St Leger

Bar the Bull said:
Fair enough, but this is why you should pick an average.

You shouldn't. I tell you what the average is and then what the right or typical type is which deviates from the average.

But you always told me the higher the reading the better? Rule of Law has 52 points...easily enough for an accurate reading. Agreed about Arctic Cosmos, but if you are throwing him out (18 points too low), you need to throw out Mastery (18 points) and Masked Marvel (16 points).

Usually so but as I say there are anomalies, usually to do with unrecognised prepotent influence.

Past history doesn't suggest that to me.

It should... Of the past 18 those that qualify in this respect are: Masked Marvel (DI 0.68), Mastery (1.00), Conduit (0.76), Sixties Icon (1.00), Scorpion (1.00), Brian Boru (1.05), Bollin Eric (1.00), Milan (0.77), Millenary (0.83), Mutafaweq (1.07), Nedawi (0.92), Silver Patriarch (1.00), Classic Cliché (0.83) and Moonax (0.73).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Aragorn said:
There is a fair bit of fitting the system to supoprt the argument.
Click to expand...

It is rather looking at what the numbers are telling you and then forming a judgement. I'm not trying to justify the system but rather to find the winner. Camelot satisfies everything I could reasonably ask of him.
 
Last edited:
Steve, you look to me like you are cherry picking statistics. Of course the tool isn't completely useless, which enables you to do so.

But you haven't answered my questions as to why there is no noticeable difference in the DI between recent winners of the Leger, Ascot Gold Cup and Derby.
 
Last edited:
In 1999 the great, and I dont use this term loosely, Andy Beyer was fielding questions before the Belmont Stakes in an internet chat when he was asked the following question:

When playing the horses this time around, I came across this dosage index issue. How safe is it to rely on this? Apparently Menifee was not supposed to be able to run a mile and a quarter in the Derby, according to the index. It sure seemed to run well to me. Is there a particular dosage index rating or level that I should look for in a Triple Crown horse? Or is this just another inaccurate measure helping me throw my money away?

His answer was thus:

In my opinion, Dosage is useless as a handicapping tool. Its proponents claim that it had been right about the Derby every year from 1929 into the 1990s, but the system was devised in the 1980s and then retrofitted to the past results. When Dosage is correct, it tells you what you would know anyway from a common-sense analysis of a horse's pedigree. But when it defies common sense it's usually wrong--as when it said that Strike the Gold (who seemed to have a solid distance running pedigree) didn't qualify for the Derby. I could go on and on about this subject; suffice it to say that Dosage is junk science.

I have also heard him call it "voodoo handicapping".

I should state that I am seriously biased towards most anything the man says on matters horse racing.

While I might not be that strong opinioned on it, I've spent some time in the past looking at this before I ever knew Steve M existed and could never get my head around the fact that their list of stallions was at that time fairly outdated. Personally I discarded it completely as anything that could give me some sort of edge over other ways of handicapping.
 
I have a natural predisposition to using statistical tools where possible to make informed decisions. It has served me well when weighing up potential job offers, sexual partners and cycling bets.

When I first came across dosage - I believe on the old C4 forum via Steve Millar - I had a hard on as long as the Doncaster straight. I lapped it up.

But the more that I think about it, the more I think it is bunkum.
 
There is an old saying that a poor tradesman blames his tools.
Dosage Index is a concept that to me is a flake on an ice cream; nice to have but unnecessary to enjoy the ice cream.
No breeder sets out to breed a St Leger winner; they are a by product of a derby horse late maturing or late improving imo.
The importance of The Triple Crown is well explained by SteveM. Many thanks sir.

On another tangent..
I have an idea that if Coolmore could turn back the clock Galileo would have gone the Camelot route. The ease of his Derby win indicates he had the tactical speed to win a 2000gns, and I imagine they regret not taking that route.
The fact that Galileo got St Leger 1/2/3 in 2006 in his first crop along with an Irish1000 gns winner coupled with See The Stars 2000 gns victory reaffirmed their error imo.
Hawk Wing was hyped and put forward as a possible TC horse the following year until the wheels came off. The next horse associated with TC was Teofilo (by JSBolger), a son of Galileo.
APOB and family are now singing Camelot's virtues as a loner, a horse apart. Methinks they saw this before but did not recognise it.....
 
If we hadn't had Sea The Stars and Frankel recently Camelot would have been viewed as the second coming. The timing of his arrival has been his only fault so far. I sincerely hope he hacks up in this and the Arc!!!!
 
Thank god for Sea the Stars and Frankel then. Puts the mountain he still has to climb, in relation to second coming, in full view. No hype needed.
 
Last edited:
edgt said:
On another tangent..
I have an idea that if Coolmore could turn back the clock Galileo would have gone the Camelot route. The ease of his Derby win indicates he had the tactical speed to win a 2000gns, and I imagine they regret not taking that route.
The fact that Galileo got St Leger 1/2/3 in 2006 in his first crop along with an Irish1000 gns winner coupled with See The Stars 2000 gns victory reaffirmed their error imo.
Hawk Wing was hyped and put forward as a possible TC horse the following year until the wheels came off. The next horse associated with TC was Teofilo (by JSBolger), a son of Galileo.
APOB and family are now singing Camelot's virtues as a loner, a horse apart. Methinks they saw this before but did not recognise it.....
Click to expand...
Good post, edgt.
 
While I'll refrain from pointing out the obvious and asking what difference Galileo's racecourse career could possibly have made to his efforts in stud, I have to state my view that he would have had NO chance in the Guineas.






.
 
Last edited:
If he could beat Golan over 1m4f, I see no reason he would have been stopped over a mile. That was a poor Guineas.

And listen, he has always shown us great speed at home. The pace he shows is incredible. Listen, he is in the July Cup, as he has shown us such speed at home, we didn't know what distance to run him at.
 
I think Camelot will win and I do think he is a very good horse but I do not think ,if he does , his achievement can be compared with Nijinsky . Camelot beat the worst 2000 and Derby fields I can ever remember . Nijinsky saw off Yellow God on the bit , and Gyr in the Derby as well as sauntering away with the King George.

Camelot may, if he wins the Leger , deserve to be compared with Nijinsky if he wins the Arc though or beats Frankel ! ( the latter of which of course he won't !)
 
Back
Top