- This topic has 46 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
I have just read through your thread on the BF forum Pru .. and it seems to me that no-one there knows or isnt saying what causes ‘bounce factor’ .. I would say regression to a mean, looks like the best way of describing the phenomena .. although thats not what causes it.
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.
<br>Utter nonsense, since when was the French Guineas 8 weeks before Royal Ascot ? 3-4 weeks at best.
The ‘bounce’ factor clearly exists but it exists in degrees. For example I would suggest that there was a hint of a ‘bounce’ about Ashley Brook on Saturday. Having run a blinder over hurdles on his first run back after a long break he may have still been feeling the effects asked to race again within a fortnight. He didnt run terribly badly on Saturday but he just seemed a little flat and went out quickly when under pressure. If he had not run at Cheltenham then perversely he may actually have had a better chance at Newbury – although even at his best he would have struggled to beat the superior Well Chief.
I agree he was beaten by the better horse but to my eye he didnt make as good a fist of it as I expected. I think if the Game Spirit had been run that day at Cheltenham he would have run a bit better, not enough to win but a bit better.
- Total Posts 17716
SJ
I doubt very much that Ashley Brook ‘bounced’ on Saturday. His best previous run, imo, was his impressive Aintree victory, over a sharp 2m on good ground, where he had the field cooked some way from home. He tried similar tactics on Saturday, but was unable to sustain his effort, against a truly top class 2 miler, on the stiffer track and slower ground.<br>Add to that that, in his defeat by Well Chief he beat his previous best (weight adjusted) s/f by some 6lbs, then it is difficult to see how he ran below form.<br>9 times out of 10, he would have won the race handsomely, but none of those nine could have included a rampant Well Chief.
Scottish Jamie thinks that there was a "hint of a bounce" about Ashley Brook on Saturday, and who is to say he’s wrong?
If he had said that he thought Ashley Brook had been unsuited by the track, the distance or the going there would probably be, or have been, independent evidence to confirm or refute that.
But "bounce" is a one-off event and therefore has no independent evidence of confirmation or refutation.
"Bounce" exists but is in the eye of the beholder, and that subjectivity is why I think it is of little use to the punter.
Quote: from Prufrock on 7:54 pm on Feb. 12, 2007[br] But "bounce" is a one-off event and therefore has no independent evidence of confirmation or refutation.
"Bounce" exists but is in the eye of the beholder, and that subjectivity is why I think it is of little use to the punter.<br>
That gets back to what definition you are using.<br>Certain trainers are quite good at assessing a horse’s fitness, not only to win its first race but to come out again within 4-7 days, on the flat, and win again. Others are consistently hopeless at doing that – they try and their horses consistently "bounce" as short price flops. Trainer records on this aspect consistently repeat from season to season. So in that sense "bounce" or "non bounce" is measurable, non subjective and repeatable. Even for individual horses, particularly fillies and mares, if they run enough times, a clear pattern of performance change after varying rest periods can be determined. All that is of tremendous use to a punter particularly now that you can lay horses.
I remember in World Cups, a minor team would play out of their skins, and then play terribly in their next match. Took too much out them.
Hi madman
Dave you were right about him shouting and ranting at the telly. Although it was a no brainer.
byefrom<br>carlisle
- Total Posts 17716
Very interesting scanning your archives here. I have already seen quite a few I will be bringing back up top for the lastword.
This of course was an oldie but a goodie and the arguments still exist today although it’s not quite the topic it once was.
Let me say that horses DO bounce. The angle is real yet it has been hijacked by the excuse makers and the sore losers. Or the ones who come out after the fact proclaiming this and that. The Bounce Factor is real but one cannot make a blanket statement or rule that concerns all horses.
Like we humans, horses are different. In my country, The Bounce was originally used and then predicted or not off a lenghty lay off where a horse came back gangbusters. The theory was that off such a huge effort without the necessary bottom of racing under their belts, many will of course regress,..And who can argue with that?
Things got a little tricky when they started using the bounce off a huge effort NOT with the layoff in mind. This is pure rubbish to this handicapper. They are merely making excuses for not recognizing a horse’s particular normal cycle. With the layoff however the principal is sound. It’s just that it takes a keen eye and great handicapping skill to predict which ones will bounce and to what degree.
Trainers have a good part in this as do past layoff cycles. Also, the degree of toughness invloved in a particular comeback race plays into it. Still, some will thrive off the rest and be prepared to move foward. It might be hard to top a high speed fig off the layoff but this is not to say they won’t still win. In the end, it’s just another tool in the shed for use when a handicapper sees fit. It is something one must consider. That being said, it certainly is not one of the commandments
As I produce was own speed figures I am always on the look out for horses that produce very fast times, that are going bounce the next time out without a lengthy layoff.
The best example of a horse that was going to bounce that I spotted recently was
Tastahil
when he finished 2nd behind
Overturn
at Chester carrying
9-11
.
I sat down and compiled the speed figures for the race and awarded
115
to
Tastahil
which was a group race time.
I remember my reaction to the rating and thought God that must have hurt
Tastahil
and he was a prime suspect to bounce on his next run without a long layoff.
As he had run on the 4th May and ran again on the 16th June giving the horse plenty of time to recover, I was still convinced he was going to bounce and the result was he
PU
in the race.
Horses remember hard races and if
Tastahil
wins a race this year I will be surprised
Good post Lastword.
In my experience the "bounce factor" is indeed over-used. Think it can be more that a horse is
"best fresh"
, running well
first
time out and then disappointing
unless
given another break.
If the bounce factor were just a normal thing to happen, then no trainer would risk running a horse in a Classic Trial; ie if it is odds-on to bounce in the Classic itself. Recent fashion for horses going straight for the Guineas (I believe) more to do with a
supposed limit
to
number
of runs (/
time
in full training) a season. Trainers not wanting to
"waste"
a run in a trial if it has a detrimental effect on its chances in the Breeders Cup /
Autumn targets
.
There does however, seem to be a
true bounce factor
when coming back
after an injury
and (therefore) long lay off. Running well first time up but poorly
just two or three weeks later
. Especially if the
reappearance
race were
strongly run or on testing ground
. Seeming to take
longer
than usual to recover after a first run back after injury. Whether there is any biological reason for this or its old injury reocurring or just a coincidence, don’t know.
Value Is EverythingI believe in the Bounce Factor though I’ve always attributed it to horse’s mental state rather than physical.
Given that racehorses are bred to run and to race, I suspect that after being long-deprived of the opportunity to do just that, such is the hormonal and psychological rush from being back on the track, they run well beyond what might be expected.
That motivation cannot be repeated unless there is another very long gap till the next run.
Only a theory, and perhaps its nonsense, but I ain’t going to change it!
This of course was an oldie but a goodie and the arguments still exist today although it’s not quite the topic it once was. 
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.