- This topic has 75 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
I suppose we’d better define "sport", Cav. I don’t think Boycie defines it very well here, but in an absence of a definition either way, I’ve put some quotes up to show how specific he is in his thesis that horse racing isn’t a sport.
Racing is not a sport in the true sense. It’s about the betting, stupid!
He couldn’t be more specific than that.
When I asked BHA chairman Paul Roy whether racing was a sport, or a social event, or a betting medium he replied that it was all of those things. That’s the problem. It’s only really , definitvely, one of those things.
He further makes his position clear here…but this paragraph is the killer…
There is though, no meaningful comparison between the impact that events on the racecourse make on the sporting public’s consciousness compared with events in true sporting arenas.
What is a true sporting arena? What does he mean by that? I’ve never seen effort like either Grundy or Bustino expended in the 1975 King George. Or the Iron Horse versus Tiznow at the turn of the century.
Racing needs to either effectively leverage that product through betting partners or compete in the betting market with its own products but either way it needs to forget all this nonsense of being a sport
That’s more heavy stuff, Cav. And specific too.
There is no way that a sports fan can appreciate the different levels of ability and attainment of either horses or jockeys in the same way that they can judge a well struck cover drive, a beautifully curled free kick, a blistering 100 metre run or 149 break.
Horse racing was once a major sport, Cav. When Roberto beat the Brigadier in 1972, the event made front page news. The doping of Pinturischio before the 1961 Derby ditto, the bemusing performance of Tromos in the 1978 Craven, the heroic defeat of the Brave in the Blue Riband. All front page news off the top of my head.
There are older TRFites who can remember watercooler chats about the merits or otherwise of Nijinsky, Brigadier Gerard, Park Top, Sea Bird, Ribot etc.
Whether these horses won their races or not mattered at one point,
regardless of whether anyone won any bets or not
Horse racing is a sport you can bet on. Roulette is pure betting. I’m not letting the BBC tell me what is a sport or not – and neither should Sean.
- Total Posts 17716
I think you’re romanticising a little, Max.
What Sean is saying is that horse racing doesn’t enjoy the same sort of following as football and rugby, and as such is unable to market itself effectively as an arena for physical competition.
In that sense it isn’t a sport, as the main association the unfamiliar public make is with betting; and hence the ‘true sporting arenas’ remark.
Take your points Max. Your preaching to the converted here, but I like the realistic tone of the article.
The races and horses your refer to are few and far between, your being
very
selective. There will always be a Cheltenham, a Royal Ascot, the classics, for the romantics and aficionados but lets face it, the Fakenhams, Market Rasens, Southwells etc..the other 90 percent of it is hardly for the connoisseur. It is almost strictly for the gambler who has no other sports to bet on at that time of day. It has little aesthetic or emotional appeal, its broad attraction is for punters craving some action, any action on a wet Tuesday afternoon. Sean mentions sporting arena’s, well most horseracing is the arena of bad horses and increasingly the arena of bad men.
Unfortunately, most racing doesn’t matter at all if there’s no money on it, is what I take from the article and I think that’s spot on.
As for the definition of a sport, I’ll leave you to argue that one with the author, I think the main points made on the blog go beyond that to be honest.
Great article!
Drone,
"Tried to subscribe to boyciesblog but can’t. Are new members no longer being accepted"
The method to register is obscure – only those with a sufficient IQ have ever cracked it.
Go to a recent blog with comments.
Go to end of Comments and at the Leave a reply bit click the yellow "logged in". This takes you to a page where you actually can register.Chaps, I’m not romanticising, or being selective, but to be fair, I can see how you can say that.
I’m not being critical either; I enjoyed the article and the generally upbeat tone.
Sean said horse racing isn’t a sport. I disagree with him. It’s as much a sport as football (the most overrated activity in history), golf, rugby or cricket.
And you don’t need to bet on the top events.
I had twelve bets at Goodwood, all losers (one, at 33/1, by a head, for my own self-esteem), and gave up the unequal struggle against the Sea mus hosepipe after the Totesport Mile.
I actually enjoyed the racing on Saturday without betting more than I did the races where I had bets. I’m sure I’m not alone.
Do you need to bet on racing to enjoy it? Love to see a poll.
The Nassau in particular was an excellent sporting contest, more corinthian in essence, more competitive, arduous, aesthetic and skilful in nature, than most of the World Cup matches I saw in June. I felt Sean could have made a similar point, as balance.
…but anyway, I’m just nattering on a boring Sunday.
Prior to reading Boycie’s article I never knew what the ‘Premierisation’ of Racing meant, as I couldn’t be bothered to ever find out and my happy ignorance has been shattered with yet other example of how deluded the **** ups that run this social/betting pastime truly are.
Not of course that they care what I or anybody else on this or any other forum think.
Boycie you’re a mence. Excellent comment and analysis of this quality should not be allowed.
Is it just me? Or is the whole Harry Findlay thing (and the man himself) really boring?
Fair point dilys, what I couldn’t understand was the number of racing pundits wanting a misguided change of the rules based on one man’s experiences, I don’t see a string of owners lined up wanting to lay their own horses.
I hear it repeatedly said Harry only laid his horses to reduce his exposure or liabilities and he was in fact a net backer. I’m still waiting to hear why he can’t just have less on in the first place to reduce his exposure. Sean would be the first to admit he didn’t shine in his Paul Roy interview but I’m sure he would do a good job here, Chapman spouts too much carp for my liking and isn’t as knowledgeable regards the subject.Do you need to bet on racing to enjoy it? Love to see a poll.
The Nassau in particular was an excellent sporting contest, more corinthian in essence, more competitive, arduous, aesthetic and skilful in nature
Well, I don’t Max but suspect you and I are part of the small obsessive coterie mentioned earlier. Yes the Nassau was an absorbing spectacle won in such an intriguing manner it brought a smile to my face. Admit it though, wouldn’t that smile have been even broader if you’d backed Midday and thought you’d done your money a furlong out, as looked the case. That race to me encapsulated Boycies words
Racing needs to get on and focus on what it has which no sport can rival. That is the perfect balance of luck and judgement, form and variance
CR mentions the likes of Fakenham and Market Rasen as being essentially betting fodder. Indeed this is true though one of the benefits of specializing betting-wise on a small subset of horses, in my case chasers, is that you develop a liking for the individuals, however ‘bad’ and the races they run in, whether they be run on a cold wet Tuesday or warmish summer Sunday. It doesn’t matter if there’s my money on it as there may be on one of the runners nto, or whenever, whatever. The spectacle is fine but the anticipatory intrigue better.
Thank you Robert99 (rated 150+) for the circuitous registration method
Admit it though, wouldn’t that smile have been even broader if you’d backed Midday and thought you’d done your money a furlong out, as looked the case.
After the heart attack, Drone, yes. I understand one Midday supporter managed to get some 64 too – much more my price range.
On reflection, its a very difficult subject. I think I’ve been too extreme in my position – a legacy of all the Topping propoganda we’ve been subjected to this summer, I fear – and I would argue Sean has been too.
Unravelling betting from horse racing is a Gordian knot of a problem probably suited to a heavy sword.
PS: Thanks Robert 99 – I didn’t know how to register either.
CR mentions the likes of Fakenham and Market Rasen as being essentially betting fodder. Indeed this is true though one of the benefits of specializing betting-wise on a small subset of horses, in my case chasers, is that you develop a liking for the individuals, however ‘bad’ and the races they run in, whether they be run on a cold wet Tuesday or warmish summer Sunday.
Thats its, Drone. We engage with the sport on a more meaningful level initially through the bet. The bet leads us into a lasting world of love, interest and fascination that goes much deeper than the act of the bet itself. And so it is for so many
lifers
I’d imagine.
The bet is the matchmaker. The bet is the undersold matchmaker.
Has anyone seen or heard from Boycie lately or is he on his hols. please? It’s just that his Blog has been very quiet for over a week now and the times I’ve viewed ATR he’s not been on.
Thanks
KMaybe he has become pewrsona no grata for standing up to Harry. Findlay’s PR onslaught has a whiff of McCarthyism about it don’t you think
Hopefully that’s not the case East. His absence coincided with the start of the kids’ summer hols so maybe he’s in Disneyland, Las Vegas or trecking along the Great Wall of China.
Unfortunately, he’s completely wrong. Horse racing is a sport and I’m surprised that ATR’s premier presenter holds these views snd I’m looking forward to hear his arguments on a forum people read.
I think your missing the point of the article, Max. Of course racing is a sport and a great one to a tiny minority who don’t bet on it, but take away the betting and for the vast majority its a complete irrelevance, easily passed over, for all of the reasons that Sean has mentioned in his blog. Humans don’t identify with animals in the way they identify with other humans to any great extent, never have, never will.
It matters more when there’s money on it.
Not entirely true, although it adds to your point rather than diminishes it. People certainly did identify with horses a great deal more than they do now as little as a century ago, when even an inner-city dweller would have come across them daily. It’s not a complete coincidence that those were the days when Parliament rose on Derby day and half of London walked the 30-odd miles to Epsom and back to watch it.
Few people have close contact with horses now from one year to the next, so another route is required to catch their interest. Given that there are still about 7,000 betting shops on Britain’s high streets, I’d say it’s a pretty obvious one.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.