King George (Ascot)

He was impressive at Newbury and Chester and although Manifest ran poorly in the Gold Cup both races have worked out fairly well.
 
I'm not taking anything away from him, I just think the comparisons with STS and the reactions in the Arc market are way over the top given he's won one Group One on a track which doesn't always suit every horse.
 
Fabulous to watch Harbinger - a really incredible site to see how easy he was going compared to the rest and then whoosh! But equally it was gutting to watch Workforce. For me the writing was on the wall early on (I didn't see him properly prior to the race) - he didn't settle properly and his action looked uncomfortable on the ground. He's a big colt for a 3yo and looks as though he still has some maturing to do. He may be going through a growing phase which is impossible to spot with many but they can disappoint and it is down the the fact that the horses is using his energy for growing rather than racing. Stoutey says he does little at home bar get up to his work companion so he may be a difficult horse to fathom. Likewise he just simply may not be as good as we hoped. He may have been flattered at Epsom because others underperformed. The Derby may have taken alot out of him at a crucial stage.
Stoute has proved time and time again, how horses in his care improve with age and Workforce is one horse I would love him to keep in training.
 
davidjohnson said:
What a ridiculous statement Ardross. Just because the weights are alloted due to race conditions rather than at the whim of the assessor doesn't mean the form can't be tested.
Click to expand...

With respect David , if ratings were always accurate every handicap would be a dead heat .

When horses are running at G1 level - the assessment of how good they are is mechanical by a handicapper on the scale . It is as hamm points out based on one race - it is not therefore anything like a reliable assessment of overall ability.
 
Ardross said:
With respect David , if ratings were always accurate every handicap would be a dead heat .

When horses are running at G1 level - the assessment of how good they are is mechanical by a handicapper on the scale . It is as hamm points out based on one race - it is not therefore anything like a reliable assessment of overall ability.
Click to expand...

if a horse won a handicap by 11 lengths..his OHR would be adjusted to reflect it...that horse would then have a higher ohr..how can it be different in a non handicap?

do you average a horse's runs out to give it a level of performance..or do you measure it on its best run?

why would every handicap be a dead heat...think thats more to a horse running its best every time..which they don't particularly in handicaps
 
Last edited:
Expect the handicapper to go to something like 130 with Harbinger. He tends to be conservative. Am I right in saying he hardly raised the horse, if at all, for the Hardwicke?
 
Just seen it for first time. Staggering. How stoute does it with these older horses i do not know.

But workforce never looked happy at all
 
Ardross said:
With respect David , if ratings were always accurate every handicap would be a dead heat .

When horses are running at G1 level - the assessment of how good they are is mechanical by a handicapper on the scale . It is as hamm points out based on one race - it is not therefore anything like a reliable assessment of overall ability.
Click to expand...

So you want to rate horses by their overall ability*? Then just average their top 3 or 5 or whatever you are having yourself. You still need to rate each race to enable this. Or count up Group 1 wins.

Every system of guaging how good a horse is has its flaws, but ratings have fewer than most.

Sure you could add up G1 wins, but that would mean Notnowcato was a champion for the ages.

* what does this mean, exactly?
 
Last edited:
... on the basis that I think Youmzain runs miles below his best every time he shows up at Ascot. Workforce was beaten all the way round so we can ignore him.

Very, very good from HArbinger, but can't buy 142.
 
Maybe a few pounds too high but no more than that.. Near enough to 139/140 for me..
 
Last edited:
Easy to argue for hours on end about what rating the horse deserves, but whatever number you come up with, I still think that Harbinger has a fair way to go before he can be considered the superior of Sea The Stars.

STS may not have produced a time quite as strong as Harbinger's yesterday, but to repeat the level of form that he did in the top company time and time again (with the suspicion there was plenty more in the tank on most occasions) at trips from 1m-1m4f makes him a far more accomplished performer than Harbinger at this stage imo.
 
No one is saying harbinger is a better horse than sea the stars, but it is clear that his victory yesterday is better than any one performance from sts.

A rating is based on 1 race performance, not the overall ability of a horse - there seems to be some confusion on here over that..
 
tdk said:
STS may not have produced a time quite as strong as Harbinger's yesterday, but to repeat the level of form that he did in the top company time and time again (with the suspicion there was plenty more in the tank on most occasions) at trips from 1m-1m4f makes him a far more accomplished performer than Harbinger at this stage imo.
Click to expand...

Not ran yesterdays time through my calculations yet but STS's Eclipse was one of the greatest performances in a long time on the clock. I'd consider that race far far stronger than yesterdays.

Until Harbinger puts another performance of similar ilk in at another track, he's not even close to STS.
 
Hamm said:
No one is saying harbinger is a better horse than sea the stars, but it is clear that his victory yesterday is better than any one performance from sts.

A rating is based on 1 race performance, not the overall ability of a horse - there seems to be some confusion on here over that..
Click to expand...

Exactly...I am surprised so few are getting that.
 
Hamm said:
No one is saying harbinger is a better horse than sea the stars, but it is clear that his victory yesterday is better than any one performance from sts.
.
Click to expand...

Some people are suggesting Harbinger is a better horse than STS.

Not quite sure Harbinger's victory is "clearly" better than anything STS achieved, either.

As GS points out, STS's Eclipse run was exceptional and there were more top class horses running to form behind him than were in evidence behind H yesterday.
 
i think the race was overly paced early which has aversely affected the overall time of the race..the winner hasn't produced an exceptional speed figure..which in a race that was truly run you would expect

the winning distance has been exhaggerated due to pace collapse imo...and its that distance he won by that is giving people a false idea of the real superiority of the winner

the winner is obviously a very good horse but yesterdays race was a burn out..in an even run race he may still win by 11 lengths..but i would like to see him and Cape Blanco hit that straight again having gone a more even pace early on

just my opinion of course
 
Last edited:
Who is suggesting that?

That eclipse was indeed a strong race, but pales in comparison to a track record 11 length win in the king George. Rate harbinger through any of the 3 behind him and no matter how conservative you go, you get a higher rating than anything sts produced (just to be clear, I was as big a fan of sts as any, backed him in the guineas and derby, and is a horse that defines a sport in a way harbinger never will).
 
EC1 said:
i think the race was overly paced early which has aversely affected the overall time of the race..the winner hasn't produced an exceptional speed figure..which in a race that was truly run you would expect

the winning distance has been exhaggerated due to pace collapse imo...and its that distance he won by that is giving people a false idea of the real superiority of the winner

the winner is obviously a very good horse but yesterdays race was a burn out..in an even run race he may still win by 11 lengths..but i would like to see him and Cape Blanco hit that straight again having gone a more even pace early on

just my opinion of course
Click to expand...

Whatever about any pace scenario, harbinger was only a length or so behind the front 2 most of the way so can't see how that made any difference?

Any chance we've just seen something exceptional?!
 
Hamm said:
Whatever about any pace scenario, harbinger was only a length or so behind the front 2 most of the way so can't see how that made any difference?

Any chance we've just seen something exceptional?!
Click to expand...

i think you will find i haven't tried to say he isn't exceptional.

the pace they went may have made a difference to the 3yo's though..they eyeballed each other and went overly fast.which could have affected how much energy they had left in the straight.

my explanational is actually complimenting H..but you won't see that as you are quite happy to ignore pace by looks of your post.

IF yesterdays race was evenly run..then H is actually disappointing on the clock..my view is that his average looking speed figure is due to an over fast early pace..i'm saying good things about him ..not bad.

surely you must see that in a race that wasn't slow run..he should have put in a massive figure..if he hasn't its for one of two reasons..they went too fast early or he is only a 123 horse and the rest underperformed.
 
I'm not ignoring pace at all .. Harbinger was right up with this pace so all I am saying is pace is not the reason for how the race went.
 
Back
Top