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!

Reply to thread

Message

To be honest, I'd say it was reasonably obvious from the comments that about half the people were able to follow the rationale, understand it, and have hopefully, been able to draw something from it? Where as others either didn't want to, or preferred instead to selectively skim read it. The latter runs the obvious risk of missing detail, which can lead to misunderstandings, if people elect to seize on things like a bull in the proverbial china shop. It's not a million miles removed by way of observation from what Goober posted.

If I'm going to make claims etc In this case that a vast majority of Grade 1 Staying Hurdlers aren't necessarily true grade 1 animals, then it's only matter of time before you draw down abuse or someone challenges you to back up what your saying with evidence, hence why I pulled down the 2005 novice hurdlers. What's wrong with that? Far better to at least present some evidence for scrutiny then just make a series of fire from the hip comments?

I'm still slightly puzzled incidentally by this continued use of Lindop to rubbish the line of enquiry. Am I missing something? I can't find one iota of evidence to suggest this horse (presumebly at Newbury?) was anything other than a very run of the mill maiden winner. Dessie's more generous to him than me. I'd be intrigued to know how it's entered into apparent folklore that you invoke Lindop to some how discredit the stopwatch? I know what figures I've got for him using a class par method, and there's absolutely nothing what so ever that would alert me to him being a concealed group performer. Quite opposite. Far from being the antedote, Lindop is actually a case to support the stopwatch (imho). I'd be interested to see anyone's figures to the contrary? or the rationale behind the supposition

<blockquote data-quote="Warbler" data-source="post: 2128342" data-attributes="member: 65228">To be honest, I&#039;d say it was reasonably obvious from the comments that about half the people were able to follow the rationale, understand it, and have hopefully, been able to draw something from it? Where as others either didn&#039;t want to, or preferred instead to selectively skim read it. The latter runs the obvious risk of missing detail, which can lead to misunderstandings, if people elect to seize on things like a bull in the proverbial china shop. It&#039;s not a million miles removed by way of observation from what Goober posted.If I&#039;m going to make claims etc In this case that a vast majority of Grade 1 Staying Hurdlers aren&#039;t necessarily true grade 1 animals, then it&#039;s only matter of time before you draw down abuse or someone challenges you to back up what your saying with evidence, hence why I pulled down the 2005 novice hurdlers. What&#039;s wrong with that? Far better to at least present some evidence for scrutiny then just make a series of fire from the hip comments?I&#039;m still slightly puzzled incidentally by this continued use of Lindop to rubbish the line of enquiry. Am I missing something? I can&#039;t find one iota of evidence to suggest this horse (presumebly at Newbury?) was anything other than a very run of the mill maiden winner. Dessie&#039;s more generous to him than me. I&#039;d be intrigued to know how it&#039;s entered into apparent folklore that you invoke Lindop to some how discredit the stopwatch? I know what figures I&#039;ve got for him using a class par method, and there&#039;s absolutely nothing what so ever that would alert me to him being a concealed group performer. Quite opposite.&nbsp; Far from being the antedote, Lindop is actually a case to support the stopwatch (imho). I&#039;d be interested to see anyone&#039;s figures to the contrary? or the rationale behind the supposition</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Warbler, post: 2128342, member: 65228"] To be honest, I'd say it was reasonably obvious from the comments that about half the people were able to follow the rationale, understand it, and have hopefully, been able to draw something from it? Where as others either didn't want to, or preferred instead to selectively skim read it. The latter runs the obvious risk of missing detail, which can lead to misunderstandings, if people elect to seize on things like a bull in the proverbial china shop. It's not a million miles removed by way of observation from what Goober posted. If I'm going to make claims etc In this case that a vast majority of Grade 1 Staying Hurdlers aren't necessarily true grade 1 animals, then it's only matter of time before you draw down abuse or someone challenges you to back up what your saying with evidence, hence why I pulled down the 2005 novice hurdlers. What's wrong with that? Far better to at least present some evidence for scrutiny then just make a series of fire from the hip comments? I'm still slightly puzzled incidentally by this continued use of Lindop to rubbish the line of enquiry. Am I missing something? I can't find one iota of evidence to suggest this horse (presumebly at Newbury?) was anything other than a very run of the mill maiden winner. Dessie's more generous to him than me. I'd be intrigued to know how it's entered into apparent folklore that you invoke Lindop to some how discredit the stopwatch? I know what figures I've got for him using a class par method, and there's absolutely nothing what so ever that would alert me to him being a concealed group performer. Quite opposite. Far from being the antedote, Lindop is actually a case to support the stopwatch (imho). I'd be interested to see anyone's figures to the contrary? or the rationale behind the supposition [/QUOTE]

Verification: 5 + 3 = ?