G
Gearoid
Guest
Breeders in the southern hemisphere will fall over themselves for him. He will be picking up loose change standing in Europe.
chroniclandlord
Senior Jockey
I'd agree with Gearoid, southern hemisphere breeders won't be able to get enough of him.
Harbinger
At the Start
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 11,282
I think Snow Fairy enjoyed running against a decent pace (the Goodwood race was very slow). If Rewilding had still been around he might well have done So You Think again. Still, So You Think must be setting some kind of record for consistency. Timeform have now rated him 128 or better in his last 11 races.
Euronymous
Senior Jockey
Meh. If it's a record it's because far better animals are packed off to stud before they get a chance to rack up that kind of sequence.
EC1
On a break
I backed SF purely for one reason...I took notice of NIck Mordins assertion that on a track with a shorter straight SF would be capable of beating SYT.
Now i know that some pople have no time for him and dismiss him out of hand...but his profiling of horses is pretty good
When he made that point about SF it was laughed at a bit by a few of you guys...ie there is not a cat in hells chance that SF will ever give SYT a race
No she didn't win..but i'm sure most people expected SYT to absolutely bury SF...instead we got a very competetive race with SF showing her very best
The long run in/short run in angle was highlighted to me years ago with the "Profile" software..that software broke a horse's form down into many different bits..its an interesting area..particularly with the better class horses. Many profiling methods work well with the better class horses...who in the main run consistently well..unless something actually stops them..whereas the lower class horse could well have similar negatives..but are harder to spot in them because general inconsistency muddies the water
what i am saying really here is that sometimes you need to have an open mind about the game..blanket dismissal of ideas and methods isn't always a good thing.
on a forum like this any topic of methodology should be able to be discussed without dismissive one line put downs etc.
if we can't discuss the game without fear of derision..then topics won't grow...good threads are hard to come by these days on racing forums...there is so much samey stuff knocking about...lists of tips with no reasoning behind them....hackneyed phrases running rife etc
I used to read about 10-15 boards a few years ago..but over time i stopped looking at 80% of em because they were all the same
what marks a board above others are interesting topics that might help future reading of the game..astute punters want to keep learning don't they?
Now i know that some pople have no time for him and dismiss him out of hand...but his profiling of horses is pretty good
When he made that point about SF it was laughed at a bit by a few of you guys...ie there is not a cat in hells chance that SF will ever give SYT a race
No she didn't win..but i'm sure most people expected SYT to absolutely bury SF...instead we got a very competetive race with SF showing her very best
The long run in/short run in angle was highlighted to me years ago with the "Profile" software..that software broke a horse's form down into many different bits..its an interesting area..particularly with the better class horses. Many profiling methods work well with the better class horses...who in the main run consistently well..unless something actually stops them..whereas the lower class horse could well have similar negatives..but are harder to spot in them because general inconsistency muddies the water
what i am saying really here is that sometimes you need to have an open mind about the game..blanket dismissal of ideas and methods isn't always a good thing.
on a forum like this any topic of methodology should be able to be discussed without dismissive one line put downs etc.
if we can't discuss the game without fear of derision..then topics won't grow...good threads are hard to come by these days on racing forums...there is so much samey stuff knocking about...lists of tips with no reasoning behind them....hackneyed phrases running rife etc
I used to read about 10-15 boards a few years ago..but over time i stopped looking at 80% of em because they were all the same
what marks a board above others are interesting topics that might help future reading of the game..astute punters want to keep learning don't they?
Last edited:
Harbinger
At the Start
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 11,282
At best, I think you're exaggerating what was said. At worst, you're wilfully misrepresenting the comments made. They're at the end of this thread:
http://talkinghorses.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=16364&page=8
(I've spent some time looking for any other comments made on the specific subject, but to no avail. I'm therefore assuming that these are the comments you're referring to. Apologies if this is not the case.)
Bar called out various bits of Mordin's article as "horseshit", including his assertion that Snow Fairy should beat So You Think at Leopardstown because of the short home straight.
SteveM agreed that his logic looked flawed.
I said that he can't ignore the class of the horses in opposition when applying his 'short straight' theory.
All three of us stated that Mordin can come up with some interesting stuff at times.
Leopardstown (and Goodwood before it) only strengthened Mordin's general theory that Snow Fairy performs better on courses with a short straight. But his apparent belief that the right kind of course was such an important factor as to render others - including something as basic as the quality of the opposition - as meaningless, was obviously hugely flawed.
I don't think any of us were laughing at Mordin's theory, nor were we rubbishing it because it wasn't an age-old way of looking at horses. But his application of his theory was obviously flawed. I said so at the time, and the race bore that out.
All ideas and methods should be given the respect of being challenged. If they don't hold up, then no-one should be afraid to say so.