- This topic has 106 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Had my suspicions when Lough Derg won the opener, and TB’s time in the VC confirms it.
Has become a very strange racecourse in my opinion.
What do you rate the ground on times then? Certainly look to be finishing fairly Ken Ackered….
The new Ascot has become one of those courses that favour those ridden prominently. First two in 1:20, Tamarinbleu in the 1:45, Labelthou 2:55. Even when the pace was far too fast in the 2:20 Mahogany Blaze almost held on.
Unless they go too fast here it is difficult to come from behind especially on very soft / heavy ground.
On the flat too, it was noticable how many winners were ridden up with the pace, even at Royal Ascot.With the going report, do you think they bothered to walk over to the far side?
Heavy, even heavier in places might have been more acurate.
It seemed more testing there than the home straight.Raceable though, and they deserve some credit for getting racing on.Value Is EverythingHi
Race 1 – 5 previous races official report Good to Soft, times between 232 – 246, 245 today and they were juveniles
Race 2 – 5 previous races official Good to Soft, times between 294 – 304, 295 today
Race 3 – 10 previous races at officially reported Good or Good to Soft times between 249 – 258, 253 today.
Race 4 – Same as above, 261 today and the last 4 furlongs today were ran slowly (to my eyes anyway)
Race 5 – Not much data but a 361 on Good, 387 on Good to Soft, 372 today.
Race 6 – Not much data but a 325 and 342 previously on officialy Good to Soft ground, 333 today
All this data is since the course was reopened
I take your point CH they were well strung out which makes it all the more strange. A very strange racecourse!
Cheltenham Festival got it wrong last March. Warwick got it wrong last Saturday and Ascot got it wrong yesterday.
I agree that Ascot times were Good to Soft.
Sssssssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh …….. keep it a secret
- Total Posts 17716
Ever since the track was rebuilt it has run like two separate racecourses, with appreciably faster ground on the straight course than the round and must play havoc with speed figures/sectionals, let alone the form book.
Fwiw, I would have the ground as soft yesterday, but the ground was also holding imo, which is probably the worst type of ground for the majority of horses to show their true form.I have the going as soft as well but to be honest is hard to know what to make of the new Ascot, who would’ve thought 24 hours ago that we’d end up with results that we did yesterday?
Not to my liking this "new" Ascot but hey we have to put up with it.
Could now be described as arguably the most stamina sapping jumping course there is. Where else do three horses Lough Derg, Tamarinbleu and Wee Robbie all win over trips half a mile plus below their previous best form?
I wouldn’t really dispute a going description of Soft for yesterday, but FWIW.
I have a GA which is a couple of ticks inside my Good to Soft band
I would love someone to explain to me how soft Heavy in places becomes good to soft and how Twist Magic went from being a good horse to a cart horse if the going wasn’t truly soft. The Jockeys said it was soft but what would they know in comparison to the experts we have on here…..Both Nicky Henderson winners are soft ground horses Lough Derg won because he stays all day and the fav never raised a gallop……Jonjo’s goes on Good or good to soft and was reportedly beaten by the ground. Regal Heights won the second last and loves soft and heavy ground……..this thread is bordering on stupidity and you don’t have a clue what your talking about.
Cheltenham Festival got it wrong last March. Warwick got it wrong last Saturday and Ascot got it wrong yesterday.
I agree that Ascot times were Good to Soft.
Sssssssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh …….. keep it a secret
If I was you and the guy who started this thread I would keep it a Ssshh secret!!
I would love you to explain to me how soft Heavy in places becomes good to soft and how Twist Magic went from being a good horse to a cart horse if the going wasn’t truly soft. The Jockeys said it was soft but what would they know in comparison to the experts we have on here…..Both Nicky Henderson winners are soft ground horses Lough Derg won because he stays all day and the fav never raised a gallop……Jonjo’s goes on Good or good to soft and was reportedly beaten by the ground. Regal Heights won the second last and loves soft and heavy ground……..way off the mark guys don’t give up your day jobs
Fist of Fury
To ONLY way to determine the going is by the race times on the day.
Picking out why a horse won and anther lost is irrelevant.
If it wasn’t G/S yesterday at Ascot, what was it?
Fist of Fury said on another thread:
Learn to understand everyone doesn’t have your knowledge of racing…
…Cut him a bit of slack and without being a smart ass explain rather then tell to make yourselves look like you know more about the game than you actually do.
And it is in the spirit intended by that post that I will reply.
F.ofF, you have said that “you don’t bother with times” but if you took the trouble you might discover how much you are in the dark about some aspects of racing.
If a horse runs the equivalent of two miles at a course like Ascot in under 4 minutes then either the distance is wrong (as compared with other races run at course and trip), the horse is another Arkle, or the ground was not heavy as advertised. There has to be some physical explanation.
Your alternative – which is to base assumptions on off-the-cuff beliefs about the going requirements of a handful of horses, regardless of the facts – just does not wash.
But, it’s OK, I know you are still learning, and I’m sure we’re all happy to cut you a bit of slack. Let us know if you need anything else to be explained to you.
Hmm.
Sorry, I said what I said without looking at the times. It seems you are right about it not being as soft as the official. And being very much times oriented person I supose I have to say I was wrong in my original thought.
However, the actual results of these races with stayers (at the trips concerned) winning. Tamarinbleu goes on good so it is not his form on the ground that makes it difficult to swallow, it is the fact he (and others) are stayers.Should there be another going report called tacky or holding?
The horses were getting through the ground reasonably quickly but it certainly was taking it out of them. Obviously by times it was not heavy, but I do think good-soft would be misleading too.
Unless they were not running over the full trip as advertised (as you say) or the clock used did not work propperly.
Value Is EverythingI stopped taking any notice whatsoever of the official going half way through this season when I realised how accurate the readings were from the Turftrax Going Stick.
The official going is quite simply a joke at the majority of racecourses. The only course where I have had a runner which consistently gave accurate going reports is Great Yarmouth. The official going descriptions at Warwick, Haydock and Ascot should be ignored – they have no basis in reality.
I have been fortunate enough to obtain verification from our jockey of the accuracy of the Going Stick reading. Timeform tend to back up the Going Stick reading as well rather than the official description.
At last year’s festival I spoke to the guy from Turftrax before racing on the first day. He confirmed to me that the going was good all the way round. I felt this gave me a real edge and I was lucky enough to capitalise on this by backing Joes Edge – a horse who requires good ground.
Fist of Fury said on another thread:
Learn to understand everyone doesn’t have your knowledge of racing…
…Cut him a bit of slack and without being a smart ass explain rather then tell to make yourselves look like you know more about the game than you actually do.
And it is in the spirit intended by that post that I will reply.
F.ofF, you have said that “you don’t bother with times” but if you took the trouble you might discover how much you are in the dark about some aspects of racing.
If a horse runs the equivalent of two miles at a course like Ascot in under 4 minutes then either the distance is wrong (as compared with other races run at course and trip), the horse is another Arkle, or the ground was not heavy as advertised. There has to be some physical explanation.
Your alternative – which is to base assumptions on off-the-cuff beliefs about the going requirements of a handful of horses, regardless of the facts – just does not wash.
But, it’s OK, I know you are still learning, and I’m sure we’re all happy to cut you a bit of slack. Let us know if you need anything else to be explained to you.
NOT YOU AGAIN
Are you saying the ground wasn’t soft??? All I said was that it was soft. In fact it was soft and holding……..and my beliefs are not only based on a handful of horses that’s the way I preferred to answer…..because if I came on here and said I asked so so and he said ” it was well bloody soft” then you would find another way to get at me.
Show me where I disputed anything the lads said about the distances been messed about with
Anyway go read the Racing Post website and see what PN said about the ground…not soft my ar*e!!!
As far as what they do with messing around with distances etc that only tells me that anyone studying times is up against a brick wall and wasting their time unless they are getting inside information on the exact distances of every race from every course in the UK.which I sincerely doubt.
Thanks anyway mate for cutting me a bit of slack sorry I can’t return the favour
but here’s a bet for you cos I like you Binocular 8/1 Money Trix 16/1 and Sizing Europe 8/1 EW doubles and an EW Treble will pay for your reading lesson Fist of Fury
To ONLY way to determine the going is by the race times on the day.
Picking out why a horse won and anther lost is irrelevant.
If it wasn’t G/S yesterday at Ascot, what was it?
Fist of Fury
In view of the comments from Prufrock, I apologise for coming back a bit strong.
We are all leaning
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.