- This topic has 56 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
I see that Aintree will be looking and discussing their penultimate fence on the Mildmay course in light of the mistakes made by both Kauto Star and Master Minded. This is just intolerable. Paul Nicholls has had his own way with Cheltenham following Granit Jack’s sad demise but I think John Hales was correct in stating that with hindsight that horse should never have run in such a competetive handicap on his UK chasing debut but nonetheless the fence was altered and Mr Nicholl’s was pictured by the fence looking a bit too pleased with himself.
Why is it that whenever a Nicholl’s hotpot makes a horlicks of a fence its alteration must come up for discussion? I didn’t see Our Vic make a mistake nor did I see Voy Por Ustedes make one so why when a horse with obvious jumping flaws decides to jump a fence twenty feet too soon should we even consider adjustment?
Wasn’t he moaning about getting water jumps removed as well when all the evidence points to them being the safest fence on a track? Has he complained about the Aintree fence ?
I’m not sure that’s entirely fair, KC. My reading of it would be that he is probably more vocal in his suggestions nowdays on account of the wider audience he receives compared to his days as A N Other Quite Good Trainer. It shouldn’t necessarily have to work like that, but he can be a greater force for good and for change as a big-name handler to whom people want to listen.
Were he an inveterate, insatiable whinger, I’m sure the demise, for example, of his Straight Talk or Rust Never Sleeps in the Grand National a few years earlier would have precipitated voluble condemnation of the Aintree fences.
gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
Is that because he had not then built a platform from which he could speak and from which people would listen. This is also the man, remember GC, that openly approved the changes made to Haydock despite the protests from his peers and I think I can say with some certainty from your previous posts that you are, like me, disgusted with what they have done to that once great racecourse. What you have to ask is this, would Mr Nicholls have asked for any adjustments to the Cheltenham fence in question had his novice Granit Jack not come down? I personally think not. Therefore his move was more reactionary than anything else.
I agree with you KendalCavalier. I back Battlecry who made a hash of the same fence but I dont start moaning about it, admittedly no one would listen if I did.
Jumping is part of the game. If "modifications" continue much further there will come a point where a horses ability to jump because almost an irrelevance as there will barely be a fence to test them.
Might as well just make all fences out of cardboard and be done with it.
Just take it on the chin Mr Nicholls, accept that you can’t win absolutely everything and stop moaning.
Fabulous Jet just makes a right horlix of the first at Ludlow. Someone better go and have a look at that fence as well.
Cant you remove your boat from your posts?
I only ate an hour ago
Its not exactly Laura Morante
Cant you remove your boat from your posts?
I only ate an hour ago
Its not exactly Laura Morante
No, and at least I’m brave enough to put mine up.
Next question?
I don’t think PN will gain any relative advantage from highlighting dangerous fences.
Fences ARE there to be jumped, but in these cases there has been historical data which shows that more horses than expected make mistakes or come to grief at these particular obstacles.
Partly, that may be due to where they are in the race (i.e. as horses are tiring and racing at maximum throttle), but if some minor movement or modification could be made to reduce the number of errors/falls to what would be expected, that is no bad thing.
As has been pointed out, PN is in a position to speak and be heard, so has a responsibility to do so, for the benefit of the wider racing community. Perhaps his ‘fault’ (if there is one here) is in being seen to highlight only fences where incidents involving his horses have occurred, although media reporting may have something to do with this.
I don’t think PN will gain any relative advantage from highlighting dangerous fences.
Fences ARE there to be jumped, but in these cases there has been historical data which shows that more horses than expected make mistakes or come to grief at these particular obstacles.
Partly, that may be due to where they are in the race (i.e. as horses are tiring and racing at maximum throttle), but if some minor movement or modification could be made to reduce the number of errors/falls to what would be expected, that is no bad thing.
As has been pointed out, PN is in a position to speak and be heard, so has a responsibility to do so, for the benefit of the wider racing community. Perhaps his ‘fault’ (if there is one here) is in being seen to highlight only fences where incidents involving his horses have occurred, although media reporting may have something to do with this.
The problem is non vintage that if we keep having fences moderated every fence is going to become like another. How many errors did Kauto Star make last season without falling? The fences nowadays are easy enough if they get any easier its going to make a mockery of steeplechasing as an exercise.
Is it going too far to say the difference between hurdling and steeplechasing has already narrowed?
That second last at Aintree neither of the Nicholls horses nor Battlecry actually fell or unseated their rider.
There is a danger of serious mollycoddling here.
I dont agree
The loss of momentum at these supposedly easy fences is enough to decide races. I would rather see that than horses crashing to the ground.
That remains a very unpleasant sight to me… Had enough of those for one day Flash
And are there less fallers these days? I wonder…
I agree with Clive .. these avatars are not suited to the site, in regard to people who access the site from work, etc.
I agree with Clive .. these avatars are not suited to the site, in regard to people who access the site from work, etc.
Why not? The whole point of an avatar really is so people can identify with whom they are speaking.
What the hell has work got to do with anything? It isn’t pornographic.
I wonder about some of the people on this site sometimes, one hell of a strange, insular and cliquey bunch. Not to mention dictatorial. Moan, moan, moan!!
Is it too much to ask to expect people to just comment on horse racing without complaints / bitchiness etc. Look at the flat vs jumps thread for example, pathetic comments some of them.
Some people on here act like twelve year olds yet I expect very few if any actually are.
What the hell has work got to do with anything? It isn’t pornographic.
Well…
Salse has a point though. These avatars are not helpful if you are having a sneeky look at work. And one avatar in particular has just sent a lovely lady colleague screaming
Avatars are, imo, a little childish. It’s not my site, hence I am in no position to determine whether they should be allowed or not. However, in the interests of the many people who like to look at site at work, surely a little discretion can’t be a bad thing?
They can also be a little overwhelming asthetically. Just me.
I don’t mind avatars. I’m particularly lucky at work in that they don’t show up anyway.
I agree that some people are (sometimes) juvenile in their behaviour and squabbling, but would point out that there are ways and ways of talking to people.
Occasionally, aggressive or repetitive or whingy posts are not the most effective way of communicating even when we do have valid points.
The subsequent descent into playground banter and insults is almost inevitable, but could be avoided with a bit of civility earlier on.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.