Miling Division 2010

I think she had a race yesterday but that was down to the conditions as much as anything else. Back on her favoured fast ground (she clearly acts with an ease in the ground but is not as effective) I think she will blow them out of the water in America for a third time. It really was noticeable how Peslier seemed very reluctant to asked her to stretch out early.
 
Hamm said:
Canford Cliff to chase cash rather than Goldikova.

Hannon snr, meanwhile, will talk to the owners of Canford Cliffs this week before making a final decision on whether to aim the triple Group One winner for the Kyoto Mile Championship in Japan on November 21.
"Because Canford Cliffs won the St James's Palace Stakes at Royal Ascot he qualifies for the Japanese Racing Association bonus," the trainer told www.richardhannonracing.tv.
"The Kyoto race is worth £769,000 to the winner, but those qualified for the bonus have their earnings doubled if they finish in the first three, so if Canford Cliffs happened to win he would net a tasty cheque of £1.538million."
Click to expand...

Can hardly blame them, that's some cheque!

Will be absolutely gutted I don't fly to Japan until the 26th if he runs.
 
Bar the Bull said:
But Ardross, she has won double digit Group 1s. That does make her the much better horse by your Sea the Stars logic.
Click to expand...

Not quite - Goldikova has won a number of soft G1 races against her own sex. As Steve says strictly PB should be rated the better horse. She is a marvellous mare there is no doubt but a lot of hyperbole is spouted about her performances this year.

As for Sea The Stars - he was the best because he beat everything anyone could throw at him effortlessly.
 
Goldikova's been beaten three times in two and a half years, Paco Boy three times in two months yet some are still claiming Paco Boy is the better horse?

Crazy.
 
I certainly don't believe PACO BOY is the better horse at all, GOLDIKOVA is a star mare and throughly deserves all the plaudits she's getting. Her record is awesome. My point was, how much difference did that 3lb make to the result ? We'll never know how much the mare still had in the locker but again, if she was carrying an extra 3lb, it might have made it closer or a different result. She certainly isn't the physically biggest mare in the world.

I'm 'Julie' davidjohnson - or more usually - Jules ! :cool:
 
There is no weight given - it is a fillies allowance. No offence, but it is absurd to bring this up (the both of you!).
 
If we are going to question the mare's allowance it opens up the WFA debate. Rip Van Winkle is a better miler than Canford Cliffs so...
 
Comfortably better in that case!

It is nonsense!

Fame and Glory only didn't win the Arc because Workforce got weight from him .. :p
 
Weight for sex and weight for age are two completely different things .

Correct me if I am wrong but is a filly's rating not adjusted to take into account the sex allowance ?
 
About the Longchamp ground, some examples from recent meetings. The variance is calculated from my own speed ratings which are derived from my own standard times.

3/10/10 - The ground was officially very soft but riding 47 points slower than the 108 Beyer benchmark (108 is the figure Beyer uses for his average Group 1 horse achieved on Good, Good to Firm ground).

18/9/10 - The ground was officially good to soft but riding 46 points slower than 108 standard (Almost identical to Arc day yet very different going descriptions).

12/9/10 - The ground was officially soft but only riding 7 point slow (a fine example of a French ground description being miles off the mark, it was the fast side of good!)

9/9/10 - The ground was officially good but riding 11 points slow (a comparison with the variance of the above meeting illustrates the absurdity of these going descriptions) but the description was correct on this occasion.

14/7/10 - The ground was officially very soft for Bastille Day but I had it riding 30 points slow so around Good to Soft.

After reviewing it again, I'd have the ground on Arc day on my figures as officially "Soft" but only just, it's borderline Good to Soft at a minus 47 figure, the cut off would be about 42 for me.

EC, you are correct in your comments about both the Arc pace (on times, it was a fast pace, I was wrong here but hadn't looked in detail on Sun night as was still in Paris) and the 5f course, it rode considerably faster than the round course.

Apologies if my working is a little alien as I have developed the method myself via the works of both Mordin and Beyer. The RP standard times have their flaws and they've become lazy but they're generally a more solid indicator of French going descriptions than the official French going!

Be interested to see what other speed geeks think such as Gareth and Simon R.
 
thanks Stan..interesting reading for me..i like to see how people calculate stuff..just wish you would post more re the speed stuff..it gets lonely sometimes on here:)

I don't want to get into any muck throwing by the way..i just get a bit tired of constantly being told how wrong i am when i blatantly ain't that wrong

not just talking about the going thing either

sometimes i am sure if i said it gets dark at night i'd be called on it
 
EC1 said:
thanks Stan..interesting reading for me..i like to see how people calculate stuff..just wish you would post more re the speed stuff..it gets lonely sometimes on here:)

I don't want to get into any muck throwing by the way..i just get a bit tired of constantly being told how wrong i am when i blatantly ain't that wrong
Click to expand...

It's not about being wrong EC, it's about debate. I was adamant the ground wouldn't be heavy at Longchamp with the forecast weather and the unreliability of French going descriptions. I think there's no substitue for mathematics and speed rating calculations to discover the state of the ground for a meeting and neither of us had done this on Sunday night. I probably had it slightly quicker than it should've been at Good to Soft as I'd only looked at the raw times and included the Abbaye and assumed the Arc wasn't quickly run but likewise, I'd say you'd probably had it slightly too soft by a raw comparison with past year's times. I'm very confident with my new calculated going description of Soft for Sunday's Arc meeting.

Look forward to discussing speed and time more on the forum, be good for the AW season too with plenty of angles and betting opportunities to be had on the sand.
 
Last edited:
Gamla Stan said:
It's not about being wrong EC, it's about debate. I was adamant the ground wouldn't be heavy at Longchamp with the forecast weather and the unreliability of French going descriptions. I think there's no substitue for mathematics and speed rating calculations to discover the state of the ground for a meeting and neither of us had done this on Sunday night. I probably had it slightly quicker than it should've been at Good to Soft as I'd only looked at the raw times and included the Abbaye and assumed the Arc wasn't quickly run but likewise, I'd say you'd probably had it slightly too soft by a raw comparison with past year's times. I'm very confident with my new calculated going description of Soft for Sunday's Arc meeting.

Look forward to discussing speed and time more on the forum, be good for the AW season too with plenty of angles and betting opportunities to be had on the sand.
Click to expand...


sounds good..lots of AW stuff coming very soon
 
Back
Top