- This topic has 8 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
It’s the Chester Cup on Wednesday – limited to 17 runners by the space available for the stalls, and this year the lowest rated horse to get into the race is running off 96. A further 29 horses, rated 95 and lower, have been eliminated.
That poses at least one interesting question for the racing authorities – if my 95 rated stayer can’t get a run in the Chester Cup, where am I supposed to find a race for him ?
What a fantastic change from 20 years ago, when the top weight in the Chester Cup was rated 101 and the bottom weight ran off 62 – and there were several still running from out of the handicap. The big handicaps then were a chance for the smaller trainers to win a big prize – the 1991 winner was Star Player, trained by John Baker in Devon and ridden by some foreigner called Dettori. His rating was 79.
Other trainers having a go included Reg Hollinshead, John Jenkins, Rod Simpson, Mike Banshard, Micky Hammond, Ray Peacock and Roger Ingram. What chance any of them having a horse good enough to run in the race now.
This years field is dominated by jumping trainers – Henderson, Elliot, McCain, Pipe and Twiston-Davies. Jim Goldie and Mark Tompkins are about the only representatives for the smaller flat yards.
It’s not only the Chester Cup of course, although it does provide an extreme example. The big handicaps are increasingly only open to to horses that would have been contesting Pattern races twenty years ago – attracted by the prize money, that in this case exceds the tariff for a Group 2 race.
Probably because I’m of an age to see the past through rose tinted glasses, I regard this change as a negative for racing. I wonder if it’s one reason why NH has grown in popularity – because that’s the game in which the small man can still get a run in the big races.
AP
Excellent post AP.
I don’t have anything to add to what you’ve said regarding the Chester Cup as you’ve said it all really.
But you’re spot on regarding NH racing. It seems prize money is not the be all and end all in that sphere amongst the vast majority of owners, it’s all about the love of the sport and the love of having a runner.
And I guess that then feeds its way down to the race-goers, the general public etc. There’s a sense that flat racing is still the Sport of Kings, a rich man’s sport where making money is pivotal, whereas NH racing is the Sport of Paupers (I speak for myself there probably lol), where fun and enjoyment means a lot more than making money.
As you say, AP, when the prizemoney exceeds the tariff for a G2 race and the prizemoney situation generally is so dire it’s hardly surprising that the race will be targeted by a lot of trainers.
I think the situation is merely a reflection of the fact that having brought prizemoney to the forefront of the debate within the racing industry, one effect of the Horsemen’s Group’s actions is that courses like Chester which is offering good levels of prizemoney have enormous numbers of entries. Chester’s ability to water thoroughly may also be in its favour at the moment.
The solution is to have more races with better prize funds which may spread the horses of similar ability more widely.
One thing is becoming clear. Owners are paying close attention to the prizemoney on offer before entering their horses and are campaigning them around the better prizes throughout the season.
- Total Posts 17716
Intriguing post, AP – thank you.
My thought is that the rising profile of the "heritage" handicaps is perhaps a move towards Americanisation – and one which has something to be said for it.
We take more notice of the effects of weight here than they do over there (partly because of the difference in pace style at which our turf races are run) but it seems to me that races such as the Chester Cup and Northumberland Plate now offer the chance to up-and-coming, young pattern horses and the "twilight" high-rated handicappers to win big prizes which they are not going to get otherwise.
Sad though this may be for the smaller yards, it has in my opinion made races like the Chester Cup even more enticing as spectacles and as betting mediums.
Done some checking on the program book and it’s a bleak outlook for those up and coming young horses if they need 2 miles or more.
In Wednesday’s Chester Cup, the effect of the 4lb weight for age allowance for 4-y-olds means that the lowest rated 4-y-old to get into the race has a mark of 99.
The only handicap available to a stayer rated over 95 between now and the end of June, is the Northumberland Plate. There’s a 0-95 2M handicap at Haydock worth just £13,000, and there’s the Ascot Stakes, also now a 0-95, although worth £50,000.
So the 96+ young stayer is forced to run in pattern races whether he’s ready for that class or not. And for those rated 91-95 that have been eliminated from the Chester Cup, the options are thin on the ground.
In order to provide an opportunity to run these horses, perhaps the Chester Cup now needs a consolation race – the Chester Plate anyone?
AP
- Total Posts 17716
That’s not quite fair, AP, as said young pattern-class stayers also have the Im 6f races to consider too, in and out of the pattern.
But your point is well taken: we need the stayers division to be strengthened by more good handicaps for better horses. It seems to me that the Pontefract Cup (a personal favourite of mine) is one race ripe for upgrading – though you may well disagree.
You’ve got the option of Ireland also.
The Saval Beg worth £30k at the end of May over an extended 1 mile and 6 furlongs.
7, 7, 8, 5, 8
This is the number of runners of runners over the past five years. So there’s an opportunity for a young stayer with a progressive profile to at least pick-up some place money.
In order to provide an opportunity to run these horses, perhaps the Chester Cup now needs a consolation race – the Chester Plate anyone?
AP
Musselburgh have just announced a consolation race for the Scottish Sprint Cup so presumably they are anticipating a bumper entry as well.
The Victoria Cup tomorrow demonstrates the same pattern of domination by high rated runners. Despite a maximum field of 29, the bottom weights are rated 89.
Again, the comparison with 20 years ago is telling – the 1991 Victoria Cup had a top weight rated 108 (and carrying 10st, which no longer seems to be allowed for some reason) and a bottom weight rated 73. The winner ran off 77 for Reg Akehurst and Willie Carson, with Dettori and Piggott filling the places.
Perhaps the most significant figure is the number of runners in 1991 – just 14. This is the real difference over the twenty year period, the vast increase in the number of higher rated horses in training.
What the Chester Cup and Victoria Cup tell us, is that the racing program has not adjusted to take account of this rise in numbers at the top end. Horses rated over 85 are prime candidates for export (I know because I advise one US agent on UK/Irish purchases), not only because they can earn more prize money abroad, but also because there are simply more opportunities to run.
AP
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.