The Arc

kincsem · 07-10-2011 9:06pm

Just a little info for future years. The winner ran a record time. She and the previous record holder, Peintre Celebre (by the miler Nureyev), came from stall 2, both won by five lengths.

One of the French trainers said Longchamp has clay soil. So what? You might say all soil is clay. Clay soils are a soil type that when dry form a rock hard surface that often cracks. Clay soils when wet are very heavy and sticky. My garden is clay. I broke a fork prong once when it was hard. When it is soft it clings to boots in big clumps and you could lose a boot in it.

There is a marked advantage to horses drawn low when the ground is fast on the Arc track as they are turning right for much of the race. A 10f horse will do alright imo.

All I'm saying is the state of the ground and the draw number at Longchamp are much more important than at other tracks.

kincsem · 08-10-2011 6:40pm

While I'm aftertiming I'll point out something else.

If you compare the Arc times with the winner's stall draw from 1991 to 2011 you get a +0.593 Pearson coefficient.
This is a very high number, and I think I'll extend the sample back before 1991 to see if it holds for a bigger sample.

What does that mean? A Pearson number can be from -1 to +1.
If I was predicting a five horse race -
... my 1,2,3,4,5. They finish 1,2,3,4,5 is a +1.00.
... my 1,2,3,4,5. They finish 5,4,3,2,1 is a -1.00 (my prediction is totally wrong)
... my 1,2,3,4,5. They finish 2,3,1,5,4 is a +0.60.

If you could tell beforehand the finishing time of the Arc you would have an indication of how important a low draw would be. Fast time gives a low draw winner.

shy-tall-knight · 09-10-2011 6:14am

I actually found it slightly offensive to use Treasure Beach, a horse of such great quality as a pacemaker. I see they have Windsor Palace in as a pacemaker for the champion stakes, what would have been wrong with using him in the arc as they have done with the likes of Set Sail and Visian D'etait in the past? I had backed treasure beach so perhaps I'm speaking through my pocket but even disregarding that, he deserved to be ridden with the intention of giving him a chance, makes a mockery of races like the Irish Derby imo seeing him reduced to the role of a pacemaker for So You Think who is possibly or at least was, the most overrated horse on the planet. A fact the aussies cannot accept, the stick Seamus Heffernan has got from the Aussie media is ridiculous, couldn't have ridden him much better I think and I certainly don't think Steven arnold would have done any better contrary to australian beliefs,

UrbanSea · 09-10-2011 1:33pm

Shy you're mixing up Vision D'Etat up with Grand Ducal. VD wasn't a ballydoyle horse.

Still can't believe treasure beach was used as a pacemaker. I backed him for the Derby when everone was saying he was going to be a pacemaker,bull ****,they were never going to put a Chester Vase winner in to set pace.

meriwether · 10-10-2011 10:32pm

UrbanSea wrote: »

Why they used TB as a pacemaker is beyond me. Why not use any one of the many mediocre horses in the yard? My favourite horse this year he is

Because as Andre Fabre pointed out, a horse who can be let off ahead because he is useless is not a pacemaker. He is a useless horse running freely.

A horse can only be used as a pacemaker if he is too good to be given a soft lead. Think Scorpion.

meriwether · 10-10-2011 10:35pm

Morgans wrote: »

Why wouldnt the winner confirm form over the same conditions?

Could have been called the winner from a long way out. Just the horse improving most at the right time. No fluke. Winner by a long margin. Valuable filly now, hope she will be kept in training.

I didn;t say she wouldn't.

However the fact that she ran the fastest time ever points out an anomaly, that anomaly being, in my opinion, fast ground.

The sun was splitting the stones in Paris in the week before.

UrbanSea · 11-10-2011 12:55pm

meriwether wrote: »

Because as Andre Fabre pointed out, a horse who can be let off ahead because he is useless is not a pacemaker. He is a useless horse running freely.

A horse can only be used as a pacemaker if he is too good to be given a soft lead. Think Scorpion.

Treasure Beach is hardly useless.

Montjeu · 11-10-2011 7:21pm

UrbanSea wrote: »

Treasure Beach is hardly useless.

I think that is his point. If AOB used a mediocre horse as pacemaker he would be totally ineffective as nobody would chase knowing he will eventually come back to them.

The point of using TB as pacemaker was to ensure he was chased as he would be too dangerous to give a big enough lead. (I'm not saying I believe this is true just clarifying meriweather's point.)

Ultimately it didn't matter as TB was sent off at a ridiculous pace and any jockey worth his salt knew not to chase.

Morgans · 12-10-2011 8:43pm

meriwether wrote: »

I didn;t say she wouldn't.

However the fact that she ran the fastest time ever points out an anomaly, that anomaly being, in my opinion, fast ground.

The sun was splitting the stones in Paris in the week before.

So genuinely good ground she would finish where?

Mid pack?

hucklebuck · 12-10-2011 9:23pm

Anomoly? Very harsh on Danedream, plus ignoring the fact she has won on good, good to soft and very soft is irrelevant?

Interesting article in the racing post this week on her sire, Lomitas - he was a wild un and got banned from racecourses for violent conduct so they had to get Monty Roberts to sort him out.

meriwether · 13-10-2011 9:20am

Morgans wrote: »

So genuinely good ground she would finish where?

Mid pack?

Firstly, lets be clear that you asked me why the filly wouldn't win again under similar conditions.

I replied that I never said she wouldn't.

Now you are asking me where she would finish if conditions changed. I don't know.

I am making the point however that conditions, in my opinion, contributed to the result, the result being the fastest time ever run in the Arc, and a number of fancied horses running badly. The main condition being fast ground.

If you don't believe that altering conditions, especially ground, can alter results, thats fine. I do.

Morgans · 13-10-2011 9:24am

I do, but altering the conditions slightly, will alter the result slightly. I cant remember too many more conclusive winners of the Arc.

And there are many trying to excuse their incorrect suppositions before the Arc with the result after, by downgrading the winner.

meriwether · 13-10-2011 9:45am

Morgans wrote: »

I do, but altering the conditions slightly, will alter the result slightly. I cant remember too many more conclusive winners of the Arc.

And there are many trying to excuse their incorrect suppositions before the Arc with the result after, by downgrading the winner.

I wouldn't see a slight change in conditions altering the result, but I could see the course record not being achieved.

The course record is the real sticking point for me.

Morgans · 13-10-2011 10:07am

Why?

I dont think anyone is claiming Danedream is the greatest arc winner because of the course record. I dont think it was a great arc, but I think that it was very conclusive who the best horse was, and she might even be a very good winner of a poorish arc.

The course record does prove that it was a strong pace on good/quick ground, but course records are often held by inferior animals.

tryfix · 13-10-2011 4:12pm

It's just possible that last years race wasn't all it was cracked up to be and this years 3y olds are simply a very good crop of horses. Nathaniel put the older horses in their place in the King George, Frankel did the same in the Sussex, Excelebration in the Moulin, Dream ahead did the same in the sprint division and took Goldikovas scalp over 7f in the Foret for good measure. Immortal Verse beat Goldikova in the Jaques le Marois, Moonlight cloud took the Daurice de Gheest and Misty for me thrashed Midday in the Pretty Polly .

This year has seen an outstanding crop of 3y olds and one of them was entitled to beat the older horses in the Arc, it's just a pity it wasn't one that the punters were on.

hucklebuck · 13-10-2011 7:24pm

It wasn't a great Arc this year, before it I was expected big things from the fillys as the colts didn't look that great on paper. Can't dispute Danedreams performance, if she stays in training she will be a great horse next year in my opinion.

As for last years race, I don' think it was cracked up to be anything, it was quite a poor renewal and save for Workforce(after his Derby) there wasn't a really good horse in it.

tryfix · 13-10-2011 8:20pm

hucklebuck wrote: »

It wasn't a great Arc this year, before it I was expected big things from the fillys as the colts didn't look that great on paper. Can't dispute Danedreams performance, if she stays in training she will be a great horse next year in my opinion.

She should be a very good horse all year but i would expect her to fail in an attempt at a second Arc. She's good but she ain't no Montjeu and even he wasn't good enough to do it 2 years in a row.

As for last years race, I don' think it was cracked up to be anything, it was quite a poor renewal and save for Workforce(after his Derby) there wasn't a really good horse in it.

Fair point, but Workforce was hyped for this years Arc based on his win in it last year. The same with Sarafina whose unlucky 3rd place last year was enough to make her favourite this year despite being much worse off at the weights.

The Arc

Comments