- This topic has 27 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Thanks, Ian. I’m pretty hopeless at recognizing sarcasm/irony unless it is blatant. I used to take everything literally and had to kind of self educate myself out of that. Had such tests been available when I was a kid, I think I would have been some way along the autism spectrum. Anyway, thanks for expanding on your post.
Ginger, thanks again for going a bit deeper in your thoughts. I am not so sure that a horse might be ore likely to stay a trip on firm ground because of the faster pace you get on such ground, but these tiny factors are what make racing such an enchanting pastime.
And from a punting viewpoint, I doubt there is any major edge in going against the herd where ground is concerned, this was just more of a talking point for me. Having said that, if a horse has won its first three races, say, on good ground and it tries to add another on soft ground. The market would price in that question mark, whereas I’d always be happy to back the horse, believing it much more likely it will act than many punters would.
And lest I give the impression that I just ignore the going, not at all. When starting on any race I’m going to bet in, the first thing I do is sort each runner using its Racing Post form. I sort the rprs first from best to worst then check them against ground, trip and headgear (sometimes jockey too). If there is a big swing under any of those headings, it’ll make a significant difference to how I proceed.
This process quickly and easily highlights ground dependent horses, but it is experience of this process that has left me with the general impression that to the majority of racehorses, the going is not a big factor. To those affected by it, it’s a huge factor and one the punter must immediately heed, but there simply are not as many such creatures as the general racing ‘ambient knowledge’ would have you believe.
“Ginger, thanks again for going a bit deeper in your thoughts. I am not so sure that a horse might be more likely to stay a trip on firm ground because of the faster pace you get on such ground, but these tiny factors are what make racing such an enchanting pastime”.
————————-
“Tiny factors”. Tiny? That’s MASSIVE!
Wow! You do surprise me Joe.
Have you never seen how the Grand National is massively transformed by ground conditions?
When the going is fast then – despite the faster pace – horses recognised as out and out stayers have much less chance. In such conditions and even on good-soft I am more inclined towards 3m2f types who’ve either also proven themselves over further or may well stay further. Rather than those that need 3m4f+ to show their bests
Whereas in heavy conditions out and out stayers are favoured and few horses stay the trip… and as a result fewer finish.If looking at race times: Despite the much shorter distance, when the going is heavy at (admittedly undulating) Chepstow for the Welsh National in order to stay the trip jockeys often go at a slower speed than in Good ground (admittedly flat) Aintree Grand Nationals. ie Slower the ground the more stamina is required. Or to put it another way, the firmer the ground the more speed is required.
Yes, pace can alter whether a horse stays the trip because the likely faster pace has some affect on stamina, but does not make up for the going when it comes to a sound surface compared to soft.
Put it this way, if a human was to run a race, which would require more stamina?A) Running on a road.
B) Running the same distance through a bog.
Value Is EverythingYep, tiny was overdoing it. What I meant was that in maybe 90% of the races you highlight for a potential stayer getting the trip, yes, of course the chance is much greater than it would be on heavy ground. But this assumes that jockeys will ride a ‘sensible’ race, and that does not always happen. Maybe ten percent of the time – certainly bigger than ‘tiny’ – they will go too fast and your tyro stayer will have very little chance of lasting it out.
What is stamina? How would you define it? People think of 12f + on the flat, but I remember a horse from the sixties, Sica Dan, who was famous for being the fastest racehorse perhaps in Europe, but only for four furlongs. He could never see out five. A big lesson in there, I think, when trying to define stamina.
Shouldn’t the horse’s fitness be the first thing a punter should consider? How do you define that?
A horse being at 70%, 90% or 100%, how do you measure that?“What is stamina? How would you define it? People think of 12f + on the flat, but I remember a horse from the sixties, Sica Dan, who was famous for being the fastest racehorse perhaps in Europe, but only for four furlongs. He could never see out five. A big lesson in there, I think, when trying to define stamina”.
——————–
Yes, stamina is all relative to the race distance concerned, Joe.
Sica Dan is a bit before my time. I do remember as a teenager before I left school in the early 80’s watching a Bill O’Gorman horse I loved called Brondesbury who – if memory serves – barely got home over a 5f. Yes, even at 5f a horse has a bit of stamina, otherwise it would not get home over 5f.
It does not matter what the distance of the two races are in my example as long as they are “the same distance”, the question is which would require more stamina; running on a road or bog?.A firm surface or extremely soft.
Or if you prefer: If Sica Dan ran at 5f, what type of going would give it the best chance of getting home?
A) Firm
Or
B) Extremely HeavyValue Is EverythingThe reason I used the Grand National as an example was not about the extreme distance.
It was because although the going makes a difference whatever the race distance… I thought at the Grand National distance the difference in stamina required between a good ground race and a heavy ground race is much easier to distinguish by the eye.
Value Is Everything“A horse being at 70%, 90% or 100%, how do you measure that”?
————–
Impossible Ruby. One trainer’s 70% is another trainer’s 90%.
With first time out horses or after a break there are things a punter can look at as a guide to how fit a horse is. Knowing whether the trainer is naturally optimistic or pessimistic can help in judging his / her comments.
You can also look at the trainer’s first time out strike rate both overall and split by age groups… And the horse’s record both first time out in the season and after a long break.
The trainer’s strike rate at that time of year and current strike rate (eg over the last two weeks) can also provide valuable clues. I’d use a shorter space of time for trainers with a lot of runners and a longer time span if fewer. Also taking into account the trainer’s recent runners (how likely they were of running well judged primarily on price) and how many have (probably) run well or to form; including running well at reasonable odds without necessarily winning. eg a horse between Evens and 2/1 who’s finished a close second has probably run somewhere near its form. Ditto a 33/1 shot finishing 4 lengths fourth of 20, and all the other things between. The percentage of horses that have run well is a guide to how fit the first time out / after a break stable companion will be too.
However, if it’s coming back from injury it’s best to be very cautious in your assessment. If going racing you could see whether the horse is fit or burly, well or poorly muscled up and shiny or dull in coat. Even if finding it “value” I’d be inclined to only have a saver and let something else be the main bet.
Value Is EverythingGreat explanations, Ginge which make a lot of sense to me. However, sometimes you tend to forget every single aspect you’ve explained. Thanks for those reminders.
“Shouldn’t the horse’s fitness be the first thing a punter should consider?”
Lack of fitness (and recent jumping practice) matters more on soft ground I think, especially if the horse’s wind is at all suspect, which is why I backed Easy Game in the PwC chase against Envoi Allen. Especially with the knowledge that Easy Game likely had the race as a major target whereas Envoi didn’t..and Envoi is highly enough rated/regarded to be tenderly cotton woolled home if it looked like turning into a proper muck and nettles fistfight.
So stamina, as we use it, can only refer to a race run under what we would term acceptable conditions: the ground, weight carried, and, crucially, all jockeys adhering pretty much to the ‘standard’ pace used in these events. After all, every race is a challenge to find out which horse has been ridden to have used up its ‘race allocation’ of 100% right at the time it passes the post.
A race where ‘standard’ pace is not observed could result in extremes – a 7f horse barely lasting 6, or a miler winning at 12f. Is there an argument then for every jockey to set out with the sole strategy of running down that 100% fuel gauge to hit empty on the line?
Not completely sure I’ve understood your last post, Joe; but I’ll give it a go:
Yes, the pace of a race has some effect on the amount of stamina needed… And yes that can be even more so if the race is run overly fast or funeral in the early stages. But when it comes to the amount of stamina needed it can clearly be seen by race results that pace seldom (only in extreme pace situations) makes up for the going.
Yes, if wanting to go to the very extreme; a 7f horse running over 6f will not last the trip if he’s run too fast early… And a miler could in theory win a very slowly run 12f event… Those are as you say “extremes”. Does not change the fact that in the vast vast majority of cases the softer the ground is the more stamina is needed.
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.