The home of intelligent horse racing discussion
The home of intelligent horse racing discussion

Whip Example

Home Forums Horse Racing Whip Example

Viewing 16 posts - 1 through 16 (of 16 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #20293
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    • Total Posts 17716

    2.15 Towcester

    Overton Lad would have won under the old rules. Skelton had a hell of a job, let him give too much away all the way round. He did well to get him placed with that late surge.

    #378875
    Gingertipster
    Participant
    • Total Posts 29897

    Overton Lad is a roguue, he’s been a rogue for some time. Although the winner and third aren’t much better, which doesn’t say much for the race. Even under the "old rules" Overton Lad found some excuse not to win. That’s why he’s rated with a Timeform squiggle.

    So it is far from certain he would’ve won under the old rules. Not that I’d have shed any tears if it was the case.

    Turn it around Pleni. The old rules prevented more genuine racehorses from winning. If the new rules were the old and old rules the new, there’d be the same arguement. "It prevented him from winning".

    There’s bound to be cases where the rules make a difference; but not as often as some would have you believe.

    Surely it is better for more genuine horses to have a better chance of winning than the opposite?

    Value Is Everything
    #378958
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    • Total Posts 17716

    Overton Lad is a roguue, he’s been a rogue for some time. Although the winner and third aren’t much better, which doesn’t say much for the race. Even under the "old rules" Overton Lad found some excuse not to win. That’s why he’s rated with a Timeform squiggle.

    So it is far from certain he would’ve won under the old rules. Not that I’d have shed any tears if it was the case.

    Turn it around Pleni. The old rules prevented more genuine racehorses from winning. If the new rules were the old and old rules the new, there’d be the same arguement. "It prevented him from winning".

    There’s bound to be cases where the rules make a difference; but not as often as some would have you believe.

    Surely it is better for more genuine horses to have a better chance of winning than the opposite?

    You been drinking? Here’s a word to google, ginge: Sophistry. It means a ‘tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning’ and you have just indulged in it.
    I don’t for a moment see that a horse that needs more correction than another horse but is stronger or faster is less deserving of a win than a weaker horse that requires less jockey attention but tries harder on his own account. It is one of the silliest things I’ve read on this forum. It fits with the quite frankly odd ‘Establishment’ view on the TRF that the whip is a Bad Thing that all Grown Up Nice People should be seen to abhor.
    I enjoy jump racing at small country tracks and I enjoy finding value at them. When the new whip rules were brought in I thought: ‘this particular angle has just got harder’ because I always have a few touches each season on wayward nags that need work.
    As I said weeks ago, none of this will bother you because it isn’t your kind of punting, so you can swan about the forum making yourself look virtuous.
    The real gobsmacker is that whoever runs Towcester was considering banning the whip entirely there. I mean, go ahead: kill your livelihood why don’t you?

    #379027
    Gingertipster
    Participant
    • Total Posts 29897

    It is one of the silliest things I’ve read on this forum. It fits with the quite frankly odd ‘Establishment’ view on the TRF that the whip is a

    Bad Thing

    that all Grown Up Nice People should be seen to abhor.

    I enjoy jump racing at small country tracks and I enjoy finding value at them. When the new whip rules were brought in I thought: ‘this particular angle has just got harder’ because I always have a few touches each season on wayward nags that need work.
    As I said weeks ago, none of this will bother you because it isn’t your kind of punting, so you can swan about the forum making yourself look

    virtuous

    .
    The real gobsmacker is that whoever runs Towcester was considering banning the whip entirely there. I mean, go ahead: kill your livelihood why don’t you?

    Where your theory falls flat Pleni is:
    I do

    NOT

    think the whip is a "Bad Thing", you silly thing. :roll:

    Very occasionally a temperamental horse is value. Usually where bad publicity from the Racing Post puts off punters and goes out to a backable price. Even backed the odd one myself over the years, so not that "virtuous" :lol: . Of course you should back a horse you think is value Pleni, I don’t see what that has to do with the whip rules or Overton Lad losing.

    However, in the vast majority of cases it’s best to back against temperamental horses, whatever the grade. Opposing horses other punters have no idea of a poor temperament, pays dividends.

    It is easy to think a few more cracks would’ve done the job, but in practice these horses seldom win under any rules.

    Value Is Everything
    #379048
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    • Total Posts 17716

    I don’t see what that has to do with the whip rules or Overton Lad losing. quote]

    It’s very simple. The jockey knew he would need all his strikes in the latter part but the horse is the type to need reminders practically from the off. Consequently the horse was not as well placed as he might have been when the race proper began. He opened at 14s and went off 6s so a lot of people, perhaps connections even, thought well of the animal’s chance. At one point he was so off-beam I thought he’d be pulled up but he wasn’t. It was clear Skelton wanted to go for it by what happened at the finish. I’d bet you a guinness young Skelton – and hats off to him by the way – would have something colourful to say about the new rules in the light of that race.

    What I fail to understand about the pro-rules Establishment on here is that Flat and Jumps are two very different codes. I’m inclined to agree that on the Flat the sight of horses being whipped who won’t be winning or even in the frame is repellent and the action of the jockey is wrong. But the jumps is a different thing.

    #379082
    Gingertipster
    Participant
    • Total Posts 29897

    Of course Skelton is going to blame the new whip rules (though agree it was a good ride). It’s easier for a jockey to blame the new whip rules than blaming the horse. Especially when talking to connections! Like it is easy for punters to blame the new whip rules instead of the recalcitrant horse or themselves for backing the wrong horse. :wink:

    Maurice Linehan did a brilliant job by winning on an untrustworthy animal, so it can be done.

    Value Is Everything
    #379090
    Onthesteal
    Member
    • Total Posts 1387

    I wouldn’t stress, Pleni… If you like taking a chance on yaks like Overton Lad, there should be some juicy prices to be snaffled, reflecting their chances of victory under the new rules. Do them E/W :wink:

    #379104
    Hurdygurdyman
    Member
    • Total Posts 1533

    Owners will need to be ultra careful when second second hand horses now.

    Those with things like hard ridden from 5 out in the form book are now worth about 1/10th of what they were worth before the new whip rules.

    #379113
    Gingertipster
    Participant
    • Total Posts 29897

    Apart from a few Lough Derg types finding it a bit difficult (although still possible to win), there’s been very little change in results that I can see. Certainly not as much as some people seem to believe.

    I’ve changed very little the way I look at a race. With just slightly (and I mean slightly) more emphasis on temperament and best pace.

    It’s possible prominent runners have a slight "advantage" over all, but only slight. And that "advantage" will disappear once jockeys get used to it. ie If prominent runners have an "advantage" then more jockeys will want to race prominently, leading to races run at a faster pace, which results in a loss of that said "advantage".

    Value Is Everything
    #379139
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    • Total Posts 17716

    Apart from a few Lough Derg types finding it a bit difficult (although still possible to win), there’s been very little change in results that I can see. Certainly not as much as some people seem to believe.

    I’ve changed very little the way I look at a race. With just slightly (and I mean slightly) more emphasis on temperament and best pace.

    It’s possible prominent runners have a slight "advantage" over all, but only slight. And that "advantage" will disappear once jockeys get used to it. ie If prominent runners have an "advantage" then more jockeys will want to race prominently, leading to races run at a faster pace, which results in a loss of that said "advantage".

    It will all be painful to watch. The imposition of the whip rules on national hunt are basically silly and when history comes to be written it will be a seen as a large nail in the sport’s coffin.

    #379140
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    • Total Posts 17716

    Of course Skelton is going to blame the new whip rules (though agree it was a good ride). It’s easier for a jockey to blame the new whip rules than blaming the horse. Especially when talking to connections! Like it is easy for punters to blame the new whip rules instead of the recalcitrant horse or themselves for backing the wrong horse. :wink:

    Maurice Linehan did a brilliant job by winning on an untrustworthy animal, so it can be done.

    That may be. But one thing the smug Establishment MUST realise on here is that things CAN be blamed for a horse losing. It is not always about your loser meeting a better horse. Often it is, sometimes it is freak things and sometimes it is a demonstrable element, in this case the new whip rules. Perhaps the TRF scribes could give Skelton’s agent a tinkle and ask for a quote about Overton Lad and the new whip rules…

    #379141
    Pompete
    Member
    • Total Posts 2391

    Plen, as I understand it you are a Mick, apologises if not true, but why are you so bothered about our racing and our rules? Just off and watch your own racing if you don’t like it.

    #379222
    Onthesteal
    Member
    • Total Posts 1387

    It’s possible prominent runners have a slight "advantage" over all, but only slight.

    I wouldn’t even go that far, Ginge.

    Is it not more likely that a front runner stands more chance of idling or getting tired, making a few more cracks of the whip more useful to those types, as opposed to hold up horses? I think that makes far more sense, personally.

    I’ve not changed my approach to how I bet one bit, yet I’m on hot streak if I may say so. I’ll probably notice how many fewer cracks they’re allowed once my luck takes a turn, no doubt :D: … Luck helps, of course.

    #379261
    Gingertipster
    Participant
    • Total Posts 29897

    It’s possible prominent runners have a slight "advantage" over all, but only slight.

    I wouldn’t even go that far, Ginge.

    Is it not more likely that a front runner stands more chance of idling or getting tired, making a few more cracks of the whip more useful to those types, as opposed to hold up horses? I think that makes far more sense, personally.

    Agreed Onthesteal, those who idle might be inconvenienced (slightly) by the new whip rules. Some could be front runners, but most horses who idle are those who don’t like being in front. Therefore, they are more likely to be hold up horses than prominent runners. ie Most idlers in my experience are "hold up horses" who hit the front on the run-in.

    Although am convinced with some "idlers" it is more about crowd noise. Horses being put off by crowd noise when there are no horses to chase. This type could be either prominent or hold up horses. Ear plugs should be more generally used in my opinion.

    Value Is Everything
    #379297
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    • Total Posts 17716

    Plen, as I understand it you are a Mick, apologises if not true, but why are you so bothered about our racing and our rules? Just off and watch your own racing if you don’t like it.

    Irish? Born and bred in London, no Irish relations and no Irish ancestry that I know about.

    So the Guardian was newspaper of the year in 2011? Good job it won that year because it won’t be in existence – in paper form – for much longer. It is the mother of loss-makers – while the executive board are all on fat cat bonuses. Funny how self-righteous journalism works.

    #379306
    Matron
    Participant
    • Total Posts 6464

    Guardian News & Media made an operating losses of £38.3m last year.

    Regards
    :cool:

Viewing 16 posts - 1 through 16 (of 16 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.