- This topic has 47 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
On the subject of drop fences, Lord Oaksey was one of those who considered them to be traps and on that basis unfair. I would rather call them unique, and to me the Grand National as we knew it has lost part of its spirit since Bechers was neutered. In the 1970’s they use to have ‘Jump Sunday’ where the public could walk around the whole length of the course (though not actually on it) on the Sunday prior to the race. That really got the tingles going. Haydock Park too as a jumps venue has lost a bit of its buzz since they ripped up the traditional drop fence chase course. Ultimately, I suppose issues of modification should be most influenced by trainers and rider – speaking from their heart as opposed to being advised what would be best for them to say. I really don’t know what, if canvassed, the trainers and jockeys currently licensed would recommend. Though I’m quite sure in past decades that for every one with a Lord Oaksey view there would be two with a Donald McCain one.
I don’t think you’re differentiating between criticism and opinion GoldenMiller34.
If there is no room for opinion on a discussion forum, then does it become purely an information platform?
I’m not sure that was Daylights intention was when he started this.
It was great to see them all get home safely.
Not sure how anyone could describe the race as ‘boring’ or ‘tedious’. It remains a thrilling spectacle IMO.
But it is all about opinions. We are all entitled to them and you are right Griff, the point of TRF is to provide a voice for us all, whatever we have to say.
Whatever you think, in these days of powerful social media campaigns that can go viral in minutes, no sponsor would risk being involved in a race where there were regular deaths and injuries.
I had been a lover of the Grand National since I was a kid and I’ll never forget my first sight of that long line of undressed fences when I first went to work at Aintree. It was a WTF moment and, on reflection, I bought too easily into the explanation of how well padded they’d be come race time.
Drop fences (or traps), certainly at Haydock, came about by accident. At Haydock, repairs or whatever over time to the ground on the take off sides caused it to become higher than the landing side ground.
First went to Haydock in 76, but was not aware that the drops did not come about by design. It did end up a characteristic of the course that we would be reminded of eg, trainers would say something like ‘ we’ll send such and such there as the fences are ideal to prep for Aintree’. And, as I’m sure many will know, when the Aintree was nearly lost, Haydock was one of the three most widely touted venues for a permanent new home for the race, which of course would never be the same away from Aintree. Switching to the subject of public perception and pandering to image, I strongly feel that in sweeping the wastage issue under the carpet while becoming obsessive about whips and fences, it’s akin to a Hospital taking delivery of a new PET/CT scanner, with a photo of the machine in the paper surrounded by smiling nurses and a consultant, while out of shot in a nearby corridor there are patients neglected and in distress in corridors awaiting a spare bed on a ward.
Gordon Richards, who knew a thing or two about nurturing chasers, was a big fan of Haydock’s novice chases over the big black drops; as he thought, quite logically in my opinion, that schooling young chasers over stiff fences taught them not to take liberties with them wherever they ran later in their careers
I’ve no strong feelings about the National: it’s an aberrant, enjoyable one-off, on which steeplechasing as a discipline shouldn’t be judged, and the sight of loose green spruce flying hither and yon as much a part of the time-worn experience as the leaping nags
I don’t particularly enjoy watching horses brush through soft fences though: jumping is the name of the game, as Gordon Richards knew
Quite agree with Cancello’s remark about ‘wastage’ and the apt analogy – racing’s nasty, sordid little secret
Allying what you say about stiff fences and jumping, Drone, with the dominant position of Aintree in the history of steeplechasing for its first one hundred years plus suggests that the discipline should, in fact, be judged on races over the National course. It remains the ultimate test.
It remains the ultimate test
I think the consensus, amongst those contributing to this thread anyway, is that it’s no longer an ultimate test, but still a good test; stamina-wise certainly
I’d contend that the most inspiring, vivid, skilful examples of the beautiful art of steeplechasing are to be seen over the tightly-packed birch at the Grade 1 park courses: Cheltenham, Sandown, Kempton…
But as others have alluded to, as the National is something of a shop window for the otherwise disinterested, then I’ve no problem with it becoming somewhat emasculated if it means that the more sensitive of the disinterested aren’t exposed to chasing red in tooth and claw
On the whole I thought it was a superb National with an exciting finish and the jumps provided enough of a test to contribute to the spectacle. Despite the worries of some beforehand the horses weren’t finishing completely legless.
I do have one complaint though. How can you run the most famous race in the world without jumping it’s most famous fence. It’s like playing the Open Championship at the Old Course and omitting the road hole. I know Charlie Deutsch was injured but surely you could move him to the inside of the track and doll off the inside. How did they cope with injured jockeys and horse in the first 160 years of the race?
“I know Charlie Deutsch was injured but surely you could move him to the inside of the track and doll off the inside.”
You simply cannot move an injured jockey to the inside of the track until they have been fully assessed and any possibility of a spinal injury has been excluded, which is not a quick assessment and if any doubt whatsoever then medics will, rightly, err on the side of caution. If a paramedic or doctor moved a rider before being fully assessed they could risk losing their professional registration.
If there is a suspected spinal injury then the rider needs to be immobilised and “packaged” which cannot be completed in the time it takes the runners to complete a circuit.
Indeed other injuries, including suspected fractures or head injuries will also result in a delay in moving an injured rider.
Certainly in the first 140 or so years jockeys may well have been dragged off the course – with the inherent risk of making any injury more serious. I don’t think we want to return to those days.
To put some flesh on the increased pulled up rate I mentioned earlier…
1997-2012 115 from 650 pulled up…17.69%
2013-2018 68 from 236 pulled up…28.81%This will have had a huge impact on the reduction of fallers and unseat’s in recent years, and is of course distinct from the modification to the fences themselves.
They went over Bechers the first time just not the second, no?
I’d say Newbury is more of a jumping test than Cheltenham these days, Shattered Love walking through the last for example shows that Cheltenham has loosened the fences quite a bit in recent years (no real opinion if this is good or bad).
Patriot1 wrote:
“I know Charlie Deutsch was injured but surely you could move him to the inside of the track and doll off the inside”.===================================
Considering what has come to pass this week, Mr Deutsch may well be wishing they’d have dug a hole and let the ground swallow him up. The silly boy.
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.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.