Road to the 1000 Guineas

Gareth Flynn said:
I think she'll struggle without an uncontested lead, soft ground to keep the pack at bay and a jockey keeping her just the right side of too fast without being overly conservative, but for all that she had those advantages yesterday I think her performance on the day was for real regardless of how hard it will be to duplicate.
Click to expand...

Horses gifted an easy lead don't have to change pace positionally or fight off challenges from other horses, and are often flattered - both by the bare form, and the time it was achieved in.
There's little doubt Coolmore know this, and have used the ploy to their advantage in the past - in such as Hawk Wing's Lockinge and Cape Blanco's Irish Champion - and there's also little doubt that HQ will be overrated as a consequence, and unable to replicate it.
 
Gamla Stan said:
Euro, you have to be the most bitter loser ever when it comes to this race! You moan every year yours gets beat in the event. :D
Click to expand...

I'm so used to backing the winner that I'm finding it hard to adjust. And to be fair Moonlight Cloud did end up being the best filly in the race last year, albeit only because Immortal Verse didn't actually start.
 
reet hard said:
Horses gifted an easy lead don't have to change pace positionally or fight off challenges from other horses, and are often flattered - both by the bare form, and the time it was achieved in.
There's little doubt Coolmore know this, and have used the ploy to their advantage in the past - in such as Hawk Wing's Lockinge and Cape Blanco's Irish Champion - and there's also little doubt that HQ will be overrated as a consequence, and unable to replicate it.
Click to expand...

That is balanced by the fact it is very difficult to make your own pace, and keep going. Homecoming Queen had no advantage over her rivals, just was infinitely better.
 
It depends on the horse. Some love to front-run, some won't go a yard when asked to do it. HQ is clearly one of the former, and so getting an uncontested lead was an advantage for her.
 
People will look for anything to knock this horse.

Uncontested lead.
Handicapper.
It was the ground.
She didn't go in the stalls etc.

The time was 2 seconds quicker than Camelot, and it was an incredible performance. Just because it didn't fit with people's ideas of the horse before the race doesn't mean it wasn't something seriously special.

Such short-sightedness. All these examples listed (Peeping Fawn, Alexander Goldrun etc) show how possible it is to improve as she has. To continue and go on off such a fast pace is the sign of a VERY good horse.
 
Where have I knocked the horse?

BTW the time comparison with Camelot is meaningless. He wasn't ridden to achieve a fast time.
 
Gareth Flynn said:
Where have I knocked the horse?

BTW the time comparison with Camelot is meaningless. He wasn't ridden to achieve a fast time.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean you!! :)

It doesn't matter - he didn't achieve a fast time and no-one is questioning his form, which is hugely open to question as he hasn't run in a fast race yet.

HQ however put in an excellent time, showing there was no fluke at all about her victory.
 
Gareth Flynn said:
Where have I knocked the horse?

BTW the time comparison with Camelot is meaningless. He wasn't ridden to achieve a fast time.
Click to expand...

I'm not knocking the filly either. I agree with what Gareth has said. Ryan seized the initiative, took her where the best ground was and kept her going on ground she enjoyed. This is why she's run a faster time than Camelot who was slowly away and finished from off the pace (but was finishing faster). Her 13 other runs were nothing out of the ordinary and she's likely to return to this level of form (if they send her out again). She also had the advantage of not being loaded initially, which seems to have handed her a big advantage and one that was not lost on Ryan Moore. Jim McGrath also made the point about the lack of headwind on the Sunday. In other words the filly had everything going for her to run a comparatively fast time, which was the intention from the outset.

This is not knocking her it's attempting to see how she has achieved this sort of run and whether she's likely to duplicate it. On anything other than soft going the answer has to be negative.
 
Last edited:
Hamm said:
People will look for anything to knock this horse.

Uncontested lead.
Handicapper.
It was the ground.
She didn't go in the stalls etc.

The time was 2 seconds quicker than Camelot, and it was an incredible performance. Just because it didn't fit with people's ideas of the horse before the race doesn't mean it wasn't something seriously special.

Such short-sightedness. All these examples listed (Peeping Fawn, Alexander Goldrun etc) show how possible it is to improve as she has. To continue and go on off such a fast pace is the sign of a VERY good horse.
Click to expand...

Maarek's time was relatively (0.92 secs) quicker than HQ's - does that make him a superstar?
No one is knocking the horse, just making the point that it would be wrong to overrate her performance on Sunday because of the way it was achieved, and if anyone's being myopic, it's those who will not countenance that view.

Here's a bet for you and Brucie: HQ won't improve again on that performance again this season - Camelot will (nap).
 
Hamm said:
The time was 2 seconds quicker than Camelot
Click to expand...

Did you realise Hamm that Camelot gave almost the whole of the two seconds away in comparative terms to Homecoming Queen in just the first furlong and actually ran almost a second quicker than her over the final six furlongs. 73.77 for Camelot (final three-quarters) vs 74.65 for Homecoming Queen.

Apart from the first quarter (and primarily the first furlong) it was Camelot that had the fast time.
 
Last edited:
SteveM said:
Did you realise Hamm that Camelot gave almost the whole of the two seconds away in comparative terms to Homecoming Queen in just the first furlong and actually ran almost a second quicker than her over the final six furlongs. 73.77 for Camelot (final three-quarters) vs 74.65 for Homecoming Queen.
Click to expand...

Steve, it is much easier to do that if you didn't run as quickly as HQ did in the first furlong (or at least compared to how quickly Camelot ran).
 
reet hard said:
Maarek's time was relatively (0.92 secs) quicker than HQ's - does that make him a superstar?
No one is knocking the horse, just making the point that it would be wrong to overrate her performance on Sunday because of the way it was achieved, and if anyone's being myopic, it's those who will not countenance that view.

Here's a bet for you and Brucie: HQ won't improve again on that performance again this season - Camelot will (nap).
Click to expand...

I never said Camelot won't improve, he probably will, as his performance wasn't all that (for all he looks like he could be better than it).
 
Hamm said:
Steve, it is much easier to do that if you didn't run as quickly as HQ did in the first furlong (or at least compared to how quickly Camelot ran).
Click to expand...

I agree HQ sustained her run really well. But Joseph was simply holding Camelot back in the first furlong and those that said a Montjeu couldn't win a Group 1 at a mile saw this one run faster than anything over six furlongs coming on the slow side of the course. He's an extraordinary colt that has won the Guineas despite not being ridden for stamina. It's embarrassing that Bruce should refer to him as a "false winner".
 
Last edited:
SteveM said:
I agree HQ sustained her run really well. But Joseph was simply holding Camelot back in the first furlong and those that said a Montjeu couldn't win a Group 1 at a mile saw this one run faster than anything over six furlongs coming on the slow side of the course. He's an extraordinary colt that has won the Guineas despite not being ridden for stamina. It's embarrassing that Bruce should refer to him as a "false winner".
Click to expand...

Of course he's not a false winner, he looks very good.

But what is false is to keep referring to his finishing speed as incredible when ignoring the fact that he was greatly helped to achieve this by being held up early.

The fractions from Homecoming Queen were much, much more impressive (I had no financial interest in either).
 
Hamm said:
The fractions from Homecoming Queen were much, much more impressive (I had no financial interest in either).
Click to expand...

They aren't though. She was ridden for a fast time and they were all coming back to her (and Camelot's final sections were superior despite being ridden contrary to his strengths). It was an inspired piece of riding by Ryan Moore to achieve something she won't duplicate.
 
Hamm said:
Some bedtime reading for you... :p

http://betting.betfair.com/horse-ra...onal-times-for-profitable-betting-160412.html
Click to expand...

Here's some for you, from about 40 years earlier;
(From The Winning Horseplayer, by Andrew Beyer)
An animal may run a quarter of a mile in 22 seconds, opening a clear lead over his opposition, reach the half mile in 45 flat, and go on to win with ease.But if the same horse engages in a head-to-head duel in 22 and 45, he may collapse. There are many cases too, in which horses will vie for the lead in fractions that don't appear fast, but one of them will seem to crack under pressure, anyway. The explanation may be that somewhere during the course of that duel, one of the speedballs accelerates and runs a sixteenth of a mile in 5.6 seconds, delivering a swift (but barely perceptible) knockout punch.
Although I remain intrigued by the possibility of analyzing fractional times mathematically, the best way to judge the effects of pace is the way trip handicappers do: to watch races intelligently and perceptively

Sleep tight.:)
 
Saying front runners are ridden to achieve quick times has to be one of the daftest things I've read in a long time.
 
That's not the same thing as the general statement. I think Steve's giving Ryan Moore too much credit, though, since Moore said himself that he thought she was going a stride too quick.
 
He nevertheless seized the initiative with her. She was not one of those initially loaded and had a huge benefit from taking it up, whether this was the rider's full intent or not.

Maybe for example was one of the first to be loaded and rather than hack her down the course before the restart Joseph got off her and kept warm himself. In comparative terms Maybe will run much better next time as she would have stiffened up considerably.
 
Gamla Stan said:
Saying front runners are ridden to achieve quick times has to be one of the daftest things I've read in a long time.
Click to expand...

What I meant by this was that the fast time was a consequence of how she was ridden. I was not suggesting the time itself was the objective (as should be obvious from the context of my argument). Ryan can at least be given credit for keeping her going once he had achieved the initiative but the performance may well prove virtually impossible to replicate because of the mitigating factors that played to her favour.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top