Guest 2Admin2 Report post Posted October 30, 2017 49 minutes ago, poundforpound said: Where have the self appointed experts gone ?? I'd like you to help us understand how Greg Carpenter could get it so wrong. Maybe you're all distracted or busy helping Steve Hansen pick the All Black team for Saturday ( no doubt you've done a lot in rugby, well hopefully more than you've done in racing ) Anyway get in touch when you work out the difference between a straight line and a right angle bend, or at playtime, whichever comes first. What's been proven is that you can't read a race properly. Which surprised me since you are a self proclaimed expert on just about everything. Do you walk around all day reading your iPad? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdytdy 5,335 Report post Posted October 30, 2017 Don't know what all the debate is for really. The inescapable fact is that Winx covered more ground in the race than Humidor (figures have been provided) and she also had the tougher run being out in the open for a lot of the race whereas Humidor had a lovely run with cover. Anyone who doesn't believe that then go and run three and four wide without cover over 2000m on a running track or get on bike and ride in front facing the breeze and then sit in behind and see the difference. Regardless,the end result was that Winx was too good for Humidor and won her third Cox Plate in a row. Humidor was very, very good but the champ was even better. Only two horses have been able to win three consecutive Cox Plates and for a number of us both have occurred in our lifetimes. Surely that is cause for celebration and salute to a champion, nothing less. Pam Robson, Ohokaman, Grego and 1 other 4 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 2Admin2 Report post Posted October 30, 2017 1 hour ago, rdytdy said: Don't know what all the debate is for really. The inescapable fact is that Winx covered more ground in the race than Humidor (figures have been provided) and she also had the tougher run being out in the open for a lot of the race whereas Humidor had a lovely run with cover. Anyone who doesn't believe that then go and run three and four wide without cover over 2000m on a running track or get on bike and ride in front facing the breeze and then sit in behind and see the difference. Regardless,the end result was that Winx was too good for Humidor and won her third Cox Plate in a row. Humidor was very, very good but the champ was even better. Only two horses have been able to win three consecutive Cox Plates and for a number of us both have occurred in our lifetimes. Surely that is cause for celebration and salute to a champion, nothing less. Beautifully put. Plus she had a big bullseye on her rump. I doubt Humidor will recover as well or as quick as she has. Interesting Carpenter described her win as "soft"? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berri 2,131 Report post Posted October 31, 2017 10 hours ago, poundforpound said: What would they know ? https://www.racing.com/news/2017-10-30/cox-plate-ratings-humidor-eclipses-winx I'm not sure whether I agree with Greg on part of this. The Cox Plate is one of the biggies and the Moonee Valley track hasn't really been changed over the years to make great effect in respect of race times. So Winx wins the Chipping Norton by 6 and is rated higher than winning the Cox Plate. He expresses this in terms of the winning margin establishing the rating to be the barometer of the performance. Surely setting a track record in the championship eclipses the 6 length win in terms of a performance rating? Both Humidor and Winx should have been rated atr the top of their game because they ran away from the rest of the field and both beat the track record. Agree that the 2kg difference is interesting as if there were no allowances, Humidor would probably have beaten Winx if you agree that 1kg = 3lengths Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 2Admin2 Report post Posted October 31, 2017 1 hour ago, Berri said: I'm not sure whether I agree with Greg on part of this. The Cox Plate is one of the biggies and the Moonee Valley track hasn't really been changed over the years to make great effect in respect of race times. So Winx wins the Chipping Norton by 6 and is rated higher than winning the Cox Plate. He expresses this in terms of the winning margin establishing the rating to be the barometer of the performance. Surely setting a track record in the championship eclipses the 6 length win in terms of a performance rating? Both Humidor and Winx should have been rated atr the top of their game because they ran away from the rest of the field and both beat the track record. Agree that the 2kg difference is interesting as if there were no allowances, Humidor would probably have beaten Winx if you agree that 1kg = 3lengths Don't agree with the weight argument. Total weight has more of an effect than the differential. For example if they both carried 56kg's then Winx wins everytime. 60kgs and Humidor probably has an edge. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berri 2,131 Report post Posted October 31, 2017 23 minutes ago, 2Admin2 said: Don't agree with the weight argument. Total weight has more of an effect than the differential. For example if they both carried 56kg's then Winx wins everytime. 60kgs and Humidor probably has an edge. That has no logic. Power to weight ratio over distance and time has an equation to it that wins every time. Why would Humidor be at an advantage over 60kgs? Does he have a skeletal/ muscular advantage? What's rattling around in your head? Logic it is not. You off your meds? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scooby3051 10,695 Report post Posted October 31, 2017 38 minutes ago, Berri said: That has no logic. Power to weight ratio over distance and time has an equation to it that wins every time. Why would Humidor be at an advantage over 60kgs? Does he have a skeletal/ muscular advantage? What's rattling around in your head? Logic it is not. You off your meds? He is an expert on tracks too........good luck explaining logic to him Berri. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 2Admin2 Report post Posted October 31, 2017 58 minutes ago, Berri said: That has no logic. Power to weight ratio over distance and time has an equation to it that wins every time. Why would Humidor be at an advantage over 60kgs? Does he have a skeletal/ muscular advantage? What's rattling around in your head? Logic it is not. You off your meds? Then why does NZ give a 2kg allowance to fillies and mares? Some horses can carry weight better than others - fact. There must be some correlation between body weight and how much the horse can carry. Don't expect ex jockeys to understand that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varro 244 Report post Posted October 31, 2017 You lot are tearing admin a new arsehole on here. Sorry admin I appreciate this is at your own expense but this thread has had me pissing myself with laughter Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 2Admin2 Report post Posted October 31, 2017 19 minutes ago, poundforpound said: History is chock full of little horses who can carry weight, and big strong horses who can’t. I can’t be bothered giving you yet another lesson but others will no doubt, maybe starting with McGinty, Northern Dancer, Nureyev to name a few and to open the batting. So you agree with what I posted. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 2Admin2 Report post Posted October 31, 2017 20 minutes ago, poundforpound said: I didn’t understand your train of thought actually as I don’t think there’s a “one size fits all” logic when it comes to female v male or small horse v big horse when it comes to weight carrying or speed. I do know that long legged and long backed horses struggle with weight but short backed horses are generally stronger but that’s another argument. I mentioned gross body weight ( horse and jockey combined ) because I consider it critical in the same way I’d consider it critical if Chris Froome was carrying 3 liters of water on his back, in the alps, on the Tour de France. Your comment seems to be dismissive of the Humidor v Winx sex allowance comments and I can’t understand why because every kilo is important and clearly at WFA a good female is luxuriously treated by the gender allowance, and they invariably capitalize on it throughout their careers, that was what I was commenting on, nothing more. To conclude, the 2kg sex allowance is only critical if you know the gross weight of horse and jockey versus their optimum weight, is that what you meant ? Yes. 2kg over 500kg? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Littletramp 381 Report post Posted October 31, 2017 2 hours ago, poundforpound said: History is chock full of little horses who can carry weight, and big strong horses who can’t. You can't be serious - Good Lord! rdytdy 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leggy 4,010 Report post Posted October 31, 2017 37 minutes ago, poundforpound said: Sure, at the same ratio of 0.4% it's equivalent to about 10 m over the Cox Plate trip of 2040m Is it? Only if you assume that total weight (or weight difference) is directly proportional to speed over the entire race distance? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 2Admin2 Report post Posted October 31, 2017 41 minutes ago, poundforpound said: Sure, at the same ratio of 0.4% it's equivalent to about 10 m over the Cox Plate trip of 2040m Bollocks. The truth is you jockeys are only ever a passenger. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berri 2,131 Report post Posted October 31, 2017 1 hour ago, 2Admin2 said: Yes. 2kg over 500kg? You are certified. Change doctors. There is quite a difference between mass and external weight. As a body is a combination between a spring with a stiffness coefficient, with a spring loaded pan, the actual size of a thoroughbred doesn't really influence efficiency which reflects ability. External weight, which is not attached to the internal spring loaded pan, does have an influence due to inefficiencies as it's human ability (the jock) that determines the relationships of efficiencies . That's why some Jackie's somehow get a horse to run. If you change the external weight you materially change the horse's efficiency. That is why you fool 1kg is approx 3 lengths. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 2Admin2 Report post Posted October 31, 2017 16 minutes ago, Berri said: You are certified. Change doctors. There is quite a difference between mass and external weight. As a body is a combination between a spring with a stiffness coefficient, with a spring loaded pan, the actual size of a thoroughbred doesn't really influence efficiency which reflects ability. External weight, which is not attached to the internal spring loaded pan, does have an influence due to inefficiencies as it's human ability (the jock) that determines the relationships of efficiencies . That's why some Jackie's somehow get a horse to run. If you change the external weight you materially change the horse's efficiency. That is why you fool 1kg is approx 3 lengths. I'm certified?! Are you celebrating Christmas early? I'm surprised Berri that you being a self proclaimed man of science hasn't looked at the data. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leggy 4,010 Report post Posted October 31, 2017 2 minutes ago, poundforpound said: Yes I presumed that for simplicity Fortunately, that simplicity often leads to good betting opportunities. Berri obviously believes it with his power to weight ratio crap. Unfortunately, no real evidence supports the notion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leggy 4,010 Report post Posted October 31, 2017 15 minutes ago, Berri said: That is why you fool 1kg is approx 3 lengths. Really? You have scientific evidence of that of course? Not just some ancient unproven theory based on a false assumption? gary1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 2Admin2 Report post Posted October 31, 2017 18 minutes ago, poundforpound said: If you genuinely believe that you've even more stupid that I thought, and I thought ( based on the evidence you've produced ) that you're really stupid. Over and out on this thread anyway, no more oxygen for you, you've completely lost the plot and now you're just behaving like an attention seeking imbecile, for reasons only you understand. Ok so you are resorting to insults rather than debating the data? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barryb 2,062 Report post Posted October 31, 2017 19 minutes ago, poundforpound said: If you genuinely believe that you've even more stupid that I thought, and I thought ( based on the evidence you've produced ) that you're really fucking stupid. Over and out on this thread anyway, no more oxygen for you, you've completely lost the plot and now you're just behaving like an attention seeking imbecile, for reasons only you understand. He might be Hesi's long lost brother?. scooby3051 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 2Admin2 Report post Posted October 31, 2017 2 minutes ago, barryb said: He might be Hesi's long lost brother?. Oh dear empirical evidence doesn't count? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 2Admin2 Report post Posted October 31, 2017 Waller says that Winx weighed 526kg going into the Cox Plate and didn't lose any weight from the run. Been eating well and still weighs 526kg. Amazing! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leggy 4,010 Report post Posted October 31, 2017 1 hour ago, 2Admin2 said: Waller says that Winx weighed 526kg going into the Cox Plate and didn't lose any weight from the run. Been eating well and still weighs 526kg. Amazing! soft win? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 2Admin2 Report post Posted October 31, 2017 14 minutes ago, Leggy said: soft win? That's what Carpenter said. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Idolmite 2,460 Report post Posted October 31, 2017 This is like Game of Thrones performed by the cast of Sesame Street mixed in with little CSI. Best entertainment in years. Long may this thread continue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...