- This topic has 69 replies, 31 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
My enjoyment of the National has been tempered in recent years especially with certain sections of the media (in particular the BBC and a certain Tory attack dog that rhymes with "fail") more interested in Horse Deaths then the actual race.
Like other posters, it’s one of the few times when people at work want to talk about this little sport of ours, but rather uncomfortable if you are having to discuss horse deaths.
When growing up, National day was like Xmas day and from the start of Grandstand (apart from the Football Focus bit) I would not move from the telly, whereas now with two young children, life takes over the build up and I normally settle down just before the start (if lucky catching one or two of the undercard races) so that in itself lessens my "enjoyment".
While the National was always about thrills and spills, the last few years have been viewed with a large proportion of apprehention rather then pure excitement.
While last years race was more like watching say a Scottish National (horses jump and one by one the weaker ones drop away and pull up…) at least I didn’t find myself having to defend the race to family, friends and work colleagues and appreciate that the "watered down" National to be more acceptable in today’s Disneyfied world where Animals are seen by the average person as more "human" then humans.
How often do we enjoy something as much 20+ years after our first wonderous experience? With all the excitement of youth.
Deaths in races just weren’t talked about like they are today either.
Have had times when I’ve said "won’t bet again if they don’t do something to the fences", particularly Beechers. But every time something has been done.
Like David, I’d be for limiting numbers to 30, but it’s still the most anticipated race of the season. Appear to have got the hang of watering to produce softer (safer) going.
Last year went through the race marking up the very best jumpers.
THE
best two came second and third. So good jumpers still do well. Fences didn’t seem as difficult, but ground was lost with each mistake and eventually pulled up instead of immediately falling. That can only be a good thing imo; with one problem…
Last season trainers expected difficult(ish) fences; this time around connections believe fences are easier, encouraging them to risk poorer jumpers. SWC has said Long Run would not have been entered in the old National. So it remains to be seen whether running poorer jumpers over easier fences will mean more fallers and therefore fatalities than 2013 suggests.
Any death means enjoyment is curtailed, where as I did not often hear about fatalities when starting on my Racing journey. So did not have the impact on my enjoyment until later.
Though it helps coming up with the winner year after year at massive prices.
Value Is EverythingI used to get so excited during the build up in the 1960s and 1970s.
The week before looking in the newspapers and in my weekly Horse and Hound & my Dad’s The Field magazine, which had high quality pictures of some of the runners. I did notice injured horses, probably more due to the fact I rode myself & could spot a lame horse. I remember seeing one lying dead by the side of a fence and poor Grey Sombrero of course, breaking his shoulder.Fatalities were just respectfully mentioned on the nine o clock news. People were not as sentimental then, this "Disney" approach has developed over the last twenty years. I actually think The One Show featuring the runner (can’t remember his name, very sad that I can’t) really didn’t help. I remember saying to someone that it would be sod’s law he would be hurt & then all hell to pay. Sadly he was killed, though running loose not falling.
Last years race was very dull for me, none of the drama and excitement I remember. There is no way a race can be made safe, and if the going is fast and poorer jumpers take part, we could once again see carnage.
Sadly, for me at least, the spark has gone from the race. It should be a jumping test, this it clearly is no longer watching last years race.
While being a traditionalist I’m not averse to change but there have been far too many knee jerk changes in recent years. I felt cheated last year watching horses just go through holes in fences. The inner core of the fences needed changing but not to the pathetic substitute.
Even minor changes such as changing the distance, the start and the handicapper fiddling with the weights have irritated me, maybe I’m just getting old
Meanwhile two horses were killed at Wincanton and one at Market Rasen yesterday but I didn’t hear much about that anywhere.
Yes, the odd few times when Racing gets mentioned at work when we do the Sweepstake, plus I have to tip a few for my boss. 2012 I gave him the winner, 3rd and 4th but instead of backing Neptune Collonges, he marked Neptune Equester on the quickslip
Sadly, for me at least, the spark has gone from the race. It should be a jumping test, this it clearly is no longer watching last years race.
Is it
"clear"
Eddie?
Last year went through the race marking up the very best jumpers.
THE
best two came second and third. So good jumpers still do well. Fences didn’t seem as difficult, but ground was lost with each mistake and eventually pulled up instead of immediately falling.
It is still clearly
"a jumping test"
Eddie, we just don’t see as many horses fall.
Do punters/people need to see horses fall to (as the OP says) "enjoy the Grand National"?
Value Is EverythingGinger, I think it depends on how you define ‘jumping test’. It’s now a long way from the jumping test it was of old – you hit a fence too low, that solid core made sure you came down. Make the same jump now, and you’re long odds-on to stay on your feet.
It was obvious from last year’s races over the fences – Becher Chase included, that a horse can go through these fences on a trajectory not far off hurdling. Not an ideal way to jump them, but the only penalty now is dragging some spruce with you.
2013 was the year the race changed forever – and imo there was little option to make those changes for the race to survive long term.
Hopefully the positive hullabaloo surrounding it will remain. But, from a form viewpoint, it’s now a long distance handicap chase with fences that are arguably easier to negotiate than those on many park courses. What jockeys learn about how to ride this new course in the coning years will shape the race for the next generation.
My guess is that we will see a few more years of 66/1 chances winning more than their ‘fair share’. Once connections have sussed the race out, some sort of ‘form order’ will be restored. I strongly suspect that the race will become – for a while at least – what it used to be from a tactical viewpoint; hunt a circuit then start racing.
We will see.
So long as the ground is kept as soft as the fences, all should be fine from a welfare viewpoint.
…hunt a circuit then start racing.
There’s a reason why jockeys used to do that: the fences sorted out the poor jumpers early on. You’d ride the first circuit to avoid the fallers and then start racing in earnest from Bechers the second time around.
Nowadays, it’s just hell for leather from the off.
There’s a reason why jockeys used to do that: the fences sorted out the poor jumpers early on. You’d ride the first circuit to avoid the fallers and then start racing in earnest from Bechers the second time around.
Nowadays, it’s just hell for leather from the off.
That’s a very good point and may have a leaning on why fatalities sharply spiked when the fences were softened the first time.
I still fear that there will be fatal injuries, due to the speed. there is also a possibility of horses being unsighted by all that flying spruce and plastic.
What course do posters consider has the stiffest fences now?
I nearly voted "less than previously", and if you’d told me even a couple of years ago, that I’d even consider that option, then I’d have laughed at you. For someone the wrong side of 30, I never lost the obsession I had as a kid, and was, as Katie stated, like a kid at Christmas. To be honest, it was the focal point of my year. Sad as that may be.
Things changed though after the 2011 race though, and after last years renewal, then you could argue that The Grand National, as we knew it, has gone anyway. Again, I’d agree with Katie, who said it was more like watching The Scottish National last year. Things had to change though I suppose, and as long as they don’t tamper with it anymore, then I’ll be happy. Much like Eddie Case said, the changes irritated me, but I’ve come to accept them……..reluctantly. As long as there’s a field of 40, then it should retain all of the appeal it has as a spectacle, and despite the comparatively incident free race of last year, it still maintained that sense of occasion.
I was completely against any of these changes until the last few years, but the severe modification of Bechers was basically unavoidable, and again, any suggestion of me supporting a move like that only a few years back, would have been met with ridicule. It was becoming more trouble than it was worth, and in this day and age, it couldn’t really survive in it’s previous guise.
I could never really trust those in charge to resolve the matter. Their recommendations made after 1998, resulted in the rate of fatalities increasing (albeit slightly), and their implementation of the rule where a horse has finished at least 4th in a chase over 3 miles, is "slightly flawed", to say the least. Quite how that will result in fewer fatalities, is beyond me. They have, however, at least recognised that having, what are basically 2 and a half milers blazing a trail, was not the way ahead, and have recognised that speed may indeed be a factor. It’s a start. It seems to me that, as obvious as it may seem, that going off like scalded cats, on spring ground, over fences which were increasingly easier to negotiate, was a recipe for disaster.
What to do though? I’d disagree with reducing the field size to 30. It certainly
would
reduce the spectacle, and I hope I never see a repeat of the non event of 1996, when 27 turned up. It was a National to forget. Also, the size of the field has had no bearing on any of the fatalities in any National in recent times, and it certainly hasn’t improved the fatality rate in The Topham, or The Foxhunters which have a safety limit of 30.
I don’t have all the answers, but slowing the field down should be a priority, and whether that’s through, the (highly unlikely) stiffening of the fences, or keeping the going on the soft side, whatever they do in this respect, I’d support it.
I’ll still have the buzz in the lead up to this years race, and hopefully future renewals, but there’s always the worry that, in the light of further, and sadly, inevitable fatalities, then they’ll sanitize it even more. As Corm says, the butterflies in the stomach will still be there, when they circle at the start. There’s nothing like those few moments, and I hope we enjoy it for a good few years to come.
…hunt a circuit then start racing.
There’s a reason why jockeys used to do that: the fences sorted out the poor jumpers early on. You’d ride the first circuit to avoid the fallers and then start racing in earnest from Bechers the second time around.
Nowadays, it’s just hell for leather from the off.
I think it’s the hell for leather aspect that will persuade some jocks to lie back and save energy
Ginger, I think it depends on how you define ‘jumping test’. It’s now a long way from the jumping test it was of old – you hit a fence too low, that solid core made sure you came down. Make the same jump now, and you’re long odds-on to stay on your feet.
It was obvious from last year’s races over the fences – Becher Chase included, that a horse can go through these fences on a trajectory not far off hurdling. Not an ideal way to jump them, but the
only penalty
now is dragging some spruce with you.
If we are talking about the
result
; just because there are fewer fallers does not mean the "jumping test" is significantly reduced.
Horses that hit a fence low down sometimes stay on their feet Joe, but you are wrong, the
"penalty"
is
immense
. It
loses energy
and even if able to continue for a while is eventually pulled up. I’d much rather see that than a dead racehorse.
Like I said, the two best jumpers in the whole field going in to last year’s race finished 2nd and 3rd. Clean and acurate jumping played a big part in the
result
of the 2013 renewal, just as it has in every Grand National. The winner didn’t jump badly at all, in fact Timeform’s write up states "jumped well in main", making only one error.
There is absolutely no evidence to suggest jumping ability had significantly less influence on the 2013
result
than it always had. It just means (if quality of jumper is maintained) fewer horses are likely to fall/die.
However, will it be maintained? Problem comes where connections (wrongly imo) now believe poor jumpers can win the National, which may lead to a reduction in overall jumping ability of the field/more fatalities.
Value Is Everything2013 was the year the race changed forever – and imo there was little option to make those changes for the race to survive long term.
Hopefully the positive hullabaloo surrounding it will remain. But,
from a form viewpoint
, it’s now a long distance handicap chase with fences that are arguably easier to negotiate than those on many park courses. What jockeys learn about how to ride this new course in the coning years will shape the race for the next generation.
My guess is that we will see a few more years of 66/1 chances winning more than their ‘fair share’. Once connections have sussed the race out, some sort of
‘form order’
will be restored. I strongly suspect that the race will become – for a while at least – what it used to be from a tactical viewpoint; hunt a circuit then start racing.
We will see.
So long as the ground is kept as soft as the fences, all should be fine from a welfare viewpoint.
Aurora’s Encore’s win may have been 66/1 Joe, but
"from a form viewpoint"
it had the form to win. Ran off a mark 6 lbs lower than he did when short head second in 2012 Scottish National. Punters only needed to ignore his runs in between. Something that may sound strange to do, but Aurora’s Encore’s best has always been reserved for the Spring. Did not need to run to the Ayr form to win at Aintree.
Just as Neptune Collonges had the "form" to win the previous year. With his recent best effort at the longest trip he’d run over. Like a lot of older horses, needed a stronger test of stamina than they used to to produce their very best. Had a far greater form chance than betting suggested. Again, did not need to improve his form to win.
There is no sense of fluke about the last two winners. The
"form order"
has been maintained in both 2012 and 2013.
From a tactical viewpoint, the less formidable fences are, the faster they will need to go; so can’t see them
"hunting"
the first circuit.
Value Is EverythingGinger, that’s fair comment on the ‘jumping test’ aspect. There will of course be some penalty from a low jump and the result of dragging spruce off etc, but I’d rather see one I backed hit an Aintree fence low than a fence on many other courses. There will be plenty of horses going through the tops of these fences, dislodging spruce who will not attract an error comment in any formbook. There is no obvious momentum loss as there would be on park courses.
As to Aurora’s Encore, well I backed the horse for a small amount (among 8 others). In NC’s famous finish, unfortunately I had one of my bigger bets on Sunnyhillboy. Again, I accept that the form was somewhere in the book, but if you pursue that argument, where do you draw the line? Without even checking back I’d say that at least 50% of the runners in every National had ‘the form in the book’ at some point. Mon Mome anybody?
Finally, on the hunting round, I needn’t tell you that a field of 40 horses cannot go hell for leather for almost four and a half miles. That won’t stop many of them trying, and it’s the ballsy jockeys who decide to switch off and see what happens that will bring changes in the way the race is run. Instead of having to pick their way through fallers and unseats, the patient riders will just be passing all the pulled-ups who couldn’t handle the pace. I’m not saying it will be this year or next, but as jockeys adjust, I think it will come.
With several top jockeys injured might there be a problem with inexperience this year [although I did once read that the jockey was the least important aspect of picking the winner;maybe this year it will be important]?
As to Aurora’s Encore, well I backed the horse for a small amount (among 8 others). In NC’s famous finish, unfortunately I had one of my bigger bets on Sunnyhillboy. Again, I accept that the form was somewhere in the book, but if you pursue that argument, where do you draw the line? Without even checking back I’d say that at least 50% of the runners in every National had ‘the form in the book’ at some point. Mon Mome anybody?
Neptune Collonges form to win the National wasn’t just "somewhere in the book" Joe, it was on his start immediately before running in the National, at Haydock. A 1/4 length 2nd to Giles Cross, 11 lengths in front of the 3rd Le Beau Bai; off a mark of 159. NC’s Timeform performance rating for Aintree is 2 lbs inferior to Haydock. If memory serves I rated the horse as something like a 16/1 shot on the day.
Mon Mome returned to form out of the blue. Had been in good form earlier in the year, winning at Cheltenham over 3m1f110y on soft at Cheltenham. Previous form seemed to suggest a real stayer (best effort prior to Cheltenham 2nd in 06 Welsh National), so there were reasons why he should show improvement on that 3m1f form. However, the apparent strange result can be put down to a highly unusual pace. When the two front runners fell at second Beechers nothing wanted to go on and they all grouped up, even those once well behind were in with a chance crossing the Melling Road. Time between Beechers and "two out" being significantly slower than the first circuit.
Excactly, most horses have the "form to win" somewhere in their past. Also, so many outsiders run in the National that their combined odds mean the chances of an outsider winning is a fairly good one. Indeed, if boxing all outsiders together their combined chance would be greater than the favourite.
My guess is that we will see a few more years of 66/1 chances winning more than their ‘fair share’. Once connections have sussed the race out, some sort of ‘form order’ will be restored.
Just because outsiders won the last two races does not mean it has anything to do with "improvements" made to the fences.
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.