- This topic has 146 replies, 35 voices, and was last updated 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The National has to ‘evolve’ as to not upset modern day sensibilities. When did this word ‘evolve’ first come into use in relation to racing and other sports? Who are all these ‘progressive’ types we are trying to endlessly appease?
Apart from being shorter in distance, over far lower fences made of plastic with bundles of very loose spruce on top, with a restriction on runners with the drops all removed and the first fence moved forward and run off’s at nearly every fence it’s almost identical to the race Rummy strutted his stuff.
The National has become emasculated with its arms and legs cut off. It’s a Jockey Club version of the Monty Python scene. Is there anything left to cut off? It has become the Cesarewitch with an extra 2 furlongs attached.
Those defending the current National are defending something that really doesn’t exist any longer.
Those using the new enlightened Ruby Walsh comments about this years National (won by his close friend and ex-boss) to highlight how wonderful it was. Ignoring the fact Walsh has a vested interest being in the payroll of ITV & RTV this is the same Ruby Walsh who said in 2014 “You can replace a horse. It’s sad, but horses are animals, outside your back door. Humans are humans, they are inside your back door. You can replace a horse but you can’t replace a human being.”
There is a sad irony that whilst racing has been back-slapping about this years National and praised by many on social media that in the last 48 hours two horses suffered horrific injuries in concluding races at Hereford & Kelso (is it that surprising when the ground is at its worse). Will the media and those involved in the sport be reporting this or is all about that one day in the year? I think the answer is blatantly obvious and always has been.
With the lack of shouting from the rooftops by Ed and his chums at the Racing Post about brilliant viewing figures,I assumed it wasn’t good news and sure enough after a day to get their excuses in,last night news broke that viewing figures were over a 1.4 million down on last year to 6.1m and way down on the 10m in CH4s last year.
How many more will turn off next year after watching Saturday run of the mill long distance chase?
After all,only 1m will be watching Ayr on Saturday and as CH4 is a minority channel,they may well have only got 4m on Saturday so the drop off in interest could be even more marked.The Grand National is no more it has ceased to exist it should immediately be renamed the English National (without English runners !) as it is impossible to argue its uniqueness any more compared to its Irish , Scottish and Welsh equivalents . RIP The GRAND National .
I tuned in 16:00 to watch the race and was bitterly disappointed with the whole affair.
All it is now is a long 4m2½f, race over jumps.
Will I watch next year?
A 5/10 from me.
Also, there is a special report in The Telegraph today headlined: “Cocaine rife at Grand National meeting as racing’s drugs problem deepens”. Not good reading at all.
I will put in a link but, it maybe hidden behind a pay-wall:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/racing/2024/04/15/cocaine-grand-national-crowd-aintree-peaky-blinders/
“Those defending the current National are defending something that really doesn’t exist any longer”.
——————————————————————————————————–So were you.
In the first Grand National in 1839 they needed to jump over a solid brick wall.
The jumps were far higher and more upright than the 1970’s and 1980’s.
ie The Grand National of the 1970’s was nothing like the Grand National of old. So you yourself would’ve been “defending something that really did not exist any longer”.Indeed, when I was growing up in the 1970’s and 80’s, I remember people who’d experienced the Grand National of the 1950’s saying pretty much the exact same thing about the National I loved.
The Grand National has always evolved.
It has always been a different race to previous decades and always will.
So it is not the race you or I enjoyed in our youth.
Tings was better when Ioi were a laaaad, really?
Things move on.
The jumps have changed
We’ve just got to get over it (pun intended).
Value Is Everything“Those using the new enlightened Ruby Walsh comments about this years National (won by his close friend and ex-boss) to highlight how wonderful it was. Ignoring the fact Walsh has a vested interest being in the payroll of ITV & RTV this is the same Ruby Walsh who said in 2014 “You can replace a horse. It’s sad, but horses are animals, outside your back door. Humans are humans, they are inside your back door. You can replace a horse but you can’t replace a human being.”
—————————————
Ruby has moved on…
Value Is EverythingThe lack of dissenting voices from that rabble on ITV is deafening. What has Chapman had to say or as he too, sold his soul to the devil?
Sulekha Varma said changes that were made were driven by data eg fence 11 was reduced by a couple of inches as there had been too many fallers there. Why have they then not increased the size of “Bechers Brook” as there have been no fallers there in the last 5 runnings of the race? Obviously the data only applies to decrease things or make them easier.
The race no longer deserves “The Grand National” title but obviously Aintree & the BHA are clinging to it for financial reasons and are being very disingenuous while there at it. They’ve just caved in and there’s no balance in the changes they’ve made.
Ginger, I think the point is the race has now “evolved” so much it has turned into a different species. Even a few years ago it was still a test of stamina and jumping. Now it is neither.
“I agree entirely with Astralcharmer’s post about the fences and the cheap jibes of those who imply defenders of the old Grand National only want to see fallers.
In the old National, if you had backed one and it was in contention there was a sense of nervous anticipation as the field approached Bechers. Whether people like it or not, that was a key feature of the race. That has now completely gone – the runners jump it like a brush hurdle. Without that sense of drama, the race is diminished”.
———————————-I am confused, CAS.
You can’t have it both ways.
Either you don’t want to see fallers or you do…If you want that “nervous anticipation as the field approached Bechers” back, then how do you have that without wanting to see fallers?
Or is it you can’t admit to wanting to see fallers?
Value Is EverythingI think it was one of the best in recent memory and much much better than last years calamity.
It’s a very different race now though and to me, it’s kind of like a handicap Gold Cup.
I don’t think it’ll be long before we see a Gold Cup winner contesting for it in the same season.I am confused too Ginger. You watch and bet on jump racing but you appear to think fallers are not acceptable.
Isn’t the point of jump racing to test a horse’s jumping? If the obstacles have become so easy, is there any point?
I see Sulekha Varma became clerk of the course at Aintree and in charge of the Grand National at the age of 31 in 2016. How much responibility has she for the race’s current incarnation? Not total, I presume?
And what has Brough Scott had to say about this year’s edition?
It is what it is nowadays. Of course it’s easier then when i started to watch the race, back in the days of The Pilgarlic but rightly or wrongly we are not going to go back. To be honest though every course seems to be easier than it used to be. I remember watching the Charlie Hall in the eighties and Wetherby was tough to jump, the same at the old Haydock and in particular the third last at Kempton. Cheltenham is meant to be the pinnacle but is that really the test it once was. I do echo GM23’s thoughts though, insomuch that it was an easier watch compared to last year.
Even if you are for or against the changes, we now know whats needed to win these days, so go and fill your pockets!“Ginger, I think the point is the race has now “evolved” so much it has turned into a different species. Even a few years ago it was still a test of stamina and jumping. Now it is neither”.
————————-It was not the test of stamina this year because there was a lack of pace in the race.
Going into the race I had Glengouly and Foxy Jacks marked down as “confirmed” front runners.
Glengouly has to lead otherwise he pulls too hard and doesn’t last 2 1/2 miles let alone 4 1/4.
Foxy Jacks has to lead otherwise his jumping goes to pot.
I think the rider of Foxy Jacks was too close to Glengouley and so jumped poorly and Glengouley predictably only lasted until second Bechers.
Once those two were out of the way the pace (which hadn’t been great anyway) slowed dramatically.ie It wasn’t the test of stamina due to the jockeys and runners of this individual Grand National. Nothing to do with the fence changes. Indeed, fence changes could lead to them going faster in future Grand Nationals producing a greater test of stamina.
Value Is Everything“Cheltenham is meant to be the pinnacle but is that really the test it once was.”
No, it isn’t. Dare I say it but how many fallers were there over fences at the recent festival? I am struggling to think of any. At last year’s festival, Dinoblue tried to take the last two fences with her and still managed to finish second in the Grand Annual.
The Wetherby fences in the 1980s were formidable. They looked as big as the National fences.
“I am confused too Ginger. You watch and bet on jump racing but you appear to think fallers are not acceptable.
Isn’t the point of jump racing to test a horse’s jumping? If the obstacles have become so easy, is there any point”?
———————–Nicely voided answer, CAS.
I’ll answer your question.
There is always some risk involved with jump racing. It is only a matter of acceptable risk.
What constitutes “acceptable risk” nowadays is not what it was in the 1970’s or even 1990’s.Those wanting a return to yesteryear fences have to accept their wish would result in more fallers and more fatalities whether they like it or not. So saying you don’t want to see more fallers is simply not true.
By all means say you want to see more fallers AND more fatalities because you believe it would be an acceptable risk. Just don’t give us this bull…. about not wanting to see more fallers.
Value Is EverythingI couldn’t disagree more with Ginger, but that’s usually the case.
Yes, Walsh has moved on into a nice cushy little number as part of the cheerleading brigade. He’s a contrary bugger who is quite happy to say what people don’t expect him to say.
The fact that nothing attempted to clear the field has everything to do with the fences. A very good jumper cannot gain the ground it used be able to do. Now to go clear you would just have to use up the tank of petrol.
People who preferred the old National don’t want to see fallers or horses dying, they just want to see a proper spectacle akin to what was a great race. Lack of argument and cheap shot is correct.
The people who hark on about horses dying do you honestly believe there is an acceptable number? There isn’t, but it’s a fact that fatalities will continue in the sport. If you cannot accept the reality then it isn’t a sport for you to follow.
The idea of saying a course is safe only to keep changing it is ridiculous. A line in the sand should have been drawn a long time ago. Those who didn’t do that are responsible for reducing the race to it’s current tedious state.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.