THE CAPTAIN and his FOOKING JUMPING DATA

Out of it's ground from the start. The Captain finding it easier to blame the horse than the jock. Of course that's never happened before.

Plenty came from behind there today. Horse beaten miles. The big error was a stopping one, esp in that going, but it was in touch at the time. Impossible to argue it would have won if keeping closer tabs on the runaway winner. If it was ridden less aggressively because of March, well that's part of the judgement calculations of a runner's chances when it is most likely going to be targeting a bigger race nto.

yifter/bet maverick has managed to lose trying all these new betting based stats,so he might as well start punting using this new jumping data,to see how he goes

The only other comparative small field hurdle was won by a horse that made the running. It is clearly an advantage to get an easy lead on a sharp track like Haydock.

You think Salver would have got beat if not leading? The fav in the first was not 'at the races' today, for whatever reason. Even if had been in the lead, it wouldn't have been after collecting the 6th.

I could just as easily say is it really worth comparing a series of staying races with this race.

I started by saying the horse has run a shocker, but that's a completely different issue to a jock lining the horse in the wrong place. The mistake just compunded the problem. It's jumping was very slow and deliberate before that happened. All the more reason to have had it closer to begin with. He gave the winner too much rope, and possibly she has just sulked. In the past she has gone forward herself. She has never been a bridle horse. He has ridden it as if leader would either come back, or she would comfortably make up the ground. Neither ever looked likely to happen.

A while back, the Kublers did an interview, going on about all this scientific guff like measuring stride length, etc, and I was like...Righty oh, lol.

Well, maximum respect to them for getting career-bests out of ageing handicappers Helm Rock, Andaleep and in particular Cambridgeshire winner Astro King.

scientific guff like measuring stride length, etc, and I was like...Righty oh, lol.

I'm with you there George. How can you change a racehorse's stride length?

It's just back fitting the outcome to the proceedings early in the race. Nobody knows how it would have ran if it tried to lead, as it didn't try to lead. You posted that it was out of its ground from the start, and a pundit was blaming the horse (insinuating he should have been blaming the jockey instead). I think it's pretty desperate to blame the jockey when the horse is running on the same spot from early in the straight, and has made a terrible juddering mistake at a mid race hurdle. Lots of horses won on the day who didn't lead, so there didn't appear to be a so called track/pace bias on the day.

You could argue that you would have liked the jockey to have tried to make it, but that is completely different to blaming him for the lamentable performance of the horse, which you think a pundit should have done. The overwhelming likelihood is that it would have been stuffed whatever the tactics on the day, a pundit blaming the jockey for the defeat would have been perverse and made it seem like he'd had lost his gonads on a long odds on fav. Do some pundits avoid blaming jockeys when they have made obvious errors, absolutely. I don't see much of a case for that happening yesterday. But as I've mentioned before, the race iq stuff only tells us what we already knew, and doesn't really add anything apart from helping to keep a self employed pundit in work!

They take a scientific approach to training, was the gist of it.

Regarding stride length, swifty, and why bother measuring / minitoring it? Explained here on their website:

https://www.kublerracing.com/facilities/performance-monitoring/

Cheers George. They are putting their studies to work. But they've chucked a lot of money at it over the years.

Does it work any better than a Dandy Nicholls, Milton Bradley, David Chapman style approach. The numbers (sorry, statistics) would say not.

trainers do what they feel the need to do ,no problem with that
but RUK,ATR,itv and their pundits are selling it as a help to punters,when its all aftertiming and no bearing on how a horse will jump next time or its rivals  will jump next time
their basically saying if constitution hill winged every hurdle and only won 2 lengths dont back it next time because if it loses about 2 lengths by fiddling a few of the hurdles it wont win or be vulnerable, but they ignore giving horses 20 length,s starts 24/7,
i remember pundits/comms laxing lyrical about fondmorts jump at the last at a chelt meeting
today stats would be saying he ballooned it,lost time in the air,didnt land running etc,etc  and lost lengths to the field,
its almost impossible to win a national now if you jump all the fences like tiger roll you need to jump through them ,under the birch and kick it all out of the way

We can see it with our own eyes though as the other horses are there for perspective. Time analysis is far more useful as you can get an optical illusion with the human eye alone. For example the King George visually looked like they went a rapid pace, but the clock showed that they actually did not. And that could be useful information for subsequent races.

Bloke's a complete waste of time.

All P and broken biscuits

Not sure who out of him or Lynch is the worst. It's almost as if they've only just discovered the clock.

Lynch's analysis of the Pic D'Orhy race is laughable.