Goodwood Saturday

Amazing to think that Halfway to Heaven is out of a Kings Stand winner Cassandra Go.I don't think people fully appreciate what an amazing talent APOB is-we could be witnessing the greatest trainer of all time at the peak of his powers.

because the horse has won at a mile and not a sprint trip you think he is the best of all time?

I'd check out Vincent first....and a couple of others;)
 
Todays race was over 10 furlongs not a mile.When Airwave was trained by Henry Candy the opinion on this forum was that she didn't stay 6 furlongs yet APOB trained her to win over a mile in a Group 2 at The Curragh.Idon't know if it has escaped your attention but the man is on his way to breaking the world record for Group1 's in a year.It wouldn't be my usual style to claim that winning the Nassau with a dodgy stayer makes anyone the best trainer in the history of the world.
I would safely say I have read every book published about Vincent over the last 25 years.The last one to be published had at least 2 factual errors.
 
of course it was 10f:o

I can see what you are saying but sometimes recency can encourage us to overestimate things..not necessarily saying that is relevant here though.

to me AOB is a natural with horses..love his way with them

obviously the world record thing CAN depend on what horses you are training of course...but in his case he is winning races that possibly other trainers couldn't ...given same animal...as with todays.

where would Michael Dickinson fit in do you reckon?...he was another that had that special quality imo
 
I have to agree with those who say Manning gave Lush Lashes a poor ride. Admittedly he was deliberately kept in for a lot of the straight and not let out but what the hell was he thinking in going for a gap up the rail that wasn't there in the first place?

I also agree that it was madness to water, not least when rain was forecast. I don't know whether it was mentioned on Ch4 or not, but the jockeys said after the first that it was riding soft. The official going was good on the straight course and good to firm on the round course. You work it out - it certainly looked to be riding at least good to soft to me.
 
The going was pretty easy to pinpoint after the first race. On true GOOD going it should have been run in 145.30...it took 146.66. 1.00 seconds per mile slow ...which is still Good but just the easy side of....not Good/Soft though.

The Stewards Cup should have been run in 71.00 on perfect Good ground...it was run in 71.91...again pointing to the same going as the first race.
 
Last edited:
yes David

If a race is obviously slow early then I don't use it. The first race yesterday was fine for instance..races like the stewards obviously.

ideally you need to watch the first race...also visual can be backed up with how the close up finish horses got there...

it's not perfect but most times I have a good idea of the going after a couple of races...or have a better idea than those relying on jockey views...notoriously wide of the mark...official going etc.

i know it's trendy for people to knock making speed figures...but by doing so you also have a good idea of the going...an added by-product.

i never understand how people make judgements when the commentator says...the time was 2 slower below standard...most punters don't know what the standard quoted is for a start...and so automatically assume a below standard time means slow ground...without knowing the standard...and the expected time for a race of that class this information is useless.

if you produce your own good ground standards ...based on a standard of horse you actually knwo...you actually know what you are comparing times with.

yes it's not perfect...but using a bit of savvy with good figures puts you on the mark when others just completely guess.
 
Last edited:
i never understand how people make judgements when the commentator says...the time was 2 slower below standard...most punters don't know what the standard quoted is for a start...and so automatically assume a below standard time means slow ground...without knowing the standard...and the expected time for a race of that class this information is useless.
Click to expand...

This irks me too. It's like they're afraid to go further lest they confuse anyone.
 
Remember this race when people complain about Coolmore running pacemakers. Farce of a race, Murtagh gave her a peach of a ride but clearly the best horse did not win.
 
She wouldn`t have got home with a strong pace, perfect tactics. They`re the racing equivalent of Joe Dimaggio - they never make unforced errors.
 
Galileo - You make out as if Ballydoyle use pacemakers as some sort of honourable quest to provider truly-run races to ensure the best horse wins. It's a fallacy, they only use them when it's in their own best interests, hence by there wasn't one yesterday.

EC - I agree with you about times, RUK's comparison of race times against the standard is as misleading as it is embarrassing. They take no account of the ability of the horses that have produed such times. I remember a meeting at Hamilton where the opening race was an amateur riders sprint handicap. Don;t remember the exact figures but the winner was rated in the 50-60 region and carried well in excess of ten stone. The following race was a juvenile novice race with horses that are probably worth 85+ ratings, and they produced a quicker time. McNae was bigging up the 2yo's for running faster than these older horses despite the fact they did no more than you would expect.
 
I'm glad it's not just me that it annoys Gareth & David

I have wondered if there would be a market for a going guide..a time given for each distance at each flat track..a class standard attached and then a correction table for each class...I've got most tracks done. That way no matter what race was run first of the day someone could have a clue about the going based on time..in an instant.

Might be worth penning a book :D
 
Back
Top