- This topic has 85 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 13 years ago by
.
- Posts
Jollyp,
This is not a Henry V Bart thread.
What we want to know is:
What sort of man is Bart?
What makes him able to win so many races?
What does he do with his horses that others don’t?Value Is EverythingNot sure when the Australian Pattern began, but as the European Pattern only started in 1971, trying to compare Vincent to Bart in Group 1 wins alone is futile.
(Example:- Nijinsky and Sir Ivor would not have contributed to V’OBs Group 1 total).
Enjoying reading peoples thoughts on this subject though.
I also beleive that a jockey can have a big influence on whether a trainer is succesful or not.
I don’t want to get into a big debate about jockeys and their relative ability, however I think we all know who are good jockeys and who we consider not so good.
I know in a finish I would prefer AP McCoy to Sam Whaley-Cohen. That can make the differnce between winning and losing.
I could write a full thread about who I think are good jockeys and who are bad and I now do not back horses I think should/would win if there is a jockey riding my horse who I think is not that good.
I am all for loyalty and I think it is lacking in todays society as a whole, however there comes a point when a jockeys ability comes into question then they should be releived of their duties.This is an interesting read. In my opinion a key factor is the knowledge of the animal – for example, how Cecil got frankel to settle was due to his ability to read the animal/ and instruct TQ. However, the question could be asked-is it just as good a piece of skill for say Christine Dunnett to get the best out of Danzoe/Speedyfix than Cecil’s getting Frankel to win? CD has a different yard to Cecil’s but has produced winners from it. Okay not the same amount by any stretch of the imagination, but still has got winners from the resources available.
This is an interesting read. In my opinion a key factor is the knowledge of the animal – for example, how Cecil got frankel to settle was due to his ability to read the animal/ and instruct TQ. However, the question could be asked-is it just as good a piece of skill for say Christine Dunnett to get the best out of Danzoe/Speedyfix than Cecil’s getting Frankel to win? CD has a different yard to Cecil’s but has produced winners from it. Okay not the same amount by any stretch of the imagination, but still has got winners from the resources available.
Yep – Dandy Nicholls has always scoffed at his "King of the Sprinters" tag, and said that if the right people sent the right horses, he’d win The Derby alright.
Jollyp,
This is not a Henry V Bart thread.
What we want to know is:
What sort of man is Bart?
What makes him able to win so many races?
What does he do with his horses that others don’t?To be fair GT if a couple of people say Henry is the best,i think i have a right to put my opinion forth. Bart’s father Jim was a Melbourne Cup winning trainer,Bart actually strapped the horse Comic Court in 1950.Bart is very laid back,though as you know not worried about putting his opinion forth.He actually has a very good sense of humour. One day a health inspector came to his stables and told Bart that he had too many flies, Bart replied ‘well how many am i allowed to have’!He always carries a pocket full of lollys,sweets and shares them with some of the trainers.He always states a horse has to have totalled a certain amount in distance in lead up races to have the best chance to win the Cup,off hand i am not sure but i think it may be 10 km in lead up races.He is 85 now and still training Group 1 winners, not been in great health,but hopefully the old bloke has another cup in him.
What makes him able to win so many races?
What does he do with his horses that others don’t?Hah. Coming round here with yer rational questions.
Don’t you understand that these people are geniuses…geniuses I tell you!
Mike
Fantastic piece on the RP website about Sir Henry and Hot Snap from the brilliant Sam Walker. Adds a bit more insight into this discussion – http://www.racingpost.com/news/horse-ra … t7DaysNews
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
Fantastic piece on the RP website about Sir Henry and Hot Snap from the brilliant Sam Walker. Adds a bit more insight into this discussion – http://www.racingpost.com/news/horse-ra … t7DaysNews
Sorry, but it’s another really poor piece I’m afraid.
‘The brilliant’ Sam Walker (not another bleedin’ genius – yer can’t move for ’em in ‘ere) is making the mistake of confusing the causal with the deterministic.
If you believe that the process of getting Frankel and Sprinter Sacre from very promising talents to unique ones is solely down to the implied abilities of messrs Cecil and Henderson you should ask yourself two questions:
– Would Frankel have achieved as much at, say, Mr Stoute’s or Mr Oxx’s yard? If not, why not? (Ditto for Sprinter Sacre at, say, Mr Nicholls’ or Mr Pipe’s).
– If not, are you not therefore saying thatall
horses at those yards (or any other) would have performed better at Mr Cecil’s / Mr Henderson’s?
Sam Walker’s implication is that the three trainers he mentions for successfully nurturing the extreme talent in their care, do so with skills that are unique to them (without naming those skills obviously – in training, everything is vague and ethereal). He ‘proves’ this by insisting that ‘some licence holders would have got Frankel beaten’ which is obviously true and a patently absurd argument as he fails to compare like with like – most licence holders would have inferior staff, inferior facilities and inferior care.
His argument therefore is causal: whilst he believes that Frankel and Sprinter Sacre would have been very good with most trainers, the extra brilliance is solely down to them being trained by Cecil/Henderson. The very act of being with Cecil & Henderson makes them great.
I believe this is nonsense. To me, this is a deterministic issue: place those horses with similar big-budget, well-run, superbly-staffed yards and you could expect the same results.
Messrs Cecil and Henderson are very good at their jobs. But so are many butchers, bakers and candlestick-makers.
Sorry, but there is no ‘genius’; no magic.
There are no fairies at the bottom of the garden.
Mike
I think it’s pretty obvious from the al zarooni affair why some are successful and some aren’t
Fantastic piece on the RP website about Sir Henry and Hot Snap from the brilliant Sam Walker. Adds a bit more insight into this discussion – http://www.racingpost.com/news/horse-ra … t7DaysNews
Sorry, but it’s another really poor piece I’m afraid.
‘The brilliant’ Sam Walker (not another bleedin’ genius – yer can’t move for ’em in ‘ere) is making the mistake of confusing the causal with the deterministic.
If you believe that the process of getting Frankel and Sprinter Sacre from very promising talents to unique ones is solely down to the implied abilities of messrs Cecil and Henderson you should ask yourself two questions:
– Would Frankel have achieved as much at, say, Mr Stoute’s or Mr Oxx’s yard? If not, why not? (Ditto for Sprinter Sacre at, say, Mr Nicholls’ or Mr Pipe’s).
– If not, are you not therefore saying thatall
horses at those yards (or any other) would have performed better at Mr Cecil’s / Mr Henderson’s?
Sam Walker’s implication is that the three trainers he mentions for successfully nurturing the extreme talent in their care, do so with skills that are unique to them (without naming those skills obviously – in training, everything is vague and ethereal). He ‘proves’ this by insisting that ‘some licence holders would have got Frankel beaten’ which is obviously true and a patently absurd argument as he fails to compare like with like – most licence holders would have inferior staff, inferior facilities and inferior care.
His argument therefore is causal: whilst he believes that Frankel and Sprinter Sacre would have been very good with most trainers, the extra brilliance is solely down to them being trained by Cecil/Henderson. The very act of being with Cecil & Henderson makes them great.
I believe this is nonsense. To me, this is a deterministic issue: place those horses with similar big-budget, well-run, superbly-staffed yards and you could expect the same results.
Messrs Cecil and Henderson are very good at their jobs. But so are many butchers, bakers and candlestick-makers.
Sorry, but there is no ‘genius’; no magic.
There are no fairies at the bottom of the garden.
Mike
The Genius is in judgement the greats are better the the ‘very goods’ they have an instinct that is better than others.If you think money and staff can make a trainer you are way off the mark
If this was the case than Godophins trainers would clean up,after all they have the biggest budget,very good staff though are not all that successful for what they have. Why because they are not very good trainers!If this was the case than Godophins trainers would clean up,after all they have…very good staff
I’ve got a feeling the jury may be out on that one.
Mike
If this was the case than Godophins trainers would clean up,after all they have…very good staff
I’ve got a feeling the jury may be out on that one.
Mike
I know quite a few staff who have worked with them Mike and they were top quality horse people and no expense is spared and they paid very well! They are very professional but for mine they want a home grown trainer and as yet they are not up to it.I had a lot of friends and also people i knew who also went to Japan when it was starting off in a big way.At that time the Japanese were hopeless in handling horses and needed the western experience.A lot of their colts were let to get away with dangerous savage behavior by the locals,believe me when they are coming at you teeth bared a polythene pipe works wonders!It doesn’t hurt them much and they learn to respect. Sometimes a ‘whack’ is needed otherwise you get hurt. I love it when do-gooders who have never handled colts or stallions say ‘oh thats nasty’.I have seen fingers taken off by an ill tempered horse who was spoiled. Though maybe you are hinting at one of their trainers in the spotlight.
Fantastic piece on the RP website about Sir Henry and Hot Snap from the brilliant Sam Walker. Adds a bit more insight into this discussion – http://www.racingpost.com/news/horse-ra … t7DaysNews
Sorry, but it’s another really poor piece I’m afraid.
‘The brilliant’ Sam Walker (not another bleedin’ genius – yer can’t move for ’em in ‘ere) is making the mistake of confusing the causal with the deterministic.
If you believe that the process of getting Frankel and Sprinter Sacre from very promising talents to unique ones is solely down to the implied abilities of messrs Cecil and Henderson you should ask yourself two questions:
– Would Frankel have achieved as much at, say, Mr Stoute’s or Mr Oxx’s yard? If not, why not? (Ditto for Sprinter Sacre at, say, Mr Nicholls’ or Mr Pipe’s).
– If not, are you not therefore saying thatall
horses at those yards (or any other) would have performed better at Mr Cecil’s / Mr Henderson’s?
Sam Walker’s implication is that the three trainers he mentions for successfully nurturing the extreme talent in their care, do so with skills that are unique to them (without naming those skills obviously – in training, everything is vague and ethereal). He ‘proves’ this by insisting that ‘some licence holders would have got Frankel beaten’ which is obviously true and a patently absurd argument as he fails to compare like with like – most licence holders would have inferior staff, inferior facilities and inferior care.
His argument therefore is causal: whilst he believes that Frankel and Sprinter Sacre would have been very good with most trainers, the extra brilliance is solely down to them being trained by Cecil/Henderson. The very act of being with Cecil & Henderson makes them great.
I believe this is nonsense. To me, this is a deterministic issue: place those horses with similar big-budget, well-run, superbly-staffed yards and you could expect the same results.
Messrs Cecil and Henderson are very good at their jobs. But so are many butchers, bakers and candlestick-makers.
Sorry, but there is no ‘genius’; no magic.
There are no fairies at the bottom of the garden.
Mike
Oh. Wish I hadn’t bothered now!
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
Fantastic piece on the RP website about Sir Henry and Hot Snap from the brilliant Sam Walker. Adds a bit more insight into this discussion – http://www.racingpost.com/news/horse-ra … t7DaysNews
Sorry, but it’s another really poor piece I’m afraid.
‘The brilliant’ Sam Walker (not another bleedin’ genius – yer can’t move for ’em in ‘ere) is making the mistake of confusing the causal with the deterministic.
If you believe that the process of getting Frankel and Sprinter Sacre from very promising talents to unique ones is solely down to the implied abilities of messrs Cecil and Henderson you should ask yourself two questions:
– Would Frankel have achieved as much at, say, Mr Stoute’s or Mr Oxx’s yard? If not, why not? (Ditto for Sprinter Sacre at, say, Mr Nicholls’ or Mr Pipe’s).
– If not, are you not therefore saying thatall
horses at those yards (or any other) would have performed better at Mr Cecil’s / Mr Henderson’s?
Sam Walker’s implication is that the three trainers he mentions for successfully nurturing the extreme talent in their care, do so with skills that are unique to them (without naming those skills obviously – in training, everything is vague and ethereal). He ‘proves’ this by insisting that ‘some licence holders would have got Frankel beaten’ which is obviously true and a patently absurd argument as he fails to compare like with like – most licence holders would have inferior staff, inferior facilities and inferior care.
His argument therefore is causal: whilst he believes that Frankel and Sprinter Sacre would have been very good with most trainers, the extra brilliance is solely down to them being trained by Cecil/Henderson. The very act of being with Cecil & Henderson makes them great.
I believe this is nonsense. To me, this is a deterministic issue: place those horses with similar big-budget, well-run, superbly-staffed yards and you could expect the same results.
Messrs Cecil and Henderson are very good at their jobs. But so are many butchers, bakers and candlestick-makers.
Sorry, but there is no ‘genius’; no magic.
There are no fairies at the bottom of the garden.
Mike
Oh. Wish I hadn’t bothered now!
http://www.samaritans.org
Mike
If this was the case than Godophins trainers would clean up,after all they have the biggest budget,very good staff though are not all that successful for what they have. Why because they are not very good trainers!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.