Highest earnings of a maiden horse

TanFlash

Does anyone have any examples?

kfallon

Red Rock Canyon would have accumulated a fair bit of prize money before he finally won a race. Was placed in G1 races

http://www.sportinglife.com/racing/profiles/horse/272404/red-rock-canyon

TanFlash

He ran in some good races for a maiden

tryfix

Derby 2nd Dragon Dancer won roughly over £300,000 before he finally won his only race in a £14,000 listed event on his 11th start.

http://www.racingpost.com/horses/horse_home.sd?horse_id=620671#topHorseTabs=horse_race_record&bottomHorseTabs=horse_form

TanFlash

I wonder is it just unlucky for these horses or are they just ungenuine when push comes to shove?

kfallon

Red Rock Canyon was pretty much just a pacemaker for most of his career.

diomed

Yara (1997) by Sri Pekan earned £69,026 in a 16 race career but never won.
22222227/2271d6324/
"comfortably, finished 1st, disqualified - banned substances found in urine sample"
Nine second places in her first ten races.

TanFlash

Any examples of jump horses?

diomed

The three poor placings by Yara
7th - finished lame
7th - Irish 1000 Guineas (Group 1)
6th - Pretty Polly Stakes (Group 2)

Three of her 2nd places she was beaten a neck, and one beaten a short head.

diomed

Sorry, I don't know anything about jumps horses.

diomed

tryfix wrote: »

Derby 2nd Dragon Dancer won roughly over £300,000 before he finally won his only race in a £14,000 listed event on his 11th start.

In the 2006 Derby it was the move made by Darryl Holland immediately the stalls opened that gave Dragon Dancer (drawn 11) the chance of the win (see Youtube).

Not many people know this (or want to know it ) but from my Epsom Derby draw records which start at 1952 (61 races) no horse drawn 11 has won the Derby.
Four horses drawn 11 have finished second (1970, 1972, 2004, 2006).
Nine horses drawn 10 have won.
This is not luck. There is a reason.

diomed

Quixall Crossett was a good one. 102 runs without a win, total career earnings £8,502.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1379945/Racehorse-is-cheered-on-to-record-failure.html
"Seriously slow maiden in danger of becoming a folk hero. Ran a cracker by his standards when he was second of two finishers in May."

TanFlash

He actually had a fan club, remember him well

BumperD

Ran a cracker to finish 2nd of two finishers -

diomed

diomed wrote: »

Not many people know this (or want to know it ) but from my Epsom Derby draw records which start at 1952 (61 races) no horse drawn 11 has won the Derby.
Four horses drawn 11 have finished second (1970, 1972, 2004, 2006).
Nine horses drawn 10 have won.
This is not luck. There is a reason.

Ok I'll bite!

What's the reason?

I don't know if you are entirely serious.

tryfix

Shamus Award became a bit of a legend in Australia after finally losing his maiden status in the hugely valuable and prestigious Gp1 Cox Plate. A race where he just about scraped in to being allowed run in it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamus_Award_(horse)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUTrpEFhh_s

Peintre Celebre

The filly Super Sleuth not so long ago, retired a maiden having earned 73k. Best hour came when 3rd in the 1000 Guineas behind Ghanaati

tryfix

Peintre Celebre wrote: »

The filly Super Sleuth not so long ago, retired a maiden having earned 73k. Best hour came when 3rd in the 1000 Guineas behind Ghanaati

Trained by Brian Meehan, a trainer that isn't afraid to take on the big guns.

I'm fairly sure that trainers like David Elsworth, Paul Cole and Clive Brittain have had loads of placed efforts in big money races by horses who had struggled in lesser company. It's just hard to remember the names of the horses.

John Patrick Shanahan is another one of those trainers that just keeps running horses out of their depth, even though they do often perform better than some supposed superstars in defeat. His Carbon Dating took 18 goes to get off the mark even though he ran reasonably well in defeat in his earlier career in the Irish Guineas, Epsom Derby and Irish Derby. He has still only earned a total so far of £31,900 after eventually winning 2 of his 22 races.

Back in the 90s Mohammed Moubarak ( personal trainer to Ecurie Foustok ) used to place his horses in multiple big races without winning too much.

tryfix

diomed wrote: »

Quixall Crossett was a good one. 102 runs without a win, total career earnings £8,502.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1379945/Racehorse-is-cheered-on-to-record-failure.html
"Seriously slow maiden in danger of becoming a folk hero. Ran a cracker by his standards when he was second of two finishers in May."

After beginning his career amid high hopes at Belmont Park — home to the Belmont Stakes of Triple Crown fame — Zippy Chippy tumbled from lesser track to lesser track, until bottoming out in the horse-racing boondocks, where his owner planned to sell him to a slaughterhouse before Monserrate intervened in 1995.

Courtesy of Emily Schoeneman, Emily Rose and William Thomas
Courtesy of Emily Schoeneman, Emily Rose and William ThomasZippy Chippy retired after losing 100 races.
He traded a beat-up white Ford pickup for the horse. For all that he lost, at least Zippy Chippy tried, and tried again, at least that is how Monserrate saw things. “Felix always believed he could turn Zippy Chippy into a star,” Schoeneman said recently.

And he did become a star, only not in the way Monserrate might have envisioned when he acquired him. The horse that couldn’t win, never did win a horse race, although he did beat a minor league baseball player in the 50-yard dash.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/the-horse-that-won-by-losing-zippy-chippy-racings-famous-also-ran-celebrated-by-canadian-author

He just about beats the US legend Chippy Zippy who retired 0 for 100 although he may once have beaten a baseball player in a match.

diomed

Deleted User wrote: »

Ok I'll bite!
What's the reason?
I don't know if you are entirely serious.

Very serious, although the advantage was wiped out in the last few years.

I post on the Betfair forum as kincsem
see the 2016 Derby thread

http://community.betfair.com/horse_antepost/go/thread/view/94098/30677927/epsom-derby-2016?pg=25
31 May 14:37 ... introduction
03 Jun 08:45 ... some more work and a wrong conclusion
03 Jun 15:09 ...
04 Jun 00:26 ...
04 Jun 03:05 ... I've figured out stall 10 had an advantage
04 Jun 18:27 ... comments about horses drawn in stall 10 in previous years
05 Jun 00:26 ... comments about stall 10 v stall 11
05 Jun 01:45 ... watching Youtube Derby to figure out stall 10 v stall 11
05 Jun 01:45 ... UK stall machine hold 10 horses. Epsom uses two machines
05 Jun 15:21 ... more about Derby stall filling

If you don't want to read all of the above posts on the Betfair forum the story is ....

In previous years Epsom filled the two Derby stall machines (each hold 10 horses) starting at stall 1 on the inner rail.
If there were 15 Derby runners draw 1 to 10 are in the inner stall machine and drawn 11 to 15 in the outer machine.
There is a three yard gap between stall 10 and 11 (wheels for transporting the stall by road between racecourses).
When the stall open in a 12f race at Epsom (Derby, Oaks etc) all horses make for the outer rail as there is a right bend about 300 yards after the start.
Horses drawn 1 to 10 move as a group and tend to cut off the smaller group 11 to 15 on the outside.
The inner group fills the three yard gap as they make for the outer rail.
The smaller group often yield and fall back.
Stall 10 is in the prime position to take advantage and often leads to the first bend to the right.
He continues in the leading group as the field crosses the course to take the left bend and go down to Tattenham corner.
Horses tend to take the big left bend in twos, one on the rail and one outside him.
Those who do not start well and were shuffled back can be in the 8th or 9th group which is about 10 to 12 lengths behind.
They come into the straight with about 10 lengths to make up on the leaders.

JakeBell

diomed wrote: »

Very serious, although the advantage was wiped out in the last few years...

Did the placed positions back this up?
How many more runners ran from stall 10 than stall 11?

diomed

diomed wrote: »

Very serious, although the advantage was wiped out in the last few years.

I post on the Betfair forum as kincsem
see the 2016 Derby thread

http://community.betfair.com/horse_antepost/go/thread/view/94098/30677927/epsom-derby-2016?pg=25
31 May 14:37 ... introduction
03 Jun 08:45 ... some more work and a wrong conclusion
03 Jun 15:09 ...
04 Jun 00:26 ...
04 Jun 03:05 ... I've figured out stall 10 had an advantage
04 Jun 18:27 ... comments about horses drawn in stall 10 in previous years
05 Jun 00:26 ... comments about stall 10 v stall 11
05 Jun 01:45 ... watching Youtube Derby to figure out stall 10 v stall 11
05 Jun 01:45 ... UK stall machine hold 10 horses. Epsom uses two machines
05 Jun 15:21 ... more about Derby stall filling

If you don't want to read all of the above posts on the Betfair forum the story is ....

In previous years Epsom filled the two Derby stall machines (each hold 10 horses) starting at stall 1 on the inner rail.
If there were 15 Derby runners draw 1 to 10 are in the inner stall machine and drawn 11 to 15 in the outer machine.
There is a three yard gap between stall 10 and 11 (wheels for transporting the stall by road between racecourses).
When the stall open in a 12f race at Epsom (Derby, Oaks etc) all horses make for the outer rail as there is a right bend about 300 yards after the start.
Horses drawn 1 to 10 move as a group and tend to cut off the smaller group 11 to 15 on the outside.
The inner group fills the three yard gap as they make for the outer rail.
The smaller group often yield and fall back.
Stall 10 is in the prime position to take advantage and often leads to the first bend to the right.
He continues in the leading group as the field crosses the course to take the left bend and go down to Tattenham corner.
Horses tend to take the big left bend in twos, one on the rail and one outside him.
Those who do not start well and were shuffled back can be in the 8th or 9th group which is about 10 to 12 lengths behind.
They come into the straight with about 10 lengths to make up on the leaders.

Surely the same logic disadvantages horses drawn in 12, 13 and 14 etc also, no?

Is the same effect observable in the Oaks?

And lastly I bow to your better judgement but not convinced that held up is the worst place to be in the Derby, perhaps that is a recent thing with less proper stayers in the race (if that contention is true - which it might not be!)

tryfix

Deleted User wrote: »

Surely the same logic disadvantages horses drawn in 12, 13 and 14 etc also, no?

Is the same effect observable in the Oaks?

And lastly I bow to your better judgement but not convinced that held up is the worst place to be in the Derby, perhaps that is a recent thing with less proper stayers in the race (if that contention is true - which it might not be!)

I strongly doubt that the recent decades of Sadlers Wells line Derby domination in terms of runners and winners were inferior staying wise to the previous decades of fancy US bred Northern Dancer colts that dominated in the 70s and 80s.

The main difference since those Vincent O'Brien/Sangster days has been the proliferation of multiple targets for the classic crop and the serious decline in the importance of the Epsom Derby. Not too many trainers with seriously top class non stayers send those horses to Epsom these days, why would they when a mile or 10f Gp1 win elsewhere is far superior in terms of making a stallion than anything but a victory at Epsom?

diomed

JakeBell wrote: »

Did the placed positions back this up?
How many more runners ran from stall 10 than stall 11?

I'm sorry for hijacking the thread about Highest earnings from a maiden horse.


Epsom Derby
1967-2010 1st
Draw 1st Horses %
1 3 42 7.1
2 0 42 0.0
3 3 42 7.1
4 4 42 9.5
5 4 42 9.5
6 3 42 7.1
7 1 42 2.4
8 2 42 4.8
9 3 42 7.1
10 8 42 19.0
11 0 42 0.0
12 0 42 0.0
13 2 36 5.6
14 3 35 8.6
15 2 29 6.9
16 0 27 0.0
17 2 25 8.0
18 1 22 4.5
19 1 17 5.9
20 0 13 0.0
21 0 12 0.0
22 0 9 0.0
23 0 6 0.0
24 0 4 0.0
25 0 4 0.0
26 0 1 0.0
27 0 0 0.0
28 0 0 0.0
29 0 0 0.0
30 0 0 0.0
31 0 0 0.0
32 0 0 0.0

before 1967 it was a tape start, but there was still a draw.
from 2011 onwards they didn't fill the stalls as before, often e.g. 6 in stall 1, 6 in stall 2,
although strangely one year they reverted to filling stall 1 fully with the stragglers in stall 2
I learned this 2010 onwards "freestyling" of the draw by watching Youtube videos of every Derby.
Watching Youtube videos of almost all Derbys showed me the stall 10, stall 11 injustice.

There were 6 big price horses in stall 10 in those 42 years, 50/1, 66/1, 100/1, 200/1, 200/1, 500/1 which makes the winning percent more impressive imo.

Draw 2nd Horses %
10 4 42 9.5
11 4 42 9.5
12 4 42 9.5
13 3 36 8.3

Draw 3rd Horses %
10 3 42 7.1
11 3 42 7.1
12 1 42 2.4
13 1 36 2.8

Draw 4th Horses %
10 1 42 2.4
11 2 42 4.8
12 5 42 11.9
13 5 36 13.9

When Frankie Dettori won the Prix de l'arc de Triomphe on Golden Horn he was drawn 14.
French and USA stalls are different. They hold 14 horses. Frankie was drawn at the 14 to 15 gap.

Conclusion:
It is now impossible to know how the Epsom Derby draw will affect the race.
We know the draw. It is published.
But we do not know how the starters and stalls handlers will fill the stalls.
I e-mailed the BHA about this and they did not reply.
In the last few years the BHA have designated every UK course a right-handed or left-handed course.
They called Epsom a left-handed course, although in the Derby and Oaks the horses go to the right from the stalls.
It is a shambles.

diomed

Deleted User wrote: »

Surely the same logic disadvantages horses drawn in 12, 13 and 14 etc also, no?
Is the same effect observable in the Oaks?
And lastly I bow to your better judgement but not convinced that held up is the worst place to be in the Derby, perhaps that is a recent thing with less proper stayers in the race (if that contention is true - which it might not be!)

Stalls 11 and 12 haven't won in 42 runnings. 13 and higher seem to do ok. That might indicate that only a few horses (11 and 12) get blocked off.
I think the field is now limited to 18 starters. The last big field was 20 in 2003 when Kris Kin won.

I didn't do the analysis for the Oaks. Oaks fields tend to be smaller, the distance greater (they move out the rail to preserve the Derby ground), and stamina is more of a factor imo.
It is a big task to gather all the draw and finishing positions. I've done it for the Derby and the Arc (another turning track). I input the Derby draw for 59 years. The data told me draw 10 was favoured, draw 11 was disadvantaged. You only learn things like this by looking at data. Many say a middle draw is best in the Derby. Only one middle draw was favoured, stall 10.

Is held up a good thing in the Derby?. I doubt it. Many of the draw 10 horses got early position, then eased off to a handy position behind the leaders, probably allowing them save energy.

Recent draw 11 horses who ran well
1998 Border Arrow 3rd, btn 2 1/2l: "In rear, 15th straight, ridden over 2f out, good headway over 1f out, ran on well inside final furlong"
2001 Tobougg 3rd btn 4l: Held up rear, 10th straight, ridden and progress on outer from 2f out, hung left 1f out, ran on, nearest finish
2004 Rule Of Law 2nd btn 1 1/2l: "Held up, last to 5f out, 12th straight, hanging left but progress from 3f out, stayed on well final furlong to snatch 2nd on post"
2006 Dragon Dancer 2nd btn shd: "Pressed leader after 4f, clear of rest over 3f out, persistent challenge final 2f, stayed on well near finish, just held" [note: the jockey jumped out from stall 11 and contested the lead early]
2010 Rewilding 3rd btn 7 1/2l : "Dwelt, towards rear, 8th straight, soon ridden and no real progress, stayed on and edging left from over 1f out, went 3rd just inside final furlong, kept on to press for 2nd near finish, no chance with winner" (Workforce by 7l)

You might notice that 4 of the above 5 ran well subsequently. One, Dragon Dancer, ran well in the Derby due to a good jockey move, but didn't do well later.
The other four were very good horses with a big disadvantage in the Derby, stall 11.

TanFlash

Any horses make their first run in the Derby?

diomed

TanFlash wrote: »

Any horses make their first run in the Derby?

Daedalus in 1794 won the Derby, his first race.
These days there are more acceptors than stalls. The highest rated horses run.

Cherimoya won the Oaks on her only career run in 1911.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherimoya_(horse)#/media/File:Cherimoya_winning_the_1911_Epsom_Oaks.jpg

diomed

These won the Epsom Derby on their debut.
I don't have a list of others who began their racing in the Derby

Sir Peter Teazle 1787
Daedalus 1794
Fidget Colt 1797
Sir Harry 1798
Champion 1800
Ditto 1803
Hannibal 1804
Cardinal Beaufort 1805
Election 1807
Pan 1808
Pope 1809
Prince Leopold 1816
Middleton 1825
Frederick 1829
Mundig 1835
Amato 1838
Bloomsbury 1839
Blair Athol 1864
Merry Hampton 1887

diomed

Can anyone name the horse that dead-heated in both the English Derby and English St Leger?

TanFlash

diomed wrote:

Can anyone name the horse that dead-heated in both the English Derby and English St Leger?

They are going to have to bury you at the winning post in Epsom, you know you're stuff

diomed

TanFlash wrote: »

They are going to have to bury you at the winning post in Epsom, you know you're stuff

I just have a pile of horse books.

diomed

diomed wrote: »

Is held up a good thing in the Derby?. I doubt it. Many of the draw 10 horses got early position, then eased off to a handy position behind the leaders, probably allowing them save energy.

comments in running for last 10 winners:
2016: Held up in mid-division
2015:Keen early held up (this was Golden Horn, he was well back)
2014: Held up in mid-division
2013: Held up towards rear
2012: Steadied start, held up in last trio
2011: Held up last
2010: Held up in mid-division
2009: Took keen hold early, handy in main group
2008: Pulled hard, held up towards rear
2007: Dwelt, reached midfield after 5f

I am not trying to be argumentative but it really doesn't look like being handy is either necessary or really desirable in the Derby.

diomed

I think you have been selective with the in-running comments.
Some years most of the field are held up when there is a fast unsustainable pace.
Reading the in-running comment below you will see the winner is often no worse than mid-field in large fields when they enter the straight.
In small fields (9 to 12 runners) being in the last trio is actually close to the lead.

The only winners I see that were well behind into the straight were Pour Moi and New Approach.

comments in running for last 10 winners:
2016: Held up in mid-division – Harzand "In touch in midfield, 8th straight" 16 runners
2015: Keen early held up (this was Golden Horn, he was well back) – Elm Park and Hans Holbein went clear. Golden Horn "off the pace in last quartet, closed and 9th straight"
.........12 runners. Six horses were held up and incl were the 1st, 2nd, 4th.
2014: Held up in mid-division – Australia "Held up in midfield, 8th straight" 16 runners
2013: Held up towards rear – Ruler Of The World "In touch in last quartet, 7th straight" 12 runners, false pace from runaway Dawn Approach
2012: Steadied start, held up in last trio – Camelot "held up in last trio, 7th straight" 9 runners
2011: Held up last – Pour Moi "held up behind, last straight" 13 runners
2010: Held up in mid-division – Workforce "headway and 6th straight" not held up in mid-division. 12 runners
2009: Took keen hold early, handy in main group – Sea The Stars, "handy in main group, 4th straight" 12 runners
2008: Pulled hard, held up towards rear – New Approach "13th straight" 16 runners
2007: Dwelt, reached midfield after 5f – Authorized, "reached midfield after 5f, 9th straight" 17 runners

diomed

diomed wrote: »

I think you have been selective with the in-running comments.
Some years most of the field are held up when there is a fast unsustainable pace.
Reading the in-running comment below you will see the winner is often no worse than mid-field in large fields when they enter the straight.
In small fields (9 to 12 runners) being in the last trio is actually close to the lead.

The only winners I see that were well behind into the straight were Pour Moi and New Approach.

Wasn't being selective, I was just using the description of the initial position of the horse because that's what the theory depends on.

If a horse can improve sufficiently to be in touch entering the straight then it doesn't matter if it gets shuffled back at the start. The theory relies on the idea that being towards the rear ends or damages the hopes of the horse.

Similarly if there is a fast unsustainable pace then there is no need to be up with it so losing ground at the start may be considered an advantage.

diomed

The facts are from 1967 to 2010
Draw 10, 8 wins from 42 starts
Draw 11, 0 wins from 42 starts
Draw 12, 0 wins from 42 starts

I watched all the Youtube Derby videos available before concluding that draw 11 (and 12) suffer, and draw 10 gains because of
(1) the three yard gap between these stalls, a gap nothing to do with racing, but a gap caused by the wheels used to transport the stall machines between racecourses.
(2) the stalls are/were filled 1 to 10 in stalls machine 1 before filling stall machine 2 with draw 11 and upwards
(3) horses drawn 1 to 10 tend to move as a group to the outer rail cutting off the smaller group of higher drawn horses.

In the 15 years before starting stalls, 1952 to 1966 (tape start), draw 10 had nil wins (although 3 x 2nd, 0 x 3rd, 0 x 4th).

What is happening now in the Derby is someone is breaking the BHA stall rules.
From 2011 onwards the stalls are not filled as instructed in the BHA rules, except 2014 when they filled stalls machine 1 with 10, and machine 2 with 6.
They should continue as before 2011 filling stall slots 1 to 10 first, in stalls machine 1, the stalls machine nearest the inner rail.

For example if there are 12 runners they are putting the draw card for draw 1 into a slot above stall 5, and putting draws 1,2,3,4,5,6 cards above stalls 5,6,7,9,9,10 and draws 7,8,9,10,11,12 above stalls 11,12,13,14,15,16.

You are expanding that into a "theory" about being up the the pace/coming from behind, attributing your "theory" to me, and then refuting it.
I do not have a general "theory" about up with the pace/coming from behind.
I pointed out the modern starting stall 10 runner machine causes advantage for one stall draw and disadvantage for one or two other stalls.
The stall 10 horse gets in the leading group as they move up the hill, and has the option of staying on the pace, or easing a little to conserve energy. Stall 11 commonly gets shuffled back.

I been to Epsom about twenty times. I've walked the Derby course. I'm familiar with the Derby present and past.
It is a poor situation that the Derby draw gives us the horse draw numbers but that is valueless because we do not now have any idea what stall the stall handlers or starter will use for each horse.

I've input 1,161 Derby horse finishes/draws to find out that the stalls made the draw unfair since stall were introduced in the race in 1967..

And I continue with my conclusion that up to 2010 stall 10 was highly favoured by the use of two ten horse stall machines with stall 10 and 11 separated by a three yard gap, and by the unique shape of the Derby course that turns right soon after the start the turns left until the straight.

I'm not inventing your theory, you stated it here (quoting directly):

"Stall 10 is in the prime position to take advantage and often leads to the first bend to the right.
He continues in the leading group as the field crosses the course to take the left bend and go down to Tattenham corner.
Horses tend to take the big left bend in twos, one on the rail and one outside him.
Those who do not start well and were shuffled back can be in the 8th or 9th group which is about 10 to 12 lengths behind.
They come into the straight with about 10 lengths to make up on the leaders."

One winner in the last 10 runnings has been in 'the leading group', so I am not sure it can be conclusively claimed that there is much advantage to being there. That's all. It has to be considered that no winners from stall 11 is a statistical blip. I notice also no winners from stall 2 for example. I am not a mathematician so I can't claim with any authority how likely zero winner from 50+ runnings is but I am not convinced it is incredibly unlikely given the average field size.

I greatly enjoy your posts btw.