- This topic has 46 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
‘Bounce’ has a variety of meanings depending upon the context in which it is used.
In the States, for instance, the term is used to describe a performance (signifcantly, or otherwise) below that of a previous one. So a horse running a speed figure of 120, for instance, may have been considered to have bounced next time simply because they weren’t capable of achieving such a high mark again.
Over here though it is usually used with regard to horses who are returning from an abnormally long layoff, or from injury. It relates specifically to the theory that, no matter how fit a horse may be for it’s comeback, any physical exertion will have a longer lasting effect i.e. recovery time will be longer.
It’s basically the same as ‘match fitness’, or ‘match sharpness’ in football. Robbie Fowler is the most naturally gifted finisher we’ve produced for some time, but (at his peak) he wouldn’t be expected to return, against Manchester United, and ping the goal from all angles after a year out of the game. He could be as fit as he’s ever been, with the same talent he’s always had, but not be as prolific for a number of games.
I suppose it also depends on how you define fitness. Is a body-builder ‘fit’ because his muscles are trained to deliver power, or is he ‘unfit’ because he’d perform particularly badly in any test of stamina?
Whichever way you look at it, the bounce factor exists in one form or another and is, frankly, undeniable. To suggest that the body, no matter what the animal, can maintain a specific level of performance at it’s highest level, after any number of setbacks, is incredibly naive.
(Edited by LetsGetRacing at 4:22 pm on Feb. 11, 2007)
<br> Whichever way you look at it, the bounce factor exists in one form or another and is, frankly, undeniable. To suggest that the body, no matter what the animal, can maintain a specific level of performance at it’s highest level, after any number of setbacks, is incredibly naive.
<br>
Why if running a horse quickly after a break brings the so called bounce factor into play, then why run the horse, give the horse the extra few weeks off and the bounce factor is negated.<br>I remember Godolphin using the bounce as excuse for Byron running deplorably in the James palace after finishing a close up 3rd in the french guinneas, I had to laugh it was a gap of 8 weeks for god sake.
Does anyone not agree that it can be a very convenient excuse to stop a horse ?? <br>Scientific proof there is none, it just seems to be an excepted fact within racing. If there is scientific fact to it then please somebody enlighten me.
A dead cat will bounce if you threw it off a high enough building.
Why if running a horse quickly after a break brings the so called bounce factor into play, then why run the horse, give the horse the extra few weeks off and the bounce factor is negated.
So you would by pass Cheltenham with Well Chief then?
Lots of crap wishy-washy replies on this, as well as the usual good stuff.
Personally I think its an important factor to take into account. Anyone who thinks its a fashionable or makey-up idea wants their head examining.
Quote: from madman marz on 4:49 pm on Feb. 11, 2007[br]<br> Whichever way you look at it, the bounce factor exists in one form or another and is, frankly, undeniable. To suggest that the body, no matter what the animal, can maintain a specific level of performance at it’s highest level, after any number of setbacks, is incredibly naive.
<br>
Why if running a horse quickly after a break brings the so called bounce factor into play, then why run the horse, give the horse the extra few weeks off and the bounce factor is negated.<br>I remember Godolphin using the bounce as excuse for Byron running deplorably in the James palace after finishing a close up 3rd in the french guinneas, I had to laugh it was a gap of 8 weeks for god sake.
Does anyone not agree that it can be a very convenient excuse to stop a horse ?? <br>Scientific proof there is none, it just seems to be an excepted fact within racing. If there is scientific fact to it then please somebody enlighten me.
A dead cat will bounce if you threw it off a high enough building. <br>
There are a thousand daft excuses that can be given as to as to why a horse has not run as expected. Few given by trainers are scientific as they have little knowledge to base any scientific opinion upon. They can truthfully say the horse has worked well, it eat up its feed, it was close to optimum body weight, blood tests and scopes were fine etc but that does not fully determine one athletic performance from another. In a large stable the trainer will not likely have even that scant amount of information on a particular horse but like a politician does not wish to appear ignorant in front of cameras and journalists. Performance is for punters to estimate and predict, not trainers.
The bounce has been scientifically analysed to death both in the States and in UK by analysing databases of horse performance with different days since raced. Nick Mordin has also written several researched articles on this in WeekEnder.
The few thinking people in racing normally try to establish some facts before making sweeping statements. Many just accept the old wife’s tales (accepted facts) as gospel and trot them out as self evident truths. As a punter, you only need to believe what actually works for you and can safely ignore the rest as "noise".
Usual cheerful post from robert :)
If trainers do this there is every chance the horse won’t ‘bounce’ next time, which is why it is a good idea if they leave about a month between races.
This is the key. Paul Nichols said a week or so ago that he barely believed in the "bounce factor", but thats probably because his training skills are such that he knows exactly how to handle each individual horse.
no doubt somone will have some contrary examples now….
In all fairness madman, how is a trainer likely to know that a horse won’t bounce?
As has been said, they will likely have come out of the race perfectly happy and will have eaten up the next day as per usual. Under no circumstances in training will a horse ever be pushed in the same way they would in a race – the risks are far too high, especially when fitness can be attained gradually and safely.
Such things are essentially a matter of science and are subject to a horse’s genetic make up and conformation, and their trainer’s abilities and methods.
I don’t think it would be incorrect to say the ‘bounce factor’ hasn’t been used as an excuse for a horse running (intentionally) poorly, but to suggest the condition only exists to hide cheating shows a level of naivety beyond the norm.
I wouldn’t define ‘bounce’ as purely to do with fitness or rest times.
Sometimes putting in an outstanding performance will require too much exertion from an animal, to the point that repeating that performance is impossible, certainly next time out.  As with running on unsuitable ground, a horse will sometimes run ‘through the pain barrier’ once, but not again.
That is why I would always put more trust in the form of horse who has consistantly put in solid performances, rather than the sort who has suddenly produced a display of brilliance – one almighty effort might well cause them to run poorly subsequently. ÂÂÂ
- Total Posts 17716
I totally agree with Robert on this, for anything to be reasonable, it has to have a reason –  the bounce factor doesn’t.<br>It is mainly an old wives tale, perpetuated by pseudo-academics such as Mordin, who like to pretend that racing is a deep and insoluble puzzle that can only be mastered by creating ever more myth and mysticism, and is strictly not the preserve of the common man.<br>Sure enough, horses do underperform after having hard races, just as athletes, footballers etc, underperform in similar cicumstances, but when did anyone ever hear of this daft theory outside horse racing?
Coincidentally, there’s a thread about this very subject on the Betfair horseracing forum started by some guy called "prufrock"…..
It also makes one of the Betfair horseracing home page’s "Top Racing Posts", so it may have a bit more permanence than most threads.
<br>I don’t think it would be incorrect to say the ‘bounce factor’ hasn’t been used as an excuse for a horse running (intentionally) poorly, but to suggest the condition only exists to hide cheating shows a level of naivety beyond the norm.<br>
Letsgoracing seems to be having a pop at me calling me naive a few times.<br>First off Letsgo I didnt suggest that the bounce factor was only used as an excuse to cheat., I just said that it was probably used on numerous occasions as a reason for the horses poor performance when in fact they were stopped. Because bounce is excepted within racing as bona fide why not trainers use it as an excuse when in fact they know the horse was only out for a toss around.
A lot of posts on this subject seem to think that horses are fragile animals, most horses are tough as old boots, yes the odd one is a little fragle and needs a little more TLC than others. Witness the good old handicappers who are around for years, even running when their 12 & 13 yr old . Out for a stroll well h/capped rattles up a sequence of victories in the space of a few weeks last year no fear of any bounce there.
(Edited by madman marz at 9:14 pm on Feb. 11, 2007)
I always understood the ‘bounce factor’ to be nothing to do with the 2nd run after an absence but a theory about how difficult it is for a horse to reproduce a really big (or lifetime) ‘top fig’. I could check my American racing books if I really wanted to but I’m sure the term has changed meaning in the UK in the past few years largely thanks to clueless Racing Channel presenters amongst others not understanding the real meaning of the term.
As explained elsewhere, if you regard the test of the "bounce" hypothesis as being whether a horse reproduces a high speed figure then of course it is going to appear as if it has validity. Speed figures are not the best measure of performance and as such usually vary. You should expect a horse to hit a peak only occasionally judged by such a measure.
(Edited by Prufrock at 8:07 am on Feb. 12, 2007)
To continue the football analogy…
I used this a couple of years ago on another forum and it’s the exact reason why I do believe in the bounce. You can play a very gruelling match and feel fine after a few days. Try playing the first day you feel fine. You’ll be fine for the first ten minutes. After that you feel you’re running on concrete without any shoes. You feel every impact with the ground in your legs. You just can’t perform. You thought you were fine but you’re not.
It’s to do with levels of lactic acid and every player – or horse – will be affected differently.
As someone else suggested, why not go and research it all for yourself.
<br>
Some interesting replies on here, so I thought I’d call a trainer and ask him for his opinion. He stated categorically that the bounce factor exists although not scientific, since, as has been already stated, every animal is an individual. He said the bounce factor exists when a trainer has miscalculated the horse’s recovery time between the races. The 1st run back after a lay off stresses the animal to different degrees depending on the horse. When a horse gets to the races the adrenalin begins to flow and this cannot be reproduced at home where they are in a comfortable environment and perhaps explains why you cannot get a horse 100% fit while it is at home. The trainer also stated that this would apply to any horse coming off a lay off, including one who has had the winter off and about to begin his 3yo season. He said that if he were to have a guineas horse and was unable to find a suitable race before the big one itself he would arrange a racecourse gallop after racing about a month before the race so that the horse would experience raceday stress…..something that cannot be reproduced at home.<br>After this, it is for the trainer to know his horses and ensure that the animal has sufficient recovery time.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.