Best Trainer Of Chasers

M

Maruco

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
4,787
Location
The Shire
In light of O'Leary's comments about Valseur Lido and Sub Lieutenant, what do we think?

For me there are two that stand out. Colin Tizzard in the UK and Henry de Bromhead in Ireland are masters of the art. Willie by contrast is an also ran who is lucky to have the best ammunition.
 
For the large part, I think a horse is either an inherently good or inherently indifferent jumper. I think the trainer has limited scope to improve a horse's jumping, and I think a jockey's input is of much more import - whether it be in a schooling session or a race - by presenting it at the fence in the right way e.g. on a stride, with a clear view, etc.

I want a trainer to get my horse fit enough to operate at its optimum, and for him to place it in races that maximise the chance of winning. I don't expect my trainer to have to teach it how to jump - that's a jockey's job, imo.
 
Last edited:
I reckon anyone that's worked in more than one yard would disagree with you Grassy. They'll have seen many variations of how horses are schooled, many variations of facilities, many variations of the quality of those facilities, and many variations of outside help and intervention.
 
Last edited:
Maruco said:
I reckon anyone that's worked in more than one yard would disagree with you Grassy. They'll have seen many variations of how horses are schooled, many variations of facilities, many variations of the quality of those facilities, and many variations of outside help and intervention.
Click to expand...

You reckon, Paul?

Every time I've seen horses schooled, it has been one of two ways; either a sand-ring with hurdles, or an open field with a row if three or four fences. How much variation can you introduce anyway - it's a simple act of a horse jumping an object, and I still contend the trainer has much less influence over this, than the jockey does.

Unless I've misunderstood the origional point you were trying to make, the facilities bear little to no relation to the talents of the trainer, when it comes to how a steeplechaser jumps. As for outside help and intervention, I assume you mean the likes of Yogi Breisner or Mary Bromiley, which again begs the question, what has this to do with the trainer's skill, if outside help is invoked? Does it mean a tacit admission that the trainer is lost as to how to improve a horse's jumping, or is the skill in identifying that outside help is needed? Either way, it infers that the trainer him/herself is incapable of making the improvement; in which case, Nicholls and Henderson - both of whom have used Breisner liberally over the years - must also be included in the not-so-good bracket.
 
Just to expand this to cover past trainers, I would put Jenny Pitman as one of the best trainers of chasers. I used to go racing much much more in the 90's and her chasers were some of the finest looking horses I can remember. They knew how to do their job too.
 
I'd contend the opposite Nick. If they use the likes of Breisner or Bromily to help a horse jump better it's to their credit surely?

Should they school the horses themselves rather than use jockeys or work riders? Surely the same principle applies?!

As part of teaching his horses to jump the great Tom Taffe used to teach horses to jump ditches from a standing start to develop their muscles in the right way. Who's to say whether it worked or not, but nobody would disagree that he was one of the all time great trainers of chasers.

There are several trainers that even to this day send horses hunting. Very many don't.

There are a few more examples I could give in terms of variety, and I'm sure there are very many more that I don't know about that others could share. What I'm saying is that teaching horses to jump fences isn't an exact science. Getting the most out of the engine underneath is the aim of the game and simply schooling over a straight line of three fences is nothing more than the basics.

I can name a couple of trainers who from personal experience do nothing more than the basics though, and needless to say they wouldn't get anywhere near the top of the list of the top trainers of chasers.

Let me reverse the logic. When Noel Meade was at his peak, why did his chasers massively underperform when compared to his hurdlers? You might argue that he was buying small flat types, but the truth is he bought plenty of stores and NH breds. And he also had Carberry with him who many describe as one of the finest horsemen ever.
 
That's the question I'm asking. Is it to their credit that they employ 'experts', or is it a tacit admission that they don't know enough themselves? Is the trainer hiring external help smarter than the one that doesn't, or just availed of more money and time?

Harry mentions Jenny Pitman as a great trainer of chasers. I would add Hen Knight, because the vast majority of her horses always jumped in exemplary fashion; Edredon Bleu and Best mate being the best examples. By contrast, Nicholls and Henderson have had some pigs of steeplechasers (e.g. Big Buck's and Josses Hill as recent exmples), but does that make them 'bad' trainers of chasers?

I don't think it does, for the reason I gave in my first response. Horses are inherently good or bad at jumping fences, and Best Mate and Edredon Bleu would - I'm certain - have been just as good if they had been in the care of Nicholls or Henderson or indeed Willie Mullins. The difference a trainer makes to the way a horse actually jumps a fence is negligible, and if outside help is needed to improve technique, it doesn't reflect positively on the trainer, beyond them being clever enough to concede their own limitations.

PS. Noel Meade's hurdlers also massively under-achieved. :lol:
 
Last edited:
:lol:

Of course having Big Bucks and Josses Hill doesn't make Nicholls and Henderson bad trainers of chasers. They're very good and their record proves it. Just as Willie's does. That said Willie still hasn't won the Gold Cup despite his embarrassment of riches. The flip side of course is I don't think Mark Bradstock is better. Statistically he is though, but by the same reasoning you also can't say Willie is the best either despite all his Grade 1 wins. It just doesn't work that way.

I'm asking who we believe is the best? I'd contend based on the ammunition they've had to work with, by comparison to the three mentioned, Tizzard and de Bromhead have consistently been at the top of the tree. I'm sure others have a different opinion, and may have other suggestions entirely.
 
Last edited:
Nicholls surely... 23% win rate with chasers over the last 5 seasons, which given the volume of runners will be hard to beat. I don't have the stats in tabular form though so no doubt someone will have a better record. The only one who readily came to mind was Harry Fry - 30% win rate with chasers.... Who did he learn from again? :ninja::whistle:
 
I'm trying to think of a way to measure this. Clearly Mullins, Nicholls, and Henderson are going to have better strike rates. In general they have access to a higher volume of better horses.

Is perhaps the measure of an increasing strike rate as horses progress through bumpers, hurdles, and fences the one to take? At least that way if you take a trainers strike rate as a measure it indicates their comparative strike rates across the disciplines based on the baseline of the horses they have.

The other measure to take would be based on finishing positions in chases as opposed to their market chance. I haven't got the time or the inclination to be honest, but a combination of the two would give an indication if statistics are to be the measure. Simply taking an overall win % doesn't say anything other than tell us which of the top trainers have the best horses.

For me though this debate should be more about opinions than statistics.
 
I can't think of any current trainer who gets his/her horses to jump with the consistent fluency that Michael Dickinson did. The irony is that his horses never seemed to take to Aintree's big fences.
 
Maruco said:
In light of O'Leary's comments about Valseur Lido and Sub Lieutenant, what do we think?

For me there are two that stand out. Colin Tizzard in the UK and Henry de Bromhead in Ireland are masters of the art. Willie by contrast is an also ran who is lucky to have the best ammunition.
Click to expand...

Colin Tizzard? you can not be serious? Cue Card stands out but the buck stops there and he's had his fair share of criticism on the handling of him.

Take away Cue Cards victories and he has won next to nothing over fences. Joe Lively was a good sort 10 years ago and Native River is favourite for the Hennessy but that's as far as it goes.

He's landed lucky with Thistlecrack plus Cue Card retaining his form keeps him in the news but he wouldn't be in the top 10 trainers of chasers in my book.
 
Im assuming that's because you're only watching the big races.

There would be few that have such a dim view of Tizzard over here, even if they don't agree with the lofty perch I've given him Tanlic.
 
Is measuring the 'best trainer of chasers' important or worth the energy, Paul?

Like everything else in the game, it's an almost entirely subjective matter, regardless of the paramaters you wrap around it, and you will never get to a conclusive answer.

Suffice to say, the best trainer of a chaser, is the trainer of the last winning chaser I backed. If I back his next chaser and it loses? Then he is clearly a muppet. It's that simple!

:cool:
 
I'd rate a good trainer of chasers on the ones that are able to make a poor jumper better. Something that PFN isn't exactly top of the charts at... How many "this one will be a gold cup horse" have ended up reverting to hurdles. APS may well be the next one. Bottom line is that PFN and Henderson get the very best of horses, and its a **** load easier to train a good horse than a bad one.

Sue & Harvey Smith would be the ones i would chose, and its simply coz they continue to use a show jumping element to teach a horse to jump a fence properly and make the correct shape.

"Twice up them gallops Clifford" is hardly rocket science.
 
Interestingly I overheard the following comment on Bet Victor day at Cheltenham when the Potts owned, Tizzard trained horse won the staying chase.
"Just goes to show how clueless that De Bromhead is, all of the horses transferred are running out of their skins!"
 
Grasshopper said:
That's the question I'm asking. Is it to their credit that they employ 'experts', or is it a tacit admission that they don't know enough themselves? Is the trainer hiring external help smarter than the one that doesn't, or just availed of more money and time?

Harry mentions Jenny Pitman as a great trainer of chasers. I would add Hen Knight, because the vast majority of her horses always jumped in exemplary fashion; Edredon Bleu and Best mate being the best examples. By contrast, Nicholls and Henderson have had some pigs of steeplechasers (e.g. Big Buck's and Josses Hill as recent exmples), but does that make them 'bad' trainers of chasers?

I don't think it does, for the reason I gave in my first response. Horses are inherently good or bad at jumping fences, and Best Mate and Edredon Bleu would - I'm certain - have been just as good if they had been in the care of Nicholls or Henderson or indeed Willie Mullins. The difference a trainer makes to the way a horse actually jumps a fence is negligible, and if outside help is needed to improve technique, it doesn't reflect positively on the trainer, beyond them being clever enough to concede their own limitations.

PS. Noel Meade's hurdlers also massively under-achieved. :lol:
Click to expand...

Henrietta Knight used Lars Sederholm, Yogi Breisner and Pat Burgess regularly. I agree with Maruco - I've seen some trainers who think schooling is galloping up a line of hurdles and fences, and others who spend time on gridwork, loose schooling, and other athletic exercises (Mullins has said that he doesn't school much, because they can either jump or they can't, and the risk of injury is too great, so I guess he's in the first category). It's not true to say you can't improve a horse. There are those that are naturals from day one, and those that need help, but I put a harmless placing pole in front of a jump at one yard, and the trainer told me I'd kill the horse, and promptly removed it! Nicholls is the best for me - lots of small fences, and I'm sure having Dan Skelton around didn't hurt. You also need to get a horse fit to jump, and confident, and small jumps are perfect. In Ireland, de Bromhead stands out.
 
I remember seeing statistics from a year or two ago, showing de Bromhead having fewer fallers among his novice chasers than any of the other leading trainers.
 
Maruco said:
Im assuming that's because you're only watching the big races.

There would be few that have such a dim view of Tizzard over here, even if they don't agree with the lofty perch I've given him Tanlic.
Click to expand...

The figures speak for themself Maruco. He has twice in the last 3 years had a shockingly bad strike rate reaching only 11% with his chasers.

As for O'leary's statement about Valseur Lido he's talking complete garbage. The horse was never a sketchy jumper and was not known for clouting fences. He has a couple of back to back mishaps one where Ruby fell out the side door and the other when he was a tired and beaten horse in the King George but he is certainly not known for bad or even sketchy jumping. I certainly don't see anything in Sub Lieutenant form that remotely suggests he was ever a sketch jumper either.

O'leary is having a go and trying to prove to the public he has done the right thing which he will get little support from racing fans on.
 
Back
Top