- This topic has 295 replies, 31 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
Stickles doing it at Ascot now. First Newmarket now Ascot.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH FAST GROUND FOR A FLAT MEETING???
This watering for top class flat meetings REALLY gets on my nerves hence the capitals. IT IS WRONG!!
War Command is never going to get his ground is he? No real point in him being bred.
"Way back when" in the good old (firm) days they didn’t have the drainage systems in place that we do now at places like Ascot. Water kept in the soil for longer. So they need a certain amount of watering now and again.
You won’t get officially "firm" ground anymore, but that doesn’t mean it won’t be
genuinely
firm ground.
If the ground is genuinely firm they will likely call it good-firm anyway.
If the ground is genuinely good-firm they will call it good or just good-firm, good in places or good, good-firm in places.
If the ground is genuinely good they will call it good.
If the ground is genuinely good-soft they will call it good.
War Command got firm ground last year despite the official "good" going.
Value Is EverythingTalk about calling a spade a club.
If it’s genuinely whatever, why cant they just call it that?Gaelic Warrior Gold Cup Winner 2026
Talk about calling a spade a club.
If it’s genuinely whatever, why cant they just call it that?Because:
A) They are under instruction from the BHA Nathan, to water to produce good-firm. So if they call it "firm" they’re admitting to getting it
wrong
. What Clerk is going to do that?
B) Withought race times (both over all and sectionals) it isn’t easy to differentiate between good-firm and firm. Or if you’re the Haydock Clerk (apparently) between soft and firm.
C) You can only tell what the ground was after it has been raced on.
Value Is EverythingVery poor from you here ginge imo.
You are the ginger police, clamper down on anything not right yet you seem to think this is acceptable.A) Is a poor excuse. I’m under instruction to sell my sandwiches but I don’t change the out of date ones into date. I’m also under instruction to get the windows cleaned at a decent pace but I don’t put the bill through the letter box without cleaning the windows first.
B) What does the going stick do then? going changes can be made, no?
C) What does the going stick do then? going changes can be made, no?
Gaelic Warrior Gold Cup Winner 2026
Stickles doing it at Ascot now. First Newmarket now Ascot.
Thank goodness Chris Stickles isn’t Clerk of Course at Newmarket IB thankfully it’s Michael Prosser and he’s a great judge of his ground, even with a little watering the Guineas Meeting ground rode Good to Firm on both days. He judged it perfectly as the first two races of the meeting were run on Good
I was just about to back Sole Power AP for the Kings Stand now I’m left wondering
JacThings turn out best for those who make the best of how things turn out...Talk about calling a spade a club.
If it’s genuinely whatever, why cant they just call it that?Because:
A) They are under instruction from the BHA Nathan, to water to produce good-firm. So if they call it "firm" they’re admitting to getting it
wrong
. What Clerk is going to do that?
GT that is just silly. I can understand watering to enable none (genuine) REAL FIRM ground, I’m all for horses safety, so the clerk only has to water to make sure the ground isn’t firm once he’s checked a day or two before the meeting.
If it is good to firm then call it good to firm, if it is good call it good. Anything else is, frankly, rubbish, lies!
The ground at Ascot apparently is Good (G-F) in places, it is not even Good to Firm ground so why the hell are they watering?
Stickles doing it at Ascot now. First Newmarket now Ascot.
Thank goodness Chris Stickles isn’t Clerk of Course at Newmarket IB thankfully it’s Michael Prosser and he’s a great judge of his ground, even with a little watering the Guineas Meeting ground rode Good to Firm on both days. He judged it perfectly as the first two races of the meeting were run on Good
I was just about to back Sole Power AP for the Kings Stand now I’m left wondering
JacI don’t agree with that. The going at Newmarket was good to soft, no better. On the Saturday the time of every single race was above standard including a very good renewal of the 2000 Guineas. Two races were over four seconds above standard and one five seconds. On Sunday a similar story.
Contrast that with Epsom who didn’t water and they had some race times below standard including the Derby – probably a very good renewal 1.07 seconds below standard. I’d call that ground Good, maybe G-F in places. Far more satisfactory all round.
I have no problem with softer ground if that is what nature dictates but when those conditions are artificially created for whatever reason that is just not right, not in flat racing season.
Talk about calling a spade a club.
If it’s genuinely whatever, why cant they just call it that?Because:
A) They are under instruction from the BHA Nathan, to water to produce good-firm. So if they call it "firm" they’re admitting to getting it
wrong
. What Clerk is going to do that?
GT that is just silly. I can understand watering to enable none (genuine) REAL FIRM ground, I’m all for horses safety, so the clerk only has to water to make sure the ground isn’t firm once he’s checked a day or two before the meeting.
If it is good to firm then call it good to firm, if it is good call it good. Anything else is, frankly, rubbish, lies!
The ground at Ascot apparently is Good (G-F) in places, it is not even Good to Firm ground so why the hell are they watering?
Presumably IB, the Clerk has decided to water now (when going is "good, good-firm in places" to ensure the "good-firm places" don’t turn in to "firm" places.
Clerks are also told by the BHA multi-day meetings can begin on going on the good side of good-firm.
The point I am making above is that Clerks are trying to produce a certain type of ground and the person who describes the official going is the Clerk Of The Course. Therefore, Clerks are naturally not going to admit to getting their watering wrong. ie They are not going to admit to creating (comparitively) unsafe going. Clerks are biased! They want to believe it is good-firm, therefore it is (officially) good-firm. If they want to believe it is good, good-firm in places… it will be (officially) good, good-firm in places.
It’s like an art pupil marking his own works/exam.
Going reports should be taken out of the hands of biased individuals.
Value Is EverythingStickles doing it at Ascot now. First Newmarket now Ascot.
Thank goodness Chris Stickles isn’t Clerk of Course at Newmarket IB thankfully it’s Michael Prosser and he’s a great judge of his ground, even with a little watering the Guineas Meeting ground rode Good to Firm on both days. He judged it perfectly as the first two races of the meeting were run on Good
I was just about to back Sole Power AP for the Kings Stand now I’m left wondering
JacI don’t agree with that. The going at Newmarket was good to soft, no better. On the Saturday the time of every single race was above standard including a very good renewal of the 2000 Guineas. Two races were over four seconds above standard and one five seconds. On Sunday a similar story.
Contrast that with Epsom who didn’t water and they had some race times below standard including the Derby – probably a very good renewal 1.07 seconds below standard. I’d call that ground Good, maybe G-F in places. Far more satisfactory all round.
I have no problem with softer ground if that is what nature dictates but when those conditions are artificially created for whatever reason that is just not right, not in flat racing season.
Newmarket Guineas day was
not
"good-soft" IB, nowhere near. It was either Good-firm, good in places (as advertised) or good, good-firm in places. Take your pick. To use over all times of races with slow early fractions as evidence for your "good-soft" is not a fair comparisson. Pace can make just as big a diference to race times as going.
Prosser got the watering at Newmarket pretty much spot on.
You should go for a job at Haydock.
Value Is EverythingNewmarket Guineas day was not "good-soft" IB, nowhere near. It was either Good-firm, good in places (as advertised) or good, good-firm in places. Take your pick. To use over all times of races with slow early fractions as evidence for your "good-soft" is not a fair comparisson. Pace can make just as big a diference to a race times as going.
ALL races were run at slow early fractions then? Sorry I just don’t buy that not when times were four and five seconds above the standard, it couldn’t possibly have been "good to firm" anywhere. It’s not as if we’re looking at three or four races we are looking at two full cards.
Not "all" races, just most races.
On the first day only the 2000 Guineas was truly run. On the second day again most were slowly/slowish. The sprint hndicap pace was overly strong.
Did you not look at Simon Rowlands sectional debrief IB? It gives proof of sectionl times.
Value Is EverythingNot "all" races, just most races.
On the first day only the 2000 Guineas was truly run. On the second day again most were slowly/slowish. The sprint hndicap pace was overly strong.
Did you not look at Simon Rowlands sectional debrief IB? It gives proof of sectionl times.
The 2000 Guineas was truly run yet the winning time was over 1.5 seconds above standard time.
The point I am making above is that Clerks are trying to produce a certain type of ground and the person who describes the official going is the Clerk Of The Course. Therefore, Clerks are naturally not going to admit to getting their watering wrong. ie They are not going to admit to creating (comparitively) unsafe going. Clerks are biased! They want to believe it is good-firm, therefore it is (officially) good-firm. If they want to believe it is good, good-firm in places… it will be (officially) good, good-firm in places.
It’s like an art pupil marking his own works/exam.
In other words lying and cheating.
Gaelic Warrior Gold Cup Winner 2026
The official going
is good to firm (good in places)http://www.thedatingspecialist.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Pinocchio_Lying.jpg
Lying barsteward………
Gaelic Warrior Gold Cup Winner 2026
Not "all" races, just most races.
On the first day only the 2000 Guineas was truly run. On the second day again most were slowly/slowish. The sprint hndicap pace was overly strong.
Did you not look at Simon Rowlands sectional debrief IB? It gives proof of sectionl times.
The 2000 Guineas was truly run yet the winning time was over 1.5 seconds above standard time.
Seriously, I wouldn’t waste your breath on him. He doesn’t make numbers. I had this out in watering at newmarket thread. He was so in a corner at the end he said guineas was slowly run, instead of admit the ground wasn’t quick lol.
is good to firm (good in places)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.