REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do much without having been registered!

At the moment you have limited access to view all discussions - and most importantly, you haven't joined our community. What are you waiting for? Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Join Talking Horses here!

Reply to thread

Message

...only if your going allowance is accurate.

I'm quite prepared to take on board the view of sectionalists - if I may coin the word - when they say, based on their experience and expertise, that the likes of Camelot is xlbs better than the bare form. I tend to express a belief that a horse is better than the bare form when I use a '+' or even a '++' in my ratings but I tend to limit that extra to notional amounts (unless there is clear evidence of a more specific amount, for example if a horse is eased down from a five lengths lead to a one length win I tend to credit it with the full margin of superiority).

As I said in my piece, I didn't think Camelot got the kind of tactical ride that would allow it to show its best form and I do believe it is a fair bit better than the bare rating. I just can't say by how much.

I can believe Pour Moi is a lot better than the bare form of his Derby - it wouldn't be difficult, would it? - but I don't know by how much and we'll never know. But it was not a strong in-depth race and this year's was arguably weaker.

<blockquote data-quote="Desert Orchid" data-source="post: 2394719" data-attributes="member: 65242">...only if your going allowance is accurate.&nbsp;I&#039;m quite prepared to take on board the view of sectionalists - if I may coin the word - when they say, based on their experience and expertise, that the likes of Camelot is xlbs better than the bare form. I tend to express a belief that a horse is better than the bare form when I use a &#039;+&#039; or even a &#039;++&#039; in my ratings but I tend to limit that extra to notional amounts (unless there is clear evidence of a more specific amount, for example if a horse is eased down from a five lengths lead to a one length win I tend to credit it with the full margin of superiority).&nbsp;As I said in my piece, I didn&#039;t think Camelot got the kind of tactical ride that would allow it to show its best form and I do believe it is a fair bit better than the bare rating. I just can&#039;t say by how much.&nbsp;I can believe Pour Moi is a lot better than the bare form of his Derby - it wouldn&#039;t be difficult, would it? - but I don&#039;t know by how much and we&#039;ll never know. But it was not a strong in-depth race and this year&#039;s was arguably weaker.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Desert Orchid, post: 2394719, member: 65242"] ...only if your going allowance is accurate. I'm quite prepared to take on board the view of sectionalists - if I may coin the word - when they say, based on their experience and expertise, that the likes of Camelot is xlbs better than the bare form. I tend to express a belief that a horse is better than the bare form when I use a '+' or even a '++' in my ratings but I tend to limit that extra to notional amounts (unless there is clear evidence of a more specific amount, for example if a horse is eased down from a five lengths lead to a one length win I tend to credit it with the full margin of superiority). As I said in my piece, I didn't think Camelot got the kind of tactical ride that would allow it to show its best form and I do believe it is a fair bit better than the bare rating. I just can't say by how much. I can believe Pour Moi is a lot better than the bare form of his Derby - it wouldn't be difficult, would it? - but I don't know by how much and we'll never know. But it was not a strong in-depth race and this year's was arguably weaker. [/QUOTE]

Verification: 5 + 3 = ?