• REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do much without having been registered!

    At the moment you have limited access to view all discussions - and most importantly, you haven't joined our community. What are you waiting for? Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Join Talking Horses here!

The 2025 Eclipse Stakes

Coral will be thrilled at this revelation 😂 - with me, it depends on whether the race was originated and always sponsored by the same entity - I happily accepted Whitbread, Hennessy and Mackeson back in the day.
 
Last edited:
I've never been able to call it the Coral-Eclipse, just like I never could call it the Ever Ready Derby or whatever it is now.

Don't why the Juddmonte got so lucky. Maybe the TV channels just referring to it as such?

Plus I can't stand that spokesman fanny they wheel out out on TV every year. That's a face I'd never tire of punching.
 
As you can tell, Maurice, race titles are one of my (many!) pointless obsessions 😂 - I don't care what other people call them, that's up to them, but the pedant in me does make observations.

I think the York race was originally the Benson & Hedges Gold Cup, so the media were predisposed to referring to the contest by the sponsor's name.

I refuse to call the Eclipse anything other than the Eclipse - not least because the late Joe's mob long since closed me down, along with everyone else who has half a clue - and don't get me started on The Derby!

It's not the Epsom Derby, it's not the English Derby and it's certainly not the Betfred (also closed me down) Derby - neither is it "one of the main Derbies," as the Racing Post wrote the other day.

It's THE DERBY, the original and the best - every other "Derby" is an imitation - rant over! 😂
 
Last edited:
Ian_Davies said:
As you can tell, Maurice race titles are one of my (many!) pointless obsessions 😂 - I don't care what other people call them, that's up to them, but the pedant in me does make observations.

I think the York race was originally the Benson & Hedges, so the media were predisposed to referring to it by the sponsor's name.

I refuse to call the Eclipse anything other than the Eclipse - not least because the late Joe's mob long since closed me down along with everyone else who has half a clue - and dint get me started on The Derby!

It's not the Epsom Derby, it's not the English Derby and it's certainly not the Betfred Derby - neither is it "one of the main Derbies," as the Racing Post wrote the other day.

It's THE DERBY, the original and the best - every other "Derby" is an imitation - rant over! 😂
Click to expand...
Do you pronounce it Darby or Durby just asking for a friend.
 
Ian_Davies said:
As you can tell, Maurice, race titles are one of my (many!) pointless obsessions 😂 - I don't care what other people call them, that's up to them, but the pedant in me does make observations.

I think the York race was originally the Benson & Hedges Gold Cup, so the media were predisposed to referring to the contest by the sponsor's name.

I refuse to call the Eclipse anything other than the Eclipse - not least because the late Joe's mob long since closed me down, along with everyone else who has half a clue - and don't get me started on The Derby!

It's not the Epsom Derby, it's not the English Derby and it's certainly not the Betfred Derby - neither is it "one of the main Derbies," as the Racing Post wrote the other day.

It's THE DERBY, the original and the best - every other "Derby" is an imitation - rant over! 😂
Click to expand...
It was the Benson + Hedges.. I was there in 83 when Caerleon just hung on against Harry Wraggs Hot Touch, who I was on at 10/1.
 
Robicheaux said:
It was the Benson + Hedges.. I was there in 83 when Caerleon just hung on against Harry Wraggs Hot Touch, who I was on at 10/1.
Click to expand...
I was there too!

You got closer than me - I was giving Gorytus an umpteenth chance, having got obsessed with him since being there the previous year when he won the Acomb and at Doncaster when he won the Champagne Stakes - that colt broke my heart! 😂
 
I'd totally forgotten about the B&H, which is what it was called when Roberto stunned us all, if memory serves.

So maybe if 'The International' is a relatively recent name for the race it makes sense for nobody to refer to it as such.

To me many of the big races are still the Mackeson, Massey Ferguson, Hennessy, Magnet Cup, Schweppes, etc.
 
Coral took over the Hennessy and tbh I think most over 50 still call it the Hennessy.

It will take a generation plus natural wastage to end this.

I attended the York race four times (1980-1983) and remember the gold-coloured Benson & Hedges racecard cover.

I can't recall when it became the International Stakes but ever since Juddmonte started sponsoring it most seem to call it the Juddmonte.
 
Juddmonte have been sponsoring the race since 1989. Just the 36 years. But keep going, another riveting contribution.
 
Shouty in his commentary referred to it as the 50th running of the Coral Eclipse - that, nearly as much as the hopeless rides given to Ruling Court and Camille Pissarro had be shouting rude things at the TV.
 
Not as bad as Graham Goode once referring to the "200 (and something) running of the Ever Ready Derby" - did they even have electricity the first year THE DERBY was run? 😂
 
Dingo Bingo said:
I learned something about that onscreen timer a week or so ago. I assume we're talking about the pop-up per furlong time bottom left of screen on RTV? It's a split time between the leader and horse running in 2nd place. Say the leader did a particular furlong in 12.0 seconds and the next horse covered it in 12.6 seconds, the pop up will display 12.3 seconds.
I'm unsure if the MPH display does the same.
Click to expand...
Apologies - only just spotted this:
The figure is derived from the RP on-screen replay,where the box (above the mph speed) shows11.86 secs for the 9th furlong.
 
I haven't looked back at the video but I'm pretty sure the on-screen graphic in the early stages of the Eclipse was showing 41mph whereas the sectional and TPD breakdowns say none broke 40mph. I'd presumed maybe it was just showing the speedo on the camera car.

I've read items in which a trainer says they followed a gallop in the car and the clock was showing xmph.

Anyway, this is Simon Rowlands's take on the race (and the dig about stamina strikes me as being directed at John Gosden who claimed on TV after the race that Delacroix outstayed Ombudsman).

I still think Ombudsman underperformed, and not just because, as I said in an earlier post, it ended up more of a mile race and he was outsprinted. I also think we'll see a different animal once freshened up but I remain open to being proved wrong (which will no doubt cost me money!)

www.attheraces.com

Expert Analysis | At The Races

It's all about speed this week as Simon Rowlands looks back at an incident-packed Eclipse, while looking ahead to Newmarket's July Cup.
www.attheraces.com www.attheraces.com
 
I stopped reading after this line:

“The pars are derived from dozens of performances which gave rise to fast times (relative to the horses’ abilities in the prevailing conditions)…”

So fast is relative, the conditions are subjective, and the pars come from a few dozen races — but we’re all supposed to shut up and bow to the number?

You don’t get to sneer at other opinions while pulling a figure out of your hole.
 
For me, Simon too often lets himself down by rubbishing the views and modus operandi of others - Johnny Dineen, for example, was an embarrassing target for a needless pop a while back,

It smacks of insecurity and a lack of quality.

I don't necessarily agree with every sentiment/opinion Dineen expresses, but the bloke's entitled to his opinion and method of forming it and he's a relatively colourful character in a relatively uncolourful sport.

If you're confident your take on racing is right, express it with confidence (if you want to share your views), but without feeling the need to trash those who analyse the game a different way.

I find Simon worth a read, but I can do without all the bitching about others.
 
Last edited:
Johnny Dinnen is an eye-test man. The type of punter who watches the race once live, then quickly finds a monitor on course to catch the replay. That’s it — he doesn’t need anything else. A lot of this time-paralysis comes from people who aren’t talented enough to trust their eyes.
 
Slim said:
I stopped reading after this line:

“The pars are derived from dozens of performances which gave rise to fast times (relative to the horses’ abilities in the prevailing conditions)…”

So fast is relative, the conditions are subjective, and the pars come from a few dozen races — but we’re all supposed to shut up and bow to the number?

You don’t get to sneer at other opinions while pulling a figure out of your hole.
Click to expand...

You should have read on, slim, until “In fact, Delacroix’s final furlong was probably the fastest recorded by an Eclipse winner in history. Let that sink in for a moment.”

I’m becoming quite a fan of sectionals which, all too often for my peace of mind, give lie to what I think I’ve seen. In this case they show more that Delacroix finished like Usain Bolt than Ombudsman ran out of puff.
 
Slim said:
Johnny Dinnen is an eye-test man. The type of punter who watches the race once live, then quickly finds a monitor on course to catch the replay. That’s it — he doesn’t need anything else. A lot of this time-paralysis comes from people who aren’t talented enough to trust their eyes.
Click to expand...
If that works for Dineen, it works for him - end of.

That's what academics like Simon don't seem to get.

I've met Simon (years ago, though) and he seemed a nice enough guy in person. but he's dripping with pedantry and dogma.

What he specialises in is a tiny bit of the betting jigsaw and if Simon is aware of that he doesn't let it show.

Is Simon even a net winning punter over time?

I honestly wouldn't know tbh - but if I had a free bet on it at evens I'd be tempted by "No."
 
To me, this doesn’t actually tell you anything.

Front-runners were at an advantage all weekend. They went slow, and Delacroix found a way to win. That says as much about the others not capitalising on the setup as it does about Delacroix.

You can tie yourself in knots with these sectionals, but the reality is Simon is doing exactly what he accuses others of — just in reverse. He picks a few ‘interesting’ data points and builds a ‘mathematical’ narrative around them.

As I said before: you could’ve run that race at any pace, any sectional profile, any tempo, any tactics — and the winner wouldn’t change.
 
1 Races like this are analysed to DEATH - and in the public domain. By the time every fecker has put it under their microscope in a public debate the chances of finding value coming out of it are much diminished. As punters. we've already spent too long even thinking about it.

2 I happen to think they thought Sosie's pilot would make it attritional when he went to the front, he didn't, he slowed it down a bit. and given this the winner has quickened up well at the business end to win. But the next race any of them run in might pan up in a different way, obviously.

3 Trying to put ratings numbers on all this is a complete waste of time - time more usefully spent on who's busy - and who isn't 😂 - at Kempton Park tonight. 😂
 
Last edited:

Recent Blog Posts

Back
Top