King George (Ascot)

Hamm said:
I disagree with your points, though find them interesting and enjoyable to read.

Is Fame and Glory, or rather was Fame and Glory a low/near mid 130s horse over 10 furlongs? Not on my nelly! He was, and over that distance still isn't, anything of the sort. He would need to be, for Sea the Stars to have received the rating he did.
Click to expand...

aye

tbh Hamm..this race is so fascinating to analyse..i'm not sure any of us will make much real sense of it for a while:)
 
Just even thinking of the Arc has me excited. Forget your Derbys, Breeders Cup Classics etc...it really is the race of the season to win nowadays.
 
Can a horse not run to form and run below what you would expect in the final 3 furlongs? I think it can.
 
Galileo said:
Just even thinking of the Arc has me excited. Forget your Derbys, Breeders Cup Classics etc...it really is the race of the season to win nowadays.
Click to expand...

Agree completely.

I love the antepost market - usually plenty of value about.
 
Coming back to Hawk Wing, yes I went very high that day and felt 100% justified in so doing.

As the discussion on this forum evolved, so did the theory that the way a race is run can affect every runner bar possibly the winner. I am now of the opinion that it is possible that all bar the winner ran below form. Hawk Wing was nowhere near as far ahead of Lindop on times that day as he should have been and Harbinger was nowhere near as far ahead of the winner of the next race over c&d as he should have been.

It might also explain why Roberto was able to beat Brigadier Gerard at York while the Brigadier was seemingly as far ahead of the usual suspects as his form entitled him to be. I only know one person who reckons Roberto should have been rated above Brigadier Gerard overall.

Dahlia shot clear in her first King George but subsequent analysis, which wasn't in vogue at the time, showed that she was the only one to get the fractions right on the day. she wasn't any less a horse the following year and didn't win by anywhere near as far off a more even pace.

If Moore had chosen Harbinger over Workforce I might have been swayed into a monstrous rating but Moore seems pretty certain that Workforce is the better of the two. What would that make Workforce?

As for the ratings bodies, the BHB is conservative although, as pointed out elsewhere, the closer you get to the top of the scale the closer they are to being accurate. It's why in everyday racing it's easy to spot horses that are 'well in' in handicaps.

Coming back to Hawk Wing, let's not forget that this non-stayer was something like twelve lengths clear of the next horse in his Derby. On his day, he was very good but I accepted long ago that he wasn't the superbeast I thoguht he was after Newbury.

I wonder if we'll conclude soething similar about Humdinger.
 
Desert Orchid said:
Coming back to Hawk Wing, yes I went very high that day and felt 100% justified in so doing.

As the discussion on this forum evolved, so did the theory that the way a race is run can affect every runner bar possibly the winner. I am now of the opinion that it is possible that all bar the winner ran below form. Hawk Wing was nowhere near as far ahead of Lindop on times that day as he should have been and Harbinger was nowhere near as far ahead of the winner of the next race over c&d as he should have been.

It might also explain why Roberto was able to beat Brigadier Gerard at York while the Brigadier was seemingly as far ahead of the usual suspects as his form entitled him to be. I only know one person who reckons Roberto should have been rated above Brigadier Gerard overall.

Dahlia shot clear in her first King George but subsequent analysis, which wasn't in vogue at the time, showed that she was the only one to get the fractions right on the day. she wasn't any less a horse the following year and didn't win by anywhere near as far off a more even pace.

If Moore had chosen Harbinger over Workforce I might have been swayed into a monstrous rating but Moore seems pretty certain that Workforce is the better of the two. What would that make Workforce?

As for the ratings bodies, the BHB is conservative although, as pointed out elsewhere, the closer you get to the top of the scale the closer they are to being accurate. It's why in everyday racing it's easy to spot horses that are 'well in' in handicaps.

Coming back to Hawk Wing, let's not forget that this non-stayer was something like twelve lengths clear of the next horse in his Derby. On his day, he was very good but I accepted long ago that he wasn't the superbeast I thoguht he was after Newbury.

I wonder if we'll conclude soething similar about Humdinger.
Click to expand...

good comparison - this is such a similar conundrum isn't it?
 
So, you alter your ratings by what a jockey thinks? :rolleyes:

Pity I can't pay for your ratings.. :lol:
 
Last edited:
Desert Orchid said:
If Moore had chosen Harbinger over Workforce I might have been swayed into a monstrous rating but Moore seems pretty certain that Workforce is the better of the two. What would that make Workforce?
Click to expand...

Alan Lee, interviewed at the Curragh on Irish Oaks day, stated that Ryan Moore claimed that Harbinger would not finish 'in the same parish' as Workforce!!!!
 
Would Harbinger be troubled if the ground was to come up soft at Longchamp? He won on good-soft earlier this year but was well behind High Heeled on soft ground (officially) at the back end of last year. He looks like he's improved since then but I'd be a bit concerned if the ground was to come up very soft.
 
I don't get involved in discussions about ratings but the day that Hawkwing won the Lockinge the forecast front runner was withdrawn at the start and Kinane made a quick decision to take race by the scruff of the neck.How many subsequent winners came from that race.
 
People really cannot handle the idea of Harbinger being so good. The question of the day on the RP Site is whether or not he deserves to be the top rated horse in the World - and 53% voted no. Most of them probably without even thinking of an alternative - or, and this actually wouldn't surprise me, maybe thinking of Kauto Star. I'd like to know who's better.
 
does it not look a bit odd that there is a 140+ horse in the stable.. and Moore doesn't even know
Click to expand...

Very good point...

The performance was lamost too good to be true and if its too good etc etc

No one in racing improves them as well as stoute but this is extraordinary really...not impossible i suppose

Also, unlikely that every other horse in the race ran below form, but I dont think Youmzain is the horse he was and Workforce simply didnt look happy at all

I would be confident that Harbinger will be the middle distance horse of the season but do wonder if we will see such visual dominance again
 
Best to ignore everything a jockey says for all that they will provide you an occasional piece of insight.
 
I do not for one moment doubt that Harbinger is a very good horse after Saturday's performance, but there is no way he would have beaten STS over any distance.
 
yes Hamm but the connections are not green and to have what is being rated as a post war great in the stable and not know it, is abit suprising

Still, the other side of it is that some will never quite believe that a horse that virtually didnt start off in group ones cant be the real thing...which is silly

Whatever happens cant see another horse beating him this year and the prospect taht hes racing again next (take note billionaire fainting chinaman) for connections that arent superich (i think) is vey very good news
 
Last year on slower ground:

first 9f/last 3f/ overall time

Conduit - 110.9 / 37.8 / 148.73

The ground speeded up Conduits overall time by 1.6 seconds

therefore his overall time on Good ground would be 150.33

this year

Harbinger 110.6 / 36.2 / 146.78

the ground speeded up Harbinger's time by 3.2 seconds

therefore his overall time on Good ground would be 149.98

If the ground speed is removed from the splits as well ...they would read

Conduit - 112.1 / 38.2 / 150.3
Harbinger - 113.0 / 37.0/ 150.0

so Conduit ran faster for the first 9f than Harbinger did when viewed on a level playing field..hence his last 3f time suffered due to that..as well as being just 0.35 inferior to H:)

if H is a 140+ horse then Conduit must have been a 136+ horse..anyone think Conduit is that good??..if he is..then STS through him is a 145+ horse :)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top