Judging the going

that article Reet has put up does suggest that Good should be the same at all courses

it seems to me that "Good" is being guaged by each course then they work round that..surely the surface at 8.0 means Good ground...no matter what course ...you can't have different types of Good..its about the degree of give...if a surface is hard then its got virtually no give...you can't have different hard ground

it seems to me that from day one a COC has decided his first reading is on Good ground in his judgement...he takes a reading and its 7.5...so he then uses that as Good for his course..when in fact its easy side of Good...from that point on all his assessments are wrong

if a course gets a 7.5 rating it means there is give in the ground..no matter which course
 
This might sound faintly (or wholly) ridiculous, but I reckon if the given ground is within a half-point of a horse's perceived "most suitable", there's really no reason for it not to run its race.

Clearly, some horses need a particular type of ground to give their absolute best, and will run below form in its absence - but this is generally confined to the extremes i.e. wanting it very soft or fast, and the majority of Jumps horses shouldn't be looking for too many excuses on anything ranging from Good through Soft. Physical ground conditions covered under a generic description like "Good-to-Soft" are some many and so varied anyway, that it renders detailed analysis (via time, going-stick or whatever other method you might choose) almost pointless, imho.

In the absence of said extremes, I tend to use ground conditions to rule horse's out, rather than in, and generally expect the remainder to give their running. Other factors are of more import, in my view; track-suitability, weight/conditions, jumping prowess, trip, and yard-form principal amongst them.

Edit: To answer the point "How do you know the description is accurate in the first place?", the truth is I don't, and I have to invest a degree of trust in the CoC. I then use my eyes.

Not very scientific, I know......but I think we can tend to get lost in the thicket a little bit, when it comes to the Going.


:cool:
 
Last edited:
Grassy

From today's Goodwood results:

Richard Hannon, trainer of Viewpoint: "The ground was just too fast for him at Ascot and Hughesie said he just doesn´t pick up on it, he just doesn´t lengthen

Ryan Moore, rider of Garswood: "He´s quite a heavy horse so he´d probably appreciate the cut in the ground.He got a bit of interference at the start so he was further back than he should have been, but he won quite snugly."

: Bruce Raymond, racing manager to Saeed Manana, owner of Brazos: "I think this horse can go on a bit and can furnish up a little more. We have got him in the Royal Lodge, but that is a long way off. Like a lot of Clodovils he was happier on this ground and he is better held up off the pace, as he has been a bit keen in his races."

Trainer Hugo Palmer: "Ascription has been quite sound, but had a wind op in the autumn and then after being dangerous at Newmarket was gelded. That has settled him down in his work at home and he has lightened up as he was a heavy horse doing his work really easily. He must have this ground and he´s in the Thirsk Summer Cup and a race at Chester on Sunday, so we may have a look if it is soft."

Tony Carroll, trainer of Tidal´s Baby: "He won at Windsor and then I tried to win with a penalty two days later but it never works. He was a long way down the ballot and I didn´t think he would creep in, but he did, and the rain came as well, so everything was right."


5 winners from 7 races whose connections felt the ground did make a difference - AFAIAA none of them on a markedly different surface
 
Newbury going on Saturday given as GOOD but Fallon after his win on Royal Empire gave the impression that it was quite testing and horses "wouldn't be doing anything quickly on it".

What do the times suggest you gurus?
 
I'm not rating the meeting, but looking at the RP results, and the quality of racing, it looks on the slow side of good. Wouldn't call it 'testing' though. Not even GDSFT, somewhere about GDsft is how I'd express it. Though I am just looking at the RP.
 
Back
Top