Forum Replies Created
- Posts
My reading of that article is that Mr Webbon is trying to say, as politely as possible, that there’s an awful lot of bad science at play – or at least wilful and unbalanced interpretation of the science.
There was much talk of extensive data, but no explanation of what that data was based on or how it was gathered. If, for example you are measuring for precocity, you are limited to testing those within the age bracket to which precocity applies. What about potentially precocious types who did not, for some reason, get the chance to prove that precocity?
Anyway, the most surprising statement, imo, was this: “Geneticists credit between 30 and 50% of performance to heredity, the rest coming down to such environmental variables as training or nutrition.”
I think the 70% being down to nutrition and training is saying that decisions made by a trainer set the tone for a horse’s career (rather than a trainer influencing its ability to run) i.e. if I keep a horse over hurdles for its entire life, or insist on running it over 6f forever, it has no chance to prove itself over fences/12f.You touch on that when you mention precocity. I agree though, that it’s impossible to quantify. I’ve seen that quoted before, and wondered how they came up with it. It does beg the question of how easy it will be to measure the accuracy of their speed gene system. Most trainers are pretty conservative, and target a known subset of races with a horse, making it difficult to tell how versatile horses truly are. I wonder how simple it all is anyway – after all, the race distances are man-made, and we are not talking about barrel racing v. endurance. What is the cut-off point for a CC’s optimum performance? If it can get a mile, is 12f such a stretch? 10 f? 9? Using genetic tests to identify soundness it an interesting one – the big stallion boys won’t like that!I have zero experience in science, zero experience in feeding or training racehorses but I’m certain I can say without fear of contradiction by any long-term racing enthusiast that to argue that as much as 70% of the success of a racehorse is down to feeding and training is an absolute nonsense.
Acknowledged on the origins of ‘Cherry Hinton’, thank you. I had assumed that it was named after the original filly (who obviously grew in stature in my memory).
Agree (as a fellow old timer!) Coolmore do this all the time – I could never understand how they are allowed to use names such as Cherry Hinton. What if Cherry Hinton had won the Cherry Hinton (which it was still called at the time)? Bizarre.
Thank you for the friendly welcome everyone. Nice forum. Re: my comments on Mullins, this was a random example, meant to show that ‘what makes a trainer special’ can be subjective. That said, I don’t believe that extensive schooling as a 2yo would negate the need for ongoing jumping. Jump muscles need work, and the brain needs to be kept sharp. You wouldn’t find three day eventers or show jumpers only doing flatwork between competitions. Walsh has received a lot of criticism and comment for his last fence departures, but all are for one trainer. (Also Mullins has horses that are not French). It’s a personal view, that’s all. I fully accept that others won’t share it.
Hi everyone, I am new here, hope you don’t mind me butting in. This is a really interesting topic, and don’t think it’s a daft subject at all. I worked in racing for many years, in top yards in a couple of different countries, and agree with almost everything that people have put forward here as what makes a trainer: in short, many, many small things. The only other point I’d make is that, in my experience, some of the most successful (winning-most) trainers may not be the best (people that I would send a horse to). In NH racing, it’s especially interesting to see the jumping tuition – perhaps Skelton brought insight to Nicholls, but he seems to do a lot of jumping over small fences in the school, and takes time to develop the muscles and agility (mental agility too). Contrast that to Mullins’ comment on RUK, which was (more or less word for word), ‘I don’t school much. Horses can either jump or they can’t, and the risk of injury is too great’. That suggest to me that Mullins sees schooling as galloping down to fences at speed, and that lack of finesse rules him out as a great trainer to me – yet look at his success rate (and faller rate mind you). That raises another question – is Mullins just a quite good trainer (I’m being a little facetious, but just to make the point), but currently extremely successful due to the jockey and owner combination at this point in time? He is, after all, not a young man – has he suddenly worked out how to be a great trainer (i.e. all conquering, as opposed to just successful), or is he enjoying a purple patch due, to some extent, to chance (or business acumen). It’s very hard to know for sure.
