- This topic has 36 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
With the controversey surrounding the late withrawals of Gleneagles (twice) and Golden Horn in recent big races, is this simply that horses connections are being much more cautious than in times past or is it a growing weakness in the breed?
At York today on ground officially described as Good To Soft, we had one horse (Tac De Boistron) withdrawn because the ground was deemed too quick whilst another (Richard Pankhurst) was pulled because it was deemed too soft.
Thoughts?
To answer the question: In some cases yes, but trainers do have so many more options these days, only running them when believing ideal conditions.
Can understand Gleneagles York decision, particularly stepping up in trip. Where as do believe he was either taken out too early at Goodwood or not at his best and connections used it as an excuse.
Golden Horn was running over 1m4f at Ascot too. It’s not just the different conditions, it’s often the added stamina softer ground provides. If Golden Horn was a 12 to 14f horse imo may have taken his chance at Ascot, but he’s a 10 to 12. Although he also shows an action usually more at home on a sound surface.
Can’t understand the Tac De Boitron decision, unless he came back from running in totally wrong conditions at Ascot with a problem which is in danger of flaring up.
We don’t yet know enough about Richard Pankhurst to know if it’s the right decision. May be Gosden knows something we don’t.
Went on a visit to a well known arab owned Stud. I asked the Stud Groom (it’s a more important job than sounds)… Whether matings were designed for soundness reasons as well as ability? eg By putting a mare with poor legs to a sire with good legs so as to hopefully get a foal with good legs. He said “no, they used to, but it’s now at the whim of Sheikh X”.
There seems far more inbreeding nowadays too. Inbreeding is often good for ability but not soundness.
Value Is EverythingI was always of the thought that there was no way that GH would run in the KG on that particular ground and I think Wednesday’s performance indicates that he would have struggled to get a place at Ascot over 2F further. Especially given that you are constantley climbing from Swinley Bottom (always the softest part of the course) to the finish.
I am very surprised that the Arc is still on the agenda to be honest – unless we get another freak year like 2011 when Danedream actually broke the course record, the ground is bound to have soft in the description. It will be interesting to see if he runs at Leopardstown if they have similar ground to York for the Champion Stakes – we know Gleneagles won’t run on it.
In general, I am of the opinion that it is becoming more of an easy get out for connections to withdraw because the ground isn’t suitable – I can understand it if we are talking about extremes of going like Firm & heavy but surely most horses should be able to deal with ground in the ranging from Good to Firm to Soft without much problem.
There must be something to the breeding angle as you say and a bit of the old rose coloured glasses syndrome as I don’t remember horses in the past being withdrawn with the same sort of frequency as they do currently.
I always thought the very best horses could handle any ground and that’s what made them stand out from the rest, they were the best no matter what.
I struggle to understand how a horse like GH (and other supposed top of the ground types) are excused the non-show of their customary turn of foot on softer ground. Wouldn’t you expect that whatever soft ground does, it does to all in the field, therefore a turn of foot ‘sprint’ away from the pack will not be as fast as it would have been on good ground, but the relativity factor should hold, should it not?
In other words, GH should be able to come as far clear of others as he would on good ground, and in what should at least look like the same level of speed even though it is not. For example if on fast ground it takes him 5 seconds to come 3 lengths clear, on softer ground it might take 7 seconds, but the relevant slowing of those behind should make it look the same visually.
Not sure I’m explaining it properly, but I hope you get my drift. I accept that the stamina aspect toward the end of a race might play a part, but leave that aside for now, as I’m talking about the general principle, not just about Golden Horn.
Distance would come into it Joe.
On soft/heavy going 6f would feel like 7f, I backed Gordon Lord Byron on Champions day with that principle thought and being chuffed with the result said to one of the timeform guys who was stood by me the same thing, in which he replied ‘No’.
The sire Zoffany had a lot of winners in the two year old races on rattling quick ground at Royal Ascot, the fastest the going the quicker the time and the opposite for rain effect going unless they go a crawl in races involving Kingman.(rolls eyes)
However I’m not sure of the exact science but there are soft going specialist. Probably the ones who if were human would be like me playing football as I preferred to play when the pitch was a mud bath as dodgy ankles were no good on the concrete type pitch’s and it would bring on my gout.Gaelic Warrior Gold Cup Winner 2026
I struggle to understand how a horse like GH (and other supposed top of the ground types) are excused the non-show of their customary turn of foot on softer ground. Wouldn’t you expect that whatever soft ground does, it does to all in the field, therefore a turn of foot ‘sprint’ away from the pack will not be as fast as it would have been on good ground, but the relativity factor should hold, should it not?
In other words, GH should be able to come as far clear of others as he would on good ground, and in what should at least look like the same level of speed even though it is not. For example if on fast ground it takes him 5 seconds to come 3 lengths clear, on softer ground it might take 7 seconds, but the relevant slowing of those behind should make it look the same visually.
Not sure I’m explaining it properly, but I hope you get my drift. I accept that the stamina aspect toward the end of a race might play a part, but leave that aside for now, as I’m talking about the general principle, not just about Golden Horn.
Horses with fluent “top-of-the-ground” daisy cutting actions are usually more effective on a sound surface. imo They also generally have a better turn of foot. That sort of flowing stride is less effective on soft ground, so without one of their prize assets is not going to be as effective.
Where as those with round, pounding actions do not float across a firm surface and therefore do better when the going is softer. I’ve rarely seen a “poor” round actioned horse with an electric turn of foot.
When a horse has won a previous race on firmish ground with a fine turn of foot, often surprises me the jockey seems to expect the same turn of foot when racing on a soft surface. Giving the horse too much to do.
However, going has an affect on number of pounds per length. ie If both A and B are equally effective on Good-firm as they are Soft – then A beating B by 3 lengths on good-firm is a better performance than A beating B by 3 lengths on soft (as long as both races are over the same distance, truly run and same time of year).
Value Is EverythingI always thought the very best horses could handle any ground and that’s what made them stand out from the rest, they were the best no matter what.
“Handle” – possibly, equally effective – No. It’s just that the very best horses can often win races despite being 7 lbs below their best.
Value Is EverythingHowever, going has an affect on number of pounds per length. ie If both A and B are equally effective on Good-firm as they are Soft – then A beating B by 3 lengths on good-firm is a better performance than A beating B by 3 lengths on soft (as long as both races are over the same distance, truly run and same time of year).
Interesting…can you expand on this, Ginger? Why is the faster ground win a better performance?
However, going has an affect on number of pounds per length. ie If both A and B are equally effective on Good-firm as they are Soft – then A beating B by 3 lengths on good-firm is a better performance than A beating B by 3 lengths on soft (as long as both races are over the same distance, truly run and same time of year).
Interesting…can you expand on this, Ginger? Why is the faster ground win a better performance?
It’s the added test of stamina softer ground brings Joe.
Same as distance. At 5f a length is worth more lbs than at a mile which in turn is worth more than 1m4f etc.
3 length win at 5f being a greater difference over the 2nd (in lbs) than a 3 length win at a mile (if both are the same time of year, on the same going and truly run).Same thing goes for a slowly run race; although slowly run races can bring false results too, favouring prominent runners and/or speed.
Value Is EverythingUnder normal considerations, a test of stamina would make things more difficult, not easier, which suggests to me a win of 3 lengths in softer ground is the better performance (all other things being equal)
Under normal considerations, a test of stamina would make things more difficult, not easier, which suggests to me a win of 3 lengths in softer ground is the better performance (all other things being equal)
If you think that about a “test of stamina” Joe; would you say a 3 lengths win over an 82 rated horse at 2m is a better performance than a 3 lengths win over an 82 rated horse at 5f? (if both 82 rated horses ran to form). Handicappers work it out the other way.
We are talking about horses suited by the going/distance. So the second horse is equally suited by conditions.
Value Is EverythingUnder normal considerations, a test of stamina would make things more difficult, not easier, which suggests to me a win of 3 lengths in softer ground is the better performance (all other things being equal)
It’s a lot easier to understand over jumps.
Softer the ground the more horses become spaced out in a finish of a truly run race. Why do you think this is? Under your way of thinking it should be harder for a horse to win by 3 lengths on soft.Value Is EverythingThe often used saying that a horse showed a great turn of foot at the end of a race is a misnomer – we really should be saying that the horse was actually slowing down the slowest and this is shown with the advent of sectional timing. It shows that when you get an evenly run race, generally the slowest furlongs of said race are usually the last two.
That particular effect has more relevance when the ground changes from fast through to soft – those with the fluent daisy cutting low knee action (i.e Golden Horn & Gleneagles etc) tend to float accross fast ground and are able to maintain their optimal speed for much longer as the effort to cover the ground places less emphasis on stamina. This also gives the visual appearance that they are quicken up at the end of a race when they pull clear.
Those horses with a pronouced rounded high knee action that pound down into the ground when they gallop (take Triptych as a prime example) will generally struggle on quicker ground as the pounding motion can lead to painful jarring of the knee and shoulder areas – hence the often used phrase ‘he/she would not let themselves down on the ground’.
However, that problem is negated in soft conditions but with half a ton of racehorse galloping on soft ground they will obviously sink much further into the turf and then have to expend that much more energy in picking their hoofs up out of the ground to continue to gallop.
This extra enegry used puts a premium on a horses stamina and means that those fast ground horses struggle to maintain their optimal speed for as long to the extent that they will struggle to even stay the same race distance or appear to labour when asked for maximum effort – hence the often used phrases ‘he/she couldn’t quicken in the ground’ or ‘his/her speed was blunted in that ground’.
I don’t think that you can honestly say that any horse would actually prefer to race on soft ground as it requires more physical effort on their part, it is just that for some, their peak performance doesn’t drop off by as much as other horses do when they run on it and this can cause shock results from time to time.
If you look at the true greats of the turf at some point they have encountered conditions that wouldn’t have suited them but they have still found a way to win in spite of it. To overcome adversity enables a simply ‘good horse’ to become a ‘great horse’.
Good stuff, and I think the effect of ground on a horse’s action is a fair point. But I did suggest that we ignore the stamina aspect in trying to get to the basis of the difference, because, as you say, LD73, horses who pound down into soft ground, must go deeper into it than those who have a flatter action. Therefore, the soft ground specialist must expend more energy pulling his feet from deeper in the ground than the daisy-cutter does. But the argument seems to be that the overall effect still seems to favour the soft ground horse, and that the reason is stamina.
Imagine that the Juddmonte was run over a mile. Would you (and Ginger) have expected GH to show his normal turn of foot given that stamina then was not an issue?
The daisy cutter action is totally negated when there is give in the ground as horses that are used to flicking their hoofs accross a fast surface with maybe 2-3″ give at most can’t cope when their hoofs are sinking 8-10″.
For me the trip wasn’t the issue with GH as I don’t think he is capable of producing the same ‘turn of foot’ on that ground at any distance full stop. Had he not pulled as hard for about the first 4F it may have been a different result but to be fair though the winner pulled just as hard for almost as long as he did. I just worry that the ground in Ireland might not be much quicker and as for Longchamp…….
You can see that half way up the straight Dettori kept changing his hands to encourage him to pick up but it wasn’t until he had given him 3 reminders with the whip before he even managed to get level with Arabian Queen.
But the argument seems to be that the overall effect still seems to favour the soft ground horse, and that the reason is stamina.
Not sure what you mean by that Joe?
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.