The Road to the 2012 2000 Guineas

Bar the Bull said:
Desert. How can Trumpet take them along at a fast pace and the time be slow? Forget sectionals, that doesn't tally.
Click to expand...
Run too fast and the loss of energy later on will be more dramatic, resulting in a slow time.

Try running 400m at 200m pace. Your final time will be miles off the optimum. If an 800m runner jigjogs for the first 200m of the same race he'll run past you as if you're standing still (which you almost will be) but will be miles off his optimum time as well because he went so slow earlier.
 
Desert Orchid said:
Run too fast and the loss of energy later on will be more dramatic, resulting in a slow time.

Try running 400m at 200m pace. Your final time will be miles off the optimum. If an 800m runner jigjogs for the first 200m of the same race he'll run past you as if you're standing still (which you almost will be) but will be miles off his optimum time as well because he went so slow earlier.
Click to expand...

TM didn't go too fast though...none of them did as the sectionals tell you when compared to past runnings. There wasn't a pace collapse..i just think some horses didn't like the ground tbh

to burst the pace TM would have to be breaking 60 seconds and he wasn't near that after ground speed has been taken off
 
Last edited:
That's what I simply can't accept. If it's true then Camelot and French Fifteen are utterly top-notch but it also makes the likes of Coupe De Ville unrealistically high in the ratings. And it doesn't answer the question of the slow overall time.

I have to conclude there's a flaw in the calculation somewhere.

It's also possible TM left his race behind at the Craven but that wouldn't explain all the other performances.

I learned years ago that if my figures seemed wrong they probably were. I gave up on Timeform years ago because their figures didn't make sense. It's why I decided to go it alone and I've never really looked back. All my reading of the result, the times etc, lead me to conclude TM set too fast a pace and too many followed it. The first two didn't, yet still couldn't post a top time. The far side was a different race altogether and is very iffy form.

However, for the time being, I'm taking the view that the time is largely irrelevant and that Camelot is up there with the good, but not the best, winners. I have him on 125 and if he can improve for a step up in trip he'll be a tough nut to crack.
 
No doubt that Camelot travels very strongly, but o'Brien does settle him nicely and clearly has established a rapport with the horse. The horse went to post with his gob wide open though and this ought to be addressed with a change of headgear if he is to give himself the best chance of getting the mile and a half in a race unlikely to be run at as fast a tempo as the guineas.
 
EC1 said:
DO

On Warbler's board the concensus is about 0.45 pf slow...what did you make it Stan?

What did Topspeed make it as well?..anyone else make figures?
Click to expand...

Topspeed have Saturday as 0.89 slow, Sunday as 0.72.
Camelot's s/f as 109, HQ's 118.
 
EC1 said:
also..what if Camelot is only a 10f horse?...he has shown a lot of toe for a 12f horse
Click to expand...
Glad I'm not the only one to think this. I think it's one of the most clear cut angles to come out of the race, and one of the reasons that although he's a warm order for the derby that I'm still keeping an open mind with regards to who the winner might be. Imo the turn of foot he showed wasn't a million miles away from that of Hawk Wing, and that one went on to find just one too good in the derby.
 
Last edited:
Desert Orchid said:
That's what I simply can't accept. If it's true then Camelot and French Fifteen are utterly top-notch but it also makes the likes of Coupe De Ville unrealistically high in the ratings. And it doesn't answer the question of the slow overall time.
I have to conclude there's a flaw in the calculation somewhere.
Click to expand...

Coup De Ville ran 9lbs above his previous best RPR, and while there's some question about the overall form of the far side group, the improvement shown isn't that far out of line with the progress he showed as a 2yo.
3 or 4lbs wrong, maybe, but definite improvement, nevertheless.
 
Marble said:
Glad I'm not the only one to think this. I think it's one of the most clear cut angles to come out of the race, and one of the reasons that although he's a warm order for the derby that I'm still keeping an open mind with regards to who the winner might be. Imo the turn of foot he showed wasn't a million miles away from that of Hawk Wing, and that one went on to find just one too good in the derby.
Click to expand...

Hear what you're saying Marb, and it's a genuine enough query, but it might be worth bearing in mind that Hawk Wing's turn of foot was on fast ground in the Guineas and his stamina was blunted on slower ground at Epsom.
The reverse may well be the case in Camelot's instance; his apparent "turn of foot' was accentuated by conditions on Saturday, and I'd have little doubt he'd get the trip at Epsom, on normal summer ground.
 
Last edited:
reet hard said:
Coup De Ville ran 9lbs above his previous best RPR, and while there's some question about the overall form of the far side group, the improvement shown isn't that far out of line with the progress he showed as a 2yo.
3 or 4lbs wrong, maybe, but definite improvement, nevertheless.
Click to expand...

I backed Coupe De Ville for a place in the Guineas (which is why he finished 4th, of course) because I reckoned he was one of very few horses in the race that would be suited by last Saturday's dead going. I don't think he should be used to hold down the ratings.
 
Desert Orchid said:
That's what I simply can't accept. If it's true then Camelot and French Fifteen are utterly top-notch but it also makes the likes of Coupe De Ville unrealistically high in the ratings. And it doesn't answer the question of the slow overall time.

I have to conclude there's a flaw in the calculation somewhere.

It's also possible TM left his race behind at the Craven but that wouldn't explain all the other performances.

I learned years ago that if my figures seemed wrong they probably were. I gave up on Timeform years ago because their figures didn't make sense. It's why I decided to go it alone and I've never really looked back. All my reading of the result, the times etc, lead me to conclude TM set too fast a pace and too many followed it. The first two didn't, yet still couldn't post a top time. The far side was a different race altogether and is very iffy form.

However, for the time being, I'm taking the view that the time is largely irrelevant and that Camelot is up there with the good, but not the best, winners. I have him on 125 and if he can improve for a step up in trip he'll be a tough nut to crack.
Click to expand...


i'm quite happy with the figures DO tbh...Warbler gets the ground very similar..and as said if the the allowance isn't near 0.5 pf..say its less..then that makes the guineas even slower...0.5 is a fair reflection of the ground imo

once you remove the ground speed you get 62 seconds for TM which can't possibly be too fast...many horses run 2 seconds faster than that and still have plenty left to win.

a slow run race doesn't separate horses enough which helps lower rated horses to be nearer at the line.

Had it been a true test the distances would have been greater and FF and C would have put more distance bewteen themselves and the rest as the others tired.

some horses had plenty left but as its such as Abtaal thats not one of them you are assuming the pace has collapsed..whereas i think on the day some haven't performed..as in the 1000 where many haven't performed be it the ground..off day etc.

you would expect of the two races it would be the 1000 where the pace collapsed as they went faster..HQ ran 60.06 after ground speed put to Good...just over 62 for TM...but 60.06 is actually ideal pace which is why HQ kept going

these are horses that ran faster than TM and still got home over the years

Haafhd = 60.26
Footstepsinthesand = 60.46
Attraction = 59.95
George Washington = 61.67
Golan 61.31
Ameerat = 61.27

looking at those ..an ideal pace for a horse to show its best ..after ground correction...is about the 60.0/60.50 mark at 5f.

Camelot was 62.70..slower than ideal which explains why the overall time is lacking
 
Last edited:
Desert Orchid said:
... so the conclusion has to be that it is a very poor race?
Click to expand...


i just think that some good ones underperformed

any race is a good race if it has good performances within it..which i think it does re Camelot and FF both looking good

there is a decent match up between both of these re the sectionals with Rock Of Gibraltor

ROG 5f = 62.72
Camelot 5f = 62.70
FF 5f = 62.66

the last 3f time for each horse ROG = 36.02
Camelot = 35.68
FF = 35.79

those times indicate that the first two home would have beaten Rock Of Gibraltor who ran identical splits to the 5f marker

the race is just a vehicle for performance...all races carry within it good and bad perfomances...even the very best races..saturdays race contained two really good performances..if you think ROG is a good horse of course
 
Last edited:
Desert Orchid said:
If it's true then Camelot and French Fifteen are utterly top-notch
Click to expand...

Don't underestimate either of these. They are both high class, have run a much better race in the Guineas than than bare ratings suggest and will both go on to improve on their current marks. These are without question the two to take out of the race.
 
EC1 said:
also..what if Camelot is only a 10f horse?...he has shown a lot of toe for a 12f horse
Click to expand...

This is a fair question. I've maintained all along that Camelot was the right type of Montjeu to do very well in the Guineas and I expect him to excel at 10 furlongs. However, he also has very good prepotent stamina influences and is beautifully balanced in terms of speed/stamina for the Derby. The focus of his distance spectrum is less narrow than most.

I doubt he has the pure stamina requirement for the St Leger, although it is more than likely his class would assist him in this also.

Think Dancing Brave rather than Tenby. Both short-priced favourites for the Derby. Both lost, but one stayed and one was a 10 furlong horse.
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
from a form stand point he looks a good marker..as does fencing
Click to expand...
In the sense that they've run their OR differential to the pound, yes. Shame Ptolomaic ran on the far side making a direct line with TM difficult given the way the race panned out but if the line could be taken accurately, it would suggest a difference of 16lbs from one race to the next.

For what it's worth, for the time being, I'm rating the two opposite sides of the course via both Trumpet Major and Ptolomaic running to their ORs. It pulls the ratings of those on the far side down significantly, which is probably doing a disservice to Hermival so we'll have to wait and see about that one, and it puts the front two on 125 and 124 respectively. If those figures can be taken at face value, I'd suggest it implies that Camelot can surpass the 130 mark another day over further since I'd rate him probably a bit better than the bare result.
 
Last edited:
Desert Orchid said:
For what it's worth, for the time being, I'm rating the two opposite sides of the course via both Trumpet Major and Ptolomaic running to their ORs. It pulls the ratings of those on the far side down significantly, which is probably doing a disservice to Hermival so we'll have to wait and see about that one, and it puts the front two on 125 and 124 respectively.
Click to expand...

The far side had the best of the ground, so Hermival is probably flattered to some extent by the bare result although may still just about be third best and at worst fifth best.
 
EC1 said:
but don't forget Camelot ran each of the previous 5 sectionals faster than FF...so allowing FF a victory of 0.05sec in the last furlong seems fair
Click to expand...

Plus Camelot was eased slightly before the line so you would expect the one coming at him to make a slight impression on his time. Had they gone another furlong Camelot would have won further.
 
SteveM said:
Think Dancing Brave rather than Tenby. Both short-priced favourites for the Derby. Both lost, but one stayed and one was a 10 furlong horse.
Click to expand...

He's more likely to end up like Golan. A decent 12f horse who managed to win a Guineas because of a terrible field.
 
Euronymous said:
He's more likely to end up like Golan. A decent 12f horse who managed to win a Guineas because of a terrible field.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. Not terrible by a long way. The third and fourth set a decent standard and the runner-up is very good. French Fifteen was underestimated before the Guineas and it seems underestimated now. He will be extremely difficult to beat wherever he goes at top level and I wouldn't want to be opposing Camelot at 10 or 12 furlongs, even though I may still try to find another one in the Derby.
 
Last edited:
SteveM said:
I don't think so. Not terrible by a long way. The third and fourth set a decent standard and the runner-up is very good. French Fifteen was underestimated before the Guineas and it seems underestimated now. He will be extremely difficult to beat wherever he goes at top level and I wouldn't want to be opposing Camelot at 10 or 12 furlongs, even though I may still try to find another one in the Derby.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think it was a terrible field. I meant Camelot is far more likely to be another Golan than another Dancing Brave. I have him as cover in the Derby but I'm hoping Parish Hall can come out soon and show some credentials for the race.
 
Back
Top