Seamus Heffernan

Gareth - we've had 'dirt' tracks in the UK for 20 years, but the argument put forward by Warbler is that our British boys know nothing about how to set a pace. Why, then, do so many of them like a spell in the USA to learn how to do better at it? They need to know how to win races here, too, to earn a living, as we have hundreds of non-turf races every year. It can't be necessary in the USA and strangely not necessary here - we're talking about the same sort of surfaces, after all.

If an American rider's learned how to set effective rates of pace for the dirt and the turf (since they have timed pace rates for the grass in the US as well), then surely our riders are singularly disadvantaged when they visit the USA to take part in the Breeder's Cup or other premier dirt races? They wouldn't have a clue what to do, according to Warbler's theory of ignorance! I don't buy it.
 
krizon said:
They need to know how to win races here, too, to earn a living
Click to expand...

Icon_eek.gif
 
one of the main problems with a lot of jocks here is they seem very sheeplike

for example..a couple of years ago during the winter..when it looked like you couldn't lead all the way at Lingfield..they all packed in trying..then when March came..Dettori and Holland started back and won races from the front..showing there was not a problem with the track..but with the jocks themselves

it seems to me a lot of jocks don't do their homework either..they probably don't have time..but at a lot of turf meetings it seems that ..go with the flow reigns re where the fastest part of a straight is etc.

I read somewhere that in times gone by jockeys were taught to ride even fractions ..by some trainers..don't know whether this is still the case.

also ..many turf races are not run evenly...and so when a jock rides on the AW its a totally different ball game..again what has happened is that instead of us adopting the US end to end AW racing..we have actually in many cases got turf racing tactics being used on dirt..jog/sprint...particularly at Lingfield where many jocks still find it hard to lead all the way.
 
What surprises me, EC1, is Warbler talking about our jockeys knowing nowt about pace (ergo, fractions/timings), but apparently he spends hours of his life working them out for himself! What's the point of people working out their optimal betting chances on the basis of something they do, but which they think the people who should carry out the actions - the jockeys - don't know how to do?

Working out your own ratings against those of the handicappers might make a profit with your bets (I assume that's its purpose), but at least the handicapper has a formula. If a jockey's taught how to work out even fractions (which they are in the USA), which is a formula, then I've no idea why this skill wouldn't be employed by them here. I imagine that it is, as you say, by a few smart ones who know how to ride to their horse's best timings, and ignore false paces - either too slow or too fast.

You get US commentators talking up some jockeys as being masters of pace, knowing their fractions to a nano-second, etc., so it clearly counts as an advantageous skill over there. If you have a jockey who's riding his own race - and not, as you've aptly pointed out, riding sheeplike - then I don't see the point of having a pacemaker chucked into the race.
 
I always think a pacemaker is there to change the race pace Krizon.

Obviously in the past where a less than true pace has suited a horse..none appeared..AOB has now introduced the "slow pace" pacemaker

Now what I find interesting about the "slow pace" pacemaker is it is actually telling me more about the trainers mind..my view is that AOB HAS to have total control of races...he needs to know a race will be run at the pace he wants..to ensure that happens he puts in the "slow" pacemaker.

There is a flaw in that though ..if another trainer wants a fast pace..he could employ the "fast" pacemaker and trash AOB's plans

You ask why the need for a pacemaker..simple answer is..to tire other horses out..so they slow down quicker at the end of the race more quickly than his horse will.

In the past you usually found a pacemaker in a race where the "favoured" horse completely stays the trip..the pacemakers job is to stretch the field to play to the strengths of "favoured" horsey...so travels just faster than even pace.

If you had that same scenario..but relied on what you suggest..each horse runs to a clock in jockey's head that suits his horse..no pacemaker present.. all the other horses would then get perfect trips..the "favoured" horse would only win in his turn...in fact probably less so because the fact he needs an overstrong pace to tire the others suggests he is slow and needs further in reality

you see jockeys riding their own races regularly in the US..many lengths behind the front horses..who have gone too fast..it looks mighty impressive watching a jockey who knows even pace just stroll through them late on.
 
I love to watch some of the US racing for the reason you state, EC1 - you think, oh, no, poor horsey at the back - shouldn't even be in this race, surely? Then it creeps and creeps and creeps, slingshots off the turn and slices past them down the straight. Brilliant!

So, really, per your explanation, nobody's actually running a pace maker to set the optimal pace for the favoured horse? They're running pace spoilers, in fact, which is not quite the same thing, and likely to be utterly farcical when, as you say, the fast spoiler blasts off and wrecks the slow spoiler's plans! Methinks some folks are getting a tad too complicated - ponies to the start, double handlers, and a pacemaker apiece in some races. One wonders how the stars of yesteryear managed, with just a tape start, a simple snaffle, and orders you could write on the back of a postage stamp!
 
you could call it spoiling..some would say enhancing the chance of their horse

its not always the faster than even pace pacemaking that is used of course

a classic example of faster than even pace - New Approach winning the Champion Stakes..they used Upton Grey to set faster than par fractions to aid New Approach who had settling issues and who stayed further than 10f..result...the rest of the field may as well not have run..it was a masterclass in race shaping

Many horses just need a true test and so making sure its just not a dawdle..is the plan

The use of a pacemaker will always "spoil" the race for some horse..but then again a slow pace will "spoil" the race in a worse way because if all races were dawdles then we would have horses credited with stamina abilities they don't have..could mess the stud book up etc.

Do we leave it to nature?..horses race at the pace that their styles suit..or do we want our top races to really represent what they describe?

Lets look at this years Derby...on paper..and for future use STS will be advertised as a 8f -10f - 12f G1 horse..but is he really a 12f horse?...because that race was shaped to be slowly run..is it really representative of a true 12f test?...shouldn't G1 races be just that?

Lets say STS did run again in a true run 12f race..and patently didn't stay...will it say that in the stud book?..no.. it will say English Derby winner and from that will be assumed he imparts stamina.

To me..G1's should test the horse..if they don't..then as has been apparent on this forum re the Derby..its been devalued..because it wasn't a proper test...STS is clearly better than F&G at 12f..formbook shows it..or does it?
 
Last edited:
Blimey! I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition - but then, nobody does!

Excellent and interesting points, EC1, and I never thought I could get this much involved in a discussion about pace awareness, pace making, and race making! But, regrettably, the Minister of the Interior is grumbling and would like to be fed, so I'm off for a spot of the munchies! No doubt your remarks will set off some more good comments...
 
krizon said:
Gareth - we've had 'dirt' tracks in the UK for 20 years
Click to expand...

No you haven't. Artificial surfaces and the races run on them are fundamentally different to traditional dirt tracks, and the style of racing that they have brought about in the US.

the argument put forward by Warbler is that our British boys know nothing about how to set a pace. Why, then, do so many of them like a spell in the USA to learn how to do better at it?
Click to expand...

Because the average US jockey has had to have a better understanding of pace than the average European jockey. Again, this is due to the style of early-speed-oriented racing that dominates Stateside on dirt tracks (this has often been turned on it's head at tracks where artificial surfaces have been introduced).

They need to know how to win races here, too, to earn a living, as we have hundreds of non-turf races every year. It can't be necessary in the USA and strangely not necessary here
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about what was 'necessary' - I'm talking about what the situation is on average. I don't see that it's a particularly controversial view, either.

- we're talking about the same sort of surfaces, after all.
Click to expand...

We're very much not talking about the same sort of surfaces.

If an American rider's learned how to set effective rates of pace for the dirt and the turf (since they have timed pace rates for the grass in the US as well), then surely our riders are singularly disadvantaged when they visit the USA to take part in the Breeder's Cup or other premier dirt races? They wouldn't have a clue what to do, according to Warbler's theory of ignorance! I don't buy it.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go that far, but there's a long list of pace-related howlers made by top European jockeys in Breeders Cup races.
 
Gareth Flynn said:
No you haven't. Artificial surfaces and the races run on them are fundamentally different to traditional dirt tracks, and the style of racing that they have brought about in the US.



Because the average US jockey has had to have a better understanding of pace than the average European jockey. Again, this is due to the style of early-speed-oriented racing that dominates Stateside on dirt tracks (this has often been turned on it's head at tracks where artificial surfaces have been introduced).



I didn't say anything about what was 'necessary'.



We're very much not talking about the same sort of surfaces.



I wouldn't go that far, but there's a long list of pace-related howlers made by top European jockeys in Breeders Cup races.
Click to expand...

Surely "pace" is far easier to judge not just on dirt tracks in America but also on flat, level turf courses over there generally run on a firm surface. The American jockey (name escapes me) rode a stinker of a race in terms of fractions on Dubai Millenium in the Prince Of Wales (the horse won but finished drunk) and one at Epsom.
 
Jerry Bailey? I guess winning by 8 lengths was a touch extravagant.

There's really not much point talking about individual jockeys, since I'm talking about the skills of the average jockeys from both sides of the pond (and I've got Steve Cauthen on my side, too!)

I'm sure there's aspects of race-riding that the the average European jockey is better at. Keeping a mount balanced, as you implied, is surely one of them. As is winning by as small a distance as possible ;)
 
Absolutely, Galileo, since a horse on a flat even surface can get into a rhythm; negotiating uneven ground and cambers a horse can't.

With reference to Warbler's point, yes, it is very easy to lose track of what speed you are driving at it isn't quite the same on the back of a horse going a steady pace. If you're on a fairly even surface with no cambers or tight bends to negotiate you settle into a rhythm quite easily and since you're on top moving with the horse it is far easier to keep at a pace. Until you have to slow up for a tight bend, or kick on off a bend, or negotiate uneven/rough/patchy ground, or negotiate a camber or road crossing, or change of surface....et al et al.
 
Gareth, the first dirt track opened at Lingfield 20 years ago, it was a gritty and unpleasant surface with a lot of kickback. I can't recall now if it was called Equitrack or something Fibre, but it was nothing like Polytrack or Tapeta. And yes, we are talking very much about the same sort of surfaces these days, since California has had to throw out its dirt tracks, due to high fatalities, and is now installing Tapeta or Polytrack. New York State tracks haven't yet gone that way, probably because due to their higher rainfall, they run on sloppy often enough that their runners' legs don't snap quite as frequently as the West Coast's have been doing - although obviously recent events at Belmont Park weren't too pretty a sight and may yet force the issue forward.
 
Trust me, we're not talking about the same surfaces.

I'll explain one last time:

I'm talking about the traditional dirt surfaces that have dominated US racing for more than a century and still constitute the majority of racing over there.

You're talking about synthetic surfaces that have sprung up in some parts of the US in just the last 3 or 4 years, which are comparable to the synthetic surfaces used in Britain and elsewhere, and which have demonstrably changed the face of racing at those tracks.
 
I'm pretty sure Lingfield originally had Equitrack - whatever it was called, it was a horrible surface, the kickback was horrific and after riding races there I would be picking bits of it out of my teeth for days. However Gareth is very right that Lingfield's original surface - in fact any AW surface that has been used on British racecourses - bears no resemblance to the AMerican dirt surfaces.
 
Fibresand, is what I was thinking of.

Gareth, every racecourse in the world has standard times for its distances. Whether you run on so-called dirt, sand, Fibresand, Tapeta, StrathAyr, Equibase, Polytrack, mixed polymers, turf (and then - which turf? Rye, downland, digitarius, Florida, blue grass mix, etc., all giving a different cushion and needing different watering management). We do have the same surfaces - Del Mar has Polytrack, so it's the same as Lingfield's surface! Yes, there are some 'dirt' tracks extant in the USA - I didn't deny there were. We don't have 'dirt' in the UK - but no-one runs on actual dirt, because that would be totally rock-hard in summer and a bottomless pit in the rain. It's still a managed sand-based surface, so it's not unlike Fibresand. And while you may think that turf is turf, it isn't. You're no more running on a 'same' surface if your track is covered in a bare four inches of topsoil, like Brighton, with downland grasses on the high ridges and rye grass in the straight, and growing a Kentucky Blue mix with a deep topsoil in the USA. They don't give the same feel to the jockey and they don't provide the same cushion to the horse - yet for the purposes of argument, they're all called 'turf', because they're made of little green shoots and not out of a non-grass surface. Thus, the difference in timings over the same distances - and taking into account the landscape features mentioned by Shadow Leader, of course, which slow times down at such courses. You're not going to go as fast around Chester's endless turns, for example, tiring the near-side lead of the horses, as you will on a straight course, where they can change leads, rest their leading leg, and gain a speed boost.

Ergo, a jockey knowing those standard timings will know how to work his horse's run in tune with course differentials: if XYZ track, turf, very flat, never softer than Good, has a certain reading for its mile, and ABC track, being turf, turning, and generally Soft to Good, has a slower standard timing for its mile - he's going to ride according to the standard times and adjust his style of riding to the quirks of ABC, isn't he?

Thus, if you simply take a course's standard times for its distances, figure in your own horse's times at work (and allow for the quirks of your gallops or the course you're sending him to), then your jockey certainly has to know what pace he's going to be doing to match or exceed the optimum pace for the race. Hell's teeth - if they don't, then let's send them out with enormous stopwatches attached to their wrists like cross-country riders do in eventing!

Shadz: uh, thanks for that! Was twitting over this post for so long, missed your own input! Yes, really 'orrible gritty stuff, I believe. But, while we're talking about the remaining 'dirt' tracks in the USA, while we know they're not real dirt like dirt roads, just what exactly are they? They look like a kind of sand mix to me, because they get as sloppy as a beach when the tide's coming in. Did you ever visit the US and see what they were comprised of? Or maybe Jinnyj did? Be interested to know.
 
Last edited:
Fibresand is the surface at Southwell and was the surface at Wolverhampton before they had the new Polytrack laid. Lingfield's original surface was Equitrack.
 
What American dirt surfaces specifically consist of, I have no idea. However I have ridden on many dirt gallops over here and they are, basically, just common or garden dirt. Obviously it's not just any old piece of ground, they plough then harrow up the ground then harrow it to maintain it so it doesn't simply compact down and get hard in the summer. They are a nightmare during rainy periods though since they just become mudbaths and for that reason often cannot be used for large parts of the winter, depending on whether or not they've had additional components harrowed in, for example sand.
 
They sound disgusting! It sounds awful for both horse and rider - I imagine you could come back a few pounds heavier after a rain-sodden run, like some of the worst NH weather! Yuk.
 
Gareth

I can see what you are saying about US racing and the strengths needed for it and the differences needed riding here...but its hiding the fact that some of our jocks don't know their job as they should

..its fair to say they aren't riding fairground tracks here in general..there are many flat tracks with a similar configuration to American dirt tracks

I would also point again to that winter when no one wanted to lead at Lingfield ..a few years ago...it wasn't possible to do so apparently...but come March ..Dettori and Holland rode winners from the front there

now.. how is it that Dettori and Holland were so good at it?..it wasn't like they had all winter to practice on it like other jocks..they are just very good jocks who don't need hours of practice at a certain track to know what guaging even pace is.

to me there is no excuse for a jockey not being able to ride even pace..wherever he rides..it should be the most important tool they have...Dettori and Holland aren't the only ones that knew how to win from the front at Lingfield either

you may know this jockey..he is an American one..Compo and co used to call him by a nickmane..can't remember it now..he rarely rode winners when it were on TV here..one of the reasons he couldn't ride winners was a complete lack of pace nous..you stick many of our jocks over there and they would end up with no rides after a few months due to same affliction.

its like having a brain surgeon who is really good at his job..except for one flaw..he has unsteady hands.
 
Last edited:
They're often not usable in such a state; I remember a few places where the dirt gallops couldn't be used for most of the winter as they were mudbaths. I do remember being deposited into the mud after a wet period one summer on the dirt gallops too - and yes it was minging - the horses hadn't been cantering long, were on one steady canter a day and were fresh. It was Jamie Osborne's first time riding out after a long time off with a broken wrist and three of us jumped off last, being on horses that had only been cantering a few days. Jamie and Joe jumped off behind me and my fella, Decoupage, was really quite fresh and eager to get on with it. He went to launch himself onto the gallops, I was expecting it so gave a tug on the reins and said 'no you're not' so the bugger stuck in a big buck anyway and dumped me right in the mud whilst Joe and Jamie killed themselves laughing behind me. Bless him, the boy just lobbed up to the top really steady, pulled himself up and stood waiting to be caught. Only time he ever got me, too!
 
Having spend 4 days trying to wash the original Lingfield surface out of my horses fetlocks, I can vouch for its nastyness too... it was really oily iirc,fecking horrible stuff that stuck to everything!!
 
Back
Top