Cheltenham Festival going 2016

news years day was -51 on my calcs..which is soft[heavy in places]

if that is what 5.4 is on his scale then its got some drying to do..but we have a good forecast

i'd rather it be this way than them watering
 
Last edited:
It has indeed a fair bit of drying to do to get to proper good/soft ground. Some serious rain fell.

Good forecast alright but threat of fog turning to mist and even a touch of frost next 2 nights. That's all moisture getting into the ground which is defeating what the dry days have done.

Chance of a shower or two Thursday & Friday morning too. I reckon we might get soft -gs in places at best come Friday if that 5.4 is a true reading.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
There's going to be an easterly breeze all week according to forecast I saw on local tv a couple of hours ago, (off of Cleeve Hill), that will help the drying process.
 
can see it riding dead the first couple of days, then a bit springier on the new course Thursday and friday
 
Kauto Abu said:
Interesting there looking at Turftrax, they report all 3 courses still to be soft all round as of 3pm yesterday.

Going stick reads 5.7 old course & 5.4 x country & New.

According to turftrax archives Cheltenham this New Years Day was Heavy - soft in places with a reading of 5.4 on the going stick. Very testing that day, I remember Smad Place coming back in without any white left on his front half!!
Click to expand...

The Friday before the 2014 festival the g/s reading was 5.8 old and new. By Gold Cup day it was 7.3 - Good, G/S in places.
Be surprised if it's much different this year.
 
I text the good lady's cousin there. He's over as part of team Mullins since yesterday and they were out on it today. He said it'll definitely ride slow day 1 and it'll depend on drying after that. He also said it'll be declared good-soft officially anyway no matter what but it's well soft as of today.

To be honest that suits fine. I'm in nicely on Buveur D'air and he'll handle that just fine. Secondly I'd prefer drying ground for More of That & Don Poli for later in the week. Have had a good cut at Sprinter wo UDS too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I'd say perfect racing ground on Tuesday and they'll he bouncing off it by Wednesday, with the threat of Claisse watering for Thursday.
 
Maruco said:
I'd say perfect racing ground on Tuesday and they'll he bouncing off it by Wednesday, with the threat of Claisse watering for Thursday.
Click to expand...

Very probably. But at least the likely good news is that they won't consider watering before Tuesday!

The bad news is that my big fancy or the World Hurdle (Kilcooley, 25/1) really wants it soft.
 
I really shouldn't have started reading this thread - far too much studying to do! Anyway, it's fascinating how, despite having to use the going stick, Clerks continue to use their own subjective descriptions for the official going. As far as i can make out the Turftrax ratings are as follows:
1.0 – 2.9 = Heavy
3.0 – 4.9 = Soft
5.0 – 6.9 = Good to Soft
7.0 – 8.9 = Good
9.0 – 10.9 = Good to Firm
11.0 – 12.9 = Firm
13.0 – 15.0 = Hard

Yesterday's Going Stick report was 5.7 (Friday 5.4) - right in the good to soft range. On the Tuesday last year the morning reading was 6.9. On the basis there's three days to go from yesterday's reading and that it 'improved' by 0.3 in the previous 24 hours, then, based on the forecast, it could get to around 6.5 by the first race and be verging on good ground by mid-afternoon Wednesday.
Enough of that, back to figuring out how much more to invest on John's Spirit (Going stick forecast at 4.10 Thursday is 7.22146!!)
 
Last edited:
to be fair..the going stick game is a confusing one..when it should be very straightforward. I personally use my own going scale that is universal..it measures softness of ground..no matter what the track. The going stick should do the same..it should just measure softness of ground..irrelevant of track or COC.

That scale you posted PDleech..its not being used by the COC's from what i can see...i might be wrong but wasn't the lowest Going Stick level reporetd at one track not long about 3.0..it was supposed to be the lowest of the season or something..well..that only equates to Soft on that scale. Thats miles away from teh reality of ground at tracks we have seen this winter.

I haven't checked yet..but have going stick recordings of 1.0 ever been reported?..becasue many goings this winter were below 1.0.
 
here we go..here is a classic example of why the going stick readings are a nonsense in the way they are used at the moment.

Exeter 1 january...the ground was dire...officially Heavy..on my scale it was -98 which is getting towards the bottomless end of Heavy...and yet the going stick was reported as 5.5..wtf?

5.5 isn't anywhere near heavy looking at the scale posted by PD

how on earth can anyone rely on them?
 
Last edited:
I was just comparing simon claisse's own interpretation of 5.4 New Years Day (heavy, soft in places) with that of Friday's 5.4 which was soft!! Same reading on his scale, different classification.

Still think it'll ride slow day 1 even tho officially he'll have it good/soft for us all. Lads in Mullins having been out on it all think it'll be slower day 1.

Supreme should paint a picture of ground anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
i wasn't dissing the comparison re Claisse..just a general observation really..its time the going stick was made to be used properly..there should be no COC whims..its should be a measure of ground softness irrelevant of which course its used on.

without a universal scale that applies to all courses..the going stick is useless..when it should be the best thing since sliced bread. A good tool wasted imo

once the supreme has been run i'll have a very good idea what the ground is...once pace of race is allowed for you can get within a length or so per mile of what the conditions are
 
Last edited:
pdleech said:
I really shouldn't have started reading this thread - far too much studying to do! Anyway, it's fascinating how, despite having to use the going stick, Clerks continue to use their own subjective descriptions for the official going. As far as i can make out the Turftrax ratings are as follows:
1.0 – 2.9 = Heavy
3.0 – 4.9 = Soft
5.0 – 6.9 = Good to Soft
7.0 – 8.9 = Good
9.0 – 10.9 = Good to Firm
11.0 – 12.9 = Firm
13.0 – 15.0 = Hard

Yesterday's Going Stick report was 5.7 (Friday 5.4) - right in the good to soft range. On the Tuesday last year the morning reading was 6.9. On the basis there's three days to go from yesterday's reading and that it 'improved' by 0.3 in the previous 24 hours, then, based on the forecast, it could get to around 6.5 by the first race and be verging on good ground by mid-afternoon Wednesday.
Enough of that, back to figuring out how much more to invest on John's Spirit (Going stick forecast at 4.10 Thursday is 7.22146!!)
Click to expand...


lets see how the going stick helps us today

Kelso = 5.9 [soft]

On the scale above thats only Good/Soft

Market Rasen = 5.8 Chase...6.1 Hurdles [Soft, G/S pl}

on the scale above thats again G/S

Warwick SOFT (Heavy in places on Hurdle course; GoingStick: Chase 5.2, Hurdle 4.9)

on the scale above thats Soft/G/s

neither use nor ornament really because each COC is going by comprisons with previous readings at his own course to call the ground..thats pointless to us punters who just want to know how slow the ground is going to slow horses up by..not by what a COC thinks it should be described as.

A horse deosn't know what course its running at re softness of ground..if a horse shows it acts well when the ground is -40 slow..it don't matter where that -40 occurs..its the cushion it reacts to..not the course or COC opinion of the ground. If one COC calls -40 ground G/S and another calls it Good..or another calls it Soft..you then have 3 different readings for a horse performing on the same ground conditions. Thats pointless..and makes a mockery of the form book re decidng what actual surface a horse acts well on
 
Last edited:
I think the going stick gives different readings at different courses due to the nature of the soil. At some courses it can go in quite deep but not slow the horses down as much as another track where it isn't as deep according to the stick.

Last month at Haydock the stick reading was something like 2.4. They even quipped on the Morning Line (Tom Segal?) that the River Thames is "only 3.0".

I wouldn't necessarily say that official going reports should be ignored or taken with a pinch of salt, just that we maybe should be careful about taking them as gospel.

Come Tuesday, I imagine it will be closer to good than anything the official description suggests.
 
i ignore all the going reports tbh. I'm only interested in how much the ground is slowing a horse down..as that is all thats important imo. If you just look at todays stick readings and the going descriptions alongside...they don't make sense..so they are going into the formbook incorrectly.

Lets take Warwick today as an example..the stick reading is 5.0 average..thats G/S on the stick scale..but is going down as Soft/Heavy in the formbook. Which one is right from a punters perspective..one is clearly wrong. How can that be when we have a stick thats supposed to work at every track?. If its not the best way of measuring the going..why bother with it?

After 1 race i'll have my own estimate of the going..am happy with that..and if punters aren't bothered about what goes in the formbook then i suppose there is no issue..but when people quote these stick readings its highly misleading imo when the descritions of the ground don't match the readings
 
Maybe someone (DG?) local to the track can confirm, but one of the lads we meet each year, said he saw them watering the first bend on Monday, on his walk to work.

I know nothing more than this, but felt it was worth posting, given some of the previous inconsistencies around the ground.

Maybe it was to ensure consistency with the rest of the course (it is one of the higher points of the circuit, and maybe it had drained quicker than the rest. But it might suggest that the ground is perhaps slightly quicker in places, than is being advertised.

To be honest, I'm not even sure if this is useful info. My gut feel is that it just creates doubt where it might not be warranted, and I plan to bet on Tuesday, as if the given Going is accurate. EC1's stopwatch will give is an early (and better) pointer anyway.
 
Back
Top