King George VI And Queen Elizabeth Stakes 2023

E

edgt

Senior Jockey
Joined
Mar 25, 2011
Messages
5,439
Location
North Cork. Home of steeple chasing
This is shaping up to be a race for the ages.
Auguste Rodin, King Of Steel, Emily Upjohn, Pyledriver, Desert Crown and Hukum all 6/1 or less.
My King George memories began 1975 with Grundy and Bustino.
1976 saw Pawnesse, Youth, Bruni, Orange Bay all classic winners giving us a race to remember.
1977 was similarly loaded with classic performers The Minstrel. Orange Bay, Exceller, Crystal Palace filling the first four places.
We have had a succession of small fields as the race lost fashion but this year the mojo could back like those days of my youth.
Here's hoping they all show up.
Thoughts ?
 
Exciting looking race. At the current odds I'd be against Auguste Rodin, King of Steel and Emily Upjohn just on price grounds in such a hot race. So that leaves:

Desert Crown 6/1. I can leave him alone as well, hardly the ideal prep.
Hukum 6/1. Will he get cut? If he's like 13/2 on the day and the ground is no firmer than good I'd be interested.
Pyledriver also 6/1. Bounce candidate?

Luxembourg interests me at around 12s. He's unexposed at a mile and a half and I'd be hopeful he'll pace chase rather than lead.
Simca Mille 33s - Too big a price and is supposed to come over. He's tempting but I'd rather back him at 20s on the day with four places.
 
I did consider that yes but he's gonna have more than two horses in the race. I'd hope one of the bottom feeders might lead rather than a Group 1 winner.
 
It's a no bet race for me unless something goes over priced on the day. Any of the above could reasonably win it, though mild preference is for king of steel who looked good against Group 3 horses last time.
 
Adayar's 50s... I know he ran flat at Newmarket but seriously??? I very rarely bet but think that is too crazy to pass on.
Hamish at 100-1 , yes I know but come on, 9 days to go and that's just silly. He's fit, CD winner... crazy prices surely? AR can't be that sure a thing?
 
G-G said:
Adayar's 50s... I know he ran flat at Newmarket but seriously??? I very rarely bet but think that is too crazy to pass on.
Hamish at 100-1 , yes I know but come on, 9 days to go and that's just silly. He's fit, CD winner... crazy prices surely? AR can't be that sure a thing?
Click to expand...

Adayar is 120 on BF, Hamish 250 (nothing lined up to lay on either).
 
Hopefully most of these rock up. Have to think there will be lots of pace on here with O'Brien sending a few over. Will be interesting to see how Adelaide River (if running) is ridden late on if near team captain!

Hukum if taking his chance is the one I may go with.
 
Nowhere near those prices on PP... appreicate Hamish probably won't get his ground. Love Hukum..would be great if he could pull it off, but also love Adayar and would love him to bounce back.
 
1968 Royal Palace
1969 Park Top
1970 Nijinsky
1971 Mill Reef
1972 Brigadier Gerard
1973 Dahlia
1974 Dahlia
1975 Grundy

Was an unforgetable a class era that makes it hard for me to get excited bout the current contenders.

I would love to see Desert Hero win the race as he was to the eye a classier winner of the Derby than Adayar or Auguste Rodin
but I get the feeling SMS will come up with another excuse not to run him.

Maybe it's just me but I think this era sucks and lacks the class of previous ones.
 
Tanlic said:
1968 Royal Palace
1969 Park Top
1970 Nijinsky
1971 Mill Reef
1972 Brigadier Gerard
1973 Dahlia
1974 Dahlia
1975 Grundy

Was an unforgetable a class era that makes it hard for me to get excited bout the current contenders.
Click to expand...

True but consider this:

The average time for those winners was north of 2m 36s.

The last five are averaging around 2m 28/29s despite regular [over-]watering. The relaying of the track in 2002/03 couldn't possibly account for that difference.

So what would account for it?

Just curious.
 
Desert Orchid said:
True but consider this:

The average time for those winners was north of 2m 36s.

The last five are averaging around 2m 28/29s despite regular [over-]watering. The relaying of the track in 2002/03 couldn't possibly account for that difference.

So what would account for it?

Just curious.
Click to expand...

Probably because of them relaying plus they reconstrcted the last 2f of the course in 2006 according to wiki
 
Last edited:
Horses are probably fitter today (like athletes:)) but it's a quantum leap to assume they're better, surely?
 
Last edited:
reet hard said:
Horses are probably fitter today (like athletes:)) but it's a quantum leap to assume they're better, surely?
Click to expand...

Yes, I do think Martin Pipe was a game changer and his influence filtered down to Flat racing but I'm not convinced they're just better, although they really should be if the idea of thoroughbred breeding is to make any sense.

Most of us will remember Peter O'Sullevan going a bit mental at the pace they were going in the Grundy-Bustino race but that pace seems normal now. I must try running the recording of that race simultaneously with the recent KGV Hcap!

What I think has moved on is the science. It's huge in all sports now.

I'm still fascinated by the idea of 'the aggregation of marginal gains' which I first heard of back in the Olympics in the early 00s when the GB cycling boss (David Brail?) talked about it in an interview.

I'm also keen to follow the fortunes of Clare and Daniel Kubler after reading about how scientific and analytic their approach is. They were part of the reason I backed Astro King, admittedly late in the day, last week. They had come to a scientific conclusion that the horse would stay a trip it hadn't tried before and it really should have won.

I'm in the camp that says Arkle was some way better than today's best - OK, maybe Constitution Hill will be different! - and it's just that racing was different back then. Of the horses of 'my' era, I reckon Desert Orchid would have smashed Kauto Star at Kempton but obviously not at Cheltenham. I never thought I'd ever see anything prove better than Mill Reef/Brigadier Gerard. Then along came Frankel. Obviously the States had Secretariat, which I haven't studied at all but which seems to have virtually defied physics.

But these great horses are now 50 years past. So are we breeding them over the top of a curve and heading down the other side? And are the Japanese now getting it right?

Just thoughts tripping of the tips of my fingers first thing in the morning. Apologies if they're not making too much sense.
 
Tanlic said:
Probably because of them relaying plus they reconstrcted the last 2f of the course in 2006 according to wiki
Click to expand...

Yes, I referred to the relaying of the track in the early 2000s. It certainly affected the then Standard Times, according to my records, but only marginally, and back in the days of the 'golden era' watering wasn't common. Old colour film footage shows the grass was more yellow, indicating drier ground. As I said, I'm not convinced that alone wold account for the difference. I do think they're just running faster tactically, which might or might not be down to a better understanding of efficient running, ie sectional timing.

Could it be just a coincidence that the times are faster since the days of Steve Cauthen?
 
Horses like Mill Reef,Nijinsky and Dahlia are still lauded in racing circles, even by some who weren't even born then.
Enable apart,there are few recent winners that will be remembered as long,imo.
Maybe punters were more discerning then.
 
Last edited:
Timeform's Greatest Racehorses - Flat

Highest Timeform Annual Ratings (Flat 3yo+)
147 Frankel
145 Sea-Bird
144 Brigadier Gerard, Tudor Minstrel
143 Flightline
142 Abernant, Ribot
141 Mill Reef
140 Dancing Brave, Dubai Millennium, Harbinger, Sea The Stars, Shergar, Vaguely Noble
139 Arrogate, Generous, Pappa Fourway, Reference Point
 
Desert Orchid said:
……..I'm still fascinated by the idea of 'the aggregation of marginal gains' which I first heard of back in the Olympics in the early 00s when the GB cycling boss (David Brail?) talked about it in an interview……

.
Click to expand...

Brailsford it was - a concept that sounded good, but turned out be a cloak to cover the use of performance enhancing naughties.
 
Last edited:
barjon said:
Brailsford it was - a concept that sounded good, but turned out be a cloak to cover the use of performance enhancing naughties.
Click to expand...

I think the concept was correct. More aerodynamic helmets and fabrics, lighter frames, etc etc. And it filtered through to other sports.

I used the concept very successfully with my students, encouraging them to maximise their performance in each element of their work/exams. One extra mark in each element of their exams could amount to four or five marks and in the speaking tests one category amounted to four or five marks (depending on the level) and, overall, that could amount to the difference between a C and an A. They bought into it and surprised themselves, which was great for their self-esteem.

If that kind of approach is taking place in horse training, it will pay dividends. It's why I'm so interested in what the Kublers are doing.
 
Frankel said:
Yup, any would have struggled to beat Harbinger that day.
Click to expand...
Was the benefactor of too strong a pace early,imo.
Was overrated because of it,t'was well out of line with the rest of his form - Timeform - clockwatchers extrordinaire.
 
Back
Top