British Fences

G

Guest_

At the Start
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
14,178
Location
Ireland
This is just a question but how significant are the differences between Irish and British fences? I don't want horses falling, no one does, but the fences in Ireland appear to my eye on to be certainly less forgiving when similar mistakes are made....whatever about falling but thumping hits barely seem to stop their momentum. Should horses really be standing up after making the mistakes Denman and Master Minded made? They are just two high profile cases but I see it watching the run of the mill meetings during the week.

Every chance I am talking trash but what do those that know more feel?
 
But considering the amount of runners you have even per ordinary race, Gal, and the small percentage of fatal falls you have, I'd have thought it was t'other way round. We manage to polish off around 300-ish horses a year, the majority in NH, of course, and the majority of those through falling (as against collapsing, etc.). It's a testament to DENMAN's balance and fitness that he remained upright after smashing his way through his last jump, but by keeping his front legs straight in front of him, he didn't end up in a real tumble.

I'll have to ask our lovely Clerk whether there are any differences in the fences - I'd have thought they'd be pretty identical, given how many horses shuttle to tackle them. Worth finding out for interest's sake, though.
 
In the 90s the general perception was that Irish fences were a bit softer, and that Irish chasers having their first run in Britain had to be treated with caution.

Nick Mordin produced some stats at the time which seemed to support this notion. His theory was that Irish chasers running for the first time in the UK ought to be opposed because they would be facing stiffer fences than they were used to handling. He made an exception for horses who had got round Punchestown.

Nowadays people seem to think Fairyhouse has stiffer fences than Punchestown.

I don't know if any of the above is or was true. It seems ridiculous that followers of NH have to have this kind of discussion when measuring tapes can be bought for less than €10.
 
But it's not just height or width, Grey. It's how literally stiff they're built, too. When people say that Irish fences are softer, they may mean that the birch twigs aren't packed in, say, as stiffly as Sandown's, which are firmly rammed into their bases. Some Clerks like to really stuff them in hard while others prefer the jumps to give a bit more. Some are dressed, like some of the Aintree fences, with knock-off loose green clippings, others don't allow for anything to be tipped off. But as you've mentioned buying a rather expensive measuring tape (I'd go to my local 99p shop, if I didn't already have one), why not ask a pal to go measuring and comparing all the Irish NH tracks versus their British counterparts and fill out a report?
 
Don't think you can generalise. There's a big variation across UK tracks, and I'm sure the same goes for Ireland. You would expect stiffer, i.e. more tightly packed, fences at the Grade 1 tracks in both countries and I'm sure that's the case. I would say that Punchestown's fences are as stiff (i.e. unyielding) as any I have seen, with the possible exception of the Aintree Mildmay course. And as Krizon says, the height of the fence is of secondary importance. What matters is how tightly that birch is packed.
 
krizon said:
But it's not just height or width, Grey. It's how literally stiff they're built, too. When people say that Irish fences are softer, they may mean that the birch twigs aren't packed in...QUOTE]

I recall the Cheltenham groundstaff visiting Leopardstown in (I think) the late 80's/early 90's to help the Irish staff build fences that would equate with British fences, because so many jockeys were saying that a dodgy jumper in the UK would get away with more in Ireland because of the softer fences.

Gerald Delamare also commented at around the same time that the fences at even the top Irish tracks were more like point-to-point fences and that he should know as he had helped to build a few of the latter.

Then there was a phase where fences were too stiff - particularly at Aintree one year in the 90's when David Nicholson protested that the fences on the Mildmay course were packed so tight that they were like brick walls.

Seems to be something to do with using tractors rather than chaps with ropes to pack the fences, but there doesn't seem to be any way of regulating how tightly packed the birch is, so density probably varies from course to course.
Click to expand...
 
You've also got to remember that speed has a huge amount to do with it too. Take Cheltenham's Festival meeting. I have no numbers to support this but I reckon you prob get more mistakes and fallers at that meeting compared with other cheltenham meetings simply because of the speed they do and horses getting tired earlier. That goes for most English racing where the pace quickens a lot earlier than in Ireland. As a result, Irish horses tend to be able to hunt around until well after halfway and then quicken so they have fewer fences to negotiate at fast speeds and are less tired.

Now I don't know about the thickness of fences or whic are tougher but a few years ago, Fairyhouse has a big problem and the jocks and trainers got them to "unpack" the fences. They were tall and stiff and they took out the measuring tapes. Down Royal has some of the stiffest fences in Ireland (think of the carange at the Festival meeting and in Mick The Mans race). Tramore does not but then you are going a bit quicker around the tight tramore track than Down Royal so they prob don't want to make it too stiff e.g. there is one down hill fence at tramore that resembles a hurdle as they cannot have horses falling there or there would be fatalities but nowhere else to put the fence.

So there are a huge number of variables involved. I do think the Irish fences are a good test andthis is born out by the number of horses that turn around form from hurdles over fences. The idea is that if you jump well you should have the chance to beat a horse that is better than you over hurdles. Anjd if that better hurdler jumps badly then you should be able to beat them. If that doesn't happen, then the fences are too easy.
 
That seems to be right, Cantoris. I'd say we do go a lot faster early here than Irish fields, whether hurdling or chasing. The Irish fields stay packed tightly longer (and, by heck, there are always a lot more in them, too!) and tend to thin out like an uncoiling ball of string halfway on the last circuit. In many of the UK races, you get perhaps four or five (when that's not the whole field!) staggering to the finish, while the defeated canter in behind, sometimes in a cheery group, chatting about their holidays.

Interesting, the dynamics of racing in the UK, Ireland, and France, I think. All have rather different styles of attack, with varying forms of obstacles. Still wish we had more French-style chasing here and in Ireland, where the terrain is so much more suited to mixed obstacles (i.e. more in touch with its hunting past), and where the differences in texture, dimensions and shape engage the horse's eye more - not to say the spectator's.
 
It may be true, but surely that would be a huge disadvantage for Irish raiders at the festival, and any other meeting, for that matter. But, it doesn't appear there is a disadvantage as plenty come over here and win.
 
Faster pace also helps a lot of Irish horses. Just take our handicap winners like Space Trucker, Fota Island and Tiger Cry. They all appreciated fast run, good ground races and that's what they got at Cheltenham. The likes of Florida Pearl, ForPaddyThePlaster and Cooldine are/were good jumpers but horses like Beef Or Salmon really struggled when they had better ground and faster run races.

It's also worth remembering that Ireland has retained a lot more of their best horses since the eary nineties when they were sold to the UK, so the quality of Irish runner in Cheltenham has also improved.
 
A lot of the British fences are getting softer and softer every year; a lot of it has to do with the tracks using far less birch to build them than in previous years. This means that the fences part like the Red Sea and has Newbury's fences not been dumbed down so much there is no way Master Minded would have stayed on his feet.
 
I'm not sure what you're basing that assertion on, SL. Apart from Haydock with their portable fences, and obviously the Aintree National course, I haven't seen anything to support your view that fences are getting softer year on year. Certainly not Newbury which remains a stern test for any chaser, novices especially. The only courses I can think of where fences part like the Red Sea ares Ludlow, and possibly Hexham which is really no more than a glorified p-t-p track. Most of the minor tracks have stout, well-built fences. You only have to look at the number of fallers in the home straight at, for example, Wincanton, Perth, Leicester and even Taunton where the last fence is, and always was, especially tricky.
 
I'm basing that assertion on seeing all these fences day in and day out, michaelo, and on watching how they fare in action. I know for a fact that when Kempton's NH track re-opened after the AW was put in, the fences were rebuilt using something like a 1/3 less birch than previously. This is getting to be a habit amongst many racecourses. Newbury is one of the classic cases of a track dumbing down the fences every season, building them with less birch thus making them very soft, so much so that horses can plough through the middle of them and stay on their feet (viz-a-viz Master Minded at the last pn Saturday) whereas in the past they wouldn't have had a chance as instead of parting the birch like the Red Sea, they would have hit it and fallen. Have you taken a look at Newbury's water jump in recent years? It's tiny! I'd jump a 13.2hh pony over it!!! Kempton is another track whose fences seem to get smaller and contain less birch with each season. It's happening year in, year out, all over the country.
 
Any further proof needed that Newbury's fences are soft can clearly be seen in photographs in the Racing Post yesterday, pages 3 and 7.
 
I completely agree with Shadow Leader. British fences have become a lot softer and as a result, mistakes like the one Master Minded made at Newbury, and in some extent the ones that Kauto Star has made before, can be gotten away with. Doubt if that would have happened 10 years ago!
 
But if you read the BHA's site on the subject and articles relating to 'softness', they are pleased that they feel the fatality list is down because of softening the jumps, and, of course, reviewing positioning for safety, too. Many positions of jumps have changed over the years as fewer horses got over certain obstacles, so probably rendering much of the time passed in comparing old champions' efforts with today's somewhat pointless, as positioning is just as important as height, depth, firmness, and obstacle type - for example, many courses now don't sport a water jump as they once did.
 
Off topic a bit but why is a 'cross fence' so called ? It has just occured to me that I have heard the phrase thousands of time in commentary etc. and I don't know what it refers too.

Forgive my ignorance.
 
It's a commentator thing, Bloodnok.

The one that always springs to mind, to be honest can't think of any others at the moment, is the one at Newbury. It's the fence at the far end of the course that is neither on the back straight or the home straight so it's "obviously" a "cross-fence"!

Mike Cattermole is probably to blame.:(
 
Agreed Colin. The fence at the far end of Newbury's chase track has always been "the Cross Fence" because of its position, rather than for being a specific type of fence.

Krizon will be getting excited if she thinks her suggestion for more varied fences for the horses to jump has been heeded by Newbury!
 
Regrettably, not! Just a fence angled on a turn, like the last couple at Uttoxeter, rather than one straight on. The way some commentators blart on about them, you'd think they were interesting! (Although the last two at Ute can take a bit of getting right when horses are tiring.)
 
krizon said:
But if you read the BHA's site on the subject and articles relating to 'softness', they are pleased that they feel the fatality list is down because of softening the jumps, and, of course, reviewing positioning for safety, too.
Click to expand...

How is making fences softer better for the horses? What it does is encourage the horses not to jump the fence as they know full well they can walk straight through it if they want. I'd question whether or not dumbing down the fences has in fact brought down the fatality rate at all or whether figures are being manipulated. Encouraging horses to not bother jumping properly or to plough through fences is not the answer and increasing the extent of poor or sloppy jumping by such dumbing down can only be a bad idea.
 
Absolutely SL - horses when they know they can get away with minimum effort will lead to sloppy jumps and a lack of respect. It is only natural.
 
Back
Top