Lockinge Stakes

Hamm said:
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?
Click to expand...

Like I keep saying they are not my ratings I am using RPRs because we have them to hand for all races.

Goldikova has appeared 21 times and run to 131 once. Apart from that she has run no higher than 125.

Canford Cliffs (in his four Group 1s) has run to 126, 124, 130 and whatever they rate him for the Lockinge (which I suspect will be above 125). Consequently from just nine starts he has already run better than Goldikova’s second best run on three occasions and Goldikova has bettered Canford’s best once by just 1lb two seasons ago.

Since Canford is winning so well within himself it stands to reason he is able to replicate 130+ runs this season when it will be more than we can reasonably expect from Goldikova.

Her allowance of course will help her but when the two line up she will really have no answer. You’ll see what I mean when it happens.

Incidentally Dick Turpin’ best run is about half a stone below Goldikova and Canford, which is I why I thought it was possible he wouldn’t be placed in the Lockinge, even though just seven lined up in that eventually.
 
Last edited:
Your Reading of Frankel's run in the Guineas is spot on EC1. It was a phenominal performance - nothing alive could live with that. I think the CC v G debate will be completely irrelevant once they meet the big F.:whistle:
 
SteveM said:
Like I keep saying they are not my ratings I am using RPRs because we have them to hand for all races.

Goldikova has appeared 21 times and run to 131 once. Apart from that she has run no higher than 125.

Canford Cliffs (in his four Group 1s) has run to 126, 124, 130 and whatever they rate him for the Lockinge (which I suspect will be above 125). Consequently from just nine starts he has already run better than Goldikova’s second best run on three occasions and Goldikova has bettered Canford’s best once by just 1lb two seasons ago.

Since Canford is winning so well within himself it stands to reason he is able to replicate 130+ runs this season when it will be more than we can reasonably expect from Goldikova.

Her allowance of course will help her but when the two line up she will really have no answer. You’ll see what I mean when it happens.

Incidentally Dick Turpin’ best run is about half a stone below Goldikova and Canford, which is I why I thought it was possible he wouldn’t be placed in the Lockinge, even though just seven lined up in that eventually.
Click to expand...

Yes, but all you are doing is taking RPRs and regurgitating them - what I want to know is what do you think, and/or why do you think (via the distances and ratings of the horses he beat that day at Goodwood) he has put in a 130 performance?

I know, for the reasons I stated earlier re Premio Loco and Hearts of Fire, that it is impossible to rate those races so highly, try as they might.

Remember who calculates RPRs!
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
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
Click to expand...

Now we're talking! Cracking post.

I tend to agree with your assessment of Canford Cliffs for all that I'm not entirely convinced Rip Van Winkle was at his best that day. The way he quickened is almost certainly the stamp of a top class miler.

I have almost certainly been guilty of over-defending Goldikova on the basis of one run (the Marois - I still maintain she hit 132!). At their best to date I don't think there is much between them. We will surely be able to make a slightly better judgement on whether Goldikova is capable of running to her best after her reappearance on Sunday.

This thread makes cracking reading for what its worth.
 
Last edited:
Hamm said:
Yes, but all you are doing is taking RPRs and regurgitating them - what I want to know is what do you think, and/or why do you think (via the distances and ratings of the horses he beat that day at Goodwood) he has put in a 130 performance?

I know, for the reasons I stated earlier re Premio Loco and Hearts of Fire, that it is impossible to rate those races so highly, try as they might.

Remember who calculates RPRs!
Click to expand...

Like I say you seem to be fixated by a magic number. I don't care what you want to call the number.

The bottom line for me is that he is about half a stone-plus better than horses like Dick Turpin and Premio Loco.

If you don't like RPRs look at ORs. Canford is rated 127, but in relative terms Goldikova is rated 125. So slice it up how you like, Canford still looks the best of the bunch.

The good thing is that I don't need the numbers to tell me this... I know he's best ;-)
 
Last edited:
As it happens i watched the Sussex again yesterday and EC is spot on there. It had looked for a moment that the jockey had left it too late, but still the class was there to nail RVW at the line. Also the distances back to other runners needs to take Goodwood into account. They often end up in a bit of a heap there

As for Goldikova being "best miler of recent years", shes the most consistently fine miler but not the best. Zarkava more brilliant IMO and holds a clear decision over Goldikova. And thats before Frankel is considered
 
Bar the Bull said:
Zarkava may have been better than Goldikova. But her best mile form is poorer than Goldikova's. In spite of that Pouliches run.

That Pouliches was Zarkava's best mile run. It would be 7-10lb shy of Goldikiva's best performance.
Click to expand...

Exactly - that is pretty basic stuff though.
 
This arguments been gone over a million times but despite ratings I will always believe Zarkava was the better filly. She was a freak who I don't think got the credit she deserved, probably because she never left France or Longchamp. She even gave Goldikova a start and still strolled past her easily... I wish they'd kept Zarkava in training. If it wasn;t for Darjina's crossbar season the year before I think we may have done.
 
Really?

I think what was basic is that Zarkava (if i recall rightly) absolutely pissed all over that field in that race, Goldikova included.

No doubt it was rated this and that because it was only 5 lengths to blah blah, but she looked like no other filly ive seen in recent times
 
Yes. Aragons memory is better than mine. Great shame she wasnt kept in training although in fairness she was bonkers too

Definately the best filly ive seen. No doubt about that at all
 
clivex said:
Really?

I think what was basic is that Zarkava (if i recall rightly) absolutely pissed all over that field in that race, Goldikova included.

No doubt it was rated this and that because it was only 5 lengths to blah blah, but she looked like no other filly ive seen in recent times
Click to expand...

That's way too simplistic. Goldikova in that race barely beat Halfway to Heaven, so clearly that isn't the same horse we have seen afterwards. Zarkava could have ended up the better horse over a mile, but seeing as she didn't run over a mile again (and hence never showed improved form), and Goldikova did, and to an enormous extent, there is no debate over which of the two is the better miler.
 
It's not too simplistic Hamm - The simple fact (FACT) is that Zarkava beat Goldikova comfortably the one time they met over a mile.

It is also a fact that Goldikova has achieved higher ratings over a mile since but what is also fact is that you have no way of knowing Zarkava wouldn't have done the same.

The only true comparison that can be made is their 3yo season and there is only one winner of that contest. Goldikova is just lucky Zarkava stepped up in distance otherwise she would have a few less than 11 Grade 1's.. 2 less probably.
 
No offence, but this is ridiculous.

Is Driving Snow a better horse than Sea the Stars? By your reckoning (FACT) he is. One off performances between 2 horses at different stages in their careers in terms of development and reaching their peak do not determine who the better horse is. That is why in racing there exists a handicapping system. This may be stating the bleeding obvious, but it seems it needs to be said.

The simple fact is we don't know what Zarkava could have achieved over a mile, but we know what she did. Goldikova has better this by 3/4 of a stone. She is the better miler, and I don't see how any form of hypothesising can change this. Horses are rated on what they did, not on what they could have done.
 
Last edited:
Goldikova won the breeders cup that year and a good number of other decent races within a couple of months of being hammered by Zarkava

Im sure she was a better filly at 4 but that much better that she would have turned the tables on that run? We will never know

The STS analogy is silly. That was his debut. Goldikovas absolute thrashing was in her fourth race and one she would certainly have been primed for
 
It's not silly. It's the exact same - the horses were at different stages in their development. You can't compare horses in that way (it is a very, very primitive method of comparison). The only way you can compare horses is using a form of handicapping. This doesn't have to be an official version, it can be Timeform, RPRs or your own. I am open to anything, but not the argument that beating Halfway to heaven 3.5 lengths makes Zarkava a better miler than Goldikova - it's just not true.
 
Hamm. A two year old debut run is massively different to a fully primed run in a classic

3 1/2 lengths to Halfway to heaven shows the limitations of handicapping doesnt it? Not every 3 1/2 beating is the same and Zarkavas was very very different tothe usual.
 
Dick Turpin apparently taking Goldikova on with Soumillon booked as Moore in Ireland and Hughes in Singapore - rather odd that Hughes is being allowed off to ride Presvis .
 
Shame about Hughes. Going to Longchamp would be great practice for getting used to looking at Goldikova's behind with Ascot in mind.
 
Ardross said:
Dick Turpin apparently taking Goldikova on with Soumillon booked as Moore in Ireland and Hughes in Singapore - rather odd that Hughes is being allowed off to ride Presvis .
Click to expand...

From what I can gather Hughes and Moore were both committed before a decision to go to France was made but that apart there's as negative a vibe about D.T. as I can remember. Hopefully things may change.
 
Back
Top