- This topic has 295 replies, 31 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
When, in 1971, Brigadier Gerard won the 2,000 Guineas on his seasonal debut, it was considered an astonishing achievement.
Now many horses go direct to Newmarket – in fact Native Trail bucked the trend with a more traditional route.
To have an entire Newbury card centre around two races and to justify a watering policy on that basis is nonsensical.
And there’s a wider picture here – Going Stick readings everywhere, not just the big meetings, tell the true story if you look at readings historically.
They are slowly trying to convert what used to be true Good ground into Good to Firm and today’s Good ground would have been called Good to Soft nine years ago.
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"Yeats,
Fact most horses go straight to the Guineas means Clerks need to do everything they can to produce the conditions most likely to get more and / or better horses in those trials. If that means producing Good going they’ll do that because as it was trials were becoming meaningless – something had to be done.I don’t think connections of any horse would be too dissatisfied with good going in their trial. Majority of horses that run well on good-firm will be ok on good, some will just be a bit below their very best… And connections aren’t that bothered about winning – as you say yourself – the trial is worth “nothing to write home about”. Connections just want to get to the Classic in good shape. If Good ground helps them do that then they’ll probably be happy enough; even if their chance in the trial is a little less than it would’ve been.
Value Is Everything“They are slowly trying to convert what used to be true Good ground into Good to Firm and today’s Good ground would have been called Good to Soft nine years ago”.
——————————
Looking at Cheltenham, Aintree and Newbury we can see the opposite, Ian.
They aimed for and called the going “good-soft” for the start of the Cheltenham Festival. Race times on Tuesday tell us the real state of the ground was Good.
They aimed for good-soft for the Grand National course and called it good-soft… And yet race times for both Topham on the Friday and Saturday’s Grand National itself tell us it was no softer than Good.
Newbury they were trying for the soft side of good… and yet race times tell us it was genuine good-firm.
Value Is EverythingScientific improvements in training methods have changed the game – back in the day it was more down to the instinct of the trainer to get the horses to a certain level of fitness without over doing it and then you would send said horse to run in a trial that would bring them to a peak for the big race
Whilst there are some trainers that might still some what use that method, most can now get their horses to the same level of fitness at home and as such can do away with running in a trial and it wouldn’t matter if the ground was good to firm, good or good to soft they are still not going to run in a trial beforehand.
Interesting to note that it was mentioned that 5mm of water was applied to keep the ground where it was (around good), which I didn’t really believe how they could know that that amount would be sufficient and judging by the issue with Taunton abandoning tomorrow (due to quick ground even though 30mm of water was applied) I am not having much faith in cotc when it comes to their watering policy.
Another one at it,
Andrew Cooper at Sandown, overwatered leaving good to soft ground but describing it as good to firm, not the first time at this meeting.
The winner of the big race can only go with ease in the ground according to connections. No wonder it was well backed and won.Why are these COC’s never called to account by either the authorities or even the media?
Is there much point in owning or backing fast ground horses these days? And if the COC’s descibe good to soft ground as good to firm prior to racing, you can hardly back soft ground horses.
“Is there much point in owning or backing fast ground horses these days?”
No, they are discriminated against as a matter of course. Apparently it is for the good of racing.
“Needs a bit of ease” to me means Good going or softer, Yeats.
Lights On’s record to me also seems to suggest he’d act well on good ground as well as soft.
Not sure what the wind speed and direction was yesterday but if insignificant I’d put Friday’s Sandown race times at:Round Course: Good (edging towards good-soft)
Straight Course: Good (edging towards good-firm)Value Is EverythingTelling you what owners manager said Gingertipster, not my opinion regards Lights On.
Think you need to tell Andrew Cooper what the ground was, he had it down as good to firm after he’d overwatered it prior to racing, not for the first time.
Changed it to good after the jockeys told him it was good to soft, obviously would be reluctant to change it to good to soft (even just in places) as it wouldn’t reflect well on him.Straight course not relevant as only the first race run on that and not talking about that.
What’s happened to the BHA directive to water only to provide good to firm ground? Has it been cancelled?
Kirland Tellwright is in trouble with Richard Hughes amongst others for producing good to firm ground today at Haydock after describing it as good to soft at declaration time and applying 4mm of water yesterday.
Tellwright said “With the benefit of hindsight it’s a good job we watered. It was my intention to produce ground on the easy side of good and the wind has nearly clean bowled me.”
It’s ridiculous, all the COC’s are watering to produce ground on the easy side. What about fast ground horses and punters backing horses, with all this overwatering and the misleading going reports?
How can they get the going so wrong?
If any horses come back wrong they should sue the course.I’m no fan of Andrew Cooper who IMO ruined last year’s Oaks by overwatering.
But I walked parts of the Flat (shares home straight with Hurdles) course at Sandown on Friday and there really wasn’t much in the way of give in it.
That said, the times on Friday on the round course did suggest it was between Good and Good to Soft.
The ground definitions change a shade from Flat to NH, but worth pointing out Knappers Hill was 1.7 seconds fast in the opener.
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"Why are Newmarket watering the rowley mile? This bullshit has got to stop. It’s spring not the height of summer. No need to be watering at all.
Going stick reading of 8.9 at Bath today.
I can’t tell you how happy this made me.
I never thought I’d see the like again.
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"“Telling you what owners manager said Gingertipster, not my opinion regards Lights On”
————————-
Realised that Yeats.
Just that when form suggests what the owner’s manager says is wrong; I don’t see that what he says about the horse has any bearing on what the actual state of the ground really is.
I just think race times suggest the official description of Good ground on Friday was correct.
What jockeys think the going is also means nothing. Depending so much on what they believe their mount wants and where they finish in the race.
Watering is an inexact science. Clerks can’t get it right every time. They aim for (Flat) good-firm, but sometimes it will be slightly out. ie Sometimes it will actually be genuine Good ground (occasionally it will be a little firmer than the aimed for good-firm).
tbh As long as the Clerk comes clean I don’t think we can complain too much… And Cooper did change it to Good.
I agree Tellwright imo usually tells it wrong, a law unto himself. Should’ve been replaced years ago.
Value Is EverythingGT, I doubt very much that watering is in any way a science. “educated” guesswork at best.
Gingertipster,
You appear to know more than most, whatever job they’re in
The ground was changed to good at Sandown after the first race on the round course after jockeys reported it on the easy side. Obviously Cooper would be reluctant to describe it good to soft in places. Obviously not much good if you’re betting in the morning based on his description. Lights On probably wouldn’t have been backed or won on fast ground. Connections more than likely walked the track and/or knew that they could bank on Cooper overwatering as he as done previously for this meeting to varying degrees.
Think the going stick reading was 7.3. Good to firm ground begins at 9.0.
Clerks are not aiming for good to firm as they are supposed to. We should be told why.Gumball took a purler of a fall after slipping up on the home turn in the stayers handicap at Nottingham yesterday, reason rumoured to be wet grass where the watering hadn’t soaked in. Several other horses were said to have slipped throughout the meeting.
I’ve been told of trainers saying tendon injuries have been caused by horses galloping in and out of false patches of watered ground.
Meanwhile, Bath staged a meeting on Sunday with a going stick reading of 8.9.
Were there any injuries?
I don’t know – and that’s the thing.
We keep being told common sense dictates the firmer the surface, the more dangerous it must be.
But there are no actual published statistics on it.
I never argue with statistics and I’m ready to be convinced.
But until I see the actual numbers – and amid the anecdotal rumours of watering actually causing injuries – I will remain sceptical.
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.