If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Announcement
Collapse
Fat Jockey Patrons
Fat Jockey is a horse racing community focused on all the big races in the UK and Ireland. We don't charge users but if you have found the site useful then any support towards the running costs is appreciated. Become a Patron!
All I’ve got is a BHA fixture list sent a couple of weeks ago. Everyone I speak to says that there are rumours of changes, and have similar views to those expressed on the forum. However, I have been told that announcement is imminent.
BOGOF on the Guinness gets my vote
Conversely, if the Turners didn't exist, then Grey Dawning would have run in the BANC, we may even have hit 8 runners in that grade 1 and not had an odds on favourite. It doesn't feel like there are enough top class horses to justify 4 graded novice chases at the festival. Turning the Turners into a handicap would also bring back one of my favourite races at the festival, so I may be biased
Yep,
Only went to the Turners to avoid 1 opponent who may have had more potential than him, in the BANC.
Really poor that Cheltenham, and the Sport, allows this sort of bouncing around their poorly supported Grade 1s.
Why should 150+ horses be able to avoid each other at the pinnacle jumps meeting in the whole World? - particularly in the last couple of days before the race.
Any one looking in to our sport that found this level of ducking about at the Worlds best Jumps Racing meeting, would think we were mad, to think it acceptable for it to happen.
As for advertising the meeting,
the clashes of the best horses,
the anticipation of the best horses having their toughest race of the season,
the thrill of witnessing the best beating the best, in competitive Graded races.
….. then something needs to be done with the 6-day entries system, to give the public time to enjoy the build up and advertising of big clashes, and trainers to prepare their horses for specific races, and opponents.
Happens in other sports, happens in flat racing, why is Cheltenham Festival avoiding making this happen at it own meeting.
The Entry rules for this one meeting, or maybe two meetings need a tweak
(include Aintree too, they’re another big Festival with generally small field Graded races, and too many Grade 1s).
Should be…..
From 6-day entries, for Graded races, connections must nominate only 1 GRADED race entry for their horses, not multiple entries.
This means that from 6 days beforehand we have the chance to build up to all the big races, knowing which horses are likely to take each other on, and no late switches to avoid each other
Lets get a grip of things, let’s not kid ourselves that these professional outfits don’t know the best trip and race for a horse, and enter them into that race.
Last edited by Saxon Warrior; 15 August 2024, 08:48 PM.
Only went to the Turners to avoid 1 opponent who may have had more potential than him, in the BANC.
Really poor that Cheltenham, and the Sport, allows this sort of bouncing around their poorly supported Grade 1s.
Why should 150+ horses be able to avoid each other at the pinnacle jumps meeting in the whole World? - particularly in the last couple of days before the race.
Any one looking in to our sport that found this level of ducking about at the Worlds best Jumps Racing meeting, would think we were mad, to think it acceptable for it to happen.
As for advertising the meeting,
the clashes of the best horses,
the anticipation of the best horses having their toughest race of the season,
the thrill of witnessing the best beating the best, in competitive Graded races.
….. then something needs to be done with the 6-day entries system, to give the public time to enjoy the build up and advertising of big clashes, and trainers to prepare their horses for specific races, and opponents.
Happens in other sports, happens in flat racing, why is Cheltenham Festival avoiding making this happen at it own meeting.
The Entry rules for this one meeting, or maybe two meetings need a tweak
(include Aintree too, they’re another big Festival with generally small field Graded races, and too many Grade 1s).
Should be…..
From 6-day entries, for Graded races, connections must nominate only 1 GRADED race entry for their horses, not multiple entries.
This means that from 6 days beforehand we have the chance to build up to all the big races, knowing which horses are likely to take each other on, and no late switches to avoid each other
Lets get a grip of things, let’s not kid ourselves that these professional outfits don’t know the best trip and race for a horse, and enter them into that race.
Of course the trainers know the best race for the horses but I guess injuries can come late and leaving the declarations as late as possible lets the trainers shuffle their deck should an issue arise. That all said, I agree with your six day proposals.
Don't want to quote you Saxon Warrior as it'll take up too much space but I don't think that the 6 day entries change is the starting point (I doubt you do either). At the end of the day, fixing the festival programme (no novices in handicaps except from nvhcs, get rid of the mid trip G1s, change the conditions of the duplicate races - Kim Muir/Ultima & Coral/Martin Pipe) would achieve the same end goal give or take. A few horses might be torn between a mid trip novice handicap or going for the grade 1s but there wouldn't be many. It'd be really obvious from quite a long way out what the target for each horse is.
Don't want to quote you Saxon Warrior as it'll take up too much space but I don't think that the 6 day entries change is the starting point (I doubt you do either). At the end of the day, fixing the festival programme (no novices in handicaps except from nvhcs, get rid of the mid trip G1s, change the conditions of the duplicate races - Kim Muir/Ultima & Coral/Martin Pipe) would achieve the same end goal give or take. A few horses might be torn between a mid trip novice handicap or going for the grade 1s but there wouldn't be many. It'd be really obvious from quite a long way out what the target for each horse is.
When Cheltenham/The Jockey Club wanted to hear what changes should be proposed after this March's Festival, I wrote a long email of changes that they should consider for Cheltenham and Aintree, as the Grade 1s in each are intertwined, and probably too many at both meetings.
They cant fix Cheltenham without looking at Aintree at the same time.
Entries for 1 race at 6-Days was only one of a myriad of things that I suggested should be looked at.
That one was more for the advertising of the sport, the anticipation of clashes starting early, like it does in every Graded race in USA, for example....usually by Monday we have decs for Saturday for those (not just entries).
1st season Novices removed from Handicaps is so obvious its mad its not done already.
Novices should have had their own handicaps years ago, over hurdles and fences.
NHC could go to that route.
Maybe even the Turners (the midtrip Novice Hcap CH being culled was a bad loss)
M.Pipe should be converted to a Novice Hurdlers Handicap (as it masquerades as one already)
Plenty of changes, not suggesting any one on its own will solve anything.
Its the combination of changes being right, first time, that will have the most positive impact.
So lets hope that they can hit the nail on the head, first time round, no good reason to leave things as they are for another season, or half do it.
Last edited by Saxon Warrior; 16 August 2024, 12:22 PM.
Conversely, if the Turners didn't exist, then Grey Dawning would have run in the BANC, we may even have hit 8 runners in that grade 1 and not had an odds on favourite. It doesn't feel like there are enough top class horses to justify 4 graded novice chases at the festival. Turning the Turners into a handicap would also bring back one of my favourite races at the festival, so I may be biased
Conversely Grey Dawning would have run at Aintree.
Luck is a dividend of sweat. The more I sweat, the luckier I get.
Only went to the Turners to avoid 1 opponent who may have had more potential than him, in the BANC.
Really poor that Cheltenham, and the Sport, allows this sort of bouncing around their poorly supported Grade 1s.
Why should 150+ horses be able to avoid each other at the pinnacle jumps meeting in the whole World? - particularly in the last couple of days before the race.
Any one looking in to our sport that found this level of ducking about at the Worlds best Jumps Racing meeting, would think we were mad, to think it acceptable for it to happen.
As for advertising the meeting,
the clashes of the best horses,
the anticipation of the best horses having their toughest race of the season,
the thrill of witnessing the best beating the best, in competitive Graded races.
….. then something needs to be done with the 6-day entries system, to give the public time to enjoy the build up and advertising of big clashes, and trainers to prepare their horses for specific races, and opponents.
Happens in other sports, happens in flat racing, why is Cheltenham Festival avoiding making this happen at it own meeting.
The Entry rules for this one meeting, or maybe two meetings need a tweak
(include Aintree too, they’re another big Festival with generally small field Graded races, and too many Grade 1s).
Should be…..
From 6-day entries, for Graded races, connections must nominate only 1 GRADED race entry for their horses, not multiple entries.
This means that from 6 days beforehand we have the chance to build up to all the big races, knowing which horses are likely to take each other on, and no late switches to avoid each other
Lets get a grip of things, let’s not kid ourselves that these professional outfits don’t know the best trip and race for a horse, and enter them into that race.
Rose tinted spectacles sadly David. It's not about what's acceptable. Those horses will simply avoid the Festival altogether and go to other races. It won't increase the challenge to Mullins and Elliott. The reduction in races will just increase the number of their entries in the two remaining races, and they will then become less competitive and not more competitive. Unless you think two or three trainers being responsible for 80% of the entries is more competitive of course.
Taking those races away will be a total disaster. We'll have a similar number of entries, with far fewer trainers represented. We should just change the name from the Cheltenham Festival to the Mullins and Elliott Show.
Luck is a dividend of sweat. The more I sweat, the luckier I get.
Conversely Grey Dawning would have run at Aintree.
Love it! Do you really think he would though? I know Dan liked him for the BANC at the start of the season and was still on the fence up until the week before when Fact to File went that way (I mean, it rained). For what it's worth, I think he'd have won the BANC. I mean, Giovinco was bang there at the last!! All of the beaten horses have been beaten again since and it could prove to be a below average race. Would have been a real shame to miss that race just to lose at Aintree
Love it! Do you really think he would though? I know Dan liked him for the BANC at the start of the season and was still on the fence up until the week before when Fact to File went that way (I mean, it rained). For what it's worth, I think he'd have won the BANC. I mean, Giovinco was bang there at the last!! All of the beaten horses have been beaten again since and it could prove to be a below average race. Would have been a real shame to miss that race just to lose at Aintree
I am with you on the strength of the BANC but i do think there is a lot more to come from Fact To File. I think his price for the GC is shocking though but you would imagine his 24/25 schedule is already planned out and will be placed conservatively meaning his price wont grow any unless of a freak result so have managed to roll him up a few times and have him in the obvious doubles with Con Hill and Teahupoo.
I am with you on the strength of the BANC but i do think there is a lot more to come from Fact To File. I think his price for the GC is shocking though but you would imagine his 24/25 schedule is already planned out and will be placed conservatively meaning his price wont grow any unless of a freak result so have managed to roll him up a few times and have him in the obvious doubles with Con Hill and Teahupoo.
He's definitely one I want onside but I just can't at the price. Those doubles are tempting but I'm hopeful that they'll aim high, he may lose and I'll get a bigger price at some point. There aren't many easy races for him to go for really so it'll be interesting to see how Willie splits him and GDC. One of them may need to be campaigned over here. I'd love to see GDC in a King George!
He's definitely one I want onside but I just can't at the price. Those doubles are tempting but I'm hopeful that they'll aim high, he may lose and I'll get a bigger price at some point. There aren't many easy races for him to go for really so it'll be interesting to see how Willie splits him and GDC. One of them may need to be campaigned over here. I'd love to see GDC in a King George!
Iv'e used Constitution Hill and Teahupoo in quite a few doubles and a couple of trebles. If Teahupoo comes out and wins the Hattons Grace he won't race again and he is at best evens fav for the stayers until Cheltenham and if (when) Constitution Hill comes out and routs whatever field he is in, he is odds on for the CH until Cheltenham so you are already sat on a tidy price if not spectacular and you can just sit back in the knowledge that you have a live chance if they make it there and if they do, what beats them apart from the obstacles they are jumping? Their prices are short right now but in the context of what they are likely to be after 1 run, they could look huge.
Salvator Mundi is another one i have used at bigger prices in doubles. Whilst i don't really like 20/1 for a novice i think that price could make the bookies look silly in a few months. It has experience for a novice, it's form ties in with Sir Gino, it's been in Willies yard for over a year so he will have a good gauge on it by now and it's almost certain to be given a 2m campaign and i don't think the Donnelly's have anything else unless they have bought something i have missed and even then, they don't mind facing their own horses off against each other anyway.
Love it! Do you really think he would though? I know Dan liked him for the BANC at the start of the season and was still on the fence up until the week before when Fact to File went that way (I mean, it rained). For what it's worth, I think he'd have won the BANC. I mean, Giovinco was bang there at the last!! All of the beaten horses have been beaten again since and it could prove to be a below average race. Would have been a real shame to miss that race just to lose at Aintree
Obviously I can't guarantee it would have happened, but I was privy to the thought process at the time, and I suspect that's what would have happened.
Assuming his season goes as expected he won't dodge anyone this year though, and his campaign will assume he's a Gold Cup horse. His first main seasonal target will be the Betfair Chase. Assuming that goes well, he'll likely head to the King George.
That's an aside though. The central point is that nobody is going to over face a good novice chaser to come up against a wall of Mullins and Elliott horses. There are plenty of alternatives elsewhere, and they'll be taken. Stripping out the Turners (or turning it into a handicap), and the National Hunt Chase will achieve the complete opposite of what people believe it will.
Luck is a dividend of sweat. The more I sweat, the luckier I get.
The following are the only changes I'd consider making:
1. Exclude novices from the handicaps
2. Make the XC an open handicap
3. Make the Boodles a 0-125 (forcing horses that should run in the Triumph to go there) - Or better still scrap it altogether, it's just a shocking race.
4. Move the NH Chase to the New Course, to make it a significantly different test to the Brown Advisory
5. Reduce the Open Mares allowance on a sliding scale for open G1 wins
In the wider scheme of things, I'd do some other things too.
1. Exclude novices from open handicaps for the entire season
2. Add a series of additional novice handicaps to the calendar to compensate, and to produce a logical program of races
3. Have a series of novice handicaps that lead up to 0-145 2m/2m4f/3m novice handicap hurdle and chase finals
4. Have a Novice Handicap Championship Day (Cheltenham's fifth day on the Saturday)
Beyond that I would then relook at the open handicaps, and model them on what worked and what didn't with the novice handicaps. To then produce a logical and coherent program book that leads to specific targets across the season.
I'd then review all of the Graded races, so that they are strategically placed across the calendar and geography to encourage horses to follow certain programs/patterns.
I'd also produce a series of 'Win And Your In' type races for a series of valuable races.
It's possible to reorganise the programme book into a season of races, that lead to finals of different types, in different locations, and at different levels. This is also a great way of supporting racecourses, who can then market series of races that result in finals at their course. It is then up to them to attract trainers and owners to their race series'. So for example, of Arena don't want to complete with prizemoney, they may find their series of races are less well supported.
These series are also a good way to attract additional sponsorship money that brings money in from outside.
Luck is a dividend of sweat. The more I sweat, the luckier I get.
I agree spectre, scrapping the turners is a bad idea.
Apart from 2022 (the bob olinger renewal) the race has been fairly competitive over the years. I don’t see any upside to losing the race.
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Tweet
Comment