Road to the Epsom Derby 2011

Belated congrats to both SteveM and Hamm on Pour Moi... I was waiting on Recital for a big sum with antepost vouchers and doubles but with no confidence. Saved on CH instead of PM which turns out to be one of my worst decisions of the season.
 
Haven't read DJs blog yet but I have two strong opinions on the race.First -the winner is top class and will take some beating in the Arc.
Second-Seville has only managed to win a maiden from 5 starts-I can't believe he is top class and I can see Ballydoyle getting rid of him fairly fast.
 
davidjohnson said:
I've done a small blog on some of the Epsom fallout. It can be read here if you're interested.
Click to expand...

Thanks david… I believe you’re right in that the rating doesn’t tell the whole story here.


Pour Moi was given an OR of 122 (up from 113), a little below that of Timeform, while Treasure Beach, is on 121 (from 107) and the third, Carlton House, on 120 (from 116).


BHA handicapper Phil Smith also stated that he suspects Pour Moi is better than he has been able to rate him, which seems pretty evident.
 
Last edited:
On The Bridle said:
Belated congrats to both SteveM and Hamm on Pour Moi... I was waiting on Recital for a big sum with antepost vouchers and doubles but with no confidence. Saved on CH instead of PM which turns out to be one of my worst decisions of the season.
Click to expand...

hard luck. For what it's worth I believe Recital will pick up decent races later in the season away from Epsom.

Pour Moi did what I expected him to, although I thought his young rider may have left it a little late at one point.
 
Last edited:
SteveM said:
hard luck. For what i's worth I believe Recital will pick up decent races later in the season away from Epsom.

Pour Moi did what I expected him to, although I thought his young rider may have left it a little late at one point.
Click to expand...

I bought the Weekender last Wednesday and have only found the time to read it this morning. Excellent analysis Steve and very unlucky not to have both classic winners in the book as surely given a decent pace Wonder Of Wonders would have won. Still trying to get my head around this dosage point system and will hopefully find the time to understand it.
 
swedish chef said:
I bought the Weekender last Wednesday and have only found the time to read it this morning. Excellent analysis Steve and very unlucky not to have both classic winners in the book as surely given a decent pace Wonder Of Wonders would have won. Still trying to get my head around this dosage point system and will hopefully find the time to understand it.
Click to expand...

Thanks Chef. It’s not half as mysterious as many make out. It is simply a stamina index which is especially helpful when there is scant form to go on, or determining if individuals are being campaigned at the wrong trip. It concentrates on prepotent influences (those influences in the pedigree which are dominant) through qualifying chiefs of breed (so-called chefs-de-race).
 
Pour Moi seems very short to me in the Arc market. He's favourite with some firms. Neither the form nor the time value of his Derby performance is particularly high. We can all see reasons why he might be better than that, he no doubt has improvement in him and he's clearly in good hands but even if he turns out in the long run to be a better than average Derby winner why is he trading at similar odds to Workforce, for example, who we already know to be such a horse?
 
gus said:
I calculate Pour Moi's time at 117, inclusive of weight-for-age, which is pretty moderate for a Derby and confirms the visual impression that the overall pace wasn't that strong. You wouldn't expect an outstanding time where just over two lengths covers the first five home.
Click to expand...

Gus..do you include the sprint when calculating your track speed?..i don't for the simple reason that at that side of the straight it drains quicker and the ground is usually faster..most years its out of line with the rest of the course as far as judging track speed is concerned

I don't add wfa and i get PM running a bare 117...i am assuming you only get just above 100 if using the sprint in calculations.

The sectionals show it wasn't that fast for the first 5f..but by 3f out they were running reasonably decent..not slow enough to cause a very slow final time ..the first 5f was faster than Galileo's Derby for instance after allowing for track speed
 
Chef... noooooOOOOOOOOooooooo... don't get Stevie Emm started on dosage! The forum's bandwidth will bust! :lol:
 
gus said:
It would appear that the likes of TDK and Prufrock no longer post on here, having gone over entirely to Twitter. I think that's a pity because their contributions were always interesting but in the interests of stimulating further discussion, here's TDK's take on the Derby: http://jamesaknight.wordpress.com/2011/06/04/the-derby-that-had-the-lot/
Click to expand...

A great shame, the same goes for Warbler.

There was good debate between James K, James W, Simon and David surrounding the Derby on Twitter and it's a pity it wasn't on here given three of them used to (one still does) post on here.
 
EC1 said:
Gus..do you include the sprint when calculating your track speed?..i don't for the simple reason that at that side of the straight it drains quicker and the ground is usually faster..most years its out of line with the rest of the course as far as judging track speed is concerned
Click to expand...

No. They use a totally different part of the track and it would just confuse things. Unfortunately, it makes it impossible to come up with a sensible figure for the sprint - there's nothing with which to compare it.
 
gus said:
No. They use a totally different part of the track and it would just confuse things. Unfortunately, it makes it impossible to come up with a sensible figure for the sprint - there's nothing with which to compare it.
Click to expand...
no.. i didn't mean making a figure for the sprint..i meant not including it in calculations for the other distances
 
The Derby was 2.31 seconds faster than the handicap over the same trip Gus..again..that is unlikely if the Derby was a poor overall time..the handicap was decently run..only about 4lbs slower than par.

that 12f handicap has been quite useful in the past..in the last 10 years this years superiority is 3rd highest..with just Authorised and Workforce beating it by more than PM.
 
On my calculations, the 12f handicap was slowly-run. Although visual impressions can be unreliable, Richard Hoiles suggested during his live commentary on the race that that was the case and he'd be one commentator I'd trust on that score.

The race that causes me the problem with the Derby time is the two-year-old event. If I increased the going allowance and bumped up Pour Moi's timerating I'd end up with too high a figure for Fulbright. I think Fulbright's decent, mind.
 
davidjohnson said:
I've done a small blog on some of the Epsom fallout. It can be read here if you're interested.
Click to expand...

Interesting as always, David.

Having decided on the spur of the moment to head down for the two days with a couple of mates, what struck me most about the track itself was the climb up to the top of the hill; I've long been in two minds about the 'stiffness' (for lack of a better word) of the Epsom track*, but I'm now convinced that the gallop in the first four furlongs or so goes a long way towards determining the nature of an individual race.

With that in mind, I would almost suggest that sectionals that time from the top of the hill (and there are a couple of decent paths that could potentially serve as markers) are almost more useful than closing sectionals. Of course a stiff early gallop will likely be reflected in the closing sectional ~ it's just a thought really.

*I must say I find the argument that standard times alone indicate the nature of a track very much unconvincing. For instance I have seen it suggested (by Steve Mellish - whose opinions I respect greatly - amongst others) that Epsom represents a stiffer test than the likes of Newmarket or York. Yet surely the nature of the Epsom track means horses will be travelling slower down Tattenham hill than they would be at the same position in a race at say Newmarket. I would have thought this would make comparison of race standards potentially very misleading in such cases. Any thoughts?
 
trackside528 said:
Interesting as always, David.

Having decided on the spur of the moment to head down for the two days with a couple of mates, what struck me most about the track itself was the climb up to the top of the hill; I've long been in two minds about the 'stiffness' (for lack of a better word) of the Epsom track*, but I'm now convinced that the gallop in the first four furlongs or so goes a long way towards determining the nature of an individual race.

With that in mind, I would almost suggest that sectionals that time from the top of the hill (and there are a couple of decent paths that could potentially serve as markers) are almost more useful than closing sectionals. Of course a stiff early gallop will likely be reflected in the closing sectional ~ it's just a thought really.

*I must say I find the argument that standard times alone indicate the nature of a track very much unconvincing. For instance I have seen it suggested (by Steve Mellish - whose opinions I respect greatly - amongst others) that Epsom represents a stiffer test than the likes of Newmarket or York. Yet surely the nature of the Epsom track means horses will be travelling slower down Tattenham hill than they would be at the same position in a race at say Newmarket. I would have thought this would make comparison of race standards potentially very misleading in such cases. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

the only time that standards can be used to guage stiffness is on sprint tracks imo..and even then..one like Epsom has the downhil and uphill muddying it...most straight courses can be used to judge stiffness imo

once you start adding turns of different severences and strong undulations ..that muddys the use of times to measure stiffness

but in the main..York and other flat tracks would have similar sprint standards..whereas Ascot and Sandown sprint tracks clearly highlight stiffness

i'm talking about standards to the same class..not just average times per course that depend on what class of horse runs there

i do use the time at the path at the top of the hill ..after they turn left and flatten out...just as a quick reference to the first 5 furlongs there..but to keep things easier ..splitting the race in half gives a more userfriendly view of the race..but as you say..measuring just from the path 3.3 out doesn't tell you the full story of the early pace.

for instance..on Saturday..after going 5f..the leader took 69.14 seconds to run that first 5f..its just over 5f actually....which is just a bit faster than Sir Percys year..but by the time they got to 3.3f out the leader was a second faster than Sir Percys year...but if you don't have that early sectional it just looks like they ran 8.5f consistently faster than Sir Percys year.....but you don't quite get the full picture.

it shows how stiff that climb is doesn't it?..near on 70 seconds to run 5f on decent ground..thats a good climb
 
Last edited:
Back
Top