Lockinge Stakes

If Canford Cliffs weas up against a bunch of 70 rated hadicappers at Windsor tonight, he would still only win 2-3 lengths. So his rating would go down to 75 or whatever then?

I dont think weve seen the best of him yet. I couldnt possibly bet heavily against him
 
The biggest misunderstanding when watching a race is that a horse who is ridden from the back and comes through to win a la Canford Cliffs always have a lot up their sleeve - it simply isn't the case.
 
Which is what some were saying about Zarakava and no doubt Dancing Brave going a few years back

I can understand that it can look more impressive than it actually is in some cases but CC has without doubt taken a number of these races very cosily.
 
Hamm said:
No, I disagree - at their best, you could give Canford 126 (with a symbol of your choosing) and Goldikova 131-132 (see the post from TS above). Hence, in terms of what both have proven to date, Goldikova is 5/6 pounds, plus the mare allowance, better than Canford. She has consistently performed at the 126-128 range, which again, with the 3 pounds mare allowance, puts her 4/5 pounds clear of Canford (at the very least).

You are however free to show me how a 3.5 length beating of Premio Loco equals a rating of 130! :)

Of course we can all argue about what will happen in the future till the cows come home, but in terms of what has happened to date, she is well clear.

On top of that, I'd be concerned as a Queen Anne Canford backer where the improvement will come from. He's been hitting the 122-125/126 mark for a few races now, and I don't see what will suddenly allow him to be rated higher.
Click to expand...

This just isn't isn’t the case though, on RPRs she’s performed low- to mid-120s in her past half a dozen starts (I can supply you with the actual numbers later, but they are typically 122-125). Whereas Canford has achieved 130. Whatever other rating scale you choose will tell a similar relative story. So she’s not “4/5 pounds clear of Canford (at the very least)”. She’s below Canford taking her past half a dozen starts.
Also be careful of comparing racecard (or adjusted) ratings which add her allowance on, and absolute ratings which strip it out. Goldikova’s absolute rating will certainly be below Canford, although her racecard rating may be quite similar.
 
Last edited:
Don't worry, I haven't made this mistake!

There is simply no way Canford has run to 130 unless you make Premio Loco a mid 120s horse (or Hearts of Fire!!). Good luck with that! :D
 
Genuine. I don't know a huge pile about ratings, but I think it is fair to say Premio Loco (at 1m on a sharp track or over 7f) is 118 on OR scale, 120 on RPR scale. Add a few lb to the 3.5L in the Sussex, and you have your 126.

I hadn't read the bit where Steve said this wasn't allowed; I was just answering this question:
Can you convince me what race Canford has ran to over 125
Click to expand...
 
This official ratings chat becomes so tedious after a while. As suny says, I'd rather use my own ratings and view the race more subjectively to be honest, the debate is more interesting that way.

The way I see it is that Goldikova is the best miler we have seen in many many years and I don't give a crap what figure she's run to. She's battered everything put infront of her bar Makfi (who I still believe would have been top class in his own right given more of a chance). I'm not sure how anyone can suggest she's going to be worse this season, she showed no signs of deterioriation last year and Head has said her work has been exceptional again this year.

Canford Cliffs is a very exciting horse but even visually, he's not been as impressive as Goldikova for my money.
 
Gamla Stan said:
I'm not sure how anyone can suggest she's going to be worse this season, she showed no signs of deterioriation last year and Head has said her work has been exceptional again this year.
Click to expand...

Lots of flat horses get worse at her age. You don't need to have spotted signs to be concerned over the prospect.

The sample size for mares is small admittedly, but I remember Soviet Song dropping half a stone in form as a 6yo.

Nicholls said that KS and Denman were both exceptional in 2010/11.
 
Hamm said:
Don't worry, I haven't made this mistake!

There is simply no way Canford has run to 130 unless you make Premio Loco a mid 120s horse (or Hearts of Fire!!). Good luck with that! :D
Click to expand...

So you say. I've done all I can... just know that she is not "4/5 pounds clear of Canford (at the very least)"... this is not just willful it's wrong.
 
Here's something.

In the Sussex, all 3yo's get 8lb from their elders. This is deemed to be the normal progression from 3yo to 4yo. Canford Cliffs won the Sussex getting this weight from Rip and Premio Loco.

Do we expect Canford Cliffs, who was a 7L 2yo May maiden winner and 6L Coventry winner to be maturing at a normal rate over the past 9 months? Might he have done most of his maturing in 09 and 10?
 
Last edited:
SteveM said:
So you say. I've done all I can... just know that she is not "4/5 pounds clear of Canford (at the very least)"... this is not just willful it's wrong.
Click to expand...

You haven't explained anything to me!

Are you able to show how Canford Cliffs ran to 130? Even 127? I know, knowing how you believe horses should be rated, that it's not possible.
 
Bar the Bull said:
I hadn't read the bit where Steve said this wasn't allowed
Click to expand...

...it shouldn't be allowed and it isn't normal practice (this is the job of +, p, etc) . But of late we have seen TF for example adding on a few pounds to the provisional rating then retracting them afterwards.

It is far better to know what a horse has actually run to and then decide for yourself whether it is better than its calculated mark.
 
He has definitely grown and filled out Barry. Hannon said it and on looks on saturday I agree with him. Whether that growth translates to performance improvement I don't know.
 
Hamm said:
No, I disagree - at their best, you could give Canford 126 (with a symbol of your choosing) and Goldikova 131-132 (see the post from TS above). Hence, in terms of what both have proven to date, Goldikova is 5/6 pounds, plus the mare allowance, better than Canford. She has consistently performed at the 126-128 range, which again, with the 3 pounds mare allowance, puts her 4/5 pounds clear of Canford (at the very least).
Click to expand...

Why is the best you can give Canford 126? You are just pulling numbers out of the air to support your prejudice. On any like-for-like scale they are virtually identical in what they have achieved on an adjusted rating basis and Canford actually a bit better on absolutes.

Perhaps I may offer a small illustration. Three horses of the same age meet in a race (e.g. The King George):
The racecard (or adjusted) ratings are:
Filly A: 130 (3lb WFS allowance included in rating)
Colt B: 129
Colt C 127

Assume they all run exactly to their respective marks – A will beat B who will in turn beat C.
When their Absolute ratings are calculated (assuming change in their relative marks), the ratings will show Colt B as 2lb superior to Filly A and Colt C will be on the same mark as Filly A.

Same principle with WFA.

While we know this is sometimes fudged when it comes to allotting a horse a master rating and the rating is moved closer to a racecard mark than an absolute mark (with extra pounds added or taken away for all sorts of reasons, mostly political), this should not happen in principle.
 
Last edited:
SteveM said:
Why is the best you can give Canford 126? You are just pulling numbers out of the air to support your prejudice. On any like-for-like scale they are virtually identical in what they have achieved on an adjusted rating basis and Canford actually a bit better on absolutes.

Perhaps I may offer a small illustration. Three horses of the same age meet in a race (e.g. The King George):
The racecard (or adjusted) ratings are:
Filly A: 130 (3lb WFS allowance included in rating)
Colt B: 129
Colt C 127

Assume they all run exactly to their respective marks – A will beat B who will in turn beat C.
When their Absolute ratings are calculated (assuming change in their relative marks), the ratings will show Colt B as 2lb superior to Filly A and Colt C will be on the same mark as Filly A.

Same principle with WFA.

While we know this is sometimes fudged when it comes to allotting a horse a master rating and the rating is moved closer to a racecard mark than an absolute mark (with extra pounds added or taken away for all sorts of reasons, mostly political), this should not happen in principle.
Click to expand...

Steve,

I understand all of the above perfectly well.

What I am asking is can you show me where you get your rating of Canford from?
 
The fillies allowance is an unnecesaary complication to the debate really..when i rate a filly i just ignore the weight allowance..that way if such as Goldikova beats a colt by a length i just make her rating 2lb ish better than the colt. So if those two meet again..G is still a length better purely on ratings

that way it never enters calculations..and so isn't an issue..to me anyway
 
Last edited:
To Hamm & Stan

I initially thought you were joking about the Queen Anne..but i'm getting the impression you weren't.

Yes i did realise that RVW was well beaten in that race..so technically G did beat a 130 horse..but so did others..which i thought was obvious that all those in front of RVW that day were not also 130+ horses as you are seeming to suggest...which surely you aren't?

i'll assume that when i make that observation..the answer will be..well of course RVW didn't run to a 130 then..and he also didn't when CC beat him.

As i've already said...on paper RVW can't have run a 130 behind CC because of the proximity of the others

but..this where a bit of race reading does come into play..which seems to get ignored a lot...RVW that day had the race run to suit..he was at the front of a pace..that wasn't pedestrian..but also wasn't a leader collapse race..so CC had one hell of a task pegging back a horse like RVW back...to be able to pull those lengths back and then win that cosily was a performance better than it looked on paper.

So..rating wise it looked average fare..but the achievement is not rateable purely on how far they beat the others..as the race was not a true test..but was a harder test for CC allowing for how he ran a favoured horse down. Black and white reading of races does not reflect what has actually happened in a race..in the same way that final time speed figures do not give the same insight as sectionals do

just moving on to Frankel

its interesting how energy used in a race is generally ignored..and yet when a horse like WB used his early pace to get a position early from his poor draw..its the first thing that gets mentioned isn't it?..oh he used all that energy early..so didn't have enough left..but compare how little effort WB used early to get a position..compared with Frankel running a mile at 5f pace for about 5f...this is the sort off thing that should highlight that what Frankel did was near on unreal.

I'm not suggesting that WB would have won by the way..i'm just using him as an example where people jump on a short burst of energy and say..well thats what got him beat..yes it wouldn't have helped..but where would a horse of his level have finished if he had run 5f at 5f pace in a mile race?

On paper Frankel beat the Guineas field by 5 or 6 length..whichever view you take on how the distance was calculated...but if any other horse ran at that early pace..they would been beaten out of sight. This has to mean he is actually better than the final result looks on paper.

If it doesn't..then why don't other horses run at 5f pace in a mile race?...why does saving energy early seem a priority?..because obviously thats how racing is..man and animal..you pace yourself..Frankel has done the impossible in reality..he has defied the position he should have finished ... by something like 50+ lengths...or maybe more..he should have been way way back anyway..you know what i mean
 
Last edited:
Back
Top