- This topic has 56 replies, 30 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I have so tried to like Matt Chapman but just cannot, I groan every time I see or hear him on ATR as he’s a buffoon who likes himself too much, needs to have the last word on every subject, and finds it funny to have a go at certain people just to make a name for himself, and if I hear another of his "yee-haars" I’ll hit him!
Totally agree how much better Sean Boyce is and don’t understand why he isn’t used more. The same goes for Tony Ennis though I know he’s also a regular racecourse commentator.
What I’m wondering though is where has Dave Compton gone? He was always on with the originsl ATR but he seems to have disappeared? Big loss
Excellent bit of reparte from Big Bucks and Sean Boyce there about a subject that iritates the life out of me!I have lost count how many times the official going is good/firm at a racecourse after its been rained on for a couple of hours,three races later,after the times confirm the going and the jockeys are covered in mud,the muppets that call themselves Clerk of the course finally changes the going to good even though its bloody Good/soft! After the 4th race they change it to Good/Soft but its Soft by then! Geez!
Anyway its good to see Big Bucks can actually string more than one sentance together,in fact he has posted more words on this subject than he has posted all year! 
I can’t stand Matt Chapman. He’s the sort of bloke you’d run a mile from in a pub, because he’s bore you witless trying to be the life and soul of the party, and thoroughly embarrassing himself in the process by being utterly UNfunny, and totally dominating the conversation. There’s no wit about him at all, just a cheesy grin, ridiculous hair and that awful "tan". I’m sure he thinks he’s cool.
I’m quite prepared to admit he seems to be really knowledgeable and a good journalist, I just don’t think he should ever be allowed near a microphone.I much prefer Sean’s easy-going style, and I don’t think he does sit on the fence. He’s quite prepared to give his views in a measured way, just doesn’t shove them down our throats.
As you say Sean Boyce’s is calm and measured and I can take it even if I disagree with him as I did regards the Chepstow Stewards & the Ripon overwatering. I can’t stand Chapman even if he agrees with me, it’s all "me me me" with him and all that sucking up to trainers who give him interviews is sickening.
How many people do you know refer to themselves in the third person?
Think Boycie & Lydia should start doing it, could be quite entertaining from the right person, for a while at least.As can be gauged from this thread alone Matt is the ultimate Marmite man. For me I prefer Sean everytime because Matt has to rely on the silly gimmicks to be noticed. I get the feeling Matt is following this thread with relish and there are a few extra loud yee-ha’s for us all
I get the feeling Matt is following this thread with relish and there are a few extra loud yee-ha’s for us all
I’m often pretty calm and measured but earlier on this thread I was – in my own not always humble opinion – a bit of a pompous ass.
And reading comments directed at both Big Buck’s and at Ricky I cringe mightily. Been guilty here and in another place of taking myself far too seriously for which apologies to those concerned.
Besides which I wasn’t even supposed to be on this thread! I can’t promise to get my yee hahs out but I reckon Matt can teach us all a thing or two about not taking ourselves too seriously sometimes! The future’s orange!I’m often pretty calm and measured but earlier on this thread I was – in my own not always humble opinion – a bit of a pompous ass.
And reading comments directed at both Big Buck’s and at Ricky I cringe mightily. Been guilty here and in another place of taking myself far too seriously for which apologies to those concerned.
Besides which I wasn’t even supposed to be on this thread! I can’t promise to get my yee hahs out but I reckon Matt can teach us all a thing or two about not taking ourselves too seriously sometimes! The future’s orange!Give Matt credit where it’s due, I bet if he DID read this thread, he’d laugh mightily and wouldn’t be at all offended. I’m sure he’s fully aware that he’s like Marmite and is quite prepared to take it as it comes.
You should persuade him to join the forum Sean. I’m sure he’d add some spice to peocedings!
EDIT:I see he’s already here by the look of itI think Atr suffers as much because of it’s frequent commercials – a necessary evil it seems – as any of it’s presenters. One imagines the mute button pressed rather a lot by most people, whether or not Chapman is on.
There are 2 things about Matt I really like and find him quite superior, in that he is one of the few ready and able to take over a commentary, and make a half decent job of it in the process, should the link go down.
He is also a great post-race analyst I find, and I’m really looking forward to that again at Royal Ascot coming up, where he excels as every race is minutely dissected. I think he is quite brilliant at this.It’s marvellous that people from the media are willing to join in with forum discussions and I don’t think Mr Boyce needs to justify himself particularly here and has made us aware of the libel issue that perhaps we don’t always consider.
Well spoken with a quiet demeanour, I would say one of those who I always hoped would transcend the sport and become better known to the general viewer.
The BBC could do with youUnderestimate how knowledgeable Chapman is, especially with International racing. I love his style. Without him, I probably wouldn’t have stayed glued to Racing in quite the same way. Racing can’t afford to lose the likes of Chapman.
Read last week that Guy Harwood said he’d run horses at Bath whatever the going, as it didn’t jar horses up because they never water.
GH ought to know the price of fish, and it does make you wonder if the hosepipe is at all necessary for flat racing?An interesting one, isn’t it? You never see Bath cards cutting up to 30 runners on officially firm going as you would when somewhere like Brighton goes the same way. The ancient turf at the former venue is clearly an asset, but so, you’d have to infer from the endorsement of Harwood and others, is the fact that nature alone is allowed to take its cause with that turf.
It would require quite a leap of faith for the concerned, but I wonder if any Flat course could be convinced (or even volunteer) to impose a total watering amnesty on itself for at least one year, and preferably more, and observe just how detrimental that actually proves to be? I’d like to see whether we really have gone beyond the point of recall where "the best surface only through watering" at some Flat venues is concerned.
gc
Adoptive father of two. The patron saint of lower-grade fare. A gently critical friend of point-to-pointing. Kindness is a political act.
I like Chapman
However he constant snide remarks about French Racing is tiresome and stupid.
Read last week that Guy Harwood said he’d run horses at Bath whatever the going, as it didn’t jar horses up because they never water.
GH ought to know the price of fish, and it does make you wonder if the hosepipe is at all necessary for flat racing?An interesting one, isn’t it? You never see Bath cards cutting up to 30 runners on officially firm going as you would when somewhere like Brighton goes the same way. The ancient turf at the former venue is clearly an asset, but so, you’d have to infer from the endorsement of Harwood and others, is the fact that nature alone is allowed to take its cause with that turf.
It would require quite a leap of faith for the concerned, but I wonder if any Flat course could be convinced (or even volunteer) to impose a total watering amnesty on itself for at least one year, and preferably more, and observe just how detrimental that actually proves to be? I’d like to see whether we really have gone beyond the point of recall where "the best surface only through watering" at some Flat venues is concerned.
gc
Bath’s unwatered "firm" is probably better than watered firm. Although if their track was so undulating as Brighton, think they’d get quite a few non-runners. Firm on an undulating course is (I believe) far more dangerous than on a comparitively flat track.
When trainers enter horses up at Bath they know what they’re getting. It attracts firm ground horses and naturally puts off those who want good ground. So few non-runners.
Where as, on a watered surface entrants wanting good to good-firm will enter, expecting or hoping for watering. Therefore, many more non-runners if it turns up firm.Bath racecourse gets more than it’s fair share of firm horses, recieving an advantage purely because of other racecourse’s watering policies. With no watering anywhere, these firm horses would be spread out far more, so Bath would not get the runners it is currently blessed with.
The fact Bath’s field sizes stand up well on firm going should not be seen as proof of "non-watering" being better than "watering". In a prolonged dry spell, (without watering) good or soft ground horses may be forced in to running on firm ground. Some will inevitably get injuries, occasionally fatal injuries.
Value Is EverythingBath’s unwatered "firm" is probably better than watered firm. Although if their track was so undulating as Brighton, think they’d get quite a few non-runners. Firm on an undulating course is (I believe) far more dangerous than on a comparitively flat track.
Certainly agree with the first statement. Per the undulations, though, I’d still call them pretty pronounced at Bath, and I’m not sure it makes too much of a difference that they occur earlier in races there (with the home straight, in contrast, all uphill).
…Unless anyone has studied how many horses have been pulled out of races on firm at the likes of Brighton or Bath on "unsuitable ground" issues, and seen a pattern of what race distances (and, by extension, number of uphill and downhill swoops taken in) are particularly affected by such defections?
When trainers enter horses up at Bath they know what they’re getting. It attracts firm ground horses and naturally puts off those who want good ground. So few non-runners.
As I mentioned before, I don’t recall seeing too many firm-ground Bath cards cutting up to the extent of firm-ground Brighton cards – maybe I should have qualified that further by saying "at the overnight stage". I think trainers are equally as wary of Brighton on very fast ground not even to bother keeping charges in overnight, as they are confident of the credibility of Bath’s surface even when firm.
Bath racecourse gets more than it’s fair share of firm horses, recieving an advantage purely because of other racecourse’s watering policies. With no watering anywhere, these firm horses would be spread out far more, so Bath would not get the runners it is currently blessed with.
Possibly not, but I wouldn’t expect the backside to fall out of their tallies of runners totally, even were there more options for "safe firm ground" horses. There is still enough unusual about Bath’s topography, in the sense of being a swooping, galloping, left-hander with an uphill finish, that should always attract its share of repeat visitors or course specialists.
The fact Bath’s field sizes stand up well on firm going should not be seen as proof of "non-watering" being better than "watering". In a prolonged dry spell, (without watering) good or soft ground horses may be forced in to running on firm ground. Some will inevitably get injuries, occasionally fatal injuries.
That’s almost a different argument, though, isn’t it – more to do with irresponsible horse husbandry, and connections committing their animals to run on surfaces for which they’re unsuited. Let’s not suggest the onus to run any horse on any given day should rest with anything or anyone other than the people entrusted to care for them. A soft-ground horse should stay in his box and off the course in a very dry spell – simple as.
gc
Adoptive father of two. The patron saint of lower-grade fare. A gently critical friend of point-to-pointing. Kindness is a political act.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.