2024 Champion Hurdle (Previously Constitution Hill thread)

[Bollinger]

After reading people’s thoughts over the last few days about “Henderson & Con Hill” and really trying to understand why people have such a strong opinion on why Nicky is/ was/ always has been (delete where applicable) a complete idiot when,from as far I can make out here, not one single person contributes to the horses well being - I thought I’d play devils advocate and put this alternative out there.

If Con Hill, for the entirety of his career from this day forwards was only, and I specifically mean ONLY, entered/ declared into the Champion Hurdles of 2024, 2025 & 2026, and won these by a cumulative margin of 15 lengths, thus making him the first ever 4 time winner of the event by a cumulative margin of 24 lengths, and he was beating the best 2 mile Irish hurdlers in those 3 races……

…….. would we still be whingeing unfairly about Henderson, or celebrating him????


Because I know if in 2046 when all of us looked back 2 decades on the record books and it showed Con Hill had won 4 champ hurdles back to back, without running in a single race anywhere else during a season, we’d all be be saying ‘Brilliant horse, brilliant trainer’.

Surely??


It’s more a devils advocate theory here, but surely we’ve got to stop whingeing ceaselessly about what Henderson does with any horse he trains, when it’s definitely none of our business and actually, not a single one of us contributes a penny to what is correct for the horse to be ripe for his big day come the middle of March.

[Atlantic Viking]

After reading people’s thoughts over the last few days about “Henderson & Con Hill” and really trying to understand why people have such a strong opinion on why Nicky is/ was/ always has been (delete where applicable) a complete idiot when,from as far I can make out here, not one single person contributes to the horses well being - I thought I’d play devils advocate and put this alternative out there.

You can and did go on to, but i'm not sure why, most people so far as I could tell seemed to understand the decision, nor have I seen people calling him a 'complete idiot' for that matter, I think the issue around Henderson is more the charade that often preceeds some of it. I don't think it's necessarily whingeing to be disappoiunted to not see a horse even though it had been talked as a possibility in the build up. Personally after hearing Hendersons comments upon the Newcastle abondonment I had it as a less than 0.01% chance anyway, I was more surprised based off the same comments that he didn't give Shishkin a spin.
I also don't think you need to contrinbute to a horse in any way to be able to hold strong opinions on it or decisions taken around it, even whinge, the sport like most professional ones is at best a lesser 'product' without its fans/punters. If anything horse racing is strange in it's relative lack of scrutiny (could have filled hour upon hour talking about bad rides at last years festival alone but you wont hear a second of it on ITV or wherever else. On Hendo, look at how hard he threw the teddy out to some light questioning about ground conditions from Lydia the other year) and certainly in its insularity.

[Lobos]

I certainly would, yes.

His 3 time winner See You Then was nicknamed See You When as he was rarely seen each year. No one talked of him as a great because of that.

[Carnage at Taunton]

I certainly would, yes.

His 3 time winner See You Then was nicknamed See You When as he was rarely seen each year. No one talked of him as a great because of that.

Makes him a great in my book

[Quevega]

After reading people’s thoughts over the last few days about “Henderson & Con Hill” and really trying to understand why people have such a strong opinion on why Nicky is/ was/ always has been (delete where applicable) a complete idiot when,from as far I can make out here, not one single person contributes to the horses well being - I thought I’d play devils advocate and put this alternative out there.

If Con Hill, for the entirety of his career from this day forwards was only, and I specifically mean ONLY, entered/ declared into the Champion Hurdles of 2024, 2025 & 2026, and won these by a cumulative margin of 15 lengths, thus making him the first ever 4 time winner of the event by a cumulative margin of 24 lengths, and he was beating the best 2 mile Irish hurdlers in those 3 races……

…….. would we still be whingeing unfairly about Henderson, or celebrating him????


Because I know if in 2046 when all of us looked back 2 decades on the record books and it showed Con Hill had won 4 champ hurdles back to back, without running in a single race anywhere else during a season, we’d all be be saying ‘Brilliant horse, brilliant trainer’.

Surely??


It’s more a devils advocate theory here, but surely we’ve got to stop whingeing ceaselessly about what Henderson does with any horse he trains, when it’s definitely none of our business and actually, not a single one of us contributes a penny to what is correct for the horse to be ripe for his big day come the middle of March.

Someone can be brilliant and also a bit of a Nob.
They aren’t mutually exclusive.

So, if still alive in 2046 (why this year by the way ?)
I’d be saying “brilliant trainer ! But he was a bit of a Nob”

[HesTheOne]

Yea I think everyone understood the decision and it was the right one but as Atlantic Viking said the theatrics from Henderson that usually precede a decision opens him up for criticism.

He will run, he won’t run, il declare him, he won’t run but he might run, il pull him… The ground was never improving if he pulled stumps much earlier in the process people wouldn’t have made a mountain out of it.

Paired with the pre-season tours rambles of saying theres fuck all fixtures to suit him when the calendar is then changed precisely for seven barrows and ducking and diving coming across to Ireland when there’s also more races and prize money for him to win over here.

Henderson made the right decision but equally people are allow criticise if they see fit despite not owning a leg in constitution hill.

[Rooster Booster]

I certainly would, yes.

His 3 time winner See You Then was nicknamed See You When as he was rarely seen each year. No one talked of him as a great because of that.

It wasn’t because of he was rarely seen at all it was because the actual winning performances were very good but not outstanding coming off the back of a number of horses that had achieved much higher ratings. . If he had recorded high 170 low 180 perrformances of course he would have been considered a great. But his HIGHEST rating was 173. This was always the conversation at the time, perhaps you are just twisting history to suit your condemnation of the trainer, or perhaps you have genuinely forgotten the rating based conversations at the time that drove the majority to conclude he wasn’t an all time great.

[Rooster Booster]

Someone can be brilliant and also a bit of a Nob.
They aren’t mutually exclusive.

So, if still alive in 2046 (why this year by the way ?)
I’d be saying “brilliant trainer ! But he was a bit of a Nob”

Spot on….also you are the second person to remove the k….have I got it wrong all these years?

[Lobos]

It wasn’t because of he was rarely seen at all it was because the actual winning performances were very good but not outstanding coming off the back of a number of horses that had achieved much higher ratings. . If he had recorded high 170 low 180 perrformances of course he would have been considered a great. But his HIGHEST rating was 173. This was always the conversation at the time, perhaps you are just twisting history to suit your condemnation of the trainer, or perhaps you have genuinely forgotten the rating based conversations at the time that drove the majority to conclude he wasn’t an all time great.

Yeah, that'll be it...

[Quevega]

Spot on….also you are the second person to remove the k….have I got it wrong all these years?

Think both are accepted

[Lobos]

Makes him a great in my book

Yeah, but that's my point. If people were asked to name CH greats I'm certain he wouldn't be one. Sad but true.

[Carnage at Taunton]

Yeah, but that's my point. If people were asked to name CH greats I'm certain he wouldn't be one. Sad but true.

Well if a horse wins 3 CH on the trot that’s enough to be a great imo.
If others think differently so be it.

[Kevloaf]

Barters Hill is better than Constitution Hill.
Discuss...

[Black Dog]

Yeah, but that's my point. If people were asked to name CH greats I'm certain he wouldn't be one. Sad but true.

See You Then was a famously fragile horse, with legs made of biscuit. It is a testament to the trainer's skills and patience that the horse turned up for three Champions,and the horse's class that he won three.

[Lobos]

See You Then was a famously fragile horse, with legs made of biscuit. It is a testament to the trainer's skills and patience that the horse turned up for three Champions,and the horse's class that he won three.

Possibly. He was trained by Nicky as well so I don't know what to believe.