Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe 2011

Euronymous said:
I don't need to base it on anything. I'd like to see some justification for the difference in allowance. In a modern world with modern training methods I don't see why it should be taken as red that a miler doesn't need as much of an allowance as a middle distance horse.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, Timeform run a separate Weight For Age scale, which is based on empirical data taken from a large sample of races from over the years.

It differs markedly with the official scale for 2yos (in the Nunthorpe they get 28lbs, Timeform would only give them 15lbs).

However, by the time they get to the end of a 3yo season, the two mostly converge. In the first half of October, they agree with 3yos getting 8lbs over 12f and differ by only 1lb over a mile (Timeform would give 4lb to the official 3lb).

Given that such studies into it have been done, if someone thinks that the scale is way out of whack then I would expect them to actually have something to base their opinion on.
 
Gareth Flynn said:
Given that such studies into it have been done, if someone thinks that the scale is way out of whack then I would expect them to actually have something to base their opinion on.
Click to expand...

Come on, surely it's better to just disagree with it without any evidence whatsoever?

SteveM has disappeared I see!
 
the ground was between good and good o soft on Saturday and genuine gf on sunday



about the wfa
this is becoming boring, ou can argue about a pound less or one more but other than that this is ridiculous.
 
The evidence is in the Arc results. It's an allowance based on maturity - and I don't see how a miler should automatically be assumed to be more mature than a middle distance horse.

When it comes to watching and studying races and betting I'm very instinctive - and it's always worked for me. I 'm not interested in sad sack studies some anoraks may have carried out. I got Timeform Perspective for a couple of seasons a few years back and I thought it was terrible - I can't remember them top rating one top weight the whole season in the elite handicaps.
 
Have only just watched the race properly [were watching the screen paddockside and hadn't got a clue what was happening]. All I can say about the ground is that Mike spoke to Ed Dunlop before the race and he said the ground was absolutely perfect for Snow Fairy, so whatever ground she likes that was what it was. The Japanese horse was sweating up terribly before the race [Hiruno that is]. Having paid a lot of attention to what Martin said I had every intention of backing Danedream but for some reason [I can only blame it on the heat] I backed Hiruno, Treasure Beach and Testosterone; thankfully Mike backed Snow Fairy. Found a piece of paper on my phone when I got home on which I'd written 'Testosterone and Danedream'. On watching the race just now it was a very strange race, not like an Arc at all. Still think the best horse won, and what a fairytale result. Very much want to go back next year; free entry [even if we'd paid it would have been 8 euros], free racecard, free hat and free bus to the track. Racing for change, I hope you're reading this.
 
Euronymous said:
The evidence is in the Arc results. It's an allowance based on maturity - and I don't see how a miler should automatically be assumed to be more mature than a middle distance horse.

.
Click to expand...

this is not a horseracing affair, in maths and phisic class yoou have it when you are 13yo.
 
Euronymous said:
The evidence is in the Arc results.
Click to expand...

The evidence is in every single race where younger horses take on their elders. The Arc is just a tiny, tiny sample of that.

It's an allowance based on maturity - and I don't see how a miler should automatically be assumed to be more mature than a middle distance horse.
Click to expand...

It's not that a miler is assumed to be more mature, but that less maturity is required to bridge the gap at a mile than a mile and a half.

When it comes to watching and studying races and betting I'm very instinctive - and it's always worked for me. I 'm not interested in sad sack studies some anoraks may have carried out.
Click to expand...

Have you read Moneyball? This is like the bit where the scouts are banging on about how they know what a good batter looks like because they just "know" and they have their instincts and their experience and its always worked for them. Meanwhile the anorak in the corner is busy drafting a record-breaking team based on cheap pudgy guys with great on-base percentage.
 
reet hard said:
GS
I'm aware speed raters take the ground into account, also that they draw up their own going allowances (which have a direct effect on their final figure). The point I was making was that any end figure that didn't allow for inordinately fast ground may be in error.
The 2nd fastest race of the day (on RP standards) was the Foret, but again - according to the sectionals - this wasn't an all-out test at the distance, a point borne out by the 6f horse (Dream Ahead) beating the miler (Goldikova).
Given that, and the points I made earlier, I reiterate that it may be wrong to lionise the winner on speed figures alone, and while - on form - she's a very good horse, she has yet to prove a superstar.
Click to expand...

If winning the best race in the World by one of the biggest margins in the race's history doesn't make the horse a superstar, then I don't know what does.

The Opera was the second fastest on the card for what it's worth (excluding the Abbaye for obvious reasons).
 
It is based on maturity and distance, Euro.

Here is another 1m4f race in October. The 1m4f Princess Royal Stakes. Of the last 5 runnings....3yo have been placed in 8/38 runners 21%. 4yo+ placed in 6/17 runners 35%.

The allowance is 7lb, for a race 2 weeks later.

The more I look into it, the more I think the allowance is spot on.

I have more sympathy for Miller's viewpoint in a way.
 
The Foret was a fast time for the race but the first two would be better than an average Foret winner and they were 6 lengths in front of the rest

I accept that during the afternoon the ground dried..but it started off as genuine Good ground..i doubt very much it could go from good to firm in 3 hours

i never heard anyone say at any any point they thought the ground was ever firm..and the times don't suggest firm either.

the only thing that has brought firm into this is that Danedream broke the record..."so it must be firm"..which would be a fair assessment only if the other times pointed to it or if the first 3 or 4 home in the Arc also broke the record
 
The Prix L'Opera was 122.74

the fastest time since distance change in 2000 was 120.90

this race was truly run and yet is nearly 2 seconds shy of the fastest running of it in just 10 years

this doesn't point to firm ground
 
I know he's a lemon, but even Rishi Persad pointed out before racing that, though there was a good cover of grass, the ground was quite fast underneath. This, 4 hours before the race, run in unseasonally hot sunshine.
John Gosden didn't run Masked Marvel because that's precisely what he expected, also.
 
Last edited:
I'm not trying to be smart, EC1, because I suspect you are right that the Arc winner was outstanding. Is there a clockwatcher's definition of "truly run"?
 
reet hard said:
I know he's a lemon, but even Rishi Persad pointed out before racing that, though there was a good cover of grass, the ground was quite fast underneath. This, 4 hours before the race, run in unseasonally hot sunshine.
John Gosden didn't run Masked Marvel because that's precisely what he expected, also.
Click to expand...

its not fast ground though is it?..the ground moves on top preventing correct purchase..this stops horses running very fast times on it

the only very fast time was run by one horse..you don't judge track speed on the back of one horse
 
Grey said:
I'm not trying to be smart, EC1, because I suspect you are right that the Arc winner was outstanding. Is there a clockwatcher's definition of "truly run"?
Click to expand...

a truly run race is one where the fastest time possible can be run by those not far from it

if you take the winner out of the Arc..the race displays traits of being truly run..neither favouring front or middle horses

the next 5 home read

track leader
held up in midfield
held up
track leaders
midfield

this wasn't a race that favoured any run style..they all had a crack
 
Reminds me of when Workforce smashed the Derby track record.

He can't go on fast ground either apparently. Rather than being quick or not I think the ground was clearly perfect in that there was enough cushion to let themselves down on but quick enough to allow for fast times.

The unseasonably hot weather will also have helped. As any athlete will tell you its easier to run quick times in warmer weather. Has the Arc ever been run in such warm conditions?
 
Aragorn said:
Reminds me of when Workforce smashed the Derby track record.

He can't go on fast ground either apparently. Rather than being quick or not I think the ground was clearly perfect in that there was enough cushion to let themselves down on but quick enough to allow for fast times.

The unseasonably hot weather will also have helped. As any athlete will tell you its easier to run quick times in warmer weather. Has the Arc ever been run in such warm conditions?
Click to expand...

using that argument - why weren't the other races exceptionally quick?

The Arc itself..isn't exceptionally quick ..when you remove the winner from it..in fact without the winner..it fits in nice with the other races..what does that tell you about the winner?
 
EC1 said:
using that argument - why weren't the other races exceptionally quick?

The Arc itself..isn't exceptionally quick ..when you remove the winner from it..in fact without the winner..it fits in nice with the other races..what does that tell you about the winner?
Click to expand...

the other undercard was less quaility than other years

the weather was so hot and the draining is so fast ,
for me was gf and if going to one side firm ground, no way it was good





about the arc
truly run race with no advantagefor front runners
 
I'm playing devil's advocate a bit to be honest EC as i'm totally onboard with her being a well deserved winner.

You might have the info actually - When Workforce did a similar thing in the Derby were the other races on the card quick or not? He got a dream run that day, much like Danedream did (If people wanna quibble the draw angle again they can but she got the run of the race, no stats needed, just eyes) and so it's probably just the best horse on the day getting an optimum trip and ride, on perfect ground conditions in a truly run race that allowed her to clock such a quick time.

She was clearly the only horse capable of it on the day and deserves bags of respect.
 
The first 1400m of the Opera was run in 87.80s.

The first 1400m of the Arc was run in 86.31s.

Even taking into account that that would be Treasure Beach's time (as leader), Sereta was only 2-3 lengths behind at that point; half a second at most, comfortably a full second faster than the (shorter) Opera.
 
So the Opera was slowly run and still broke standard by over a second, points to fast ground to me, or at least quick side of good.

Still not had chance to rate the card up myself but will do this afternoon I hope.
 
EC1 said:
The Foret was a fast time for the race but the first two would be better than an average Foret winner and they were 6 lengths in front of the rest
Click to expand...

not a vintage edition
Goldikova is regressing race by race and Dream Ahead needs softer and drifted like a horse that is not fully healthy
 
go through every winner on the Arc card..and all of them had their best form on Good or Slower

Kasbah Bliss is not a horse that would want fast ground for a start..and over that trip a horse needs his conditions underfoot to be correct

where are all the fast ground horses in the winners enclosure?

in fact..where is the evidence that it was fast ground..it was sloppy topped for a start..a surface fast ground horses would hate with their light scratchy action not gaining purchase
 
I think the equation that the faster the ground the faster the race time is a dangerous conclusion to come to.
 
Aragorn said:
I'm playing devil's advocate a bit to be honest EC as i'm totally onboard with her being a well deserved winner.

You might have the info actually - When Workforce did a similar thing in the Derby were the other races on the card quick or not? He got a dream run that day, much like Danedream did (If people wanna quibble the draw angle again they can but she got the run of the race, no stats needed, just eyes) and so it's probably just the best horse on the day getting an optimum trip and ride, on perfect ground conditions in a truly run race that allowed her to clock such a quick time.

She was clearly the only horse capable of it on the day and deserves bags of respect.
Click to expand...

When Workforce won the Derby the ground was 27lbs fast...which is pretty swift ground..the other races backed it up...I think that run hurt him and when he ran at Ascot he just wouldn't have it again and downed tools.

I think thats why the trainer believes slow ground is better..they think the Derby left a mark on him due to the ground..and he sort of proved that in the Arc last year by letting himmself down on taht ground after hating Ascot so much...Stoute wouldn't have run him on Sunday if he thought the ground was fast..he said as much on Friday

The comparison could be a good one..but Danedreams is more emphatic imo..the oppo was better than Wf's.

Getting optimum conditions is one thing..actually being able to produce under them doesn't naturally follow..lots of horses get optimum conditions but they don't always put in top notch performances
 
Last edited:
Back
Top