Novice Chasers 2011-12
- Thread starter granger
- Start date
Colin Phillips
At the Start
"Peddlers isn't a 160 chaser"
Does that mean that Sprinter Sacre is over-rated then?
Peddlers is the only horse of note that Sprinter has beaten over fences.
Does that mean that Sprinter Sacre is over-rated then?
Peddlers is the only horse of note that Sprinter has beaten over fences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EC1
Winning the Wayward Lad race isn't really a good pointer to winning at Cheltenham though..since 1988 only Remittance Man went on to Arkle victory..so is SS another Remittance Man
He very well could be.....but tht is a stat that gives Peddler's and Al Ferof fans some hope at least....
If it does, then they are daft. Not because they wont win but simply because its one of those ever present absolutely pointless stats. Its a stat without background logic (ie proxmiity of race etc etc) and is as much use as a chocolate teapot
For all the debate on PC, surely clouting the first is the major reason why he didnt quite run as well? I always hate it when a horse does that and although there are exceptions, always seems to me that early blunders knock quite a bit off a performance. Mordin covered this (without reference to PC) last week i think
Euronymous
Senior Jockey
The arguments being used to oppose SS are similar to the ones used against Hurricane Fly before the CH last year. He won't get up the hill, he's only ever beaten Solwhit.
Clutching at straws.
I do think Zen is being a little sensitive Grey. It's not like we're forming a lynching party for him (...yet 
), just having the temerity to suggest that Peddlers may not turn round 21 lengths based on previous form. I'm pleased to hear from anyone with a genuine opinion and believe Zen has offered us just that (an honest opinion), but no more than that.
), just having the temerity to suggest that Peddlers may not turn round 21 lengths based on previous form. I'm pleased to hear from anyone with a genuine opinion and believe Zen has offered us just that (an honest opinion), but no more than that.
Last edited:
Uh, much as I love a good old go-round, Zen, did you leave a 'not' out of your third-last sentence? :lol:
I'm with SS's ability on this theme, too, for reasons already set out, so I'm not going to advance any further rounds in this bout, but if everyone can give the reasoning behind their opinions, it does help to reinforce or dilute one's own bias accordingly. Good stuff on the thread, the leedle grey cells are working overtime on this one - just play nicely, boys, or you'll be on the naughty step!
I'm with SS's ability on this theme, too, for reasons already set out, so I'm not going to advance any further rounds in this bout, but if everyone can give the reasoning behind their opinions, it does help to reinforce or dilute one's own bias accordingly. Good stuff on the thread, the leedle grey cells are working overtime on this one - just play nicely, boys, or you'll be on the naughty step!
Bar the Bull
At the Start
So you are essentially calling McCain a liar, after calling Zen a tit.
Even though you said that McCain said there wasn't a problem, when he said there was a problem.
I have no problem with you calling McCain a liar, I just think you are being very harsh on Zenyatta.
I like the way in which Zen gave a coherent, reasoned case for his viewpoint. I think you are being a bit unfair on somebody who has put the time to come up with such a reasoned case by calling them a tit.
You can call me a tit all you like, as I am lazy, I cut corners, I backtrack, and I make excuses.
But telling somebody to get their facts right like you did, when the facts are already right. That's a bit rich.
If Zen wants to say my points are rubbish, I don't see why there is an issue calling his point of view having him/her look like a tit.
Basing your argument on a supposed problem when the trainer won't (for some unknown reason) give details of said problem is very flimsy indeed, and I have every right to say so (as did Zenyatta at me, and did so).
I don't see why this debate is spiralling this way at me, to be honest. 50% of your posts nowadays seem to be having a go at me - I did ask you not to bother responding to me as I clearly wind you up.
Basing your argument on a supposed problem when the trainer won't (for some unknown reason) give details of said problem is very flimsy indeed, and I have every right to say so (as did Zenyatta at me, and did so).
I don't see why this debate is spiralling this way at me, to be honest. 50% of your posts nowadays seem to be having a go at me - I did ask you not to bother responding to me as I clearly wind you up.
Exactly...
I think there has been very good stuuf on this thread too.
I suspect myself that Bar's suggestion that Peddlers Cross was bottomed by his run against Hurricane Fly might be right. It would be consistent with looking good in easier races over fences and then disappointing against the first quality opponent he has met.
I suspect myself that Bar's suggestion that Peddlers Cross was bottomed by his run against Hurricane Fly might be right. It would be consistent with looking good in easier races over fences and then disappointing against the first quality opponent he has met.
Bar the Bull
At the Start
On a completely different note, Steve, why is there a problem with doing some analysis, and then based on that making a judgement call?
Some of your best posts down the years (Shamardal) etc. have come from taking a view.
And secondly, what is wrong with having a view on a turnaround of form. I remember Edredon Bleu turning a Tingle Creek stuffing at the hands of Flagship Uberalles into a Queen Mum win.
There are very good reasons (stamina, trainer believing the horse wasn’t right, Cheltenham form) to believe it is possible.
Some of your best posts down the years (Shamardal) etc. have come from taking a view.
And secondly, what is wrong with having a view on a turnaround of form. I remember Edredon Bleu turning a Tingle Creek stuffing at the hands of Flagship Uberalles into a Queen Mum win.
There are very good reasons (stamina, trainer believing the horse wasn’t right, Cheltenham form) to believe it is possible.
I was waiting to see who mentioned that!!!! You obviously read everything Kri!!!!!
Bar the Bull
At the Start
Because you have been abusing a new member.
You said “McCain said there was nothing physically wrong at Kempton” even though McCain said “There are a couple of issues. What we have found is more than enough to fully justify his run.”
And then you call him a tit.
Hamm, it's fine to say a statement is rubbish, but you always have to drop your own logic by making derogative personal remarks. It's only your opinion that someone is, from your own litany over the years - a fool, a tit, an arse, an idiot, a buffoon, useless, aggressive, etc., etc., etc. You cannot take a sustained argument without diving into personal invective, which doesn't enhance the forum or your own offerings. I think you have plenty to offer and are an intelligent person, but you let yourself down like this with personal snipes.
Yours
The Old Woman :lol:
(You weren't factually wrong with that remark, of course. Just wait til you hit your 60s, though!)
Yours
The Old Woman :lol:
(You weren't factually wrong with that remark, of course. Just wait til you hit your 60s, though!)
Fine to call someone's opinion rubbish but you take offence at a retort of calling someone a tit, which is hardly abusive? You'd want to get hold of yourself. You add very little on here anymore, and I for one, would wish you would bugger off.
Last edited:
Aragorn - I once worked for a non-fiction publisher and, while I wasn't an editor, we were all made very aware of the proof-reading we were supposed to do with our own correspondence. I guess (very) old habits die hard!
Now, settle down, everyone, settle down. Look, I'm newly minted and heading to the bar... pint of Foster's? G&T? Bacardi and Coke for you, Hamm?
Now, settle down, everyone, settle down. Look, I'm newly minted and heading to the bar... pint of Foster's? G&T? Bacardi and Coke for you, Hamm?
Again there is nothing wrong with having a view as to a turnaround on form. However I cannot accept that 21 length turnaround in form is based on any sort of analysis of the form of either of these horses (especially so since SS is rated higher than Peddlers Cross on best chase form anyway).
The very reason I believe that it is possible (albeit unlikely) for Peddler's Cross to beat SS in the Arkle is that these novice ratings don't mean very much. But to claim they do mean something and still find 21lb from wherever is tentative to say the least!
Last edited:
That or the decision to send him to the Aintree Hurdle after his effort against Hurricane Fly.
EC1
On a break
come on Hamm..thats out of order really isn't it?
I enjoy 95% of posts on here..including many of yours..i like people to pass strong views same as you do..but we need people to keep posting..not deter them
Bar the Bull
At the Start
Agreed, but only 5lb according to Zen.
And only 3lb according to RPR.
And only 4lb according to Timeform.
PC wasn't at his best at Kempton according to the trainer, and all the rating agencies.
So he doesn't need 21L (by the way, the distance was 16L at Kempton).
He needs to find a lot less on his and SS's best form.
Now you are probably right to think it won't happen.
And Zen is probably wrong to thing it will happen.
The odds suggest that PC has a 33% chance of reversing the form. That sounds about right to me.
Bar the Bull
At the Start
Brilliant, you couldn't make it up. You don't address my point, don't back down, and then get personal.
I have had some pretty large personal problems the last six months, which have meant I post on here less often. Things are clearing up now, thankfully.
So I guess I do add very little here any more. However, I will not bugger off, as I have been part of this forum in its various guises for 12 years. And I enjoy it.