There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Having done all this fussing about the importance of knowing what the going is, it should be admitted that it doesn't matter this much to everyone.
"Less and less, if truth be told," Segal says.
"If I'm good at anything, it's looking back and looking at where I've gone wrong or right. The number of times where I've gone wrong, it mostly is ground-related."
Segal fears we are too keen to label horses as specialists on certain types of ground, with the implication that it's therefore somewhat profligate to waste a run on any other type of ground. The reality, he reckons, is that most horses have a wider range of capabilities than we imagine.
He deplores our willingness to blame the ground whenever a fancied horse flops. "We don't know why horses run badly, there could be a million reasons.
"They could lose a shoe, their girth could be too tight, they could not be feeling right, they could knock their knee at the first. We always pigeon-hole it as a bad draw or the wrong ground.
"When I started, I was definitely a lot more ground-oriented than I am now. If you get heavy or specialist-type ground, that plays into your thinking. But I think generally during the Flat season I'm less ground-oriented. It would be a one-per-center for me.
"It's the number one factor that I've got wrong. So I'm trying to avoid it totally.
"It's hard to do. It's a bit like the draw, it's hard to shut out the noise because it's ingrained in you that that's the way to look at horseracing. If you don't do it, everyone thinks you're guessing and cheating and cutting corners.
"But these days, I cover up the ground and the draw when I'm looking at a race. I do better when I do that."
It seems a daring thing to say out loud. Speaking as a news journalist, so many racing stories are about what the going will be for a major race and which horses are liable to be inconvenienced – it would force quite a rethink if everyone followed Segal's lead and suddenly stopped reading those stories.
Kealy takes a more traditional view: "Ground is very important, I've always thought that."
And so does Mellish: "It's massive, for me. I remember having a long conversation about this with a really good friend of mine, a good punter whose opinion I really respect, and he thinks it's the most overrated thing in the world. He's a far brighter guy than me.
"But I would be completely the opposite. I would be put off sometimes if I think the ground is good and I want it to be quicker than that.
"Less and less, if truth be told," Segal says.
"If I'm good at anything, it's looking back and looking at where I've gone wrong or right. The number of times where I've gone wrong, it mostly is ground-related."
Segal fears we are too keen to label horses as specialists on certain types of ground, with the implication that it's therefore somewhat profligate to waste a run on any other type of ground. The reality, he reckons, is that most horses have a wider range of capabilities than we imagine.
He deplores our willingness to blame the ground whenever a fancied horse flops. "We don't know why horses run badly, there could be a million reasons.
"They could lose a shoe, their girth could be too tight, they could not be feeling right, they could knock their knee at the first. We always pigeon-hole it as a bad draw or the wrong ground.
"When I started, I was definitely a lot more ground-oriented than I am now. If you get heavy or specialist-type ground, that plays into your thinking. But I think generally during the Flat season I'm less ground-oriented. It would be a one-per-center for me.
"It's the number one factor that I've got wrong. So I'm trying to avoid it totally.
"It's hard to do. It's a bit like the draw, it's hard to shut out the noise because it's ingrained in you that that's the way to look at horseracing. If you don't do it, everyone thinks you're guessing and cheating and cutting corners.
"But these days, I cover up the ground and the draw when I'm looking at a race. I do better when I do that."
It seems a daring thing to say out loud. Speaking as a news journalist, so many racing stories are about what the going will be for a major race and which horses are liable to be inconvenienced – it would force quite a rethink if everyone followed Segal's lead and suddenly stopped reading those stories.
Kealy takes a more traditional view: "Ground is very important, I've always thought that."
And so does Mellish: "It's massive, for me. I remember having a long conversation about this with a really good friend of mine, a good punter whose opinion I really respect, and he thinks it's the most overrated thing in the world. He's a far brighter guy than me.
"But I would be completely the opposite. I would be put off sometimes if I think the ground is good and I want it to be quicker than that.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 11
|
By:
Ok, I'll go in to bat.
"If I'm good at anything, it's looking back and looking at where I've gone wrong or right. The number of times where I've gone wrong, it mostly is ground-related." If he read the book Winning Without Thinking by Nick Mordin Segal would have learned that "the ground", as reported by the clerk of the course, is a work of fiction. Mordin found that only about 30% of times ground described as "good" was correctly described. Why would the racecourse describe ground as "good" when it was actually "firm"? Two reasons probably ... (1) "I always like to have good ground" ... (2) he/she does not want trainers withdrawing horses. The draw Once again, the clerk of the course tries to muddy the picture by having cut-outs. He certainly does not want one side firm and the other side good. The natural draw advantages are probably also ruined by over-watering or partial watering. The newspaper tipster probably does not do any draw analysis. He probably looks up a website that does the draw analysis for him. And everyone assumes one side is best and those drawn on the other side have no chance. How about my draw analysis for the English Derby and “lucky stall 10” ? In the 42 of the 44 years 1967 to 2010 (two years missing) stall 10 won eight times, an incredible 19.0%. 11 no-hopers* came out of stall 10 in those years the “lucky stall 10” percentage is more amazing, 10 wins from (42 – 11) or 10 out of 31 (32.3%). * one at 100/1, two at 200/1, one at 500/1 Why? Answer two stalls machines of 10 places, a big gap between 10 an 11. No winners came out of stall 11,12 in the 42 years from 1967 to 2010. When I sent this to the BHA what happened? Epsom moved the stalls for the English Derby into the middle of the track (but retained the two stalls machines holding 10 each!) Not a solution to the problem, just a fudge. Segal went from picking horses based on their ground preference to ignoring ground preferences. What Segal was doing was ignoring the incorrect ground descriptions issued by the clerks of the course. His tipping improved because he ignored false information. A pinsticking approach was more successful than tipping based on wrong information. |
|
By:
So many things can happen during a race and affect the outcome. Whenever a young horse has a
disappointing run it's any easy and lazy way to explain it by blaming the going. The horse then gets a reputation that could be completely unfounded. The other (related) thing that annoys me is pundits going on and on about the breeding. I get the impression that they do so to impress the audience with their knowledge of the subject. Even when their doubts are shown to be unfounded they will refer to a winner succeeding 'despite' the going/ breeding. Thoroughbreeds are all related to one another! Go back a couple of generations and you can uncover any attributes that you want! I remember the late great Henry Cecil biting his fingernails and saying the owner of Midday might kill him for running her in the soft going at Goodwood but it turned out to be one of the easiest wins of her career. Also many trainers will say when interviewed before a race that they don't know how the horse will handle the going. Anyway I think most poor runs are due to many other reasons than just going. |
|
By:
My long insightful post is with the moderator who is at their mid-morning break.
|
|
By:
Going is something that can be measured (not always correctly) Course bias is harder to understand. Some horses run stones better on one course than on another. Is it because of the topography? Do they remember a good or bad experience when they return to a track? Is it owner or trainer bias, only really teeing on up for a specific track? I am a fan of Item and while the ground might explain his awful effort in the Derby, how do you explain his run in Ireland? His 3 runs at York were all rated 118 or better, none of the others were close although his wins at 2yo at Bath and Kempton could be uprated in hindsight.
|
|
By:
Anybody that thinks the Going is unimportant should not be betting
|
|
By:
Agree irons but some horses seem to much less bothered by it than others.
|
|
By:
It's never an easy thing, to create a single factor that helps betting. Variability in use is the trick(and also tricky).
|
|
By:
Oisin getting nailed in an awful lot of finishes lately.
|
|
By:
A weak individual…..
|
|
By:
You utter clown,Aceform
 |
|
By:
Ground one of the most important things you need to know, and the draw on certain courses on certain ground a licence to print it, it’s important to know the 2 combined on the flat, weight is not important in the class of horse i go for flat or jumps, for donkey races weight important but to hard a races and wasted time means most races need leaving alone on the flat, as with anything racing just imo
|