- This topic has 20 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
The official offering from Mr Tellwrong this morning says ‘soft, heavy in places’.
But the going stick numbers indicate a massive difference between the hurdle and chase courses – hurdle 6.9, chase 5.2. I’d read that as good to soft over hudles, close to heavy over fences.
How on earth does he manage to produce such variation between two tracks that are side by side?
And why isn’t that variation reflected in the official going?
AP
The time for the opening hurdle was close to 4 mins, almost exactly the same as last year, when the official going on the hurdle track was good to soft.
AP
My unofficial time for the first chase is also within a second of the time for the same race last year, again that was on officially good to soft.
This man really is a disgrace.
AP
Mr Thriller won the 4-y-old hurdle in an official time of 3m 57s, seven seconds FASTER than Binocular last year.
The bumper winner was almost nine seconds faster than last year.
This ground, at least on the hurdle track, isn’t remotely close to soft with heavy places.
Depressingly, incompetence and misleading punters has never been a sacking offence in racing.
AP
I’ll second that AP, incorrect going descriptions absolutely grit me. There are far too many cases of it sadly…
Alan, I’m not defending Tellwright in any way, the man’s incompetent, but wasn’t Binocular’s race last year very uncompetitive and run at a bit of a crawl.
Colin
Colin,
Maybe, but it’s only one race and the others all tell the same story.
The big race was run in 6min 6sec last year on good to soft, but just over 6min 4sec this time on supposedly soft with heavy places.
Too many of the races today were faster than, or much the same as, last year to put it down to chance.
To accept the going reports for both years were accurate, you’d also have to believe that the course had taken about 50 yards off each lap of the course. One way or the other, punters have been put away.
AP
Was actually thinking of making up a referenceable scrap paper book, and listing horses who have been beaten on an incorrect going description. The racing post tend to publish the form with whatever was described on the day, which can become confusing later on, if certain runners come up on the same surface described yesterday.
Was actually thinking of making up a referenceable scrap paper book, and listing horses who have been beaten on an incorrect going description. The racing post tend to publish the form with whatever was described on the day, which can become confusing later on, if certain runners come up on the same surface described yesterday.
Interesting idea Bulwark, Timeform give their own interpretation in form books. Will be interesting to see their opinion of Haydock this weekend.
Value Is EverythingHere’s Timeform’s time and going analysis for comparison:
2008
Opening Novice Hurdle 4.01.56 G
Betfair Chase 6.05.72 GS2009
Opening Novice Hurdle 4.00.89 S
Betfair Chase 6.04.49 SMake of that what you will
Here’s Timeform’s time and going analysis for comparison:
2008
Opening Novice Hurdle 4.01.56 G
Betfair Chase 6.05.72 GS2009
Opening Novice Hurdle 4.00.89 S
Betfair Chase 6.04.49 SMake of that what you will
Given the ever-shifing configuration of and work upon the Haydock jumps course, do we know first of all whether the races were actually run over exactly the same distances each year, regardless of what the advertised distances were?
I’m not an expert on equating race-times to going to distances, but Haydock strikes me as having been too much of a work in progress over the last couple of seasons for too many meaningful comparisons to be derived. Happy to receive any explanation to the contrary.
gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
They went a stronger pace in this year’s Betfair, which to some extent explains the time anomaly, although Alan’s wider point may well be valid.
As for Timeform, the C&H essay this year on Rambling Minster says that ‘the [Haydock] obstacles do not test jumping to anything like the same extent as the old ones and were especially soft at the mixed meeting…’ before going on to report Paul Nicholls’ criticisms of the ground there last year.
I think that’s the sort of critique you’d expect of us and one that could easily have been left out if we had an agenda as implied above.
Regards, Kieran (Timeform).
Given the ever-shifing configuration of and work upon the Haydock jumps course, do we know first of all whether the races were actually run over exactly the same distances each year, regardless of what the advertised distances were?
Dolling out? markedly different shape’n’pace? wind?
Times and going in isolation don’t mean much, just thought they’d make a worthwhile comparison with AP’s and the ‘official’
Hope Kieran didn’t mind me divulging them
- Total Posts 17716
I had to laugh on Saturday..everyone on the course seemed to know there was a difference between the going on the hurdle and chase course except for Paul Nichols and that silly girl braodcaster, who talks dribble at the best of times.
In an interview after the first she says to PN: "Good luck with Kauto Star" " What did Ruby say about the ground is it ok? she asks………The fact he answered "Yeah he says its riding ok it will be fine" and Ruby had just ridden the hurdle course, makes me wonder if he was just being polite or he’s as dumb as she is
….I would have asked "How the hell would Ruby know ya dopey bitch"Don’t know about this going stick but that ground wasn’t heavy…was too damn lively for Notre Pere for starters and the way the front two finished, especially Imperial Commander it certainly wasn’t holding like heavy.
I totally ignore anything I see printed about how far a stick goes into the ground…I don’t know who these people are but I’ve always had the impression they are trying to get in the back door of racing by being controversial…..The only way you can be sure about any ground is to listen to what the Jockeys say…..it was soft ground today but they were going through it and more than a few horses who prefer good ground ran well in it or even won……on another day the stick will go in the same depth but it will be holding and the same horses get tailed off..that’s the important factor no stick will ever tell you.
….I would have asked "How the hell would Ruby know ya dopey bitch"
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.