- This topic has 200 replies, 35 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
This is creative but I don’t think it is good. Remember horse racing is a business primarily and any narratives/entertainment we enjoy are incidental and secondary.
If you put money on the line for something like this, you will give a dangerous incentive for trainers to overrace their horses or do something reckless in a last-ditch attempt to win. The National Hunt Order of Merit remains a cautionary tale for any new innovation. It makes the rich richer and adds nothing when there is a standout performer (e.g. Kauto Star’s breakthrough year where he won almost everything 2m – 3m). Less stellar years were downright dangerous with the absurd situation of Royal Shakespeare and Monkerhostin playing a game of chicken over the prospect of running in the Celebration Chase, despite RS never having jumped a fence in public and an over-the-top Monkerhostin having already run twice that month.
“Narratives/entertainment” may be “incidental and secondary” to some; but surely bringing in more interest is good for business? And it hopefully brings in a greater audience both on and off course, as well as enhancing some stallions and mares stud values… all without changing the programme. so can’t see “business” doing anything but loving the idea. Especially as the winning connections of the Champion gets the money.
I agree, the Order Of Merit was useless; it included too many minor races and too many points for finishing 2nd, 3rd and 4th. There was only 20 points for winning a Grade 1 and 10 for finishing 4th!!! 15 for a Grade 2 win and yet 10 for finishing 3rd. 10 points for winning a Grade 3 and yet (just 2 less) 8 for finishing 2nd. Monkerhostin and Royal Shakespere should not have had any chance, let alone winning! The competition I now propose is only top level stuff and greatly favours winning races.
I’d envisage something like:
100 points a win. Winning counts!
40 points a 2nd. So that 2 seconds do not equal 1 win. You’d need three seconds to get past one win.
10 point a 3rd. So horses consistently placed have no chance of winning the competition. A third place only really only comes in to it if two horses have the same number of wins.As I said, “should be a rule that only (up to) the first 6 runs count for each horse”. There could also be a rule brought in to stop over-racing/desperation. Possibly, limited to no more than 2 races within 28 days. There could also be minor changes in the schedule to move a few races forward or back.
Value Is EverythingTo be honest, I wouldn’t be a fan of this idea used at the top level, as much as I respect it and am happy such thoughts are out there.
I would however, instead put this idea into action not in Group races but the big handicaps such as the Lincoln, Victoria Cup, Hunt Cup, Wokingham, John Smiths’ Cup, Northumberland Plate, Steward’s Cup, Ayr Gold Cup, Cambridgeshire, November Handicap (e.g all of the big seasons handicaps). I’d keep the points for placings idea but not have separate championships for different distances so as it would mean horses dropping and stepping up in distance which would make things more interesting. There would be no worry about horses going abroad instead and neither would there be about owners having stud value in mind. It would give these types of horses more coverage, it would be fiercely hard to win due to handicapping and I think would have the full support of trainers, owners and punters alike.
Nice idea Charles, but…
Even more reason for horses running not to their merits in non-big handicaps. And in handicaps the winner is not the best horse, it is only the best handicapped horse. So Winner of the competition would be the one the handicapper has let in lightly most often.Who would it bring to the sport that is not already here?
Value Is EverythingThe non racing public need to get their heads out of the stigma that racing
is bent, fixed
a mugs game
pure luck
cruelbefore they even entertain the idea of a championship
You’ll never get those interested, Nathan. But there are non-racing public that do not believe those things.
Value Is EverythingA noble ambition, GT, but doomed, I’m sorry to say.
You either “get” racing or you don’t. What makes you get it nobody knows (though research might give some very strong clues)
What made you “get racing”, Joe?
For me, it was the horses, wonderful, beautiful, quality racehorses.
Red Rum was one, but also flat horses like Troy.I remember as a kid being captivated by a BBC Nationwide preview of the 200th (Troy’s) Derby.
These days we don’t get the same TV coverage from non-racing media. You either “get” racing or you don’t, but some that don’t might if only realising what they’re watching. How many members of the public know what a “group 1” is? That’s why imo the “narrative” needs to change.
Value Is EverythingMy interest was stimulated reading Dick Francis novels as a kid. Long time ago so it’s the best I can offer by way of analysis.
To expand on what I mentioned on Simon Nott’s thread, many advertisers are using Facebook now because of the accuracy of the profiles. For example, a Butcher/Baker/ Candlestick Maker could place an ad to be shown only to women aged between 55 and 60 who live within 500 yards of a Catholic Church in Lithuania, own a Labradoodle, blah, blah, blah
Authors advertise on Facebook asking that their ad be served to, say, Jack Reacher fans (add then whatever filters they like). But Facebook will come back and offer the chance to present that same ad to what they term a Lookalike Audience, that is, all the people who have not yet indicated an appetite for J Reacher but whose other habits, likes, demographics etc are very similar to Reacher fans.
That’s how racing should be marketing IMO. Find racing fans and seek their Lookalikes – that would, imo, give you a very fair chance of converting a new audience who are much more likely to ‘Get’ it.
That’s how racing should be marketing IMO. Find racing fans and seek their Lookalikes – that would, imo, give you a very fair chance of converting a new audience who are much more likely to ‘Get’ it.
I don’t understand, Joe.
Are you really saying “find racing fans” and make them in to racing fans; I must be missing something.
If they’re racing fans then they’ll already “get it”.If you’re actually saying find people are/interested in:
A) Horses
B) Betting on other things
C) Days out at sporting events
D) Who like to study something and come to an opinion
E) Who are social inadequates
F) Any combination of the above…Then I agree that should be done.
But why should it be one or the other? Why not both?
imo Anything that helps should be done.P.S They’ve found my “lookalike”:
Value Is EverythingNone of it is worth the trouble unless there is varied, wide ranging and heavy marketing. Of which other than the Grand National and Royal Ascot is rather wafer thin.
:)
Cracking lookalike!
No, how it works is Facebook mines everyone’s profile and draws up the Lookalike audience.
Let’s suppose every committed racing fan (Facebook’s algos can tell the committed from the casual) shows the following characteristics (racing is represented by X. Assign the other values as you want to imagine):
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
XFacebook will search for profiles with, ideally, all characteristics except X. The reasoning is that people of similar personalities to those who love racing, but who have not yet tried racing, might very well love it when they do.
You’ll have seen similar in different guises, mostly on buying from, say Amazon. You get a message “People who (like you) bought this, also bought xxxxx”
Anyway, I’ve no wish to hijack your thread. A straight answer to your question in the thread title is, I think, difficult. Enhance? Well, it would do no harm. But let’s say there was an option 2 for the same funds and you could choose just one. Option 2 is a new method of assessing the going, a much more accurate method. Which of the two options would ‘enhance’ the sport more? No-brainer, isn’t it?
Top trainers, jocks, owners etc would welcome ‘championships’ and agree 100% about the enhancing qualities and it would be of interest to people like us. But as a vehicle for attracting new lifelong racing fans? I seriously doubt it.
The problem with attracting new blood is that in sporting terms we normally pick up our interest as children. The trouble with racing is you can’t go up the park and play it yourself. Go to the tennis courts when Wimbledon is on and they’ll be full of budding Konta’s and future wannabe Federer’s, same with Cricket, Football and I can’t even get on my local clubs Snooker table when the World Championships is on. Adults it seems can also watch and be entertained by just watching the other sports without betting, many on here ‘racing fans’ have said without betting their own interest in horse racing would be minimal and after a few heavy losses those new recruits would be going back to watching Jeff Stelling.
Charles Darwin to conquer the World
🙂
Cracking lookalike!
No, how it works is Facebook mines everyone’s profile and draws up the Lookalike audience.
Let’s suppose every committed racing fan (Facebook’s algos can tell the committed from the casual) shows the following characteristics (racing is represented by X. Assign the other values as you want to imagine):
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
XFacebook will search for profiles with, ideally, all characteristics except X. The reasoning is that people of similar personalities to those who love racing, but who have not yet tried racing, might very well love it when they do.
You’ll have seen similar in different guises, mostly on buying from, say Amazon. You get a message “People who (like you) bought this, also bought xxxxx”
Anyway, I’ve no wish to hijack your thread. A straight answer to your question in the thread title is, I think, difficult. Enhance? Well, it would do no harm. But let’s say there was an option 2 for the same funds and you could choose just one. Option 2 is a new method of assessing the going, a much more accurate method. Which of the two options would ‘enhance’ the sport more? No-brainer, isn’t it?
Top trainers, jocks, owners etc would welcome ‘championships’ and agree 100% about the enhancing qualities and it would be of interest to people like us. But as a vehicle for attracting new lifelong racing fans? I seriously doubt it.
Fair points Joe, I can see where/why Facebook etc could attract people.
I just feel not enough is being made of using the best horses/races to attract people and think a Racing Premier League would help identify the star/s and get the “what an amazing horse” hook. We’ll have to agree to disagree.
As for a new way of assessing the ground? Nothing new needed there, just a stopwatch and keeping an eye on the weather.
Value Is EverythingNone of these season long points systems interest me
If I’m looking at a race for a wager I’m looking at the 10 horses that are running in that race on that day ……….. I don’t care what they might run in in a months time, it’s irrelevant to today’s race
Obviously I’m interested in what they’ve done in the past but not as regards some artificial points system
Racing happens every day ……… I don’t see the point of looking forward further than tomorrow
If there’s a big race in a week’s time look at it the night before, spend your time now looking at tomorrow
The only thing I might agree with is a designation of Premier League meetings if the fixture list could be ripped up and rewritten with just the one Premier League meeting every day ……… that would give your season a narrative.
I think you just have to accept that it isn’t going to happen. We at least get people watching Cheltenham, The National and Royal Ascot. Perhaps we should be happy with that. It’s no different to most other sports. A majority of those watching the Wimbledon finals at the weekend wont see another tennis match for 50 weeks. And the men’s final has already lost viewers because Murray wont be there. Hardly anyone watches/pays attention to golf outside the majors. You get the idea.
Not sure about the whole ‘narrative’ thing. It works in team sports because you can can guarantee that they’ll turn up week after week. That’s not the case with horses. It only takes a minor setback to rule a horse out of a big race and bang, your highly anticipated ‘race of the year’ suddenly loses its appeal to the casual fan. And to keep the tennis comparison going, how many people are really bothered if Murray is ranked Number one or not? (he is for the record) He could be ranked 1000, what people want to see is him winning Wimbledon.
Promote the hell out of the big festivals and races. You never know a few of them might catch the bug and turn up at Plumpton on a rainy Monday afternoon. If not at least they’ll be back next year.
[/quote]
I think you just have to accept that it isn’t going to happen. We at least get people watching Cheltenham, The National and Royal Ascot. Perhaps we should be happy with that. It’s no different to most other sports. A majority of those watching the Wimbledon finals at the weekend wont see another tennis match for 50 weeks. And the men’s final has already lost viewers because Murray wont be there. Hardly anyone watches/pays attention to golf outside the majors. You get the idea.
Not sure about the whole ‘narrative’ thing. It works in team sports because you can can guarantee that they’ll turn up week after week. That’s not the case with horses. It only takes a minor setback to rule a horse out of a big race and bang, your highly anticipated ‘race of the year’ suddenly loses its appeal to the casual fan. And to keep the tennis comparison going, how many people are really bothered if Murray is ranked Number one or not? (he is for the record) He could be ranked 1000, what people want to see is him winning Wimbledon.
Promote the hell out of the big festivals and races. You never know a few of them might catch the bug and turn up at Plumpton on a rainy Monday afternoon. If not at least they’ll be back next year.
Thats about right.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.