There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
https://www.racingpost.com/news/the-front-runner/did-you-notice-an-entire-cheltenham-festival-day-with-no-fallers-or-unseated-riders-over-fences-a7qsl4U0cTRi/
Here's a detail from last week's Cheltenham Festival that may have passed you by, there being so many things happening. On Thursday, there was not a single faller or unseated rider in any of the four races over fences, which had a total of 62 runners.
This would have to be pretty unusual, I think, given that Cheltenham is a serious test of an athlete at the best of times and even more so at the festival, when the level of competition is so high and everyone is straining to do their best. Big fields create an increased risk of fallers and on Thursday there were two handicap chases with 23 runners each, one of them confined to amateur riders.
That was the thing that really surprised me - no jockeys were parted from their mounts during the Fulke Walwyn Kim Muir Challenge Cup (sponsored by JRL Group). Amateur jockeys are very skillful these days but some of them lack the restraint that a professional would show, so the average level of aggression goes up a notch and you see some rides that could even be described as devil-may-care. Unsurprisingly, something generally goes wrong for someone at some point.
Or at least, that's been my impression. A quick trawl through the Racing Post's form database bears it out. There has been at least one faller or unseated rider in every Kim Muir since 1988, which is as far back as our database goes. I haven't checked through the paper form books to 1946, when the race was established, but if any of you feel like doing so I'd be interested to hear when was the last Kim Muir with no sundered partnerships.
I'd forgotten but back in the 90s there were some Kim Muirs that didn't have anything like as many runners as are now attracted by the race. In 1997, there were just 11 and still one of them fell.
Now, I don't want you thinking I'm the sort of person who notices whether there have been any fallers in each jump race and feels sad if there aren't any. None of us actually want to see fallers, let's take that as read.
But the performance of Dinoblue in Wednesday's Grand Annual made me wonder about the stiffness of the fences. She bashed her way through both of the final two fences and still finished second. Thyme White, who fell at one of those fences, seemed to plough straight through it.
When I started following racing in the early 80s, the fences at top-class tracks were stiffer. Occasionally, there would be arguments about the fences at a certain track having been too densely packed. Horses that got as low as Dinoblue or Thyme White would have bounced off them rather than plunging through and would have fallen.
On the other hand, it meant the fences had to be respected. Horses learn they can get away with going through the tops of the modern fences, so of course many of them do so because to do otherwise costs more energy. It means that horses can race faster over fences than in the past, leading to an increased risk of injury if a horse does fall. That, at least, is the line taken by those who preferred the harsher realities of 40 years ago.
I'm not sure there's much point in taking sides in this argument because there is next to no chance of any fences at any racecourse being made stiffer than in the recent past; at least, not on purpose.
I mentioned the subject to Cheltenham's clerk of the course, Jon Pullin. "The fences are constructed in exactly the same way as they have been for a number of years now," he said. The only change, he added, is the well-advertised switch from orange obstacle markings to white, a consequence of research into which colours horses can see most clearly.
"It's early stages, that was only introduced in October and we need to see more data on that before we make any conclusion," Pullin said when I asked if the change had reduced fallers. "On a very small sample size of our own data, something is making a difference. We need to wait and see and get more data on it."
Another official suggested that jockeys are more prepared to ride with some restraint these days, rather than going hell for leather from the outset as might have been the norm in the dim and distant. One thing that has been stressed to jockeys, including amateurs, is that they must pull up when out of contention late in a race.
Obviously, there is an increased risk of falling as your horse gets tired, so stopping is greatly preferable to persevering if your chance of being placed has evaporated. Twelve of the 23 runners in the Kim Muir were pulled up and perhaps that spared us a faller or two.
Here's a detail from last week's Cheltenham Festival that may have passed you by, there being so many things happening. On Thursday, there was not a single faller or unseated rider in any of the four races over fences, which had a total of 62 runners.
This would have to be pretty unusual, I think, given that Cheltenham is a serious test of an athlete at the best of times and even more so at the festival, when the level of competition is so high and everyone is straining to do their best. Big fields create an increased risk of fallers and on Thursday there were two handicap chases with 23 runners each, one of them confined to amateur riders.
That was the thing that really surprised me - no jockeys were parted from their mounts during the Fulke Walwyn Kim Muir Challenge Cup (sponsored by JRL Group). Amateur jockeys are very skillful these days but some of them lack the restraint that a professional would show, so the average level of aggression goes up a notch and you see some rides that could even be described as devil-may-care. Unsurprisingly, something generally goes wrong for someone at some point.
Or at least, that's been my impression. A quick trawl through the Racing Post's form database bears it out. There has been at least one faller or unseated rider in every Kim Muir since 1988, which is as far back as our database goes. I haven't checked through the paper form books to 1946, when the race was established, but if any of you feel like doing so I'd be interested to hear when was the last Kim Muir with no sundered partnerships.
I'd forgotten but back in the 90s there were some Kim Muirs that didn't have anything like as many runners as are now attracted by the race. In 1997, there were just 11 and still one of them fell.
Now, I don't want you thinking I'm the sort of person who notices whether there have been any fallers in each jump race and feels sad if there aren't any. None of us actually want to see fallers, let's take that as read.
But the performance of Dinoblue in Wednesday's Grand Annual made me wonder about the stiffness of the fences. She bashed her way through both of the final two fences and still finished second. Thyme White, who fell at one of those fences, seemed to plough straight through it.
When I started following racing in the early 80s, the fences at top-class tracks were stiffer. Occasionally, there would be arguments about the fences at a certain track having been too densely packed. Horses that got as low as Dinoblue or Thyme White would have bounced off them rather than plunging through and would have fallen.
On the other hand, it meant the fences had to be respected. Horses learn they can get away with going through the tops of the modern fences, so of course many of them do so because to do otherwise costs more energy. It means that horses can race faster over fences than in the past, leading to an increased risk of injury if a horse does fall. That, at least, is the line taken by those who preferred the harsher realities of 40 years ago.
I'm not sure there's much point in taking sides in this argument because there is next to no chance of any fences at any racecourse being made stiffer than in the recent past; at least, not on purpose.
I mentioned the subject to Cheltenham's clerk of the course, Jon Pullin. "The fences are constructed in exactly the same way as they have been for a number of years now," he said. The only change, he added, is the well-advertised switch from orange obstacle markings to white, a consequence of research into which colours horses can see most clearly.
"It's early stages, that was only introduced in October and we need to see more data on that before we make any conclusion," Pullin said when I asked if the change had reduced fallers. "On a very small sample size of our own data, something is making a difference. We need to wait and see and get more data on it."
Another official suggested that jockeys are more prepared to ride with some restraint these days, rather than going hell for leather from the outset as might have been the norm in the dim and distant. One thing that has been stressed to jockeys, including amateurs, is that they must pull up when out of contention late in a race.
Obviously, there is an increased risk of falling as your horse gets tired, so stopping is greatly preferable to persevering if your chance of being placed has evaporated. Twelve of the 23 runners in the Kim Muir were pulled up and perhaps that spared us a faller or two.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 5
|
By:
More pulling up and perhaps the fading influence of AP riding at full tilt into downhill fences.
And there might just be something in the white take-off boards theory! |
|
By:
Fences definitely softer.
|
|
By:
The mistake of Shishkin at the third last looked a chance-ending one but he was very soon back within a length or two of Envoi Allen, so while they're saying they haven't messed with the fences in terms of making them softer like the National fences, the evidence of our own eyes might suggest otherwise.
|
|
By:
I was thinking during the week that the number of fallers were small while they were in contention, so i am not buying it that it was down to more horses pulling up when they were behind.Also there didnt seem to be as many hurdle fallers.
|
|
By:
A good thing surely!!!
|