Talk:Makybe Diva

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ȳ

 This article is part of WikiProject Thoroughbred Racing, an attempt to improve Wikipedia articles and content on topics related to the sport of thoroughbred horse racing. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Flag
Portal
 Makybe Diva is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian sports.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Wikification

This article badly needs wikification and to conform to standard layout. I'm inserting the wikify tag. --K. 23:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

The above wikify tag was taken out after very little improvement, I'm putting it back in because it is still nowhere near up to scratch. Remy B 06:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

GO MAKYBE DIVA!!!! WIN THE CUP TOMORROW!!!!!

[edit] Expansion

I feel the article needs some major work commited to it aswell as a major expansion due to the hourse now being regarded as a sporting icon in australia, --Munnday 05:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Re write with full race record (dark horse 03:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Extra

Its even bet pharlaps record..

What a bloody amazing horse. Three Cups!!! Unheard of. And I had money on her to win!!! Take that bookies!


--- Yes Im sure your $5 brought the bookies to their knees.

[edit] Copyright free photo

Anyone got a photo we can use???

Done(dark horse 02:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC))


[edit] Post Race reactions

I've added a reference to Lee Freedman's great comment after the race that only a small child will likely live long enough to see another horse win three. Cite: http://www.sportal.com.au/horseracing.asp?i=news&id=73454

I've also added a paragraph about the trak watering issue as well. Cite: http://www.ozeform.com/site/news/news.aspx?id=1903

Sorry for not putting the cites in the article as I'm not sure how to do that. Lisiate 02:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Is the comment regarding the track watering issue necessary ? Following injuries related to the hardness of the track at Flemington during the 2002 Melbourne Cup the VRC have had a consistent policy of preparing its racetrack to a condition on the morning of the race that will allow it to improve to the ideal "Good" condition by race time. This was done for the 2005 Melbourne Cup, and for every other meeting held at Flemington this season. Melbourne was forecast it's first 30+ degree day in 6 months on Cup day, and additional water was added to prevent the track drying too quickly (as Flemington is want to do). The track was upgraded to a "Good" rating at 3.25pm and the time for the race was 3.19.79 It is worth noting that in the State of Victoria, the ruling body has a firm policy of not racing on racetracks rated harder than 'Good' and the preparation of the Flemington track on Melbourne Cup day 2005 was fully consistent with that policy. There was some controversy at the time, so Lisiate's edit is not factually incorrect, but it seems a pity to grubby the achievement of the mare with an account of what amounts to an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory. Tontonan 23:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the solution would be to note the VRC's track policy in the article to clarify the issue?Lisiate 23:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
i think that tontonan makes a very good point. Whilst there is a certain amount of controversy with many famous race victories whether that be interference, track state, whatever, it has to be pointed out that the track was fully consisttent with the VRC policy. (dark horse 05:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC))
Okay, I've added the following at the end of the relevant section: "However these criticisms ignored the fact that it is the Victorian Racing Club's policy to water tracks to avoid racing on overly hard surfaces." - Perhaps Tonton might like to expand Lisiate 23:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Lisiate - that is fine by me. I am a Wiki dunce and have made several attempts to comment but my messages have been going nowhere. Nice edit, balances things well.Tontonan 03:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Better yes, but it gives the impression of post race sour grapes when in fact some owners complained the previous day about track watering, not after the race. Moriori 03:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Tonto on this. Let's look at the facts.

1. The race time was 3min 19.17sec which was 2.9 seconds outside of Kingston Rule's 1990 track record. Hardly what you could call a "doctored" track. In the fifteen years since then there have been 8 races which have been run in slower times than Makybe Diva's 2005 run - see List of Melbourne Cup winners.

2. It would be an unusual Melbourne Cup which did not have some pre and post race comments and and a bit of spin doctoring. Gai Waterhouse and John Hawkes had vested interests in the race and are hardly shrinking violets when it comes to providing the racing hacks with a comment or three.

3. Leaving those comments in the article detracts from the mares achievement. I think they should be removed. - Cuddy Wifter 07:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Please remove the conspiracy theory it will only detract in latter years from a truly remarkable achievement. She would have won on any track!
i have had a think and i'm all for removing the comments. There are controversies / comments everywhere in racing that at the end of the day should not detract from the winner, they do not even need to be mentioned. (dark horse 01:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC))

Really don't like the section about the track watering conspiracy. The club has watered the track before other Cups, but there's no mention of that. There's also no mention of the fact that the track was suitable for ALL horses, or that punters heavily backed several other horses in betting on the race, or that most of the controversy seemed to spring up - as sour grapes - after the race. Nor is there mention that the reason for watering is to prevent injury.

[edit] Objective?

Isn't this meant to be objective? These are not:

"Makybe Diva stamped herself as the champion stayer of the modern era."

- "The"? After only the 2nd Cup?

"She proceeded to take Sydney's most important WFA race, The BMW, with a sensational last-to-first burst."

Yes, but it was arguably a rather weak race. Grand Armee had no form at 2400m. The horses behind him were not great.

"In driving rain the mare defeated one of the strongest Melbourne Cup fields in years,"

"strongest"?

" featuring multiple Irish St. Leger winner Vinnie Roe, Caulfield Cup winners Mummify and Elvstroem, highly regarded European stayer Mamool from the Godolphin stable, as well as the 2002 Melbourne Cup winner Media Puzzle. "The judge and jury 23:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC) The Judge and Jury

Mummify had a poor record on wet tracks. There's no proof Elvstroem could get the distance. There's no proof Mamool properly acclimatised to Australian conditions, similarly to many others of the highly touted overseas runners (e.g. Oscar Schindler and Drum Taps). Also didn't Mamool break down during the race? Media Puzzle had had a very bad injury which meant he had raced only 2 or 3 times since his Cup win.

"By her victory on the rain affected Flemington track, Makybe Diva stamped herself as the champion stayer of the modern era."

The champion? Very subjective!

"The mare further enhanced her reputation as one of Australia's greatest turf icons with a comfortable victory in the 2005 Cox Plate,"

"Australia's greatest turf icons" is rather subjective too.


However these criticisms ignored the fact that it is the Victorian Racing Club's policy to water tracks to avoid racing on overly-hard surfaces.

But have they not left some of these surfaces unwatered since? I have seen people on Australian racing forums claim this to be the case. The judge and jury 00:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC) The Judge and Jury

Because of stuff like you have mentioned, I added {{POV}}--HamedogTalk|@ 13:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


Half the article is subjective at best. The track watering issue is something that did happen and should be included in any accurate record of the horses career. Several other race meetings have gone ahead without the track being watered, that is fact and it makes the whole track watering policy an absolute farce.

I really can't agree with the above comments. The fact that the horse won the Cox and three Melbourne Cups speaks for itself. Not many would dispute, say Kingston Town being named as an "Australian Sporting Icon". Yet he did not win even one Melbourne Cup. The same applies to Tulloch. Makybe Diva simply captured the heart of the nation. I know people who were in Australia for a year, know absolutely nothing about racing, and yet are very familiar with the Diva's exploits. To my mind, she certainly deserves all the accolades in this article. It is not biassed. Wallie 23:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
You strayed off the point Wallie, which was well made by the previous poster. Something happened, it doesn't happen in all cases, and to not mention it is censoring history. A factual report is all that is needed. Moriori 03:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


The article is more subjective now. : The Judge and jury.

[edit] The "watering" controversy

Reading material across the web and particularly in the marketing/merchandising side of the Diva, it appears that many people believe the track watering controversy is frivolous and overblown. Curiously, however, many of these are the exact same people elevating the Diva to a level with Phar Lap. I am skeptical.

Dare to compare: Phar Lap crossed the Pacific Ocean and beat a class American field, running on a dirt track for the first time in his career, and winning by going away after trailing the field by seven lengths. The owner of Phar Lap did not expect the best horses in America to come down and beat him on his track; he went up there and beat them on theirs.

The same can hardly be said of Makybe Diva. Her handlers were extorting the VRC and threatening not to run her unless they gave her preferential treatment and watered their track. The VRC complied, and then made up a fictitious story about it being normal proceedure, which was later exposed as a phony story.

I love the Diva. But facts are facts, and opinions are opinions; and as long as people continue to express the opinion that the Diva is another Phar Lap, then facts need to be examined, and for that reason alone the "track watering" debacle should be a permanent sticky.

Besides, what we are talking about here is a handicap race. The Melbourne Cup is a terrific race, the one that stops the nation. But champions are decided at WFA, not handicaps. Phar Lap destroyed a top-class American field, in their backyard, at a championship distance, running on a dirt surface for the first time, and doing it at WFA. He was an Australian AND an American champion. The Diva's accomplishment is one for the ages, but it does not rise to the level of Phar Lap. If anything, the Diva should be compared with Sunline, who won one more Cox Plate than the Diva, and that race is considered the true championship of Australasia. I can't say which girl is better; those two sheilas are the two greatest mares to race in Australia in the past 25 years, and perhaps of all time.

The facts speak for themselves. Old timers overblow a horse's reputation over the years. When I was younger all you ever heard about was Gloaming and Nightmarch. Later, it was Phar Lap. Makybe Diva has done far more than these animals put together, and is now up there with the likes of Secretariat, Man O' War and Nijinsky. Wallie 09:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Right on. It's also worth remembering that a lot of Phar Lap's races had less than 10 starters (some as few as 5 or 6).

Keir59.167.51.240 (talk) 09:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General

Can you please be careful with your additions? It is extremely obvious you're a huge fan of the Diva. But that's not the idea - encyclopedias are meant to be objective. Yes, MD ran well in Sydney in Autumn 2004 (it's hard to disagree) but moreso I think her form improved up there. As for the Sydney Cup being her main goal...well, do you have proof? Why aim at a 700k race which is ok on the CV when the BMW is worth 2 million, is wfa and puts the horse in HOY contention? Even then if a MC-wining BMW fancy pulls up well from the BMW it could continue on to the Sydney Cup. (I suspect this is what happened.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The judge and jury (talk • contribs) 13:43, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

--The judge and jury 07:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The Sydney Cup was never her main aim in the Autumn of 2004 at all. It was widely stated at the time that the BMW was the aim. Infact, the horse was floated back to Melbourne following the BMW and only came back to Sydney for the Cup as an afterthough when the true weakness of the race was confirmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.100.32.145 (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] When are people going to stop vandalising this talk page?

Surely that's not too hard to do?--The judge and jury 08:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)--The judge and jury 08:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)