- This topic has 29 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Ascot have managed to persuade the Pattern committee to upgrade the King’s Stand Stakes to Group 1 again, after twenty years of it being run as a Group 2.
The same committee have also approved the switch of the Temple Stakes from Sandown to Haydock. Since I can’t think of any racing related reason for the move, presumably it’s a pat on the back for the Haydock management for their enlightened decision to cut back on NH racing and launch weekly attempts on the UK allcomers lager consumption record during the summer.
AP
Didn’t Epsom have the Temple Stakes for a year or two? Whatever, the quality of Sandown flat racing is diluted further. They didn’t have all that many decent flat races for a grade 1 track, and what they had are all between the Whitfred and the Eclipse. Unless there any later in the year I’ve forgotten?
There was that nice Henry whatisface stayers race that used to be run on the May bank holiday too. A decent card and always a decent crwod shifted to a Thursday night in a failed attempt to get the boozers in.
And it failed. The crowd for it last year was miserable. Possibly the lowest crowd ever for group races?
The place is run by idiots
Ravel,
Ah yes, the one running at Epsom that produced one of the funniest races of the decade. A flag start for a 5F Group race, with half the field hopelessly left as none of the jockeys could hear what the starter was saying over the noise of the Ch4 helicopter.
AP
Just out of interest Alan, do you think it is a backward step to have upgraded the King’s Stand?
With just the Nunthorpe and the Abbaye available as G1 options for genuine 5f horses, it seems fair enough to me.
The Temple moving to Haydock is much more difficult to stomach!
Smithy,
Looks the right decision to me for the King’s Stand – now that it’s part of this global challenge series and is attracting international runners, it’s a much better race than ten to fifteen years ago.
If my count is correct, that now gives the Royal meeting seven Group 1 races – just a pity they get wasted on that crowd!
5F – King’s Stand
6F – Golden Jubilee
1M – St James Palace, Coronation, Queen Anne
1M 2F – Prince of Wales
2M 4F – Gold Cup
I wonder if they’ll change the running order, as that upgrade would mean three Group 1 races in succession on Tuesday.
AP
Is it so awful to move it to Haydock ? I don’t know all the facts behind it regarding the complaints about both venues but from a purely sporting and visual aspect is Haydock not the fairer track ? My recurring image of the sprint track at Sandown is of there being a giant scrum to get on the far rail whereas at Haydock they runners tend to fan out and consequently there are fewer unsatisfactory results due to traffic problems. Surely we don’t want a Grp 1 sprint run on a course with a high chance of chaos. Was Celtic Mill not brought down in the scrimmaging last time it was at Sandown ? I know that can happy anywhere etc etc but surely it’s less likely if the runners have more room to use without compromising their chances.
The Bank Holiday Monday meeting headlined by the Henry II Stakes and the Temple Stakes, followed on the Tuesday evening by the National Stakes and Brigadier Gerard Stakes? What’s going on with Sandown? Remember the Mildmay Cazalet Chase? The Gainsborough, which became the Agfa Diamond Chase, now is called something stupid.
Oh, and another final rant, another Group 1 sprint, so when are they going to upgrade a few Stayers races? There’s only 1, The Gold Cup, why? Why not a 2m Group1, a 2m2f Group 1? There is no balance to the pattern. Personally speaking, there should be an equal number of Group 1’s across all distances. They should tell the ‘speed is king’ Breeders to go and hang. Where are the future NH Horses supposed to come from. Right, rant over!!!Judged by the quality of the Group 2 long distance races in 2007 I’d say Group 1 status is a long way off for any of them.
Two things – have Sandown given up on staging quality racing and are now going to concentrate on attracting the piss-up audience that so many other courses have courted with such dramatic effect?
and….how can there be a group one over five furlongs AND one over six at the same meeting?
The King’s Stand WAS a group one not so very long ago, and was a standing joke as such.The King’s Stand was a G1 in all but name in 2007 in any case with an absence of G1 penalties. A bigger problem is the lack of opportunuities for 3yo sprinters before Royal Ascot. Hardly ideal having to conced a G1 penalty against older horses in either the Temple or Duke of York.
Scottish Jamie,
Nothing against the race at Haydock and your point about it being a fairer track is well made – it’s just that a lot of us are unhappy about the changes made recently at Haydock that have seen NH racing cut back and it’s disappointing to see them apparently rewarded.
Celtic Mill did indeed fall at Sandown, but it was in the 5F sprint at the Eclipse meeting in the same year that he won the Temple. I don’t remember that fall as being due to crowding – it was a small field, he led and came down when he was dropping away inside the final furlong.
AP
Judged by the quality of the Group 2 long distance races in 2007 I’d say Group 1 status is a long way off for any of them.
Yeah, I understand the upgrading of races due to the ratings, but in my view Stayers are underrated. It just doesn’t seem right that stayers only have one Gp1 to aim for in Britain. As for Ireland, all they have is the Irish St Leger, nothing over 2m. Are stayers under-rated so they don’t have to upgrade the staying races??
A bigger problem is the lack of opportunuities for 3yo sprinters before Royal Ascot.
I thought 3-y-o sprinters ran in the Guineas before Royal Ascot……..before they were "sprinters" of course.
There is reason to argue for as many Group One races for sprinters as there are Group Ones for milers. Firstly there is a similar horse population of sprinters and milers in this country.
Australia where there is no "stigma" attached to sprinters have many more Group Ones. On the basis of international rankings there is not much between our sprinters and their’s.
In this country I believe that there is a handicapping bias in favour of milers and middle distance horses which results in them appearing to be superior. This can be explained by reference to the way Group/Listed/Conditions form is intrepreted and the lbs/length conversions used. In the only computer generated ratings produced on the basis of "best fit" (John Whitley’s) sprinters come out more favourably compared with milers etc.
In comparison there are far fewer flat stayers in training, and a weaker case for more Group races.
The Temple was reasonably popular at Sandown because the stiff track attracted 6f horses, as well as the speedy 5f types. There was a strong reaction from trainers against the switch to Epsom, which turned out to be a farce as has been said. The switch to Haydock will probably not be popular either, especially if Mr Tellwright lets his watering system go beserk again.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.