- This topic has 120 replies, 59 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Perhaps it just seems dull because Southwell is off ?
….. but it doesn’t matter if Southwell is off as the meetings have been transferred to other, equally boring, sandpits.
I think the Welsh National should keep it’s January date.
I’m not sure how different their gate receipts were but there’s tons of racing over Christmas, not so much that weekend in January.
The issue is of course that January and February are traditionally the times when the weather intervenes and there is a break in turf racing. Nowadays, frost sheets and drainage mitigate to some degree but it’s still possible to have a week to ten days with no racing (apart from Ricky’s beloved winter flat of course).
The other thing is there is so much redundancy built in to the NH pattern that there are plenty of opportunities for horses of whatever level to run their Cheltenham prep races and we now routinely move the top races like pass the parcel (and I think this is wrong) if the weather closes in and there’s also bumpers for jumpers if you want to get a racecourse gallop into your Cheltenham contender.
I’ve long thought the NH season was too heavily weighted toward mid-March onward and my controversial suggestion would be to move the National to mid-February to provide a midwinter focus for betting.
I think the Welsh National should keep it’s January date.
I’m not sure how different their gate receipts were but there’s tons of racing over Christmas, not so much that weekend in January.
I haven’t seen the official figures yet but the crowd didn’t seem anywhere near as big as it normally is at the meeting.
Last time it was switched to January (2010/11) the crowd size was much smaller. It normally attracts a crowd in the high 8,000’s the January renewal was two shy of 5,000.
From this year it will also be run the Saturday after Christmas as opposed to its usual 27th date so C4 can cover it.
I’ve long thought the NH season was too heavily weighted toward mid-March onward and my controversial suggestion would be to move the National to mid-February to provide a midwinter focus for betting.
Completely agree with this. Also The National would be far more likely to be run on safer ground. Alas they will never do it as it makes too much sense.
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
The ground if often bottomless in that area in February. Wouldn’t be the same race at all.
Reduction in field size would be by first port of call rather than continually changing the fences. 32 runners with reserves. Most problems i’ve seen in recent years have been from Brought Down’s
The reduction in distance to the first might help, as would the starter not being such a prima dona and wanting his 15 minutes of fame every year.
The ground if often bottomless in that area in February. Wouldn’t be the same race at all.
Reduction in field size would be by first port of call rather than continually changing the fences. 32 runners with reserves. Most problems i’ve seen in recent years have been from Brought Down’s
The reduction in distance to the first might help, as would the starter not being such a prima dona and wanting his 15 minutes of fame every year.
So running it on soft wouldn’t be the same race at all but reducing the numbers to 32 would?
It’s a tough one. Lower numbers doesnt necessarily reduce the risk. In 1954 there were only 29 runners but 4 were killed (albeit on soft ground!). In 1975 there were 31 runners and 2 were killed. Since the war there have been 41 deaths, three caused by brought downs, 4 from heart attacks, the vast majority are from falls. There has also been a significant recent rise in the number of deaths caused when horses have continued racing riderless. Interesting that there was only 1 death in the whole of the 60’s – before the modifications to the fences were were made.
Overall there have been almost twice as many deaths on ground that is good or faster than good to soft or soft ground but I don’t know how many races have been run on good verses soft ground.
Anyway I know this should really be on a seperate thread so will stop there but for me it is simple – speed kills so the faster the ground the faster they will go and the more likely they are to be killed.
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
The ground if often bottomless in that area in February. Wouldn’t be the same race at all.
Reduction in field size would be by first port of call rather than continually changing the fences. 32 runners with reserves. Most problems i’ve seen in recent years have been from Brought Down’s
The reduction in distance to the first might help, as would the starter not being such a prima dona and wanting his 15 minutes of fame every year.
So running it on soft wouldn’t be the same race at all but reducing the numbers to 32 would?
It’s a tough one. Lower numbers doesnt necessarily reduce the risk. In 1954 there were only 29 runners but 4 were killed (albeit on soft ground!). In 1975 there were 31 runners and 2 were killed. Since the war there have been 41 deaths, three caused by brought downs, 4 from heart attacks, the vast majority are from falls. There has also been a significant recent rise in the number of deaths caused when horses have continued racing riderless. Interesting that there was only 1 death in the whole of the 60’s – before the modifications to the fences were were made.
Overall there have been almost twice as many deaths on ground that is good or faster than good to soft or soft ground but I don’t know how many races have been run on good verses soft ground.
Anyway I know this should really be on a seperate thread so will stop there but for me it is simple – speed kills so the faster the ground the faster they will go and the more likely they are to be killed.
Not just soft – heavy with cold, wet conditions. Not going to happen
I don’t believe that only three horses have died due to BD’s. And fatalities should not be the only issue here. No other race has horses causing others problems as often as the National. Horses being hampered or squeezed reducing in unsafe landings i would include in my description when discussing the field size. You could stretch the field across the track and there would be barely any room left for manoeuvre – i don’t think that’s right.
Good ground should not be an issue.
Anyway, the racing in January and February is decent enough. Some quality graded races, some big handicaps.
Leave the midfweek bookie fodder alone and keep the powder dry for these races and Cheltenham.The ground if often bottomless in that area in February. Wouldn’t be the same race at all.
Reduction in field size would be by first port of call rather than continually changing the fences. 32 runners with reserves. Most problems i’ve seen in recent years have been from Brought Down’s
The reduction in distance to the first might help, as would the starter not being such a prima dona and wanting his 15 minutes of fame every year.
So running it on soft wouldn’t be the same race at all but reducing the numbers to 32 would?
It’s a tough one. Lower numbers doesnt necessarily reduce the risk. In 1954 there were only 29 runners but 4 were killed (albeit on soft ground!). In 1975 there were 31 runners and 2 were killed. Since the war there have been 41 deaths, three caused by brought downs, 4 from heart attacks, the vast majority are from falls. There has also been a significant recent rise in the number of deaths caused when horses have continued racing riderless. Interesting that there was only 1 death in the whole of the 60’s – before the modifications to the fences were were made.
Overall there have been almost twice as many deaths on ground that is good or faster than good to soft or soft ground but I don’t know how many races have been run on good verses soft ground.
Anyway I know this should really be on a seperate thread so will stop there but for me it is simple – speed kills so the faster the ground the faster they will go and the more likely they are to be killed.
I don’t believe that only three horses have died due to BD’s. And fatalities should not be the only issue here. No other race has horses causing others problems as often as the National. Horses being hampered or squeezed reducing in unsafe landings i would include in my description when discussing the field size. You could stretch the field across the track and there would be barely any room left for manoeuvre – i don’t think that’s right.
Good ground should not be an issue.
I din’t make it up Mark – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_eq … d_National
So you don’t think horses are less likely to injure themselves when they are running more slowly and falling on softer ground?
Try it yourself – go out now and run full speed on the road and trip over. Then go and do it in your park and compare the difference.
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
Try it yourself – go out now and run full speed on the road and trip over. Then go and do it in your park and compare the difference.
Or better again, trip someone else up on the road and in the park and note results.
Try it yourself – go out now and run full speed on the road and trip over. Then go and do it in your park and compare the difference.
Or better again, trip someone else up on the road and in the park and note results.
Or just follow Gareth Bale around for ten minutes.
Mike
I’ve long thought the NH season was too heavily weighted toward mid-March onward and my controversial suggestion would be to move the National to mid-February to provide a midwinter focus for betting.
Completely agree with this. Also The National would be far more likely to be run on safer ground. Alas they will never do it as it makes too much sense.
What a bizarre suggestion, hard to see how more would be bet mid Feb compared to early April.
With intermittent abandonment through frost etc and possible inspections on the day it’s hard to see the attraction for racegoers, viewers, punters or sponsors to run the race in mid Feb.
Ground is no longer a problem with the extensive watering they can do and they have it just right 3 weeks after Cheltenham.How bizarre that you think it is a bizarre suggestion. To even out the three festivals would seem an entirely sensible suggestion. No horse can run in all three.
As for the watering – let’s be honest its a joke at Aintree. The National is more often than not run on good ground.
"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.