- This topic has 78 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Don’t want to seem morbid Jeremy but do you know how many horses have been badly injured or died in the race over the decades.
Just so I’m clear, HGM, is that a question you know the answer to already or a request for information? I’m off to bed in a mo so can’t really devote any more research time tonight, if the latter is meant. Even I occasionally have to sleep…
All I would say is that the information I gave previously was simply a direct response to a direct assertion made about last year’s Fox Hunters; and that anecdotally I can only think of Fantastic Fleet (1998), Anubis Quercus (2002) and Mel In Blue (2009) as Fox Hunter on-the-day fatalities in the last 15 years or so (there may be more).
Cheers,
gc
Adoptive father of two. The patron saint of lower-grade fare. A gently critical friend of point-to-pointing. Kindness is a political act.
Ginger,
Top weight in the 2011 race was rated 160. In previous 5 years top was 158 each time.
Here’s a quote from RP analysis of 2011 race:
The trend for winners of the Grand National to be rated in the high-130s to low-140s had failed to stand up in the two previous runnings, with Don´t Push It last year being the highest-rated winner this century and carrying more weight than any other winner since Grittar in 1982. The sequence of higher rated winners was extended further in a similar standard of race, with just four runners rated below 140.
A quote from Phil Smith on how he approached the 2011 race:
“Overall, I compressed the weights of 14 horses at the top, with Big Fella Thanks (11st 1lb), the first on the list not compressed. I found it a tricky race because we have missed so much racing [owing to adverse weather]. There are many horses low in the National weights that I know are better than what they have shown".
As I mentioned in my follow up post,If you had a horse 5lbs to 7lbs below Gold Cup class, wouldn’t you be tempted to miss Cheltenham for Aintree and go there with a fresh well-treated horse for twice the winner’s prize money?
I would.
Would you pay £5k to run your 140/150 rated horse in the National knowing that the class horses will get big favours from the handicapper?
I wouldn’t.
Attempting to turn a race into a ‘quality handicap’ is all very well but when horses who have the rare advantage of natural class are further assisted by the handicapper, there can, for my money, only be one long-term outcome – the realisation by connections that the discrimination level, allied to cost of entry, and, perhaps, risk of injury, makes it no longer worthwhile running.
Aintree has no way back, imo, on the ‘safety conditions’ and their only chance of maintaining 30-40 runner fields is to abandon the handicap compression. Once they do that, quality will start dropping off and they will be back to square one.
The number going to post in April will give us a strong idea what the future holds.
A request I have no idea what the answer is which is my point exactly.
It is near impossible for someone like me to work out just how many horses have sustaining injuries over National fences that led to them being put to sleep or never seeing a racecourse again
You’d have to know every p2p result for starters, then if a horse has disappeared where has he/she gone and why.
I don’t have to know I was just curious on how the 3 races compared.
What a confusing comment. At least for me it is.
A quote from Phil Smith on how he approached the 2011 race:
“Overall, I compressed the weights of 14 horses at the top, with Big Fella Thanks (11st 1lb), the first on the list not compressed. I found it a tricky race because we have missed so much racing [owing to adverse weather]. There are many horses low in the National weights that I know are better than what they have shown".
Surely if he knows a horse is better it’s because of what it’s achieved or is he talking about up and coming horses who may do better in the future?
If it’s the former why is it lower in the weights. Didn’t he put it there or are his hands tied in some way that he had no choice
I wouldn’t class having a stallion with a stamina index of 13.0f to indicate that a horse is flat bred.
But would you class the stallion as
necessarily
conferring the greater stamina influence upon the progeny compared to the dam / damside?
We could be straying into the murky waters of the dosage method if so; but whatever Old Vic’s stamina index, I think I’d struggle to dub his offspring as anything other than Flat-bred if the dam had been a Flat performer herself.
Maybe if Don’t Push It had been the product of some theoretical Old Vic – Look Busy type of union, for example, the distinction would be less open to interpretation than it is; and whilst I did mention the propensity towards 1m-1m4f on the damside’s exploits last time, closer inspection of the dam She’s No Laugh Ben herself revealed her to be too slow even for 2m on the level.
Even then, Don’t Push It’s make-up still falls short stamina-wise on paper at least compared to, say, any pairing of Old Vic with a La Landiere-type 2m4f-3m chaser.
gc
Perhaps it might be better to say that Dont Push It was bred to be an old plodder on the flat.
The trouble is that while Dont Push It proved himself capable of running well over such an extreme distance, there are far more horses bred upon similar lines whose stamina fails. Tired horses are more likely to make mistakes and over those fences the result is far more likely to have serious consequences. I also feel that far too many jockeys ride like headless chickens in the race and their over exuberance in the early stages, while providing a massive spectacle, gives many of their mounts no chance of seeing out the trip.Regarding fatalities at the meeting I recall one year in the early 90s when the first two days saw a terrible number of deaths. The ground was quicker than usual and I think the Glenlivet saw 3 horses die, one particularly horrible fall at the last when the horse broke its neck as it hit the ground. I think those deaths served the following day’s National well as the jockeys were aware of how dangerous the ground was and showed the course more respect. As the course has been altered, I think the deference has diminished and last year’s carnage was due, in some part, to the reduced lack of respect by the jockeys for the still perilous nature of the course.
For me the ground was partly to blame last year and should have been watered more (if it was indeed at all). Surely the National shouldn’t be run on anything firmer than Good to soft. With our climate changing and warmer springs I would even think about bringing the meeting forward to February – god knows there is little else this month with all the focus being on Cheltenham. I have always felt that the National Hunt season is top heavy anyway with the three festivals so close together at the end of the season.
Eh, the US jumps season begins in March and ends in November, and the first and last meets of the season are in South Carolina. Better firm than frozen.
My point is that fast ground is a contributory factor, the faster they go the harder they fall and the more damage they do themselves. They wouldn’t run the race on frozen ground would they Miss W!
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
I think the points about excess speed are probably very valid.
I’ve run a probably-very-flawed-but-what-the-hell experiment by running the 1974 and 2011 races side by side. Both on good ground. The class of 2011 were at the water by the time the class of 1974 were at the Chair.
I them compared 2011 with 2000. The 2000 runners are midway between Chair and water when the 2011 runners are at the Chair.
Such comparisons may be unfair due to course changes. It probably all means nothing. But I enjoyed doing it!
It is true the handicapper’s messing around does give a slight advantage to top weights and I am also against it. But to say it has already resulted in three wins of 11-0, 11-5 and 11-0 is so clearly wrong. It made no difference to the results.
In the original post Steeplechasing you said:
The fruit of this preferential seed-sowing seems to be blooming: no winner in the past three years has carried under 11 stones – the last time that three-in-a-row weight stat happened was in the mid 1950s.
Mon Mome (11-0) by 12 lengths from Comply Or Die (11-6). Cerium (10-5) in 5th the first home of the below 11 stone group home some 18.5 lengths behind the winner.
Don’t Push It (11-5) by 5 lengths from Black Apalache who also carried more than 11 stones (11-6). With the first home of the lesser weights State Of Play (10-11) some 25 lengths behind the winner.
Ballabriggs (11-0) by 2.25 lengths from Oscar Time (10-9).
Mon Mome and Ballabriggs’ handicap marks were not brought down by the handicapper. Their handicap marks in relation to who followed them home was not affected by the handicappers muddling.
I don’t know if Don’t Push It was dropped any more than Black Apalache (doubt it) but the fact is both finished 20 lengths in front of State Of Play. So again the handicapper’s muddling did not prevent the lower weights from winning.
The time may well come when the winner is effected, but that has NOT YET been the case. To suggest it has is clearly wrong.
To say this is/has resulted in the connections of lesser weights not entering/running is (imo) crazy.
Increase in quality of the National can only be a good thing.
Value Is EverythingHere’s a quote from RP analysis of 2011 race:
The trend for winners of the Grand National to be rated in the high-130s to low-140s had failed to stand up in the two previous runnings, with Don´t Push It last year being the highest-rated winner this century and carrying more weight than any other winner since Grittar in 1982. The sequence of higher rated winners was extended further in a similar standard of race, with just four runners rated below 140.
Higher weights are more likely to win these days because there is far more of them than there used to be.
In the last 26 runnings there’s been 1000 runners.
18% (180 runners) have carried 11-0 or more.
82% (820) carried less than 11-0.
19.2% (5 from 26) of winners carried 11-0+.
80.8% (21 from 26) carried less than 11-0.
25% of places (26 out 104) carried 11-0+.
75% of places (78 out of 104) carried less than 11-0."But"! I hear you shout, "three wins and an awful lot of placed efforts have come in the last few years". Yes, they have, but that is only to be expected. It’s only recently so many good horses have taken part.
102 (56.67%) of the 180 runners to carry 11-0+ in those 26 years have come in the last 8 years.
From 1985 to 1999 (incl) ony two runnings had more than 4 horses to carry 11-0 or more.
The last four runnings of the National have had 18, 16, 19 and 10 (last year) runners (63 in all). So 35% of runners to carry 11-0+ since 1985 (inclusive) have come in the last 4 years.Value Is EverythingAs I mentioned in my follow up post,If you had a horse 5lbs to 7lbs below Gold Cup class, wouldn’t you be tempted to miss Cheltenham for Aintree and go there with a fresh well-treated horse for twice the winner’s prize money?
I would.
No I wouldn’t. Cheltenham Gold Cup is the Blue Riband. It would only take the best horse to run a few pounds below form and yours to improve a few pounds to win the Gold Cup! What I’d do is have Cheltenham as the main target and go to Aintree if the horse is A1 afterwards.
Would you pay £5k to run your 140/150 rated horse in the National knowing that the class horses will get big favours from the handicapper?
I wouldn’t.
Yes I would. It’s not exactly "big favours" Steeplechasing, it hasn’t resulted in a change of winner yet. Although I agree, it should not happen. It’s not as big a disadvantage in the Aintree National as it would be in a normal Park course race. Jumping ability, stamina and prominent running much more important than a few pounds. Not to run a horse with a chance of winning such a massive prize just because of a few pounds… the phrase "cutting off nose to spight face" comes to mind.
Attempting to turn a race into a ‘quality handicap’ is all very well but when horses who have the rare advantage of natural class are further assisted by the handicapper, there can, for my money, only be one long-term outcome – the realisation by connections that the discrimination level, allied to cost of entry, and, perhaps, risk of injury, makes it no longer worthwhile running.
In general, the better quality horses are better at physically jumping the obstacles too. Another plus.
"Natural class" is not a "rare advantage" in a handicap. The weights counter the class issue, until the handicaper allows them in a bit lighter. Once there’s been a top weight (or two) to win it, I’d expect the handicapper will no longer treat top weights as a special case. As I say Steeple, think you’re exaggerating the advantage and is unlikely to stop lower weights running…
Indeed, some lesser weights recieve an advantage from the status quo. Those who would’ve been "out of the weights" had the top weight carried his "Official rating" now get "in the weights". It does not help them against the top weights themselves, but it does help them recieve weight from those just in front of their own OR, instead of carrying the same (minimum bottom weight) 10-0.Aintree has no way back, imo, on the ‘safety conditions’ and their only chance of maintaining 30-40 runner fields is to abandon the handicap compression. Once they do that, quality will start dropping off and they will be back to square one.
The number going to post in April will give us a strong idea what the future holds.
2012 number of runners might (and only might) be down. But it won’t take trainers long to realise what they have to do to qualify a horse.
Running one who hasn’t got a horse in hell’s chance of staying the trip is now a thing of the past. Out and out 2 milers and even 2m4f horses can no longer take part. Those with 2 mile and 2m4f form who still might stay have the opportunity of running in 3m chases TO QUALIFY. It will also enable a few true stayers TO RUN instead of those guaranteed non stayers.
If it results in fewer runners then all well and good. More room (so less chance of falling/brought down) for those with a genuine chance of staying/winning.
To think changes will result in the race floundering is nonsense. If the race flounders it will be purely down to public opinion that the race is cruel, which leads to owners/trainers not wanting to run.
Value Is Everything102 (56.67%) of the 180 runners to carry 11-0+ in those 26 years have come in the last 8 years.
From 1985 to 1999 (incl) ony two runnings had more than 4 horses to carry 11-0 or more.
The last four runnings of the National have had 18, 16, 19 and 10 (last year) runners (63 in all). So 35% of runners to carry 11-0+ since 1985 (inclusive) have come in the last 4 years.The initial entry figures for the past 4 years are:
150
120
112
102This year, as you know, entry is 82:
Is the increasing quality, (reflected in the figures you mention) and, of course, the results these are bringing, bringing the reduced entry numbers? Doubtless the new race conditions – age, trip, placings have affected the entry numbers, but to what extent? Nobody can know.
The steady drop over the previous 4 years suggests to me that the favouring of better horses by the handicapper is discouraging connections of less talented horses. True, I cannot prove this nor can I say that the last 3 winners benefited directly from the compression.
I can only surmise on a basis that seems logical to me. If I own a potential GN runner, I know that P Smith will favour the top horses – that’s a fact. What I don’t know is how many he will favour (earlier quote indicated 14 entries for the 2011 race).
Here’s an extract from a recent blog by a Timeform handicapper:
No top weight has won the National since the great Red Rum claimed the second of his record-breaking three wins in 1974 and BHA senior jumps handicapper Phil Smith has expressed a desire to end that drought – he’s been quoted as saying he’ll be "overjoyed" if a top weight can win again. To facilitate this, Smith now adopts a policy of compressing the handicap by giving the very best horses a chance to race off a lower rating than would be the case over conventional fences (the top weight is usually allotted around 7 lb less than its BHA mark)
I’d count half a stone as ‘big favours’, wouldn’t you? As for being preferable to horses being out of the handicap, below the last ‘compressed’ horse, the effect is exactly the same on all remaining runners, though I take your point that as a group, the ‘non compressed’ are within their own handicap.
Example-wise, there is nothing in this year’s Gold Cup within 5lbs or 6lbs of Kauto Star and Long Run. Synchronised – top rated at 168 in 2012 GN, is jt4th top rated in the GC.
If I owned Synchronised I wouldn’t be too troubled about missing the possible prestige of the Gold Cup, given that I need to find 15lbs and 14lbs with the top-rated GC entries. My chances of collecting the first prize cheque of around £300,000 for the GC wouldn’t look attractive given that I could wait for the National and very possibly get a 7lb concession from the handicapper to add to my advanrtage of being, officially, the best horse in the race. If I needed a clincher it would be that I’d take home quarter of a million more than I would for winning the Gold Cup.
If you owned Synchronised you might prefer the prestige attached to the Gold Cup. I suspect that if you asked 100 imaginary Synchronised owners (or Weird Al at 164) the majority would take the GN option.
All we know for certain is that GN entries appear to be in steady decline while the number of ‘quality’ horses being entered is quickly rising. I very much doubt these trends are unrelated. If they are related, and they continue, where will the leveling off point come and what will bring about that point?
To think changes will result in the race floundering is nonsense.
If the race flounders it will be purely down to public opinion that the race is cruel, which leads to owners/trainers not wanting to run.
I suppose this depends on your definition of floundering. If 11st+ starts to feature regularly in the first half dozen finishers, I’ve little doubt that the numbers of runners will steadily fall away. Then it becomes a subjective judgement as to when the race loses its aura. Would a 30-runner GN still be seen as the World’s Greatest Race? 20-runner? 15? 10? (My view would be that owners/trainers are much more likely to be put off by the likelihood of losing than any effect of public opinion).
Still, optimism is always in plentiful supply in racing. And the fences are, of course, great equalisers, so perhaps numbers will be maintained. We shall see.
I’d count half a stone as ‘big favours’, wouldn’t you?
Would help me Steeplechasing if you’d tell me…
How much less each individual horse carried less than its OR in the last four years?Value Is EverythingI’d count half a stone as ‘big favours’, wouldn’t you?
Would help me Steeplechasing if you’d tell me…
How much less each individual horse carried less than its OR in the last four years?If you want that info, I’m afraid you’ll need to research it yourself. My original post was based on my own view of the ‘big picture’ of Aintree’s policy – nobody else that I could find had taken a look at the potential long term effects of it.
The steady drop in entries – 5 years in succession – is strong enough in my view to set warning lights flashing. I’ve been wrong enough times not to get too attached to my theories but I thought it worth offering this one for debate.
I don’t think it is worth putting in hours of research to back up. If time proves me wrong, that’s fine.
I’d count half a stone as ‘big favours’, wouldn’t you?
Was 7 lbs just a guess then?
Only I didn’t think it was as much as that.Value Is EverythingI’d count half a stone as ‘big favours’, wouldn’t you?
Was 7 lbs just a guess then?
Only I didn’t think it was as much as that.If you read my post again you’ll see that it was Timeform who reported it as 7lbs.
Is the increasing quality, (reflected in the figures you mention) and, of course, the results these are bringing, bringing the reduced entry numbers? Doubtless the new race conditions – age, trip, placings have affected the entry numbers, but to what extent? Nobody can know.
The steady drop over the previous 4 years suggests to me that the favouring of better horses by the handicapper is discouraging connections of less talented horses. True, I cannot prove this nor can I say that the last 3 winners benefited directly from the compression.
Better horses are being entered so owners with a horse rated 130 don’t want to waste their money entering him if he’s going to have to run 1/2 stone out of the handicap?
I really don’t see the issue here. Yes, the handicap is being compressed because better horses are running. I’d far rather see 10 good horses and 10 pretty good horses running for a million than see 25 pretty good horses and 15 no-hopers running for a million. Fewer chance of casualties, better class of winner, etc.
Who’s to say this year’s renewal will even have fewer than 40 runners? Perhaps there’ll be a maximum field and this thread will have been completely pointless. I think that’s a likely scenario.
Would help me Steeplechasing if you’d tell me…
How much less each individual horse carried less than its OR in the last four years?Two of the last 3 winners carried more than their OR, Mon Mome 3 and Ballabriggs 4 so both should have had under the "magic" 11 st and the other Don’t Push It was no different.
What a Friend over a stone and Silver By Nature 11 lbs well in were both unsighted last year.Despite Phil Smith’s "meddling" it can hardly be said that the horses he has "favoured" have been successful.
He has brought about a far more competitive race and of course all the horses in the weights.In theory as he is favouring certain horses you may think it would be a good betting proposition more these days, this is not the case for me at least.
Steeplechasing states it is one of his most profitable races, this was the case with me until after Earth Summits. Not backed a winner since and the only one I can say I could/should have backed was Hedgehunter. Good luck to anyone who can make money on the likes of Mon Mome, Red Marauder, Silver Birch and the host of Irish winners that have been hurdling.Don’t think the low entry is too much to worry about as far as the race is concerned, be surprised if there was much less than 40 lining up.
Just less no hopers who wouldn’t get a run not entered. A horse like Just So, who arguably with a better ride would have won from 25lbs wrong at weights probably wouldn’t be entered these days as they would know he wouldn’t get a run.A bigger concern to the race for me is the BHA and their constant tinkering with the race as well as the fiasco they allowed to happen in the race last year coupled with their farcical new whip rules and all the accompanying bad publicity for the sport that these brought on.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.