Racing Post Weekender.

I make a point of not reading anything written by Matt Williams and Nick Mordin and if his spotlights are anything to go by Alistair Whitehouse Jones isn't worth reading either since a lot of his spotlight comments are clueless, ignorant or plain rude. I can't understand why they actually publish them.
 
Shadow Leader said:
I make a point of not reading anything written by Matt Williams and Nick Mordin and if his spotlights are anything to go by Alistair Whitehouse Jones isn't worth reading either since a lot of his spotlight comments are clueless, ignorant or plain rude. I can't understand why they actually publish them.
Click to expand...
Dismissed your pride and joy's chances, did he? The swine!
 
Ha di ha ha. You may possibly recall that I've been pissed off with his bollocks comments for a long time now, he comes out with utter tripe, usually based around his bullshit ideas that if a horse cost less than five figures, it's automatically no good. He's just too lazy to do any proper research into pedigrees, or look into trainer trends, or do any investigation into anything since if it cost less than £10k it's obviously shite.
 
Shads

I realise that most of my increasingly infrequent posts on here are designed solely to bait you but, for once, this is an attempt at genuine debate.

If you had to write 30-50 words analysing an unraced horse, which areas would you focus on? Surely the sale price of a horse is of interest and a low one (even if the beast is bred to win a Derby) could only count as a negative.

Give me a specific example of a "clueless, ignorant or plain rude" comment AWJ has made and I will decide who's side I'm on.
 
If you had to write 30-50 words analysing an unraced horse, which areas would you focus on? Surely the sale price of a horse is of interest and a low one (even if the beast is bred to win a Derby) could only count as a negative.

1. Price
2. Record of Sire's progeny on todays surface and with FTO horses.
3. Record at trip/ground of Dams offspring with other sires - if none then influence of Dam'Dam at trip
4. Record of trainer with FTO horses generally -FTO at Course
5. Record of jockey for trainer on FTO horses

something like that would show me that the person was prepared to do some work and actually inform me about areas I might be interested in
 
trackside528 said:
Value for money then?

I would probably argue that all three mentioned above represent better value than buying the Racing Post most days, though whether their content justifies the price is highly debatable.
Click to expand...

There is certainly more content in the Irish Field. The Racing Post is desperate poor value.

I think that part of the price differential is due to 21 per cent vat on newspapers in the south, but none on newspapers in the north and Britian.
 
Relkeel, strangely enough I don't keep copies of the Racing Post solely to keep copies of AWJ's tripe.

Of course cost is ONE of the factors you'd mention on an unraced horse, but there is also pedigree and the likelihood of the horse being a bumper type on pedigree, trainer form, trainer stats in these type of races, jockey form, jockey stats in these type of races, whether the horse is likely to stay/act on going according to pedigree - need I go on? AWJ focuses purely on how much the animal has cost and if it costs less than about £10k he automatically writes it off as useless and looks no further into it. Lazy and arrogant so far as I can see, as well as often writing utter bullshit.

Oh, and please explain to me how a low cost at the sales can only mean a negative? Christ alive, that is the sort of clueless attitude that gets my goat; often uttered by people who wouldn't know a horse with straight legs if it kicked them in the teeth. Luckily for those of us who DO have a clue though, it means that we can pick up some great, very cheap bargains as most people are too stupid or lazy to look into a horse properly at the sales - its pedigree and conformation.
 
Last edited:

Shads

1. I didn't expect you to have kept back copies of The Racing Post but AWJ clearly wrote something that you objected to (presumably about one of your own horses) and I thought you may be able to remember the gist of it.

2. Pedigree is obviously important too but I remind you and EC1 that much of the stats based evidence you crave is already available in a different area of The Racing Post. Spotlight comments are intended as a brief summary of a horse's history/prospects that is accessible to all (including betting shop punters). Given that, wouldn't a string of stats be a bit off-putting?

3. When I said that a low sales price can only be taken as a negative, I didn't mean that it automatically means the horse will be useless (and nor does a high sale price mean the opposite) but there is obviously a strong correlation between sales price and ability. Would you expect a Spotlight writer to put something like;

"Cheaply bought but owner would know a horse with straight legs if it kicked her in the teeth"?

Anyway, good luck with your filly today. I notice she has been "Googled" (see RP page 21).
 
Relkeel said:
Shads


2. Pedigree is obviously important too but I remind you and EC1 that much of the stats based evidence you crave is already available in a different area of The Racing Post. Spotlight comments are intended as a brief summary of a horse's history/prospects that is accessible to all (including betting shop punters). Given that, wouldn't a string of stats be a bit off-putting?
Click to expand...

The information in the RP does not give the insight to deliver what I suggested above though..its very basic...again..going back to them charging..their progeny stats are so limited as to be of very little use.

stats wouldn't be off putting if they are useful..and FTO horses have got 3 key stats that we need to know..Sire record with FTO..Trainer record with FTO..and trainer/jockey combo with FTO. Those 3 things can help a lot in assessing a FTOers chance imo...if it was just those 3 stats its very helpfull.

this should be in RP thread now..covering both topics now

We need to move into the modern age..we need detailed information..we don't need bolloxy articles from such as Winstanley & co...if RP want money..then they had better produce something significantly better than what they have now..its very lightweight.

the... Sadlers Wells like soft ground...type of info ..does not cut it anymore..over generalised pap in the main.
 
its one of the things thats always happened though Colin

the beeb did it for years..with such as Lindley..he was hopeless.

when C4 started covering racing it was a breath of fresh air tbh..but they themselves have introduced a whole load of generalisations that they wheel out year in year out

when you look at the data that the US have and then compare it to us..we are still in the dark ages..so when RP want to charge it makes me laugh how people believe they are getting some great product..yes it would have been great 20 years ago..but now its terribly staid stuff and has been for years..they have kept upgrading the site over the last few years..buts its not upgrading in the true sense..its just giving people a scratch the surface service...and keep juggling it around.

for example

trainer course stats - they are split into age groups - would be far better split into race types - maiden/handicap/stakes

jockey course stats - would be far better split into distances - even if it were only straight and round...what is the point of showing a jockeys record with 2yo/3yo and older?

Sire Stats - need to show preferences for - going - course characteristics - FTO

thats 3 areas to start with that the RP are just scratching the surface with..its not enough what they show now..and by some way...and its not as if they haven't had time to improve it..its just a lazy package at teh moment - but people will pay because they are used to mediocrity...and teh RP is one step above mediocre so its looks bloody marvellous to some folk.
 
EC1

I don't disagree with any of that.

Except to say that your issues are clearly with The Racing Post as a whole. I was referring specifically to "Spotlight" comments.

PS I think; "You are very right in saying that there is a lot of generalisations uttered in the media." was a little joke from Colin. I quite liked it!
 
The Spotlight comments suffer because one person looks at how someone else does it and thinks..I'll just do similar

it needs one Spotlight writer to do something just a little more and others will follow.

Maybe the whole Spotlight format needs reviewing....again..they have stood still and not moved on..and yet the site has been down loads over the last few years for "improvements"...shuffling isn't improving..although this sort of thinking outside racing is also prevalent

RP had a golden oppurtunity to really make it something worth paying for..and totally failed..only folk that will pay now are those unable.. to do without...not those seeking an excellent product...hardly an endorsement for them.
 
EC1 said:
its one of the things thats always happened though Colin

the beeb did it for years..with such as Lindley..he was hopeless.

when C4 started covering racing it was a breath of fresh air tbh..but they themselves have introduced a whole load of generalisations that they wheel out year in year out

when you look at the data that the US have and then compare it to us..we are still in the dark ages..so when RP want to charge it makes me laugh how people believe they are getting some great product..yes it would have been great 20 years ago..but now its terribly staid stuff and has been for years..they have kept upgrading the site over the last few years..buts its not upgrading in the true sense..its just giving people a scratch the surface service...and keep juggling it around.

for example

trainer course stats - they are split into age groups - would be far better split into race types - maiden/handicap/stakes

jockey course stats - would be far better split into distances - even if it were only straight and round...what is the point of showing a jockeys record with 2yo/3yo and older?

Sire Stats - need to show preferences for - going - course characteristics - FTO

thats 3 areas to start with that the RP are just scratching the surface with..its not enough what they show now..and by some way...and its not as if they haven't had time to improve it..its just a lazy package at teh moment - but people will pay because they are used to mediocrity...and teh RP is one step above mediocre so its looks bloody marvellous to some folk.
Click to expand...

Its not for the Racing Post to create a system builder EC1, if you want full stats and so on, buy Raceform or Proform with built in system builders where you can research stats and trends to your hearts content.
 
thats not even close a system builder Flame:confused:..its just a few stats

they already show stats..they need to improve them..along with the database accessibility..which is dire...and so many other things

you obviously believe its a good product..I would hazard a guess you are in the minority...as time will tell
 
Flame said:
Its not for the Racing Post to create a system builder EC1
Click to expand...

Why not? A powerful way of querying their database is one of the obvious things they could provide to add value to their site (again, this is repeating stuff from the RP charge thread).
 
Relkeel said:
Shads

1. I didn't expect you to have kept back copies of The Racing Post but AWJ clearly wrote something that you objected to (presumably about one of your own horses) and I thought you may be able to remember the gist of it.
Click to expand...

No, actually - I just take more notice of bumpers than anything else, looking through the pedigrees of each runner and taking note of the spotlight offerings; mainly because there is some priceless stuff written, mainly by good ol' AWJ.

2. Pedigree is obviously important too but I remind you and EC1 that much of the stats based evidence you crave is already available in a different area of The Racing Post. Spotlight comments are intended as a brief summary of a horse's history/prospects that is accessible to all (including betting shop punters). Given that, wouldn't a string of stats be a bit off-putting?
Click to expand...

I'm not asking for stats, but more observant comments on occasion, for example "small stable but have a good strike rate in bumpers" may be more useful to punters than "only cost £x so not likely to figure here".

I realise that you didn't state that cheap horses are useless however neither is the statement that a cheap purchase price can only be a negative very fair nor necessarily accurate. Decoupage cost 5000gns, he wasn't so bad!

Thanks, and yes, it was pointed out to me on the way down that she'd been googled!

(oh, and no, can't really complain about what the spotlight says!)
 
Gareth Flynn said:
Why not? A powerful way of querying their database is one of the obvious things they could provide to add value to their site (again, this is repeating stuff from the RP charge thread).
Click to expand...

The average cost of a system builder database is around £30 a month, so there is no way the Racing Post would incorporate it, and if they did it would increase the subscription amount. Also it would hugely devalue a lot of the decent system builders available.

The Racing Post offers sufficient stat's and if punters like EC1 wish to look up certain factors, which would no doubt use up massive web space on the Racing Post, then I don't see why they don't just purchase a system builder, if you are that serious about stats, £30 a month is a small price to pay, that is unless you are not that serious about your gambling, so the stats already freely available should suffice.
 
Yes, God forbid they'd offer web-based competition to the Raceform Interactive that they're constantly hawking on their site.
 
Flame said:
The average cost of a system builder database is around £30 a month, so there is no way the Racing Post would incorporate it, and if they did it would increase the subscription amount. Also it would hugely devalue a lot of the decent system builders available.

The Racing Post offers sufficient stat's and if punters like EC1 wish to look up certain factors, which would no doubt use up massive web space on the Racing Post, then I don't see why they don't just purchase a system builder, if you are that serious about stats, £30 a month is a small price to pay, that is unless you are not that serious about your gambling, so the stats already freely available should suffice.
Click to expand...

I totally agree there are other sites - Flatstats is probably the most comprehensive re stats.

But I'm not looking for that comprehensive a thing from the RP..just a little more.

The site as it is hasn't progressed much to persuade me its worth paying for.

With just a little more effort they could pull so many more people in..as it stands I can use the free stuff or get it elsewhere and also subscribe to a decent tool like Flatstats

When you look at such as the Patternform site..which is free..and run by one of nicest/genuine blokes you could meet in cyberspace..it puts the RP to shame with its userfriendliness and usefulness.

UK Racestats is also free and again is simply laid out.

I think the RP are masquerading as being some invalueable tool we all can't live without..and have gambled on that assumption to go ahead with charging.

I can happily live without it...and when the free stuff goes I will tick along nicely..but it didn't have to be like this.
 
You've all missed the most important point about the Weekender - that font is effing awful. Raceform Update is different class :)
 
Back
Top