- This topic has 295 replies, 31 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
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.
Not necessarily Nathan, let’s be charitable and say they’re mistaken.
If putting your art work in to be marked, you might think it is brilliant, but
you
‘re biased. Marking your own work is asking for trouble.
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.
In a Guineas you might expect it to beat Racing Post standard time
if
towards the middle to firm side of a "good-firm" description,
not
if it is on the good side of the "good-firm" range. Timeform gave the ground as good-firm and winner a "Timefigure" of only 2 lbs less than their Master Rating. So it must have been truly run.
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.
Have you looked at times of the other 2000 Guineas this century IB?
2014 Good-firm, good in places Night Of Thunder 1m 36.61
2013 Good-firm Dawn Approach 1m 35.84
2012 Good-soft Camelot 1m 42.46
2011 Good-firm Frankel 1m 37.3
2010 Good-firm Makfi 1m 36.35
2009 Good-firm Sea The Stars 1m 35.88
2008 Good Henrythenavigator 1m39.14
2007 Good-firm Cockney Rebel 1m 35.28
2006 Good-firm, firm in places George Washington 1m 36.86
2005 Good-firm, firm in places Footstepsinthesand 1m 36.10
2004 Good Haafhd 1m 36.64
2003 Good Refuse To Bend 1m 37.98
2002 Good-firm Rock Of Gibraltar 1m 36.50
2001 Good Golan 1m37.48
2000 Good Kings Best 1m 37.77How can 1m36.61 be a good-soft time?
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.
Have you looked at times of the other 2000 Guineas this century IB?
2014 Good-firm, good in places Night Of Thunder 1m 36.61
2013 Good-firm Dawn Approach 1m 35.84
2012 Good-soft Camelot 1m 42.46
2011 Good-firm Frankel 1m 37.3
2010 Good-firm Makfi 1m 36.35
2009 Good-firm Sea The Stars 1m 35.88
2008 Good Henrythenavigator 1m39.14
2007 Good-firm Cockney Rebel 1m 35.28
2006 Good-firm, firm in places George Washington 1m 36.86
2005 Good-firm, firm in places Footstepsinthesand 1m 36.10
2004 Good Haafhd 1m 36.64
2003 Good Refuse To Bend 1m 37.98
2002 Good-firm Rock Of Gibraltar 1m 36.50
2001 Good Golan 1m37.48
2000 Good Kings Best 1m 37.77How can 1m36.61 be a good-soft time?
GT what does any of the above prove? What makes you so sure that the above going descriptions were any more accurate than I think this years was?
It stands to reason with the Guineas run at the time of the year it is that most of the time the ground isn’t going to be proper summer fast ground.
IF as you state the 2000 Guineas was truly run, and a good field at that, how come the time was 1.5 seconds above standard if the ground was good – firm? Was there a significant headwind? Not as far as I’m aware. The only reason can be that the going description wasn’t accurate and race times for every single race run at the meeting back up that assumption.
The official going
is good to firm (good in places)http://www.thedatingspecialist.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Pinocchio_Lying.jpg
Lying barsteward………
Looking at the weather… they may have it right by watering a tad….but who knows.They should always watet to produce a good track.20 years ago here it was all about producing a fast track to run times, dumb…Horses jarred up badly.I think they may have it right but one downpour and they get it wrong so a difficult position to be in
IF as you state the 2000 Guineas was truly run, and a good field at that, how come the time was 1.5 seconds above standard if the ground was good – firm?
A. Simon says it’s a monkey time, gotta gotta bouta monkey time
Mark Johnston on the subject –
"Unfortunately, while Richard Hughes managed to spark a short-lived debate on watering, nothing has changed and we are no closer to solving what he and I see as a major problem.
Neither of us agree with the current instructions, that the clerks of the course should aim to produce Good-Firm ground (we both believe that the old system whereby they were instructed only to water to grow grass and leave the state of the ground to nature, was far preferable) but things wouldn’t be half as bad if clerks of the course did actually aim for Good-Firm ground.
Chris Stickels stated earlier this week that he may be "forced" to water Ascot because, he says, "we want to start as near good ground as possible" That, to me, says he’s aiming to produce Good ground not Good-Firm.
This is typical, clerks’ fear of Firm ground (sparked, no doubt, by trainers attitudes) causes them to aim for softer than the prescribed Good-Firm. They would much rather risk ground softening than drying out. There have been many cases in recent years where clerks have openly said they were watering to maintain the ground while at the same time describing it as Good or even, in at least one case that I remember, Good-Soft.
First and foremost, we should try to introduce a more objective system for assessing what the ground was, after the meeting. Going corrections are already published by Timeform and the Racing Post but I believe that there should be official going corrections (based on times, wind, etc) published which would, at least, provide some measures of individual clerks’ accuracy".
Johnston is spot on, Bittar & Stier should take note and get something done about it.
Ground at Ascot now good to soft after 15mm of rain overnight following 14mm of watering.
Chris Stickels stated earlier this week that he may be "forced" to water Ascot because, he says, "we want to start as near good ground as possible" That, to me, says he’s aiming to produce Good ground not Good-Firm
He must have heard the interview after the greenham……
Charles Darwin to conquer the World
The 2000 Guineas was truly run yet the winning time was over 1.5 seconds above standard time.
Have you looked at times of the other 2000 Guineas this century IB?
2014 Good-firm, good in places Night Of Thunder 1m 36.61
2013 Good-firm Dawn Approach 1m 35.84
2012 Good-soft Camelot 1m 42.46
2011 Good-firm Frankel 1m 37.3
2010 Good-firm Makfi 1m 36.35
2009 Good-firm Sea The Stars 1m 35.88
2008 Good Henrythenavigator 1m39.14
2007 Good-firm Cockney Rebel 1m 35.28
2006 Good-firm, firm in places George Washington 1m 36.86
2005 Good-firm, firm in places Footstepsinthesand 1m 36.10
2004 Good Haafhd 1m 36.64
2003 Good Refuse To Bend 1m 37.98
2002 Good-firm Rock Of Gibraltar 1m 36.50
2001 Good Golan 1m37.48
2000 Good Kings Best 1m 37.77How can 1m36.61 be a good-soft time?
GT what does any of the above prove? What makes you so sure that the above going descriptions were any more accurate than I think this years was?
Prosser might get the going description wrong now and again, but now you think he gets it wrong every year to suit your opinion IB.
Here’s my full post taken from the Newmarket thread:
Was yesterday’s (2000 Guineas day) official "Good-firm, good in places" right?
As I said, "the evidence suggests ground was probably good-firm yesterday and definitely not on the soft side of good".The only "Good" ground 2000 Guineas anywhere near Night Of Thunder’s time was Haafhd (three hundredths of a second slower). However, in 2004 the following day’s 1000 Guineas was described as "Good-firm", so unless it blew a gale overnight can’t have been far off good-firm on the Saturday. It was also particularly truly run. Pace not slow or overly strong, but just right for Haafhd to produce Timeform’s best Timefigure of any age group in 2004. (Timeform Timefigures allow for wind speed and direction). ie Haafhd’s time was exceptional for good ground.
Therefore, my conclusion is that although (like Haafhd) there is a small possibility it was good ground (but bordering on good-firm) – "the evidence suggests ground was probably good-firm yesterday"… And as I have heard no reports of a hurricane blowing up their backsides, "definitely not on the soft side of good".
A time that is usually associated with good-firm can of course (if a slowly run race) be put up on firm, but viewing the race it seemed to me a fairly well run race. This is borne out by Simon Rowlands’ sectionals:
https://www.timeform.com/Racing/Article … rket_May_4
However, although I can not say it was definitely good-firm, what I can say is that it was definitely NOT good-soft! Because from what we know of thoroughbreds it is physically impossible to do a time of 1 minute 36.61 seconds up the Rowley Mile on genuinely good-soft ground unless there was a tail-hurricane! There wasn’t…
Value Is EverythingIF as you state the 2000 Guineas was truly run, and a good field at that, how come the time was 1.5 seconds above standard if the ground was good – firm? Was there a significant headwind? Not as far as I’m aware. The only reason can be that the going description wasn’t accurate and race times for every single race run at the meeting back up that assumption.
I have answered your question many times on this thread IB. The time was exactly what you’d expect from a quality 2000 Guineas field racing on good-firm, good in places going; as this century’s 2000 Guineas’s indicate. If you still don’t understand, suggest looking up what a
Racing Post Standard Time
actually is.
Most other races do not as you say "back up that assumption", because they were
not
truly run, that’s not an opinion – it’s fact. I ask you again IB, have you looked at Simon Rowlands sectional analysis? It uses
facts
about how other races were not truly run.
Value Is EverythingFor the record. RPost had the ground 1.6s slow of standard for the guineas mile, (and he did it off the winners BHA rating).
I just looked up my going allowances for the guineas meeting at Newmarket.
The
2000 Guineas
was run on going I had at
-0.25s/f
(good) which was bordering on good to soft.
The
1000 Guineas
was run on going I had at
-0.10s/f
(good).
For anybody who just doesn’t understand the importance of watering when the ground is riding on the fast side, you only have to look at the carnage that happened at
Clonmel
yesterday, where they had 5 horses die due to the extreme going and 22 deg temp.
Prior to the first race, the official going was given out as good, when I worked out the going allowance it nearly went of my going scale, I had it a
+0.62s/f
(firm) which is just a nat’s cock away from being
hard
going, no wonder they lost 5 horses.
Turf going allowance table:
Firm +0.55s/f to +0.63s/f
Good/firm +0.20s/f to +0.53s/f
Good -0.25s/f to +0.18s/f
Good/soft -0.55s/f to -0.28s/f
Soft -1.00s/f to -0.58s/f
Heavy -1.58s/f to -1.03s/fMike.
I just looked up my going allowances for the guineas meeting at Newmarket.
The
2000 Guineas
was run on going I had at
-0.25s/f
(good) which was bordering on good to soft.
The
1000 Guineas
was run on going I had at
-0.10s/f
(good).
For anybody who just doesn’t understand the importance of watering when the ground is riding on the fast side, you only have to look at the carnage that happened at
Clonmel
yesterday, where they had 5 horses die due to the extreme going and 22 deg temp.
Prior to the first race, the official going was given out as good, when I worked out the going allowance it nearly went of my going scale, I had it a
+0.62s/f
(firm) which is just a nat’s cock away from being
hard
going, no wonder they lost 5 horses.
Turf going allowance table:
Firm +0.55s/f to +0.63s/f
Good/firm +0.20s/f to +0.53s/f
Good -0.25s/f to +0.18s/f
Good/soft -0.55s/f to -0.28s/f
Soft -1.00s/f to -0.58s/f
Heavy -1.58s/f to -1.03s/fMike.
Nobody is arguing about watering to keep the ground safe. I am moaning about watering when the ground is good (G-F places). Look whats happened now, – Good to soft!
I ask you again IB, have you looked at Simon Rowlands sectional analysis? It uses
facts
about how other races were not truly run.
Value Is EverythingThe
2000 Guineas
was run on going I had at
-0.25s/f
(good) which was bordering on good to soft.
The
1000 Guineas
was run on going I had at
-0.10s/f
(good).
For anybody who just doesn’t understand the importance of watering when the ground is riding on the fast side, you only have to look at the carnage that happened at
Clonmel
yesterday, where they had 5 horses die due to the extreme going and 22 deg temp.
Prior to the first race, the official going was given out as good, when I worked out the going allowance it nearly went of my going scale, I had it a
+0.62s/f
(firm) which is just a nat’s cock away from being
hard
going, no wonder they lost 5 horses.
Clonmel was a jumps meeting, no relevance to flat racing. Most people don’t object to plenty of watering for jumps racing.
Glad you confirmed Newmarket Guineas meeting was not on the good to firm side, maybe Gingertipster will take note now.
is good to firm (good in places)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.