- This topic has 89 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
I posted some time ago about the absurdity of regarding trainers as anything other than vaguely skilled people managers who understand horses and have the financial wherewithal to get the best staff. I was particularly bemused by the endless references to Sir Henry Cecil as a ‘genius’, a word that was used in his eponymous biography from the never-knowingly-undersold Brough Scott.
(Incidentally, The Independent‘s take on this tome was “A classic book about a classic legend”. Presumably, that review was penned by Alan Partridge.)
Are we to believe therefore that Lady Cecil has somehow ‘caught’ the genius virus from her late husband? Or is it more rational to think that – like Sir Henry – Noble Mission’s success on Saturday (a horse a lot more complicated than his point ‘n’ shoot brother) was down to good management and more pertinently, very good staff.
Trainers are not ‘geniuses’. They just run well-managed operations, the more successful ones invariably assisted by large amounts of cash.
Enough with this nonsense.
Mike
A classic post from a classic legend
The annual TRF Awards jamboree looms large on the horizon and I would like to suggest a new category
Genius Of The Year
The problem with horse racing is that it concerns horses and it’s they who do the really hard work and provide us with entertainment; but we being humans like to think it’s our fellow humans involved in racing, whom the horses have to put up with, who are responsible for primarily nurturing splendid equine deeds
Much like Formula 1: is Lewis Hamilton a genius or is it the car he’s fortunate enough to steer the star?
The word ‘genius’ in general has become thoroughly debased anyway, being bandied about willy-nilly to describe litlle more than something accomplished in a satisfactory manner
I don’t think it’s being a genius to see inside a quirky horses head to work out how to get the best from it; the gypsies have been doing that for centuries.Found it interesting to discover, when I read Toby Baldings obituary that the family were descended from gypsy stock not the aristocratic lineage that I thought.
I had a feeling you might pick up this argument if Lady Cecil had a big winner! You are right Mike – let’s end this nonsense you started last year. I guess your mind is not for changing whatever I say but here goes. Wish me luck.
Define "very good staff"? Are you saying THEY are the geniuses? Don’t "very good staff" sometimes go on to be "very good trainers?" That’s how Sir Henry started of course.
And what makes them "very good?" They wake up on time? They turn up for work? Tell me please.
And how do you pick "very good staff?" What are the qualities you are looking for? For example what was it that made Sir Henry decide to employ Shane Featherstonehaugh and what was it that prompted him to make him Frankel’s work rider? Ok he had the resources to employ him but what was it about Shane that was special? Was Shane the genius behind Frankel?
Paddy Rudkin was assistant to Sir Henry for many years "he doesn’t clutter his brain with other responsibilities but all the decisions on how much work a horse should do and who should ride what, he takes. He’s gifted."
You also rather dismissively talk about the absurdity of trainers only needing to "understand horses". What do you mean by understanding horses? How can humans understand horses? Are some people/trainers better than others at doing this and what is the outcome if the understanding is very high? Would the really good ones perhaps be….geniuses?
I know you dismiss words like "feel" and "intuition" and "instinct" Mike and I guess you don’t own any animals but I can tell you such a thing does exist. Some people have an affinity with dogs, some with cats, some with horses. If you were to quote other sections of Brough Scott’s book (which presumably you have read) you might see that Sir Henry had "a unique affinity with the thoroughbred" as Sir Peter O’ Sullevan put it. So what does that mean? I’ll try and give you some examples to dismiss.
– He didn’t own binoculars but could tell you from a mile away which of his horses were coming up the Limekilns. "Within days of a yearling coming in he would be telling me all about it. His whole thing was getting to know them better." This is an example of complete and utter dedication, deep knowledge, focus, drive and perfectionism that is a common trait in many successful people. Underneath the charm Sir Henry was extremely competitive and had a huge desire to win. "He gets ahead because he is a greedy, ambitious man."
– "You should see his horses’ first canter. It’s quicker than any other trainer." This is an example of how he used his EXPERIENCE of working with another genius, Sir Noel Murless (when he was just one of the "very good staff"), to LEARN the most effective way of working his horses. Would you say that it was pure fluke that Sir Henry was able to train so many classic winners or did he just get lucky? How was he able to get them to peak for that important day so often? Is it easy do you think? Was it just the staff that changed many times over the years?
– Instinct "..his horses were very fit and very focussed. If he thought a horse was ready he would run it…"that runs there, it will win."….above all he loved his horses. He had a great affinity for them." Joe Mercer
Of course you need good staff but you also need great leaders who can a) spot the staff and b) get the best out of them. Sir Alex had great staff (players) yet so did David Moyes. What was the difference? Another quote this time from Steve Cauthen "Henry intrigued me. His mind was so animated all of the time that it was as if he suddenly needed to shut it down, and he would walk you out to look at the roses. But everyone was playing their part." Here is an example of great teamwork thriving under a great leader not a "vaguely skilled people manager".
It is always very hard for anyone to define "genius" and it is much easier to dismiss it as something that doesn’t really exist. And yet history is littered with exceptionally high achievers from sport to theatre to art to business. People who are way above the other people in the same field. Sir Henry’s record over 40 years would attest that he could be thus described.
Surely this year we have seen at Warren Place that it really hasn’t been a case of catching the genius. They have struggled badly with similar resources to Sir Henry (less numbers overall but the same patronage from PK and Niarchos). Until Saturday they had managed only one winner since July. The day they hit on new tactics with NM was the day everything changed so it is likely that he was seriously under-performing until then or at least not fulfilling his potential. If Lady Cecil is indeed able to train classic winner after classic winner over a 40 year period like her husband did, then she may one day deserve the accolade. Until then, whilst I like many rejoiced at NM’s win on Saturday, nobody would be silly enough to suggest she had done anything other than oversee the development of a very good horse and get him to the party at his fittest. An achievement in itself but not genius.
I want to finish with one or two quotes from Sir Henry himself that I think really show the "affinity" he had with horses –
"To train a horse you have got to programme it rather like a human. I believe they only come to their peak once or twice in a year and I think you will find an athlete is the same if you talk to someone like Sebastien Coe….The challenge for us is to get it right on the given day"
"Basically (horses) are my friends and they help me. I think it’s terribly important that you have a feeling towards them. There must be a rapport, an empathy between man and beast. If you are dealing with something then you must understand it. A lot of people don’t understand. There’s nothing between them and the horse and if they do terribly well, then there’s a lot of luck involved."
"I think it’s the horses nobility I like…they are far more noble than the average human. There’s no jealously or greed. They may have determination and they may be competitive, and if they lose and they’re intelligent then they sulk. Oh So Sharp was miserable that day at Ascot (beaten by Petoski)…If a horse does something and prove’s he’s good, he doesn’t get snobby with other horses….they still talk to them. Diminuendo loves to chat away to all the crocks at the back of the string, but if she were human she wouldn’t be seen with them."
Genius!!!!
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
I had a feeling you might pick up this argument if Lady Cecil had a big winner! You are right Mike – let’s end this nonsense you started last year. I guess your mind is not for changing whatever I say but here goes. Wish me luck.
Define "very good staff"? Are you saying THEY are the geniuses? Don’t "very good staff" sometimes go on to be "very good trainers?" That’s how Sir Henry started of course.
And what makes them "very good?" They wake up on time? They turn up for work? Tell me please.
And how do you pick "very good staff?" What are the qualities you are looking for? For example what was it that made Sir Henry decide to employ Shane Featherstonehaugh and what was it that prompted him to make him Frankel’s work rider? Ok he had the resources to employ him but what was it about Shane that was special? Was Shane the genius behind Frankel?
Paddy Rudkin was assistant to Sir Henry for many years "he doesn’t clutter his brain with other responsibilities but all the decisions on how much work a horse should do and who should ride what, he takes. He’s gifted."
You also rather dismissively talk about the absurdity of trainers only needing to "understand horses". What do you mean by understanding horses? How can humans understand horses? Are some people/trainers better than others at doing this and what is the outcome if the understanding is very high? Would the really good ones perhaps be….geniuses?
I know you dismiss words like "feel" and "intuition" and "instinct" Mike and I guess you don’t own any animals but I can tell you such a thing does exist. Some people have an affinity with dogs, some with cats, some with horses. If you were to quote other sections of Brough Scott’s book (which presumably you have read) you might see that Sir Henry had "a unique affinity with the thoroughbred" as Sir Peter O’ Sullevan put it. So what does that mean? I’ll try and give you some examples to dismiss.
– He didn’t own binoculars but could tell you from a mile away which of his horses were coming up the Limekilns. "Within days of a yearling coming in he would be telling me all about it. His whole thing was getting to know them better." This is an example of complete and utter dedication, deep knowledge, focus, drive and perfectionism that is a common trait in many successful people. Underneath the charm Sir Henry was extremely competitive and had a huge desire to win. "He gets ahead because he is a greedy, ambitious man."
– "You should see his horses’ first canter. It’s quicker than any other trainer." This is an example of how he used his EXPERIENCE of working with another genius, Sir Noel Murless (when he was just one of the "very good staff"), to LEARN the most effective way of working his horses. Would you say that it was pure fluke that Sir Henry was able to train so many classic winners or did he just get lucky? How was he able to get them to peak for that important day so often? Is it easy do you think? Was it just the staff that changed many times over the years?
– Instinct "..his horses were very fit and very focussed. If he thought a horse was ready he would run it…"that runs there, it will win."….above all he loved his horses. He had a great affinity for them." Joe Mercer
Of course you need good staff but you also need great leaders who can a) spot the staff and b) get the best out of them. Sir Alex had great staff (players) yet so did David Moyes. What was the difference? Another quote this time from Steve Cauthen "Henry intrigued me. His mind was so animated all of the time that it was as if he suddenly needed to shut it down, and he would walk you out to look at the roses. But everyone was playing their part." Here is an example of great teamwork thriving under a great leader not a "vaguely skilled people manager".
It is always very hard for anyone to define "genius" and it is much easier to dismiss it as something that doesn’t really exist. And yet history is littered with exceptionally high achievers from sport to theatre to art to business. People who are way above the other people in the same field. Sir Henry’s record over 40 years would attest that he could be thus described.
Surely this year we have seen at Warren Place that it really hasn’t been a case of catching the genius. They have struggled badly with similar resources to Sir Henry (less numbers overall but the same patronage from PK and Niarchos). Until Saturday they had managed only one winner since July. The day they hit on new tactics with NM was the day everything changed so it is likely that he was seriously under-performing until then or at least not fulfilling his potential. If Lady Cecil is indeed able to train classic winner after classic winner over a 40 year period like her husband did, then she may one day deserve the accolade. Until then, whilst I like many rejoiced at NM’s win on Saturday, nobody would be silly enough to suggest she had done anything other than oversee the development of a very good horse and get him to the party at his fittest. An achievement in itself but not genius.
I want to finish with one or two quotes from Sir Henry himself that I think really show the "affinity" he had with horses –
"To train a horse you have got to programme it rather like a human. I believe they only come to their peak once or twice in a year and I think you will find an athlete is the same if you talk to someone like Sebastien Coe….The challenge for us is to get it right on the given day"
"Basically (horses) are my friends and they help me. I think it’s terribly important that you have a feeling towards them. There must be a rapport, an empathy between man and beast. If you are dealing with something then you must understand it. A lot of people don’t understand. There’s nothing between them and the horse and if they do terribly well, then there’s a lot of luck involved."
"I think it’s the horses nobility I like…they are far more noble than the average human. There’s no jealously or greed. They may have determination and they may be competitive, and if they lose and they’re intelligent then they sulk. Oh So Sharp was miserable that day at Ascot (beaten by Petoski)…If a horse does something and prove’s he’s good, he doesn’t get snobby with other horses….they still talk to them. Diminuendo loves to chat away to all the crocks at the back of the string, but if she were human she wouldn’t be seen with them."
Genius!!!!
Nah.
Mike
You are soooooo naughty young Mike!
But I kinda like ya.
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
We’d all have different definitions of genius I suppose. Mine would include
creativity
or
originality
at the extreme end of the scale. Only Martin Pipe and Vincent O’Brien (in our neck of the woods), both trainers who completely broke the mould, would qualify by that scale imo.
Lady Cecil, Frankel’s brother, Ascot,…..of course the media milked it, but you cant blame them really, there was a genuine narrative there.
In fairness, I never heard the "genius" label being applied to the woman subsequent to the race, but credit where its due, it was a superb performance by the horse.
Nice post jonibake.
I wouldn’t class too many trainers as genuises, but record-breaking Pointing trainer Dick Baimbridge would be my genius to end them all.
Sadly, though, this now 84-year-old trainer of around 510 winners between the flags, most of them examples of turning Ascot Sales-acquired lead into prolific Pointing gold, wouldn’t be eligible for any TRF Genuis award this year, as
tempus fugit
finally compelled him to observe a Pointing season as a spectator only.
Here’s simply hoping that his health holds sufficiently for him to remain a presence, and a revered one at that, among the crowds at Pointing venues (not least those in the West Midlands and Welsh Borders) for a good many years yet.
gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genius
There is no scientifically precise definition of genius, and the question of whether the notion itself has any real meaning has long been a subject of debate
If Hume, Kant, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Nietzche, Russell and Brough Scott can’t agree on what constitutes Genius then perhaps we should agree to agree with every post on this thread
Dai Burchell, Flahives First, Cartmel satisfies my definition of genius on the racing asteroid: all else is, at best, just a job well done
edit:
By gum, my mention of Burchell and Cartmel follows a post from Graysonscolumn: does telepathy really exist? Just for you GC I’ll add Sadik and Cartmel as near-genius
We’d all have different definitions of genius I suppose. Mine would include
creativity
or
originality
at the extreme end of the scale. Only Martin Pipe and Vincent O’Brien (in our neck of the woods), both trainers who completely broke the mould, would qualify by that scale imo.
Agree entirely, they’d also be my only "British Isles Racing Geniuses".
Imo, the word "genius" is bandied about far too often in the world of horseracing.
We’ll be hearing next that the stable cat at Warren Place is a genius as well.
I am involved in the commercial side of the Construction Industry. If I was in the best half dozen at my job in the country, would I be a genius?
Just because someone is good at getting dumb animals fit to run from A to B as fast as they physically can, why are they lauded as a genius?
I’d like to see Lady Cecil swap with Ruth Carr for a season and see what happened.
Agree with Mike, its sycophantic bullshine.
edit:
By gum, my mention of Burchell and Cartmel follows a post from Graysonscolumn: does telepathy really exist? Just for you GC I’ll add Sadik and Cartmel as near-genius
Awww, bless’im. Jeff Sadik wouldn’t count as a genius – just a nice man and a small-scale trainer who’s managed to piece his life together again gradually following the suicide of his son. Cartmel loves him and he loves Cartmel – there weren’t too many dry eyes in the proverbial house when I observed his Indian Pipe Dream win there a few years ago.
gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
We’ll be hearing next that the stable cat at Warren Place is a genius as well.
No we won’t.
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
I am involved in the commercial side of the Construction Industry. If I was in the best half dozen at my job in the country, would I be a genius?
Just because someone is good at getting dumb animals fit to run from A to B as fast as they physically can, why are they lauded as a genius?
I’d like to see Lady Cecil swap with Ruth Carr for a season and see what happened.
Agree with Mike, its sycophantic bullshine.
No you wouldn’t. However I do some work with one CEO in the construction industry that isn’t far off as he has broken the mould.
The top 6 trainers in this country are not considered geniuses so this part of your post makes no sense.
Just because some Swiss guy is good at hitting a green ball over a net why is he lauded as genius.
Just because some Aussie could whack a silly red ball over the ropes lots of times why was he lauded as genius?
Just because some German guy came up with a few theories about relativity why is he lauded as a genius?
As far as I know nobody is calling Lady Cecil a genius so your comment about Ruth Carr makes no sense either. In fact I might say that your whole post is as dumb as the animals you refer to.
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
Horses can type? Wow.
My point is its all about the infrastructure, as Mike says.
Replace Lady Cecil with Ruth Carr, and there would be no significant downturn in form in my opinion.
Similar, if you had replaced Henry Cecil with any number of trainers, Frankel would still have won all of his races.
You can wax lyrical with the likes of Down and Scott all you want, I don’t buy getting horses fit as being "genius" of any sort.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.