Camelot on 129+ using the official weight-for-age scale or 128+ using Timeform’s. My concern with this would be the inflated ratings it would imply for Main Sequence and Astrology. Are we really to believe either would win an average Derby? Are we really to believe Minimise Risk, beaten 14 lengths, ran 7lbs better than his previous best? I’m afraid that is asking too much.
To come back to the opening question, then, how good is Camelot? For the time being, I’m going to take a conservative view of the form. My low rating for Pour Moi (at 115 the lowest rating I’ve ever given a Derby winner, surpassing Oath’s awful 118) was justified by Carlton House’s Brigadier Gerard win two evenings before this year’s Derby although I’m still struggling to accept how bad the form seems, and the Guineas form hasn’t been franked so I think we may have another group of moderate three-year-olds. Camelot is probably an exception, which has allowed him to win two classics and he may even be gifted the Triple Crown. He is almost certainly a fair bit better than the 122+ I am giving him for this and we probably won’t see how good he really is until he takes on the top older horses. I wouldn’t be surprised if he has a 130+ performance in his locker and connections, who know a good one when they have one, seem very taken by this fellow.
Is he the stuff of legend? We shall see.
While visually impressive, I’m not convinced the form amounts to anything more than a very average Derby. Having said that, Camelot did it easily and he wasn’t given the most tactically astute ride, regardless of the praise being lavished on Joseph O’Brien in the press.
Comparative times suggest the race was moderately run and my gut was telling me he was further back than ideal throughout the first half of the race. That is not the place to be in a moderately run event. I’m always on the lookout for whichever horse is in the Piggott position, namely four or five lengths off the leader and two or three widths off the rail. On Saturday Bonfire and Rugged Cross had that area all to themselves as the field spread out behind but the latter’s OR was just 104 so there was little chance of his being involved at the finish. On the other hand, you could argue that he was positioned to run his race and rating the winner through him puts Camelot on 128 with something in hand. Bonfire was in the perfect position but he got a couple of taps down the shoulder just as they started to run downhill and Jimmy Fortune later reported that the horse failed to handle the hill at all, yet Bonfire moved into a challenging position about two furlongs out and I reckon at that point his stamina gave out, so we can’t use him as a benchmark.
So what other markers can we use?
Astrology made the running but I’m not convinced Moore went too fast on him. They looked to me to canter the very first furlong before Moore went on and injected some pace but it didn’t look anything more than even, which should have suited the pressers and shouldn’t have suited the hold-up horses, two of which filled the first two places, leaving Astrology in third, the runner-up being Main Sequence who came into the race officially rated 106 but who had put up a decent time in the Lingfield trial on the all-weather. Rating the race on that time rating would put Camelot on 125+.
There was a six-length gap to Thought Worthy in fourth. He had run well in soft ground in an iffy trial at Chester and had seemed not to run to that form when following up at Newmarket on faster going. His OR of 106 would put Camelot on 122+.
My gut instinct is to rate the race via the seventh-placed Minimise Risk. He came in with an OR of 96 but I’d rated him 101. He accompanied Camelot until the winner made his move but couldn’t live with him. If Astrology set the good pace they’re claiming, then Minimise Risk will have run his race. Spencer rode him as though he could pick up any scraps falling from the Coolmore table and tried to follow the winner from the moment O’Brien started his move. He stayed within a couple of lengths until hitting his wall but plugged on up the straight, probably running as well as could be expected. This would put Camelot on 122+ as well and would credit Astrology with an improved rating from 111 in the soft at Chester to 115 here. It would give Main Sequence the same rating, 9lbs more than his official rating going into the race, and a somewhat more credible mark than when winning the Lingfield trial. Cavaleiro, nearly seven lengths back in third then, was more than double that behind here but wasn’t persevered with late on.
The clock doesn’t really help us either. It was the fastest-run race on the round course on the day but that wouldn’t have been difficult. St Nicholas Abbey outclassed his field in a moderately run Coronation Cup and Fallon did his best to get Fiery Lad beat in the handicap over course and distance. I’m not convinced the opening extended ten furlong handicap for three-year olds was strongly run either but rating the race through this one would put Camelot on 129+ using the official weight-for-age scale or 128+ using Timeform’s. My concern with this would be the inflated ratings it would imply for Main Sequence and Astrology. Are we really to believe either would win an average Derby? Are we really to believe Minimise Risk, beaten 14 lengths, ran 7lbs better than his previous best? I’m afraid that is asking too much.
To come back to the opening question, then, how good is Camelot? For the time being, I’m going to take a conservative view of the form. My low rating for Pour Moi (at 115 the lowest rating I’ve ever given a Derby winner, surpassing Oath’s awful 118) was justified by Carlton House’s Brigadier Gerard win two evenings before this year’s Derby although I’m still struggling to accept how bad the form seems, and the Guineas form hasn’t been franked so I think we may have another group of moderate three-year-olds. Camelot is probably an exception, which has allowed him to win two classics and he may even be gifted the Triple Crown. He is almost certainly a fair bit better than the 122+ I am giving him for this and we probably won’t see how good he really is until he takes on the top older horses. I wouldn’t be surprised if he has a 130+ performance in his locker and connections, who know a good one when they have one, seem very taken by this fellow.
Is he the stuff of legend? We shall see.
Last edited:
Colin Phillips
At the Start
Nice piece, DO.
chroniclandlord
Senior Jockey
Very interesting DO.
M
Marble
Guest
A very interesting read Desert Orchid, thanks.
I sincerely hope this happens sooner rather than later!
I sincerely hope this happens sooner rather than later!
Interesting stuff, DO, and I'd agree we don't know how good Camelot is just yet, but I'd take issue with the race being "moderately run". The RP analyst saw it as a "solid pace", Nick Mordin has it "strongly run", and Simon Rowlands accords it the 3rd best time figure since the 1980's.
For mine, Astrologist set an even pace until Tattenham Corner, then quickened up to fend off Thought Worthy - far enough out to make the race a true test.
Fwiw, I thought Camelot's pilot panicked a little at that stage, causing the horse to become unbalanced; otherwise he might have won a little more impressively.
For mine, Astrologist set an even pace until Tattenham Corner, then quickened up to fend off Thought Worthy - far enough out to make the race a true test.
Fwiw, I thought Camelot's pilot panicked a little at that stage, causing the horse to become unbalanced; otherwise he might have won a little more impressively.
Last edited:
EC1
On a break
Duplicate
Last edited:
Forgot to add:
http://betting.betfair.com/horse-racing/timeform-debate/simon-rowlands/epsom-derby-review-the-timeform-clock-gives-a-thumbs-up-to-camelot-040612-43.html
S. Rowlands view.
Nick Mordin's thoughts on the thread on this forum.
http://betting.betfair.com/horse-racing/timeform-debate/simon-rowlands/epsom-derby-review-the-timeform-clock-gives-a-thumbs-up-to-camelot-040612-43.html
S. Rowlands view.
Nick Mordin's thoughts on the thread on this forum.
Last edited:
Pour Moi was indeed an excellent Derby winner. He was asked to do an enormous amount in the closing stages and would have earned a decent mark for doing so. His rider could have easily buggered it up after giving him so much to do.
You wouldn't expect Camelot to earn such a high rating as he won pretty easiliy. But he is a very good horse. We've seen just the tip of the iceberg with him.
B
Bruce_Savage
Guest
Still don't understand why Simon hasn't used the time in relation to how the other races on the card were run, 5 out of 7 races where run below standard but he's only used correlation between St Nicholas Abbey and Camelot? yes they were run over the same distance but he's clocking the final speed from the cross over patch at the top of the bend around Tattenham corner and therefore brings in every race on the card regardless of distance.
I'd find it more interesting Camelot's final 3f speed in relation to the sprinters especially Lui Rei who put up a Group 2/1 performance.
I'd find it more interesting Camelot's final 3f speed in relation to the sprinters especially Lui Rei who put up a Group 2/1 performance.
Last edited:
EC1
On a break
the sectionals show that Pour Moi was a very good Derby winner DO...a real shame he never ran again..because as with Dancing Brave..who's real figure in the Derby was much higher than being beaten by Shahrastani..likewise PM was higher than ordinary handicapping suggests
the last 3.4 furlongs as expressed as % finishing speed require that to run even even fractions you need to be running about 106%
when horses have run the best times in the Derby it has been done in a race where 105/106% is hit...higher than that the more slow the early pace was
Workforce 105%
Authorised 106%
Sinndar 106%
for a very good example of a very slow early pace..Dancing Rain 122%
for races run at less than even pace but not ridiculous crawls like DR
Pour Moi 109%
Sir Percy 110%
New Approach 110%
St Nicolas Abbey 111% [saturdays race]
When you think where Pour Moi was in a race run to suit the front pace horses..you can see what an amazing achievement he carried off from a position not far removed from Dancing Brave
the next group are more slowly run early
Sea The Stars 114%
Camelot 112%
Nijinsky 115%
Was 116%
Galileo 115%
when you plot early against late for each individual winner and correct the ground speed its clear that the best Derby winner i've got recorded is Nijinsky..even though he took part in a slow early pace..his finishing effort is higher than it should be
the 2nd best and very close to Nijinsky is Galileo...Pour Moi is just behind these two ..Workforce next...then Sea The Stars
Camelot is a similar horse to New Approach just behind STS
I could put actual ratings on these but they are my opinions based on sectionals..which aren't exact science obviously
a stopwatch isn't the best tool either when taking these sectionals..video editing software is far more accurate..it takes longer but is accurate to about 0.04sec
the last 3.4 furlongs as expressed as % finishing speed require that to run even even fractions you need to be running about 106%
when horses have run the best times in the Derby it has been done in a race where 105/106% is hit...higher than that the more slow the early pace was
Workforce 105%
Authorised 106%
Sinndar 106%
for a very good example of a very slow early pace..Dancing Rain 122%
for races run at less than even pace but not ridiculous crawls like DR
Pour Moi 109%
Sir Percy 110%
New Approach 110%
St Nicolas Abbey 111% [saturdays race]
When you think where Pour Moi was in a race run to suit the front pace horses..you can see what an amazing achievement he carried off from a position not far removed from Dancing Brave
the next group are more slowly run early
Sea The Stars 114%
Camelot 112%
Nijinsky 115%
Was 116%
Galileo 115%
when you plot early against late for each individual winner and correct the ground speed its clear that the best Derby winner i've got recorded is Nijinsky..even though he took part in a slow early pace..his finishing effort is higher than it should be
the 2nd best and very close to Nijinsky is Galileo...Pour Moi is just behind these two ..Workforce next...then Sea The Stars
Camelot is a similar horse to New Approach just behind STS
I could put actual ratings on these but they are my opinions based on sectionals..which aren't exact science obviously
a stopwatch isn't the best tool either when taking these sectionals..video editing software is far more accurate..it takes longer but is accurate to about 0.04sec
Last edited:
No real depth but a very fine winner.
EC1
On a break
a comparison between Pour Moi and Camelot is best seen with Feet per second figures
both these horses used similar early energy to the path when you average the first 5f and next 3f..the ideal match up...the higher the number the faster
Camelot to path 48.42 fps
Pour Moi to path 48.54 fps
so PM ran slightly faster early..but these are very similar energy levels used...the last section tells you who is the better horse on the day
Camelot 58.03
Pour Moi 58.63
PM would have beat Camelot by approx 23ft or nearly 3 lengths..you also have to add a bit more because PM used more petrol..slightly... for the first 8f
both these horses used similar early energy to the path when you average the first 5f and next 3f..the ideal match up...the higher the number the faster
Camelot to path 48.42 fps
Pour Moi to path 48.54 fps
so PM ran slightly faster early..but these are very similar energy levels used...the last section tells you who is the better horse on the day
Camelot 58.03
Pour Moi 58.63
PM would have beat Camelot by approx 23ft or nearly 3 lengths..you also have to add a bit more because PM used more petrol..slightly... for the first 8f
Last edited:
EC1
On a break
i think Camelot was asked for maximum effort to close Steve..very similar ask to PM
PM was an outstanding winner imo..Camelot is above average..but not in PM's league..imo
a crying shame he could never prove it when ridden more evenly in later races
Last edited:
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,014
I don't know enough about sectionals to comment but surely even a race won by a 90 handicapper could end up with percentages like the ones quoted, therefore it amy say something about how the race was run/won, but does it really tell you anything about the value of the form? I learned the hard way decades ago that time ratings are far from the be-all-and-end-all and that form ratings are far more reliable. (I had an item about it published in the old Handicap Book.)
While I accept that sectionals may offer an added dimension in highlighting how the race unfolded and in highlighting significant performances that the ratings can't do by themselves, I would need to know how they can evaluate a race as a whole.
Pour Moi may well be 10lbs better than the bare form of his Derby, in which case Barzalona needs his airse tackety-booted, but I can only evaluate the bare form and speculate about what might be better than that and by how much. (Which is what I thought I did above.)
While I accept that sectionals may offer an added dimension in highlighting how the race unfolded and in highlighting significant performances that the ratings can't do by themselves, I would need to know how they can evaluate a race as a whole.
Pour Moi may well be 10lbs better than the bare form of his Derby, in which case Barzalona needs his airse tackety-booted, but I can only evaluate the bare form and speculate about what might be better than that and by how much. (Which is what I thought I did above.)
EC1
On a break
comparing Camelot to Galileo ..again shows how good G was
Early pace
Camelot 48.42 fps
Galileo 48.68
Late Pace
Camelot 58.03
Galileo 58.79
Galileo is faster in both sections again..more so than PM
so yes C is a decent winner..but lets keep it in perspective..he isn't a great winner
Early pace
Camelot 48.42 fps
Galileo 48.68
Late Pace
Camelot 58.03
Galileo 58.79
Galileo is faster in both sections again..more so than PM
so yes C is a decent winner..but lets keep it in perspective..he isn't a great winner
B
Bruce_Savage
Guest
That's where you bring in class pars to the equation so you can solve that problem and why sectionals are largely inferior and irrelevant to assessing a horse compared to final times and card correlation analysis.
EC1
On a break
the % aren't ratings DO..they are just a measure of if a race is run faster or slower than it should be
the fps figures tell you how good a horse is..i've got handicappers sectionals as well and they are way below this level as they should be
final time speed figures only tell a fraction of the story DO..we all accept that..i still use them.
I wasn't knocking your analysis but PM was a way better Derby winner than most recent ones
When Shahrastani "beat" DB..S would have been rated the better horse on the day..do you think that was a fair assessment of DB?..i know i don't..simply because DB was disdvantaged to a ridiculous degree...held off a pace that strongly favoured the leaders...as was PM
Last edited: