- This topic has 6 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Looks as though the Horseracing Bettors Forum (HBF) were not happy with the Clerk at Cheltenham downplaying how bad the ground was at the start of day one according to this piece on the Racing Post:
https://www.racingpost.com/news/britain/cheltenham-in-firing-line-of-punters-body-for-wrong-going-description-on-opening-day-of-the-festival-aMWFd8C2pnwX/According to their research 40% of respondents have no faith/trust in official going descriptions and I for one am surprised that figure wasn’t much higher.
There must be a way of getting this done properly and independently as the Clerk has a vested interest in ensuring they don’t get too many non-runners.
I’ve removed thinking about the going in my selection process, not because its not a huge factor because it is but its not a factor any of us can be sure about from the information we’re provided. Even times of early races on the card don’t necessarily tell the story because if you think the going is bottomless because that’s what is reported as a jockey you probably go a bit slower to ensure your horse gets home, its very self-fulfilling.
We can have a pretty good idea TTM. When assessing goings I always compare race times of the first couple of races with Racing Post Standard. But also taking note to see if they seemed to quicken or just stay on, or finish very tired (slowed over the final two). If they appear to quicken over the final two fences then they’ve gone slower than they needed to early. ie If they’ve quickened then the going is highly likely to be a bit sounder than the comparison with Racing Post Standard might suggest.
Value Is EverythingI think the Cheltenham Gold Cup deserves a separate going description. They’re using that fresh strip of ground on the inside of the New Course which isn’t used on Day 3 of the Festival. The GC was by far the fastest race of the day, not only because it was contested by the best horses in NH Racing, but also due to the fresh ground.
That’s a good point ERL.
Last year’s time on “soft” ground actually beat Racing Post Standard.
Even allowing for Galopin Des being the best chaser around… The time was so good it must be either the ground that’s not as soft as the official, or the racing distance is wrong.
Value Is EverythingBeing a speed handicapper I do not take any notice of the official going descriptions, I have had going descriptions as soft turning out to be good to firm, here are my Cheltenham figures.
Mike.
Great to see your occasional posts, Mike.
Informative as always.
I’d agree with all of those going assessments other than possibly…Do you have such a thing as a good-soft to soft?
Third day seemed to me between the two or almost good-soft but not quite (if that makes sense), but you’re more an expert on this particular aspect than me.Value Is EverythingDo you have such a thing as a good-soft to soft?
I’m afraid not, the link below is a RAR file 15.6MB covering every meeting in England/Ireland going back to 2001,
click the download button if you are interested, this file is updated daily.https://drive.google.com/file/d/12TLPxTnBq9S8fLJOkW0haFh8H7yN3HEj/view?usp=drive_link
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.