BC Mile - George Washington

[blackthroatedwind]

I think it's pretty important ( and interesting ) to take note of the last two paragraphs from the article. Sounds slightly less than convincing if you ask me.

Regardless, it will be fun to see George Washington race here. I just hope he can handle Miesque's Approval.

[Hwjb]

Blackthroatedwind,

That's not the story regarding a Timeform rating. That's the OFFICIAL RATING, the rating which governs how much weight each horse would have to carry if they ran in a handicap.

Timeform is a well-established private organisation which produces ratings, we like to think more accurate ratings, for subscribers.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Hwjb

Blackthroatedwind,

That's not the story regarding a Timeform rating. That's the OFFICIAL RATING, the rating which governs how much weight each horse would have to carry if they ran in a handicap.

Timeform is a well-established private organisation which produces ratings, we like to think more accurate ratings, for subscribers.

Thanks.

So what was the Time Form rating and would you say the Time Form people would disagree with the quotes from the article?

[Hwjb]

Sorry...not the official rating, that's the Racing Post rating. You don't want to pay attention to them!

[Gander]

Randall is right. A loss is a loss. Whether or not it was super impressive, if you needed him in the win slot you lose. Game over. You still tear up the ticket as you would if he stumbled at the start and threw his jockey. Or if he didnt fire and got beat by 20. Any horse can lose. Look at Butterface. One day she had a clear lead (6-7 lengths) in midstretch only to get caught by a Dutrow horse.

[Hwjb]

Here's what we say about the race:

Without doubt the miling championship of Europe, this year's top older horses at the distance Court Masterpiece and Librettist supported by last season's
joint-champion at the distance Proclamation, while the 3-y-os also included the best around among the colts, and it was the younger generation which dominated, George Washington reaffirming his superiority over Araafa as the two Guineas winners came away, recording a top-class performance as he asserted inside the last, not looking all out either; the tempo appeared only fair, despite the presence of at least one pacemaker, but tactics weren't a major issue, at least as far as the result was concerned.



And George Washington specifically:

George Washington finally produced the top-class performance he'd promised last year and this spring, recording as good an effort as seen in this race since Mark of Esteem's outstanding performance in 1996, as well as the best effort seen in Europe all season, at any trip, doing it without needing to come under maximum pressure, although whether he'd have found any more for it is open to doubt; he was on his very best behaviour in the preliminaries, without the presence of an outrider this time, but again showed glimmers of his quirky side in the finish, tracking Araafa through effortlessly having been kept in closer touch than at Goodwood from a much better start this time, but carrying his head high and veering left when switched and shaken up, albeit soon in control; clearly effective on softish ground for all he's raced mainly on good or firmer, he reportedly heads to Churchill Downs to take on the Americans next and must have strong claims in terms of form, though whether his temperament allows him to show it remains a slight question mark on balance, even if he appears to be maturing as the season progresses.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Gander

Randall is right. A loss is a loss. Whether or not it was super impressive, if you needed him in the win slot you lose. Game over. You still tear up the ticket as you would if he stumbled at the start and threw his jockey. Or if he didnt fire and got beat by 20. Any horse can lose. Look at Butterface. One day she had a clear lead (6-7 lengths) in midstretch only to get caught by a Dutrow horse.

Post race discussions should not be particularly result oriented. The simple fact is that in the case being discussed here Rock of Gibralter's second place finish is irrelevent, his performance in light of the trip stamped his as a superior animal.

If you want to base everything on how you did with a bet then you will miss out on the opportunity to win in the future.

[blackthroatedwind]

Thanks.

I'm still unconvinced but he's clearly a very nice horse. Seems to me only the second place finisher showed up at all. But, perhaps they were just too good.

[paisjpq]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I just hope he can handle Miesque's Approval.

god sometimes you make me laugh...

[Gander]

I agree, and its pretty obvious to anybody that he was lengths the best on that day. But for those people who needed him and dont bet Eurpo racing and or dont want to bet him back at 3/5, losing still stinks. Whether or not he lost by a halg length or 40 lengths. Its not like it was a bad trip in which only an astute observer of the race would see, and could bet him back 2 weeks later at nice odds. This was one of the most troubled trips ever in a big race and highly written about.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by paisjpq

god sometimes you make me laugh...

I was only sucking up to Charlotte Byk.

[paisjpq]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I was only sucking up to Charlotte Byk.

I knew that and it's mrs. charlotte byk to you!

[randallscott35]

Blackthroat,

Look, the intial post says the horse can't lose, not anything about being the best that day....Any horse can lose. Bad trips in mile turf races with 14 horses are the norm anyway, so he can lose regardless of how good he is. R. O. G. is a perfect example of that....All I heard from ther Euros was that he was unbeatable and he did indeed lose.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

Blackthroat,

Look, the intial post says the horse can't lose, not anything about being the best that day....Any horse can lose. Bad trips in mile turf races with 14 horses are the norm anyway, so he can lose regardless of how good he is. R. O. G. is a perfect example of that....All I heard from ther Euros was that he was unbeatable and he did indeed lose.

Sorry...I understand what you mean now. I hadn't noticed at first that someone had already conceded the BC Mile to, yet another, Euro with behavioral problems.

Those kind have a great record over here.

[Hwjb]

First law of racing. No horse in unbeatable!

This BCM is shaping up into a much better race than in 2002, with all of Aragorn, Araafa and Iffraaj likely to prove better over the trip than the likes of Domedriver, Good Journey and Beat Hollow (still find it inconceivable that that horse was run in the race!). But by the same token, it would appear that George Washington is a better horse than Rock of Gibraltar, 3lb better at present, with the potential for more to come.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Hwjb

First law of racing. No horse in unbeatable!

This BCM is shaping up into a much better race than in 2002, with all of Aragorn, Araafa and Iffraaj likely to prove better over the trip than the likes of Domedriver, Good Journey and Beat Hollow (still find it inconceivable that that horse was run in the race!). But by the same token, it would appear that George Washington is a better horse than Rock of Gibraltar, 3lb better at present, with the potential for more to come.

Any more believable than Landseer paying $8.80 when he beat him ( Beat Hollow that is ) a few weeks earlier at Keeneland?

Now THAT was incredible.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Post race discussions should not be particularly result oriented. The simple fact is that in the case being discussed here Rock of Gibralter's second place finish is irrelevent, his performance in light of the trip stamped his as a superior animal.

If you want to base everything on how you did with a bet then you will miss out on the opportunity to win in the future.

Tim I've only told you what BTW tells you here about 1000 times, and I can't believe you don't get that.
Its not just a win/lose game as far as the long run goes. We all know you can't go to the window and cash a ticket off a loss, I think thats obvious.
But if you ever intend to bet a race again, its a good idea to watch the replay and make mental notes or notes on paper so that the next time they run, you can have a better shot at cashing a ticket.
I seem to recall a horse named Ghostzapper getting defeated in the Kings Bishop on one the most ridiculously speed biased tracks in history. He closed wide and flew home beaten a 1/2 length. Using your theory you would not have crushed him next out against elders when he blew them away.
You are trying to take a game with too many variables and relate it to sporting events or personal competition like golf or tennis. It doesn't work like that. The chaotic nature of putting 6-12 1000 pound animals in a metal starting gate and having them race in close quarters at 35 mph plus doesn't lend itself to the type of comparison you are trying to make.

[The Bid]

Euro horses as a whole are superior animals to what we have over here. On grass its not even close, we arent in the same league. Why would GW not come over here and trounce a field in the mile?

[Gander]

Oracle, I wasnt arguing that what BTW was saying and what your saying is indeed true. I used that logic to crush a horse this summer at Saratoga who payed $19 to get me out from under a $6,000 hole.

But lets be realistic. Everybody saw Rock of G's trip and there was no possible bet back opportunity for him. So if you lost on him that day, which I did (needed him for a pick 3) it would be hard to think you could recapture that money next time out at 3/5 in Europe.

Randall is right, any horse can lose. To call any horse a cinch is just a lie.

Originally Posted by The Bid

Euro horses as a whole are superior animals to what we have over here. On grass its not even close, we arent in the same league. Why would GW not come over here and trounce a field in the mile?

Oh thats complete rubbish and nonsense. Piffle and bladerdash.
American racing is almost completely predicated on speed and dirt, or both.
The big purses are there, the huge residual breeding money is there, so thats what folks focus on over here. You ever see the stud fees of grass horses over here? Even the good ones? You can't give em away.
Everything is a product of money. And because the heavy emphasis is on dirt racing, thats what our finest trainers excel at and try to succeed with.
Turf racing is real hard to love here as an owner or trainer. They don't write that many grass races, you have to sweat out getting into the field when they do(they overflow quite a bit), or you get rained off the grass. Its just not option number one over here.
A trainer I know says that the reason the Euros have never won a Derby over here is quite simple, they don't have the slightest idea how to do it. Their record in BC dirt races is also HORRIBLE.
If you think those guys over there are rocket scientists I beg to differ with you. Their training programs consist of gallop, gallop, gallop, gallop. They don't run fast fractions over there and the race is won in the lane by the horse who is most fit with a burst of speed.
Now, who do you think is more skilled? The guy who gallops the **** out of a horse each day? Or the guy who has to get one to attend a half mile in 45 and change and KEEP ON GOING 9f or 10f? Are you ****ing kidding me?
If their horses are so much better(on a whole, not just on grass) why do they win so few dirt races over here when shipped in despite the lofty price tags and dirt breeding that many have?
Know why? Its because their trainers don't have the foggiest notion of how to train a horse to rip off a half mile in 45 and still keep on going.
This is just nonsense.