As an erstwhile defender of Mordin on here it pains me to say this, but I think he’s finally lost his marbles.
His latest toy is a stopwatch for sectional times in jump racing, from which he deduces in this week’s Weekender that the third and fourth in the Feltham- Silverburn and Barber’s Shop, are better horses than the first two- Joe Lively and Here’s Johnny because the front two were better suited to a sprint finish. This, quite frankly, is complete ballcocks.
Joe Lively won despite the slow pace and the track and will be far more effective at Cheltenham- he can back the third and fourth with me to reverse the form. Any of you sectional timing boffins (Pru) agree with the Mord?
I’m not sure it’s a question of the value of sectional timings, more the conclusion Mordin is drawing. The article left me puzzled at the time, and on a re-read still does – he appears to be asserting that the beaten horses are better because on the day they were slower…
Nick Mordin epitomises a maxim I have held for a long time about racing: “The further away you get from the basics, the more likely you are to confuse the simple truth”.
Anyone who can draw the conclusion, on recent formbook evidence, that Joe Lively doesn’t need a distance, and Silverburn does, ought to seriously consider a rethink, if not a totally different career.
too early to say regarding barbers shop but i thought the 2 to take from the race were the winner joe lively for whom the track may not have suit its record left handed in small fields is ,(2111111) and also silverburn who jumped great but imo was taken off his feet and also imo needs lots of give, its record at 16-17 furlongs on soft or heavy is,(2111),chipmunk