Those were the ones I was refering to when I mentioned I'd overlooked a race. I do, do French races, hence the presence of Natagora and Minted, but they are much harder to get a handle on for a few technical reasons, to do with class par conversions, and the semantics of the maths used if too many slow run races (but criticallly at a similar speed) appear on the same card. It's quite easy to get duped into thinking something's quicker than it is.
Raven's Pass
- Thread starter Euronymous
- Start date
Very difficult card to rate at Deauville as the sample wasn't really numerically big enough, but I've tentaively put them in thus.
* Natagora = 105.13?
Natagora = 94.82
Proviso = 94.08
Laureldean Gale = 93.58
Fleeting Spirit = 93.41? (Goodwood) possibly closer to 84.98
Natagora = 93.11
Fashion Rocks = 92.64 (Goodwood) possibly closer to 83.14
Natagora = 90.90
N'joom Dubai = 90.88
Saorise Abu = 90.17
Starlit Sands = 89.64? (Goodwood)
You'resothrilling = 89.11
Littlemisssunshine = 88.89? (Goodwood)
Elletelle = 88.11
Starlit Sands = 87.61
The Loan Express = 87.56
Sense of Joy = 87.11++
Baffled = 87.11
Aide Memoir = 87.07
Francesca D'Gorgio = 87.06
Cake = 87.00
Screen Star = 86.88++
* Natagora = 105.13?
Natagora = 94.82
Proviso = 94.08
Laureldean Gale = 93.58
Fleeting Spirit = 93.41? (Goodwood) possibly closer to 84.98
Natagora = 93.11
Fashion Rocks = 92.64 (Goodwood) possibly closer to 83.14
Natagora = 90.90
N'joom Dubai = 90.88
Saorise Abu = 90.17
Starlit Sands = 89.64? (Goodwood)
You'resothrilling = 89.11
Littlemisssunshine = 88.89? (Goodwood)
Elletelle = 88.11
Starlit Sands = 87.61
The Loan Express = 87.56
Sense of Joy = 87.11++
Baffled = 87.11
Aide Memoir = 87.07
Francesca D'Gorgio = 87.06
Cake = 87.00
Screen Star = 86.88++
I'll come back to Visit, (as there's much less to write) though there's nowt wrong with being sceptical.
Nahoodh's an interesting one actually, and she's one of those who you kind of hate. To date she's exhibited a trait that is much more common amongst jumps horses on the stopwatch (the likes of Brave Inca and Moscow Flyer are two that come to mind as being notorious culprits).
Basically she's never run a fast time, but what we don't know of course is whether she could if she was asked to? A few months ago Airmail Special was being touted in some quarters similarly. He'd won a couple of slow races by using a devastaing turn of foot at the business end to make a favourable impression etc When he was pitched into the Grand Prix du Paris and asked to race in a way that was slightly alien to him (though it was hardly a fast race of the Scorpion or Rail Link vintage either) he was found wanting.
As a line of investigation, I've found jumps horses exhibit it a lot more than flat horses. They can run a sequence of moderate times, and then produce a stellar one when its needed. Once a horse has proven it can operate like this, then to a large extent you have to take the ability as latent, and trust it's still there (it usually is).
This insight is most usefully deployed against novice and juvenile hurdlers. Every year it seems a good horse (usually in Ireland) wins a slow race by virtue of blasting away in the last 2F's for an impressive winning distance. They invariably get 'overbet' as a result, often going to Cheltenham as favourite, or right up the head of the market. Anyway, the novice races are run there at lickety spit and suddenly the horse is being taken into terrirtory they've hitherto never encountered. In short they're being asked to win a race in totally alien conditions to them, and although some of the better ones can still adapt, there's no shortage of Sweet Wakes either, and at the prices it's usually worth taking the 'jog and sprint' merchants on. Even if you used a crude investigation of limiting yourself to the top 5 TS horses going into the Supreme Novices or Triumph Hurdle, there's a 50% chance you've got the winners name on your shortlist. Admittedly it wouldn't have helped you find Ebaziyan this year, but then since the top rated was mysteriosuly re-routed to the County Hurdle (where he would have come 3rd off level weights) there's grounds for thinking he might very well have won the Supreme? Given that he subsequently came second at Aintree in another very fast time, (having put up the benchmark at Wincanton in Feb) you've got grounds to conclude that last years top novice was Blythe Knight. I disgress......
The same thing can happen on the flat, but it's less common. The last 2yo filly that comes to my mind that won races impressively to the eye, but only moderately on the clock was Sander Camillio. To convert that level of form into her 3yo career she was always going to have to answer much more searching questions when taken into unchartered territory for the first time. In cases like this you're siding with potential over the proven, and thus always taking a chance.
Now you'll have a better idea where Nahoodh sits with Njoom Dubai than I, but working on racecourse speed figures to date, the first named hasn't shown that much. Despite Nick Mordin saying you can't learn anything from slow times (he said that about a year ago) and has since performed a 180 degree reversal in last weeks Weekender I inclined to think you can, but you can only really limit what you've learnt to the winner.
The horse that wins a pattern race in a very slow time, will almost by definition exhibited a change of gear in order to do so (so that gives you an insight of sorts to its ability - albeit something of a limited horizon). This is less clear in a poor race obviously. A horse that wins a seller in a very slow time is much more likely to have done so because its a slow horse etc.
Nahoodh so far, occupies that awkward bracket of being involved in moderately run races, neither very slow or very fast (very similar to Sander Camilio) and she's very difficult to get a handle on. Will she step up when pitched into a faster run affair? or will she find herself unable to cope going flat out from stalls to post? In short I don't know, and think the evidence is somewhat contradictory (Sander Camilio who I was always pretty certain wouldn't).
I'll take Ascot first. I brought her out at 84.75+ and she's lost absolutely nothing in defeat, and today's Moyglare will of course be interesting. That rating however, is only moderate, but the first 3 have pulled well clear. This suggests to me that it's been a moderate to slow early pace, and only three horses possessed the necessary turn of foot to quicken off it. Clearly this is symptomatic of ability, and it's reassuring to know your horse possesses this trait. Indeed, you can probably award her an 'honourary win' under the circumstances in order to assess her more accurately.
However, she's unlikely to be able to win a Guineas under such circumstances, so you still need to find some evidence that she bang through the sections in the style of a Gp1 winner (Sander Camilio never did, and to date the jury's out on Nahoodh after the Lowther).
To a large extent her York win was very similar to the Ascot race albeit that this time the jockey consented to give her a chance, which she duly obliged. I've brought her out 84.64 (about a neck difference). I thought perhaps I'd made an error initially (it's certainly not unheard of, and I can't pretend I'm at all happy at where I appear to have Ravens Pass either).
The key to interpreting the Lowther might very well lie in the proceeding 2yo Stakes race run over C&D half and hour earlier. The race was won by Dark Angel in a time 1.27 secs slw to std. Nahoodh won in a time 1.52 secs slw to std. In other words Dark Angel was 0.25 secs faster. A length further back in second though was another filly, Richard Hannons' Gypsy Baby. This means that Gypsy Baby has run 0.08 secs (about half a length) faster than Nahoodh. One of Mick's other fillies (Johar Jamal) ran about 7th in a time of 1.73 secs slw to std, which means Nahoodh has only beaten her by 0.21 secs (about 1.25L's).
Results reads
1st = Gypsy Baby
0.5 = Nahoodh
1.25 = Johar Jamal
Now there is a matter of weight to equalise them off, and when this is done Nahoodh prevails
1st = Nahoodh
1 = Gypsy Baby
3 = Johar Jamal
It's not the performance of a Gp1 classic winner in waiting though.
Basically, I suppose the best way of summarising the quandry is something akin to "just because she hasn't, doesn't mean she can't", (with regards to running the sort of time you'd expect a Guineas horse to be putting up by now). To some extent though you're backing the potential over the proven. To draw on another example, Arch Swing similarly never put up a fast time until Newmarket when she suddenly fired one in from nowhere when finishing runner up FB. It can of course be done on the day, and as with any ratings mechanism you can always get caught out thus. Arch Swing had shown no evidence to suggest she was capable of winning a 3yo, Gp1 races prior to this on my figures :laughing: .
I think she needs to find at least 12L's to give her chance between now and May, and in all likelihood that figure is probably slightly higher. Then again, Arch Swing did, and we'll never know what Sander Camilio might have done.
EC1
On a break
thats a cracking post Warbler :clap:
Have you always used weight in your calcs?
I ask because I've been down both routes..you probably have too.
I now tend to settle on race times with expected pars for each race type giving the race a rating rather than the individual horse..I seem to get far more consistent going allowances and the times stay more pure.
There always seems something wrong in changing race times to allow for weight..i did that for a good period though but kept getting illogical anomolies that made me believe over a period of time that tinkering with race times wasn't the way.
I think it is what you are happy with over a period of time basically, the last few years of using race pars has given me less need to question times or going allowances..this in turn has led me to believe that keeping it pure is preferable.
Would like to know your views on this.
Have you always used weight in your calcs?
I ask because I've been down both routes..you probably have too.
I now tend to settle on race times with expected pars for each race type giving the race a rating rather than the individual horse..I seem to get far more consistent going allowances and the times stay more pure.
There always seems something wrong in changing race times to allow for weight..i did that for a good period though but kept getting illogical anomolies that made me believe over a period of time that tinkering with race times wasn't the way.
I think it is what you are happy with over a period of time basically, the last few years of using race pars has given me less need to question times or going allowances..this in turn has led me to believe that keeping it pure is preferable.
Would like to know your views on this.
imagine
At the Start
- Joined
- May 2, 2003
- Messages
- 685
The times and probable ratings are a bit beyond me to be honest but Raven's Pass is a horse I really like. Crazyhorse and I picked him out of the RP before we headed off to the King George - she's much more informed than me! - but partly because , at least in my case, I liked the name. The horse was the pick of the paddock at Ascot and I was hoping he'd win yesterday, sad as it sounds but just because he's the first horse in a long time where I've sat and watched a race and been really nervous in case he got beat. I had no money on yesterday but I think it just here's who could be something really special (admitedly so could a lot of others 
) and it'll be the first time in ages I've followed a two year old and been excited about what it could turn out to be next year.
I'll stop with all the sentimental stuff now and leave the people who really know their stuff to debate about him I'm just happy because I've been lacking in enthusiasm for racing for a while now but Raven's Pass has just livened up my interest a bit.
) and it'll be the first time in ages I've followed a two year old and been excited about what it could turn out to be next year. I'll stop with all the sentimental stuff now and leave the people who really know their stuff to debate about him
I'm just happy because I've been lacking in enthusiasm for racing for a while now but Raven's Pass has just livened up my interest a bit.
uncle goober
At the Start
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2005
- Messages
- 1,277
I suppose the new Guineas favourite deserves a pic..
RAVEN'S PASS spreadeagles the Solario Stakes field
RAVEN'S PASS spreadeagles the Solario Stakes field
EC1
On a break
they are superb
I'll just finish off on Visit first, before launching into the quagmire that is weight, although I seem to think I've popped up thoughts on this on numerous occasions previously and they must be festering somewhere buried in the TH archive. I would be lying if the 'copy' and 'paste' function didn't appeal to me 
Visit I believe to be pretty much identical to Nahoohd to date, albeit slightly inferior. The same comments can be applied more or less to both horses. After she won at Ascot I gave her 82.58 (1.17 less) than Nahoohd's 83.75. In other words Nahoohd would be expected to win a race between them by a length and a neck, and duly beat her in the Lowther by 0.5L's. I was therefore a little bit wrong by a shade over half a length, but I'd normally consider that to be within the acceptable boundaries of error.
Right returning to EC's weight stuff;
Personally I don't change race times for weight, but will rank horses by equalising off a standard 9.0 on an all age Gp1 par, or rate them according to the terms that they're scheduled to oppose under by way of a forecast as to how they ought to perform.
Let me have a look at it bit by bit?
"I now tend to settle on race times with expected pars for each race type giving the race a rating rather than the individual horse..I seem to get far more consistent going allowances and the times stay more pure".
If I've read that right, then I do the same. I use the time the horse crosses the post in to set track variance, although I routinely omit the two slowest, and occasionally will react with a degree of flexibility if I think I've got a particularly dodgy card. It's been my experience that the methodology is normally pretty accurate, and a damn sight more so than any clerks, jockeys or trainers inane blatherings. I still maintain that the horse is the best judge of what the going is, as they haven't been corrupted by various pre-race reports or observations of weather systems and hence allowed these expectations to colour their judgement. Jockeys in particular tend to be sheep, and are particularly reluctant to raise a dissenting voice when asked for a comment for fear of looking silly if they expressed an opinion of kilter with the consensus. Indeed, some experiements were done in the 1950's about group conformity and the human condition that suggested that 40% of us will concur with a group opinion even if we believe it to be wrong, for fear of looking isolated.
It's half relevant, so what the hell, I'll describe it. A group of people were given a series of shapes to assess, and identify the biggest. The differences were subtle, but still discernable to a critical eye. The group was composed of a series of stooges and the individual who was under assessment. The person who was under assessment didn't know the others were planted and briefed to all give the same wrong, but plausible (the next nearest) answer. When it came to the last person to answer (the person being assessed) 40% of them agreed.
By the time a weatherman has reported rain, that a clerk has declared soft, that trainers have walked the course and agreed with the clerk, and a jockey is then asked to assess the going, what is he likely to say?
Now it's a fantastic edge to have (especially at festival meetings) if you can calculate the correct going, 15 minutes after racing. You can of course have a stab at doing after just one race, provided you're happy it was truly run. I know what I'd have asked Robert Thornton after the Arkle, when he too told punters it was 'soft'. :laughing:
"Robert, (me old china) your horse has just beaten standard time by 1.5L's, without even needing a 1.9 sec class par adjusment for a grade 1 novice chaser. Claisse is talking shite is he not?"
The moral is to ask the horse what the ground is I believe. You don't need special horse to human, human to horse voice translation software. All you need is a calculator and a bit of mathematical dexterity. The horse will tell you in most cases, and in most cases they'll be a damn sight more honest.
This final point is of course critical to any speed rating, as if you get the track variance wrong, then the foundation from which all your ratings are built on, are terminally flawed by the same amount. The only other way I know of doing this is through median times (as espoused by Dave Bellingham). I can see merits in both methods, and haven't conclusively decided which is the more reliable. I tend to prefer to use the winner, and adopt a position that if one horse was capable of riding the ground to that level, then that's what it's capable of being ridden to, and therefore that is what it is (KISS). Occasioanlly you find one horse that is just so far ahead of the others though that they corrupt a calculation single handedly. It's rare, and you can always spot it anyway, you just need to decide whether what you've identified is a wonder horse, or whether you've got a useful one in amongst turkeys?
In short therefore, I don't adjust a race time, but will adjust a rating in line with a scale of weight to distance, but only when it's appropriate. The relationship between how many a lengths a horse loses for increases in weight has been well documented previously on here, and it never fails to amuse me how many punters you over hear talking in terms of a rule of thumb 1Ib = 1L or 2Ib = 1L etc Wrong!!!
There's a very simple table, and it's not difficult to commit to memory and learn. It goes without saying that the longer one is expected to carry a burden (both time and distance) the more profound the impact of that weight will be on your capacity to sustain travel, at any given velocity above a certain level. There is also a point where a weight below a certain level, can be sustained without incurring any loss of performance provided it is light enough.
I tend to make weight adjustments therefore in compiling rank order hierarchies (just to give me a feel of where horse x sits alongside horse y) and if they are scheduled to meet, in which case I take into account the figure that they've run to, off what weight they did this, the distance over which they are due to meet, and of course, the conditions on which they meet. The issue of how weight increases effects performance is really quite straight forward. The issue of how a weight decreases effect performance I'm less than happy with (especially when dealing with progressive horses) and am in the process of develoiping my own hybrid scale.
One of the advantages of working in Oxford is I can often collar some decent physicists who strangely enough are normally very happy to translate their academic knowledge to horseracing for you (I think they think it gives them a shred of street cred to be indulging in something slightly prohibitive with a bit of a mischievous edge to it). The last time I was so indulged (and I frequently get lost half through such conversations) the whole business of what we know to be a "pull in the weights" was being called into question.
The crux of the matter seemed to revolve around how a 'pull' has been achieved. A horse like a car has a limited cubic capacity. Reducing weight doesn't speed it up in the same proportions that increasing weight, will slow it down. So it becomes important to legislate for how a pull has been achieved, as much as whether one exists
Mind you, as has also been pointed out, a horse like a boxer has a fighting weight that is likely to bring optimum performance. A trainer who has not got their horse fit (overweight) will have a lot more impact on it's chances than a handicapper raising it 3Ibs. Similarly, if it's too light, and hasn't got the fat reserves necessary to fuel its engine it will similarly empty when swithcing from anerobic to aerobic running. You will I fear need a biologist to explain why the same thing doesn't happen in marathon runners, but it certainly applies in aspects of other human endurance events (although this probably owes as much to extremem survival). In Hong Kong for instance they routinely weigh horses 24 hours before a race and publish the findings as a form item. This allows the punter to see how close a horse is to a previous weight when it was successful or otherwise.
Visit I believe to be pretty much identical to Nahoohd to date, albeit slightly inferior. The same comments can be applied more or less to both horses. After she won at Ascot I gave her 82.58 (1.17 less) than Nahoohd's 83.75. In other words Nahoohd would be expected to win a race between them by a length and a neck, and duly beat her in the Lowther by 0.5L's. I was therefore a little bit wrong by a shade over half a length, but I'd normally consider that to be within the acceptable boundaries of error.
Right returning to EC's weight stuff;
Personally I don't change race times for weight, but will rank horses by equalising off a standard 9.0 on an all age Gp1 par, or rate them according to the terms that they're scheduled to oppose under by way of a forecast as to how they ought to perform.
Let me have a look at it bit by bit?
"I now tend to settle on race times with expected pars for each race type giving the race a rating rather than the individual horse..I seem to get far more consistent going allowances and the times stay more pure".
If I've read that right, then I do the same. I use the time the horse crosses the post in to set track variance, although I routinely omit the two slowest, and occasionally will react with a degree of flexibility if I think I've got a particularly dodgy card. It's been my experience that the methodology is normally pretty accurate, and a damn sight more so than any clerks, jockeys or trainers inane blatherings. I still maintain that the horse is the best judge of what the going is, as they haven't been corrupted by various pre-race reports or observations of weather systems and hence allowed these expectations to colour their judgement. Jockeys in particular tend to be sheep, and are particularly reluctant to raise a dissenting voice when asked for a comment for fear of looking silly if they expressed an opinion of kilter with the consensus. Indeed, some experiements were done in the 1950's about group conformity and the human condition that suggested that 40% of us will concur with a group opinion even if we believe it to be wrong, for fear of looking isolated.
It's half relevant, so what the hell, I'll describe it. A group of people were given a series of shapes to assess, and identify the biggest. The differences were subtle, but still discernable to a critical eye. The group was composed of a series of stooges and the individual who was under assessment. The person who was under assessment didn't know the others were planted and briefed to all give the same wrong, but plausible (the next nearest) answer. When it came to the last person to answer (the person being assessed) 40% of them agreed.
By the time a weatherman has reported rain, that a clerk has declared soft, that trainers have walked the course and agreed with the clerk, and a jockey is then asked to assess the going, what is he likely to say?
Now it's a fantastic edge to have (especially at festival meetings) if you can calculate the correct going, 15 minutes after racing. You can of course have a stab at doing after just one race, provided you're happy it was truly run. I know what I'd have asked Robert Thornton after the Arkle, when he too told punters it was 'soft'. :laughing:
"Robert, (me old china) your horse has just beaten standard time by 1.5L's, without even needing a 1.9 sec class par adjusment for a grade 1 novice chaser. Claisse is talking shite is he not?"
The moral is to ask the horse what the ground is I believe. You don't need special horse to human, human to horse voice translation software. All you need is a calculator and a bit of mathematical dexterity. The horse will tell you in most cases, and in most cases they'll be a damn sight more honest.
This final point is of course critical to any speed rating, as if you get the track variance wrong, then the foundation from which all your ratings are built on, are terminally flawed by the same amount. The only other way I know of doing this is through median times (as espoused by Dave Bellingham). I can see merits in both methods, and haven't conclusively decided which is the more reliable. I tend to prefer to use the winner, and adopt a position that if one horse was capable of riding the ground to that level, then that's what it's capable of being ridden to, and therefore that is what it is (KISS). Occasioanlly you find one horse that is just so far ahead of the others though that they corrupt a calculation single handedly. It's rare, and you can always spot it anyway, you just need to decide whether what you've identified is a wonder horse, or whether you've got a useful one in amongst turkeys?
In short therefore, I don't adjust a race time, but will adjust a rating in line with a scale of weight to distance, but only when it's appropriate. The relationship between how many a lengths a horse loses for increases in weight has been well documented previously on here, and it never fails to amuse me how many punters you over hear talking in terms of a rule of thumb 1Ib = 1L or 2Ib = 1L etc Wrong!!!
There's a very simple table, and it's not difficult to commit to memory and learn. It goes without saying that the longer one is expected to carry a burden (both time and distance) the more profound the impact of that weight will be on your capacity to sustain travel, at any given velocity above a certain level. There is also a point where a weight below a certain level, can be sustained without incurring any loss of performance provided it is light enough.
I tend to make weight adjustments therefore in compiling rank order hierarchies (just to give me a feel of where horse x sits alongside horse y) and if they are scheduled to meet, in which case I take into account the figure that they've run to, off what weight they did this, the distance over which they are due to meet, and of course, the conditions on which they meet. The issue of how weight increases effects performance is really quite straight forward. The issue of how a weight decreases effect performance I'm less than happy with (especially when dealing with progressive horses) and am in the process of develoiping my own hybrid scale.
One of the advantages of working in Oxford is I can often collar some decent physicists who strangely enough are normally very happy to translate their academic knowledge to horseracing for you (I think they think it gives them a shred of street cred to be indulging in something slightly prohibitive with a bit of a mischievous edge to it). The last time I was so indulged (and I frequently get lost half through such conversations) the whole business of what we know to be a "pull in the weights" was being called into question.
The crux of the matter seemed to revolve around how a 'pull' has been achieved. A horse like a car has a limited cubic capacity. Reducing weight doesn't speed it up in the same proportions that increasing weight, will slow it down. So it becomes important to legislate for how a pull has been achieved, as much as whether one exists
Mind you, as has also been pointed out, a horse like a boxer has a fighting weight that is likely to bring optimum performance. A trainer who has not got their horse fit (overweight) will have a lot more impact on it's chances than a handicapper raising it 3Ibs. Similarly, if it's too light, and hasn't got the fat reserves necessary to fuel its engine it will similarly empty when swithcing from anerobic to aerobic running. You will I fear need a biologist to explain why the same thing doesn't happen in marathon runners, but it certainly applies in aspects of other human endurance events (although this probably owes as much to extremem survival). In Hong Kong for instance they routinely weigh horses 24 hours before a race and publish the findings as a form item. This allows the punter to see how close a horse is to a previous weight when it was successful or otherwise.
A good form friend of mine is always of the Opinion , the faster the race the less accurate the form. I have never really got what he meant but I i use a selection of speed and form figures when assessing races and one thing i have noticed is that alot of selling winners in quick times rate better than a 0-80 winner on speed figures. I suppose this is because in low grade races horses will go flat out and the horse that stays best wins.
Now I've never been one to look at overall times but more on sectional's as they show if a horse can quicken and if the sectional is good off a slow gallop it gains more merit.
For Nahoodh i wouldn't expect her to have good speed times as she wants 7f - 1m and for me if your too quick or fast you wont stay at 3.
One thing Nahoodh will do is run to that Lollipop but like you say how will she deal with a fast pace.
Now you say the Lowther was a steadily run race, but having watched it twice, I notice Fleeting Spirit is always very well settled which suggests she found the pace suitable enough. Bearing in mind she come off a strong gallop to beat 2 speedballs at Goodwood I am of the opinion she was a non stayer but maybe the speed of the Goodwood race enabled her to win as she gets further than 5f and she probabaly just outstayed Kingsgate Native and Captain Gerard.
I was impressed by Raven's Pass yesterday but I don't think we have seen the performance of a Guineas winner. I just feel there was nothing in behind yesterday and whilst he has won in a hack canter, the Dewhurst will be much different against Skadrak, Atlantic Sport, Tajdeef and New Approach.
Going back to nahoodh at Ascot I feel if the race was slowly run then she warrants the most respect of the front 3 in the finishing order as she came off the gallop and made up 4L in the final furlong having been given plenty to do. The front 2 had got first run so surely, the fact she has a turn of foot must bode well for her.
At this is moment in time my idea of each Guineas winner is;
Skadrak / Atlantic Sport
&
Laureldean Gale.
Now I've never been one to look at overall times but more on sectional's as they show if a horse can quicken and if the sectional is good off a slow gallop it gains more merit.
For Nahoodh i wouldn't expect her to have good speed times as she wants 7f - 1m and for me if your too quick or fast you wont stay at 3.
One thing Nahoodh will do is run to that Lollipop but like you say how will she deal with a fast pace.
Now you say the Lowther was a steadily run race, but having watched it twice, I notice Fleeting Spirit is always very well settled which suggests she found the pace suitable enough. Bearing in mind she come off a strong gallop to beat 2 speedballs at Goodwood I am of the opinion she was a non stayer but maybe the speed of the Goodwood race enabled her to win as she gets further than 5f and she probabaly just outstayed Kingsgate Native and Captain Gerard.
I was impressed by Raven's Pass yesterday but I don't think we have seen the performance of a Guineas winner. I just feel there was nothing in behind yesterday and whilst he has won in a hack canter, the Dewhurst will be much different against Skadrak, Atlantic Sport, Tajdeef and New Approach.
Going back to nahoodh at Ascot I feel if the race was slowly run then she warrants the most respect of the front 3 in the finishing order as she came off the gallop and made up 4L in the final furlong having been given plenty to do. The front 2 had got first run so surely, the fact she has a turn of foot must bode well for her.
At this is moment in time my idea of each Guineas winner is;
Skadrak / Atlantic Sport
&
Laureldean Gale.
uncle goober
At the Start
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2005
- Messages
- 1,277
Some horses do bound along at very different heights to each other, and sometimes very noticeably. I have a shot of a two year old RED ALERT DAY winning at Newmarket last month, which I shall add in a minute..
uncle goober
At the Start
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2005
- Messages
- 1,277
But nothings suspending it
It's a shame the jockeys lost a bit of definition I suppose through the 'white sky' but then again I'm sure the technology exists to drop a blue one in.
Was the sky really that colour? It reminds me of a complaint I had with a so called photographic company who ruined my holiday snaps similarly. They were offered the chance to re-develop a random film of their choice, (I produced 6 of them on the counter) taken by the same camera, using the same type of film. They declined my challenge, despite giving me a load of bull about how it was my fault, the cameras fault, the films quality etc. It's only when I produced the 6 sets of pictures taken, but developed in South Africa (at about 3 times less the price, and 3 days quicker) that they suddenly couldn't explain the difference.
"Crikey, they're good"
Suffice to say, those developed in South Africa (complete with true blue skys and much better colouring and clarity) were of an infinately superior quality to those developed by a company in Leicester begining with the letter J and ending in P.
I was offered some explanation to do with a red/green or a red/ blue development process?
uncle goober
At the Start
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2005
- Messages
- 1,277
Yeah the sky was a bit white-ish so I took the pic to Jessops to see what they could come up with ...
:laughing:
Most of the labs use the same-ish type hitech equipment and machines to develop films and produce prints. The problem is that an idiot with good equipment is still an idiot. You may find that companies such as Jessops will not change their machines colour balance settings to allow for individual requirements. Some machines are set up too blue, too green, or too dark. Depends on the chimp.
"Computer says no"
:laughing:
Most of the labs use the same-ish type hitech equipment and machines to develop films and produce prints. The problem is that an idiot with good equipment is still an idiot. You may find that companies such as Jessops will not change their machines colour balance settings to allow for individual requirements. Some machines are set up too blue, too green, or too dark. Depends on the chimp.
"Computer says no"
:laughing:
I think you safely assume I'd have taken great delight in shaking their sales person by the throat if they'd produced that particular hue of blue.
Betsmate did give me some instructions as to how to operate the scanner on my printer recently (suffice to say, I'm still fighting a losing battle) I'm an IT ignoramus cry but if I can get it working I'd be tempted to post some of the examples of the South Africa versus UK results. In fairness the Cape Town lab produced stuff that was actually better than what it really looked like (especially my sunsets, which weren't really that spectacular - but look it now).
Not to worry back to Ravens Pass, I'm trying a new line of enquiry
ps
I think I know what your friend means Chris, and it's a quite interesting argument. I susepct it's to do with playing the percentages and how you bet. I suspect he's right at one level, and wrong at another
I think you safely assume I'd have taken great delight in shaking their sales person by the throat if they'd produced that particular hue of blue.
Betsmate did give me some instructions as to how to operate the scanner on my printer recently (suffice to say, I'm still fighting a losing battle) I'm an IT ignoramus cry but if I can get it working I'd be tempted to post some of the examples of the South Africa versus UK results. In fairness the Cape Town lab produced stuff that was actually better than what it really looked like (especially my sunsets, which weren't really that spectacular - but look it now).
Not to worry back to Ravens Pass, I'm trying a new line of enquiry
ps
I think I know what your friend means Chris, and it's a quite interesting argument. I susepct it's to do with playing the percentages and how you bet. I suspect he's right at one level, and wrong at another
Shadow Leader
At the Start
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 9,884
Showboating again, Goober...?!
:laughing:
:laughing:
K
Kathy
Guest
A great thread with some particularly brilliant photos (and a little showboating) from UG!
EC1
On a break
or a little texturing
EC1
On a break
a bit of diffuse and this looks impressive i think
