- This topic has 27 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
It seems the ground was very important to Ace Impact, and, in a negative way, a few of the losers. I saw a very experienced punter and good judge (Terry Norman) on twitter saying ‘this is why the ground is the most important thing in racing’. I’m far from convinced this is true, though have no data to back that up.
I think most horses will react unusually – positive or negative – to extremes of ground, but in the range of good to firm to soft, I suspect most horses run to within four or five pounds of their median rating (all else being equal). Perhaps we notice much more the big names who reportedly need a certain surface (Trueshan anyone?) and extrapolate that way too much. There will be a way of getting data on this but I wondered what your thoughts were before I set about doing that?
It makes a big difference
After making a decision on a horses ability/potential ability
The first thing I check is whether the horse will handle the likely ground
Even if it only make 3 or 4lb difference that’s the difference between winning and finishing 3rd
There are a number of factors that can decide a horse race and ground suitability is one of them.
I wrote on the big race thread Sumo Sam would come last if there was any good in the going
its different for all horses but her knee action is so high that if it was any higher it would knock the jockey out the saddleBlackbeard to conquer the World
Going is imo the most important aspect of form, Joe. That said, simply acting on the ground maybe important but is often something overstated by the market. Rather than “acting” on it, for me the emphasis it has on speed and stamina is often the underestimated thing in the market.
Also, I’d say the difference of “four or five pounds” is quite a lot.
Some will need “firm” to be in the title, some a sound surface is needed (acting on good too). Some will act on an easy surface – good through to soft but not necessarily heavy. Others will want soft or heavy. etc etc. There are so many possibilities but yes, probably the largest group is those acting on good-firm through to good-soft (not “soft” as although not an “extreme” it is significantly different to good-firm). For many others good-soft or good-firm may as well be an extreme, making a massive difference. Pointed toe action that’s put up a career best on good-firm may well not be as effective on good, let alone good-soft. Opposite applies for a markedly round action. Many even without a significant action will be different enough between good-firm and good-soft to make the difference between winning and losing.
Worth remembering an official going report is only one person’s opinion of the the ground conditions and he / she is basically marking their own homework – ie how close they’ve got to the ideal.
Longchamp today was widely seen as firmer than the official “good-soft”, I’d say somewhere between true good and good-firm. Ace Impact’s form was all officially on good, heavy or good-soft. However, he did not have a markedly round action and anyway, the Prix Du Jockey Club victory (1m2f) on officially “good” going beat Racing Post Standard by more than today’s race… suggesting he had form on similar ground. Unfortunately odds still weren’t big enough for me to back him today, but for me he had a much better chance on a sound surface at today’s trip than would’ve been the case on soft. Placing less emphasis on Ace Impact’s stamina and more on speed – his strength at the distance. ie May not be able to replicate the standard of performance in a truer run race on true good-soft ground.
Value Is EverythingI agree with pretty much everything that has been said. In a game where fine margins can make the difference, everything needs to be taken into account. If a horse has winning form on only good and good to firm ground, I would be reluctant to back it on good to soft.
“For me he (Ace Impact) had a much better chance on a sound surface at today’s trip than would’ve been the case on soft.”
Agree. I backed him after Chantilly because he was impressive and he was a double figure price but I did speculate about his ability to reproduce that form on the likely soft ground at Longchamp on the Arc thread. When I saw the ground was on the fast side, I was confident he would win – so much so that I backed him again. I would not have done that on the usual Arc ground.
“Worth remembering an official going report is only one person’s opinion of the the ground conditions”.
This is a key issue. Are going descriptions accurate?
I remember going to Aintree in November a few years ago. The ground was described as “good to soft”. I backed a few horses before racing which I thought would be suited by the ground and did not want it too deep.
The first race saw the horses having to work really hard with several finishing very tired. A few minutes later, there was an announcement changing the going description to “soft”. No rain had fallen that morning or during the race.
It is clear to me the going description was inaccurate. I doubt I would have backed any of my selections if the description had been
soft. Fortunately one still won and one was placed which meant it was not a disaster but it is very unsatisfactory when clerks issue going descriptions that are wrong.Tbh I find the OP a somewhat bizarre question for such an experienced punter to be asking.
Still, if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em, so look out for forthcoming thread titles from me like: “Does the distance of the race make a difference?” “Does it matter whether it’s a Jumps or a Flat race?” “Why don’t claimers get more rides in Classics? – after all, they’re all just people riding horses” and “Does a horse actually need four functioning legs to win a horse race?”
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"“Tbh I find the OP a somewhat bizarre question for such an experienced punter to be asking.”
Had I been in your position there, Ian, it would very much have made me stop and think why such an experienced punter would believe that. As with everything in life, people’s established beliefs lead to natural cherry picking of what they hear and read. A couple of others here have, understandably gone that way too – Oh, he doesn’t think the ground is important!’
Off course it’s important, but not for nearly as many horses as people think. The standouts at the very top end, like Ace Impact, tend to be nominated by those who claim going is first and foremost, and I think this is fed to a large extent by the fact that superb conformation/action is much more likely to be found in top class thoroughbreds. Such conformation demands the perfect, sound surface to work at its best.
Frankel tracked so straight I loved watching him just for that. He was made for top of the ground in executing the mechanics of the game, but was so good he could grind it out in ground he hated. Nashwan was another glorious mover.
If you look on that grade of thoroughbred as, say, a £20,000 indoor track bike, it’ll be a rare one who can cope with a mountain bike trail. But given all the conformation flaws – and there are many – throughout the general racehorse population, they’d cope with mountain bike trails much better than the elite, though would get lapped by the elite in the latter’s perfect conditions.
Conformation and the way each horse adapts to it drives its going requirements. Were every horse built the same, going would not matter at all outside of the equine psychology of racing. Which brings me to the often-quoted high action element. As I understand it from a veterinary viewpoint, horses with a high action ought to generally favour soft ground, but only because it softens the impact on limbs which drive downwards rather than reach forwards. I’ve seen quite a few high actioned horses run very well on top of the ground, not so many the other way around, but just to say that it is, in my experience, not a given for high actioned horses to love soft.
“I’ve seen quite a few high actioned horses run very well on top of the ground, not so many the other way around, but just to say that it is, in my experience, not a given for high actioned horses to love soft”.
————————–
Of course Joe – over the years – quite a few high / round actioned horses have run well on top-of-the-ground. Point is a large majority of them don’t. Therefore – unless form shows it’s proven to be equally effective on the surface – when a horse has a round action running on top-of-the-ground (eg the 4/1 Derby favourite Arrest, who also started 3/1 at Royal Ascot on good-firm and disappointed) it has to be allowed for in the price a punter is willing to take (backing or laying)… And the opposite goes for pointed toe horses on a soft surface. eg Mostahdaf has won on a soft surface in the past; but I wouldn’t expect him to reproduce his International form on it.
Value Is Everything“horses with a high action ought to generally favour soft ground, but only because it softens the impact on limbs which drive downwards rather than reach forwards”.
———————–
I doubt that is the only reason, Joe.
Suspect the theory goes:
Those with a flowing pointed action tend to float across top-of-the-ground whereas a round action is more cumbersome in such conditions.
A round action easier to pull out of soft going where a pointed toe action is less effective.
…And this makes racing less enjoyable for those with the wrong action and therefore don’t show their form. Maybe some just love racing and that is why they’re not becoming to the theory.
But we do not need to fully understand the true reasons, just to know it happens is enough.
I had an american video which also talked about a good grass stride compared to a good dirt stride.
Have you never gone through a Timeform Racehorses book and seen the myriad of going requirements?
Value Is EverythingSpot on, Ginger. I raised the point because I see increasingly, especially on ITV, assertions that ‘he has a high action, wait and back him on soft ground.’ I wanted to point out the vet’s reasoning to allay thoughts that somehow, nobody quite knows why, high actioned horses go better on soft ground. It’s a simple, mechanical explanation. The whole subject reminds me of when I was a kid and you’d hear adults say of some children, ‘Ooh, he has long fingers. He’ll make an excellent pianist.’
As I said in my first post Joe:
As far as acting on the ground is concerned: Although it is obviously important it is often allowed for enough in the market. Therefore less of a betting angle for me than its effect (together with pace and distance) on speed and stamina.
It may stay the trip on a firmer surface.
It may act on the going at a lesser trip.
But does it stay the trip on the going given the likely pace and positioning?It may be effective at the trip on a soft surface.
It may act on the good-firm going at a greater trip.
But will it have enough speed at the shorter trip on a good-firm surface given the likely pace and positioning?There’s also the fact that a horse which has run several times establishes a pattern and so afterwards probably does not run many times in conditions connections believe it’s not effective at. So in that respect you’d be right, goings are usually not far off its ideal. But not far off can often be far enough off if you get what I mean.
Value Is EverythingJoe, thank you for taking the time and trouble to write me such a detailed response, especially as I deployed quite a bit of my trademark attempted sarcastic humour when I initially replied.
As usual, you displayed the quality to rise above that and instead took my posting at face value – maximum respect for that.
I didn’t actually assume you don’t think the going is important.
I was just a bit surprised that you appeared to have reached veteran stage (same as me!) without as yet having long since quantified the going’s importance on different occasions in different scenarios.
Maybe I am too set in my ways, whereas you remind receptive to new thinking – this would be your strength and my weakness.
But in point of fact I do remain open to new thinking, when, that is, the thinking actually is new, and not merely a rehash of something that was before the time of whichever young upstart on the scene is postulating it, which is all too often the case to be honest.
Anyway, you have provoked a discussion and I hope you are getting what you sought out of the thread.
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"I think it’s reasonable to suggest it does matter.
But what is the evidence, how to you measure it and how do you quantify the effect on any given horse in a meaningful way so you can price it in?
Cormack
Pretty much all that needs saying has been said. The only thing which I
think might get taken into the equation is a ground condition of which
there is no pre race ground identification, and that is tacky. Soft ground
or g/s you pretty much know what you get and can sift through them for something
which might have their ultimate going condition. The only time you generally
hear about “tacky” is when a jockey getting interviewed after a race says such
as “it’s riding tacky”. If it’s tacky it can take a bit out of a horse just
getting through it and those who generally just get the distance would likely
be at a disadvantage. Perhaps you might fancy an outsider who is big on stamina
but not as classy as the fancied horses. Worth a few quid if the ground comes
up that way.I like having a look at
a) going
b) trip/track
c) trainer form and trainer at that specific trackIf you have a 2-year old running first time out, the current trainer form and his record with 2-year olds would be the first thing to look into.
But, if you’re talking about a proven performer who has run at least in 1-2 seasons, then the going would be the first aspect of looking at this form.“But what is the evidence, how do you measure it and how do you quantify the effect on any given horse in a meaningful way so you can price it in?”
————————
Same way a bookies odds-compiler does.
Comes with experience and being able to evaluate everything about the horse into chance. Same as any other aspect of form.As your question implies David, it should not be a case of making a definite, yes the horse will act on the ground or no he won’t… In reality it is impossible to make such a definite decision. However, it is possible to make a decision on how likely it is and then including that with other aspects of form in the odds you’re willing to take. Impossible to quantify just how much going makes up of a horse’s chance because every horse is different. Sometimes the going will make up a large part of the percentage chance I’ll give to a particular horse, sometimes it will be little. Depending on how important I believe each aspect of form is to each individual, negatives and positives… And as I said earlier, for me it’s as much about how the going relates to the speed and stamina a horse has for the trip, likely pace and positioning… as much as will it act on the ground.
With a horse who has raced on the going before I’ll look at whether it ran to its best. If not by how far below form and was there a more obvious excuse / reason for not running to its best than the ground. If a horse has run to form on both Good-soft and heavy you can be certain it will act on soft. In Britain, if it has run numerous times in a long hot summer and not yet run on going with “firm” in the title then Alarm Bells, Alarm Bells!
Even with a horse who has not run on the ground before it is not that nothing is known. There’s the horse’s record on goings near to the prevailing surface. How different the ground is compared to races the horse has shown its form in. There’s its action if known. If not known and you’re at the track you can watch the horse go to post. Then there’s sire, dam, siblings and (less so) dam’s sire’s records on the surface…
In Joe’s defence, the nearer to good going it is, the more likely the average horse is of acting on it.
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.