- This topic has 85 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 13 years ago by
.
- Posts
The ‘Sprinter Sacre Three Miles’ thread that I started has gone somewhat off-topic, not least due to me.
However, it has raised some interesting questions about what makes a ‘great’ trainer, or even why Trainer A is better than Trainer B. I have tried in vain to get concrete answers to these questions but only ever seem to be informed that it’s all down to that ‘magic formula’ which predictably nobody can quite define.
Jonibake kindly gave me a link to a Brough Scott interview with Sir Henry Cecil which he hoped may make things clearer (it’s on Page 4 of the aforementioned Sprinter Sacre thread) but to be honest it was full of the same intangible, other-worldy, tap-the-side-of-your-nose musings that have become standard. (Scott’s stock-in-trade is the unquestioning hagiography of his racing acquaintances, whether in book or article form, and as his forthcoming Cecil bio is the portentously-titled ‘Trainer Of Genius’ I wouldn’t be expecting that to be any different. I’ve yet to hear him – or anyone else – define that supposed ‘genius’.)
I believe that anyone could be a successful trainer providing he has access to:
– Money
– Luck
– Wealthy owners
– Top class staffThe latter being the most important.
Tell me why I’m wrong…
Mike
Sadly I think it is those 4 factors above anything else. However, I do think a key quality for any trainer is to know the animal and the sport like the back of their hand.
I guess the only way of answering (to some extent) is to think of trainers who have fallen out with rich owners and lost their big stars – have they managed to keep producing the winners?I believe that anyone could be a successful trainer providing he has access to:
– Top class staff
The latter being the most important.
Tell me why I’m wrong…
Not wrong, Cecil admitted that after S.Mohammed left
Trainers are managers and those adept at the difficult task of man management will – to coin a phrase – be the cream on the coffee
Angle-of-trilby the great debate
Puceness of face a worry
I’ll be interested to read Jonibakes opinion – in a post on the thread Mike refers to, Jonibake inadvertantly criticised (in comparison to Cecil and Stoute) –
1 – Jim Bolger (whom many believe does a terrific job considering his resources).
2 – and more interestingly, Aiden O’Brien, who certainly has all of the traits Mike lists exceeding "Luck" which is surely subjective.What does Peter Grayson do? I’ve not known any trainer who can successfully regress a horse as well as that man
Access to money: – I am sure there are lots of very successful trainers who had virtually no money when they started – Jenny Pitman for instance. She eventually had a lot of money which she acquired by being a very good trainer. In the early part of her carreer she won more races, or better races, than most trainers could have done with the material she had, and eventually wealthy owners with very good horses beat a path to her door.
Access to luck: – Things might progress faster with a bit of luck at the beginning, like one of your first five owners sending you a top class horse that cost only a few thousand. But you have to be a good enough trainer at the start to make the most of that horse’s potential. Great trainers have a whole career; I cannot believe they are lucky for twenty years or more.
Access to wealthy owners: – See: Access to money
Top class staff: – Top class trainers do need top class staff. But they cannot help a hopeless trainer become good. Some top class trainers can help ordinary staff become top class, some useless trainers can make top class staff become demotivated or leave for a better job elsewhere.
The man or woman at the top who is ultimately responsible for all the decisions is the deciding factor themselves. If they are a bad decision maker about money, arrogant with their owners and unappreciative of their staff, they will not make it.
If they are honest about their own capabilities, determined to rectify any shortcomings, are prepared to delegate to trusted staff those things they are not so good at, and exercise attention to detail in the areas that matter, then they have a fair chance of success. Successful trainers, like other successful people, need huge motivation, ambition and determination.
As for the mention of Sir Henry Cecil: From Scott’s biography it seems that Cecil delegates a lot to staff whom he greatly trusts. However, the thing that he always keeps to himself is the gallops list. He decides which horse will do what work on any given day and who will ride the horse. There are many mentions that Cecil’s horses work faster than any others on Newmarket Heath. He takes particular time to decide which rider will be paired with which horse. This is in accord with many other mentions of Cecil’s making sure that his riders/lads/lasses must know their horses well and get on with them and understand them. He apparently spends a lot more one-to-one time with his horses than other trainers, getting to know exactly what they are like. There are several anecdotes where his close observational skills relating to horses allow him to make beneficial changes to horses’ training routines, and spot problems with a horse before it is apparent to other people.
Martin Pipe
started out with little money or wealthy owners and he didn’t need luck. His genius made him such a great trainer and he revolutionised the way horses are trained.
So I’d say that was the reason he was successful.Martin Pipe
started out with little money or wealthy owners and he didn’t need luck. His genius made him such a great trainer and he revolutionised the way horses are trained.
So I’d say that was the reason he was successful.Martin Pipe certainly did something to his horses that other trainers didn’t back in his glory days of the mid to late 80’s. Everything that ran seemed to go off like a scolded cat and kept up the gallop to the end,he’d have horses with strings of 1’s by their names that always somehow stayed ahead of the handicapper,he was a master at placing his horses with said form and no end of time they were at the lower end of the handicap.Incredible times as the cynics of the day were quick to ask if Martin had a ‘Magic Bottle’! He certainly had a Magic wand and he knew how to use it! The aptly named
Run for Free
proved it wasn’t just hurdlers Martin could train to run from the front,his form always read made all and I’ll always remember the day he did just that,leading home a Pipe 1234 in the Welsh National.
Mike I am quite prepared to try and answer it as best I can. I do wish though that sometimes you would think about contributing more than just a paragraph or two yourself. You are happy to type a few lines saying that anyone can train with a few of those attributes and then say "now prove I am wrong." Very easy to do that. I could of course say to you "prove you are right!"
And my lovely friend PC – I was not criticising Bolger or O’Brien at all. I think they are both very good trainers. It is just my opinion that they are not "great" ones. Perhaps I am being harsh (especially on O’Brien) but for me and at this point in time at least, they fall short of TRUE GREATNESS in one or two areas.
Anyway it is an intriguing question and I will do my very best to add to the substantial answers I gave on the Sprinter Scare thread. The four attributes you mention are all givens but it is my opinion that there is far far more to it than just that.
Perhaps the best way to start is to give you an example of what I mean.
On July 4th 2009 Twice Over finished tailed off behind Sea The Stars in the Eclipse beaten 17 1/2 lengths. It was his 6th consecutive defeat and he looked for all the world as though the promise he had shown when winning the Craven the year before would not be realised. His form had plateaued and I remember thinking that we might have seen the last of him.
Henry Cecil gave him a 2 month break and then brought him back to win a small conditions race followed by a listed race. What on earth was he doing running a group horse in such races? Well the following month Twice Over won the Champion Stakes which would be the first of 4 Group 1 races.
When interviewed Henry spoke about the horse having lost his confidence during that run of defeats and how those small races had been taken in purely to give the horse more self belief.
This was generally regarded as a fantastic piece of training. Can it be attributed just to luck, money, rich owners or stable staff? Or could it have had something to do with a trainer’s intuition, experience. Knowing where to place his horse. Taking three steps back in order to then take four steps forward. Perhaps you can prove to me that someone else in the stable made those decisions. If so – I’ll put my hand up.
I wish I was a trainer so that I could give you the probable 50+ answers that I am sure are out there but other attributes I can see a great trainer needing are:
Patience – something Cecil and Stoute have in abundance. Don’t rush your horse. Know when they are ready to run or when they are still growing in their frames. Not making them run before they can walk. This is an area where, in my humble opinion, Mr Bolger sometimes falls down. Finsceal Beo and Banimpire are two recent examples of horses who I think he ran into the ground and who might well have won more races if they had been more tenderly handled. I certainly don’t think Cecil and Stoute would have raced them as much as he did.
Instinct – an attribute I mentioned on the other thread but one I am not sure you believe in. However we use our instincts all day long. We are not as aware of them as we were when we were kids because our senses are so awash with so many stimulants but we use them everytime we meet a human being for the first time. In the same way as age and experience help to hone our instincts when it comes to other humans so a person who has worked with horses all their lives develops it with them. This means that the great trainers can know instinctively when there is something ailing a horse, when to lay off the training a bit or when to step them up from light exercise to full work. As we heard in that interview Cecil never weighs his horses, he knows when they are right because he uses his instinct, experience and judgement.
Knowledge – when Frankel hit his hind leg in that accident before the start of last season the vets feared the worse. The talk was of a career ending injury. Cecil was adamant that the injury was superficial and told the Prince exactly that. He was right of course. Similarly a great trainer knows which tracks would suit which type of horse. What distances they should be tried over. Whether they should be ridden prominently or held up. What tack to use, what routine suits an individual horse before a race (illustrated beautifully in todays Racing Post article about Wollow).
Communication – this would cover a broad spectrum but great trainers must be able to talk to jockeys and staff. Shane Featherstonehaugh will tell you how he and Henry spoke for hour after hour after hour as to how to calm the highly strung, hard pulling 2 year old Frankel. That exceptional talent had to be harnessed and I think it would be fair to say that Cecil had a fair part to play in that. Or could any of us have trained him?
Management and leadership – take Sir Alex Fergerson or Bill Shankley. Great leaders. People who knew how to make the big decisions at the right time. Or could any of us do that given purely money, staff, owners and luck? This was why I mentioned Aiden and Camelot in the Irish Derby. Can we honestly say that was a good decision? PC would say yes but my guess is he would be in a small minority. I said it at the time and he leathered me for it but we all know it now. Aiden is a wonderful trainer of course he is but he would be the first to admit he is still learning. Give him another 10 years and he could well be up there with the Vincent’s, Henry’s, Michaels, Willie’s and Nicky’s.
Anyway I hope that gives you at least something though I doubt it as I think you have made up your mind and are not one for changing! I mean even poor old Brough gets it in the neck from you. I thought we all liked him! I personally can’t wait for the biography, perhaps we might get some more answers.
Perhaps you are right and that we are actually all just fans of a sport where it is all simply about luck, money and staff. A bit like F1. Shame if it is though.
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
Money.
Cecil without the old owner-breeders and Sheikh Mohammed? Nada.
Stoute without the above and HRH the Aga Khan? Ditto.
Aiden O’Brien sans Coolmore? Don’t think so.The only trainers to have truly changed the game since WWII are Vincent O’Brien and Martin Pipe.
Money.
Cecil without the old owner-breeders and Sheikh Mohammed? Nada.
Stoute without the above and HRH the Aga Khan? Ditto.
Aiden O’Brien sans Coolmore? Don’t think so.That is surely a given. Any trainer needs decent ammunition. "Horses to go to war with" Sir Henry calls it.
Even Sir Alex wouldnt win the Prem if he had to swap his players with Runcorns!
It’s what you do with that ammunition.
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
Money.
Cecil without the old owner-breeders and Sheikh Mohammed? Nada.
Stoute without the above and HRH the Aga Khan? Ditto.
Aiden O’Brien sans Coolmore? Don’t think so.That is surely a given. Any trainer needs decent ammunition. "Horses to go to war with" Sir Henry calls it.
Even Sir Alex wouldnt win the Prem if he had to swap his players with Runcorns!
It’s what you do with that ammunition.
I think you criticised Jim Bolger and AOB, although in a ambiguous fashion – "how would Jim Bolger had campaigned Frankel"?
To refer more to your post I have quoted – I would argue that Bolger provides his own ammunition, and is pound-for-pound probably the top man in the UK and Ireland, although I feel his communication with the media (and therefore punters) is frankly outrageously poor.
I’d therefore counter your questionj with my own question – how many Group 1’s / Classics would Henry Cecil train if he had to rely on breeding and owning his own horses?
Simple criteria for being a good trainer there are 3 important things a trainer must do without them,money,wealthy owners or good staff are worthless.
1. Knowing how to feed a horse properly. With top quality feed and a blend of the feed to get a horse to their best.
2. Knowing how to work a horse,it takes very good judgement to make sure one is giving the horse enough work but not too much and getting them to peak on the day.
3. Placing their horse in the right race,no good having an ordinary horse and trying to win one at Royal Ascot. There is an old saying ‘put your horse in the worst company and yourself in the best’.
That is the secret to training horses,short but simple, and if a trainer is no good at any of the 3 above criteria he will be an ordinary trainer. Common sense tells a person that if a trainer doesn’t have the know how money,wealthy owners,or staff are not going to magically transform his judgement.
Mike I am quite prepared to try and answer it as best I can. I do wish though that sometimes you would think about contributing more than just a paragraph or two yourself. You are happy to type a few lines saying that anyone can train with a few of those attributes and then say "now prove I am wrong." Very easy to do that. I could of course say to you "prove you are right!"
Jonibake
Thank-you for your very detailed post.
I think the quote above is somewhat unfair considering my posts on here on any number of subjects over the years. I have been known to think occasionally before posting!
The lay follower of racing currently has two forms of analyses of trainers: 1 unstinting praise from the racing media or 2 moronic ‘they’re all bent’ analysis courtesy of (losing) punters. I was simply searching for ‘3’.
My ignorance about trainers probably stems from when I was betting seriously. I’d come to the conclusion that they contributed about 5% towards the chance of a horse winning a race, jockeys contributed another 5% and the horse itself 90%. These of course are completely random, logically absurd percentages picked out of thin air but they’re probably more accurate than the OBR’s growth forecasts.
Anyway, I decided it would be better for me to spend my limited time studying the 90% rather than worrying about the two 5%s and as it turned out that was a good decision.
Having read your response thoroughly you’ll be staggered to hear that I’m still not convinced! For example, the ‘knowledge’ you attribute to Cecil re Frankel’s injury was surely displayed only after vet’s examinations and scans (wasn’t he taken to horsey-hospital at the time?). Much of the rest of it leaves me dubious too – a sign of Cecil’s ‘genius’ is that he doesn’t weigh horses, but apparently other top trainers do? Are they not geniuses too?!
I think the problem here is definitely me. You say I’ve ‘made up my mind and am not one for changing’ which is almost certainly correct. I spent a few years studying (cognitive) dissonance – the psychological failing evident in approximately 100% of the human populace, which shows that people who have created their own ‘truth’ on a subject never, ever back down even when it is demonstrated as being patently incorrect (in fact, that tends to make it worse as most most people’s position becomes even more entrenched at that stage).
I’m always staggered by my own ignorance and lack of learning compared to others and whilst I don’t think my ‘position’ has been shown to be anywhere near incorrect yet, I would certainly conclude that even if it were, I don’t really have the mental capacity to change my mind anyway.
But thanks for trying!
Mike
Money.
Cecil without the old owner-breeders and Sheikh Mohammed? Nada.
Stoute without the above and HRH the Aga Khan? Ditto.
Aiden O’Brien sans Coolmore? Don’t think so.That is surely a given. Any trainer needs decent ammunition. "Horses to go to war with" Sir Henry calls it.
Even Sir Alex wouldnt win the Prem if he had to swap his players with Runcorns!
It’s what you do with that ammunition.
I think you criticised Jim Bolger and AOB, although in a ambiguous fashion – "how would Jim Bolger had campaigned Frankel"?
To refer more to your post I have quoted – I would argue that Bolger provides his own ammunition, and is pound-for-pound probably the top man in the UK and Ireland, although I feel his communication with the media (and therefore punters) is frankly outrageously poor.
I’d therefore counter your questionj with my own question – how many Group 1’s / Classics would Henry Cecil train if he had to rely on breeding and owning his own horses?
Ah but are breeding and training the same thing PC? Undoubtedly he tops every trainer in that department. Cecil is not primarily a breeder though so, with respect, I am not sure the question is relevant to this debate.
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
Mike I am quite prepared to try and answer it as best I can. I do wish though that sometimes you would think about contributing more than just a paragraph or two yourself. You are happy to type a few lines saying that anyone can train with a few of those attributes and then say "now prove I am wrong." Very easy to do that. I could of course say to you "prove you are right!"
Jonibake
Thank-you for your very detailed post.
I think the quote above is somewhat unfair considering my posts on here on any number of subjects over the years. I have been known to think occasionally before posting!
The lay follower of racing currently has two forms of analyses of trainers: 1 unstinting praise from the racing media or 2 moronic ‘they’re all bent’ analysis courtesy of (losing) punters. I was simply searching for ‘3’.
My ignorance about trainers probably stems from when I was betting seriously. I’d come to the conclusion that they contributed about 5% towards the chance of a horse winning a race, jockeys contributed another 5% and the horse itself 90%. These of course are completely random, logically absurd percentages picked out of thin air but they’re probably more accurate than the OBR’s growth forecasts.
Anyway, I decided it would be better for me to spend my limited time studying the 90% rather than worrying about the two 5%s and as it turned out that was a good decision.
Having read your response thoroughly you’ll be staggered to hear that I’m still not convinced! For example, the ‘knowledge’ you attribute to Cecil re Frankel’s injury was surely displayed only after vet’s examinations and scans (wasn’t he taken to horsey-hospital at the time?). Much of the rest of it leaves me dubious too – a sign of Cecil’s ‘genius’ is that he doesn’t weigh horses, but apparently other top trainers do? Are they not geniuses too?!
I think the problem here is definitely me. You say I’ve ‘made up my mind and am not one for changing’ which is almost certainly correct. I spent a few years studying (cognitive) dissonance – the psychological failing evident in approximately 100% of the human populace, which shows that people who have created their own ‘truth’ on a subject never, ever back down even when it is demonstrated as being patently incorrect (in fact, that tends to make it worse as most most people’s position becomes even more entrenched at that stage).
I’m always staggered by my own ignorance and lack of learning compared to others and whilst I don’t think my ‘position’ has been shown to be anywhere near incorrect yet, I would certainly conclude that even if it were, I don’t really have the mental capacity to change my mind anyway.
But thanks for trying!
Mike
Love it! Well I did my best. And apologies for that opening paragraph which was certainly too harsh."this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.