Just read a very thought-provoking article from Lydia Hislop on the Sporting Life website: https://www.sportinglife.com/racing/news/what-do-we-want-from-jump-racing/187678 I have admired her presentation for many years on Racing UK/TV and she clearly has knowledge of (and passion for) the sport in equally large measures - I thought her tackling of Lieutenant Henderson for pulling Altior from the Tingle Creek was spot on. She references Kevin Blake and he is another who talks a lot of sense. I'm not overly sure that the reduction in field sizes is purely driven by races being converted from Handicaps to Grade 1s - Desert Orchid won a 5-runner Tingle Creek and a 5-runner Victor Chandler Chase when both were handicaps. The 2 mile chase division, in particular, does have too many penalty kicks. It is missing a really high quality handicap (with the prize money to match) such as the old Hennessey for the stayers and I also believe this entire division has been weakened by the advent of the Ryanair Chase. Imperial Aura ought to be running in the Tingle Creek, Clarence House and Champion Chases and it is a crying shame that he isn't. Jumps horses are more versatile in trip than many would have us believe - anyone remember Alan King's My Way de Solzen winning the World Hurdle in 2006 and then taking the following year's Arkle? This does need a top-to-bottom review but it ought to be done by and with the Blakes and Hislops of this world (and dare I say some of the more passionate jumps fans on social media) rather than politicians and career people.
Biggest issue to British jumps racing is the lack of very good horses. The reason we have weak graded races is because the top horses don’t exist in great numbers in the UK.
I would say that the biggest issue for British jumps racing is its total focus on one week in March. Everything is geared towards that one week and protecting horses so they get there at their peak. It’s not healthy for the rest of the calendar.
I agree with both points - too few really top class jumps horses and Cheltenham has become all-consuming. To the former - certainly most true in the 2 mile disciplines where there has been a lack of real competition in the Grade 1 Championship races for many years with very few horses rated in excess of 170. This is clearly a result of breeding and I guess is driven by market forces. I'm not 100% sure but I would guess most of the wealthier NH owners (certainly Gigginstown, John Hales, Trevor Hemmings and smaller owners like the Snooks, Bishops et al) are looking for a Gold Cup / Grand National horse as those have typically been the ones who become household names - Arkle, Red Rum, Desert Orchid and more recently Tiger Roll. Whilst JP McManus uses the scattergun approach to horses, I do get the feeling he is permanently looking (or at least paying people to look) for a Champion Hurdle winner - probably going back to his affinity and success with Istabraq and the whole emotion connected to that story. The fact that the green and gold hoops have been carried to victory 9 times in the last 23 Champion Hurdles certainly supports that. Rich Ricci and Cheveley Park Stud are two owners who have thrown any amount of money at the game in recent years with plenty of success but I believe their strategy is more around buying good horses, rather than aiming at any particular race. You then have a number of owners where I have no idea what their strategy is (Tim Leslie, Jared Sullivan, Roger Brookhouse as examples). I would like to see more done to promote the top class 2 mile races over hurdles and fences and also the introduction of a really good, well-funded 2 mile handicap chase away from Cheltenham a bit like The Hennessey but over 2 miles. Which brings me nicely to the second point, the Cheltenham Festival. I love it, we all love it and I am happy with the format and schedule. BUT, it is very dominant within the bigger picture of the entire NH season. I think that is, to some extent, the nature of the beast and not something that can be easily changed without lessening the spectacle. It should be about increasing the importance and meaning of other good races within the season, rather than diminishing Cheltenham. So here's what I would do, my one idea to tip the balance back a bit: Tighten up the entry requirements for the Championship races and introduce a stipulation that a horse must have run in at least 2 (or maybe 3 - not sure on the exact number) of qualifying races in order to be eligible to run. As an example (using the 3 race rule): To be eligible to run in the Champion Hurdle at Cheltenham, a horse must have run in 3 of the qualifying races, these being as follows: UK - Fighting Fifth, International, Christmas Hurdle, Morebattle, Sandown Contenders Hurdle; Ireland: WKD Hurdle at Down Royal, Morgiana, Hatton's Grace, Masterson, Irish Champion Hurdle Those aren't meant to be exhaustive lists - I would introduce some diversity e.g. the Morebattle to give smaller tracks some much-needed exposure. Similar lists for the Champion Chase, Stayers Hurdle and Gold Cup could be drawn up and you would instantly get more of the best horses running. This might precipitate a bit of moaning in certain quarters but I'm sure it would be for the good of the sport. What Willie Mullins did with Quevega and now with Al Boum Photo might be the best way of winning races at Cheltenham but is it really for the good of the sport? The other drastic change I would make (and ITV have already started doing a sterling job at this) is increasing coverage of the sport. The fact that so many races (including all Irish racing) are only available on Racing TV (who do a great job) is a barrier to growing the popularity of the sport).
It's a bit of a read from Lydia Hislop, but a good read all the same, with some good points put across... I do think that there is too much racing on at times, which dilutes the clashes of the top horses to even the potential horses who need a competitive race against each other so the trainer knows where they are and us the punter. Plus some trainers like to keep them separated to prevent any battle scars from forming if they couldn't beat such n such in the same racing division as them... Unfortunately the Cheltenham question is asked as standard after a horse wins a race from October onwards, something the media and punters have got used to nowadays, which is a shame. Your point of having to run in in 2-3 races to qualify for Championship races is a good one, and i totally agree with it, just look at the Thyme Hill / Paisley Park clash we have on at the moment. Imagine that they saw each other 2/3 times minimum over the season before getting to Cheltenham, something i would well be up for...!!
Why would you want to see the same top horses running against each other several times? Does it not create more excitement and suspense when unbeaten horses clash for the first time at the Festival? Sure, meet again after for revenge. Maybe challenge each other over different distances; but I can see some trainers ducking out of that (immediately recalls Arkle's trainer/owner ducking out of a challenge over 2 miles against Dunkirk. Dunkirk took on Arkle over 3 miles in the KG; the rest is very sad history Just trying to imagine Tyson Fury and Joshua meeting a few times before clashing for undisputed champion title On the other hand, it happens a lot in show jumping and it doesn't detract from the excitement each time they meet I'm backtracking aren't I
Does climate play a part in the problems? Because of our climate in Australia, we have flat racing 12 months of the year, this allows multiple carnivals across the states to not clash. Horses can target several carnivals per year. In Europe, racing it seems, is sliced in half, which limits the options available to owners. P.S. When you want owners to target a particular race, throw a heap of cash at it. Works every time.
Australia proves that throwing money at it isn't the answer, their training methods are also not in keeping with international Group 1 standards. The top trainers in the US, Japan and Europe etc, want to run their horses less often, with more time between races. In Australia they are running them in so called group races every 7-14 days due to an abundance of soft prize money. The best horses might take each other on more often but they are substandard horses, the majority of them imported from the second and third tiers of European racing, and they are not being produced at 100% for these races, it's impossible when they run so often. As an example, the campaign of “boom” 3yo Russian Camelot was ridiculous, 5 G1s in less than 2 months, starting at 1m and finishing at 2m, it was never a preparation to win a Melbourne Cup in this day and age. He was able to beat the home team in the Cox Plate but was well behind two European campaigned horses, Armory who had ran 4 times in the preceding 5 months and was coming into the race off a 6 week break, and Sir Dragonet who hadn't run for 90 days. Neither were world beaters and I think Russian Camelot would have finished bang with them had he been given a proper prep to turn up for the race 100% on the day. I enjoy Australian racing but it's not designed to produce top class performances, it's designed to be a good betting product and it is, but this culture of racing will never catch on in top breeding countries, and Australia will rarely produce top international horses as long as it stays the same. There are far too many group races, multiple regions have their own Guineas, Oaks, Derby etc, which massively dilutes the quality of horses eligible for breeding, and they will be depending on imported stallions and runners for the foreseeable. As for jump racing, Cheltenham is the be all and end all, the owners are not in it for prize money, they are paying obscene amounts for point to point cart horses because they want to win at Cheltenham, not to get their money back. It's a game for the mega rich, and the ever growing monopolies that have developed in recent years have compounded the issues. The best prospects are in fewer hands, in terms of festival winners, Mullins(72) and Henderson(68) are miles clear of the top trainers of the past, Fulke Walwyn finished on 40 and Martin Pipe on 34, and Gordon Elliot will be soon to join them and maybe even surpass them in the coming decades. There has never been such a monopoly in the history of the game and it doesn't look like changing any time soon, they are adding more races to the festival, that's more races for the handful of top trainers to split stable stars and avoid each other superstars. Bumping up prize money for races nobody wants to win is completely missing the problem and won't change anything. Sporting owners are the only hope, we need someone to own a Shishkin and say, we are going wherever Envoi Allen goes, because we owe it to the sport to make that match happen. We won the Supreme last year, we've won Gold Cups, what are we doing here if these top animals are not running against each other? It's ultimately down to these people to make it happen, but it seems they'd rather jump round against no hopers and get their picture taken after the race. Coolmore have created a monopoly in flat racing, but they throw all their good horses at the Classics to see who's best, in jump racing there is no real motive to find out.
"but I can see some trainers ducking out of that (immediately recalls Arkle's trainer/owner ducking out of a challenge over 2 miles against Dunkirk." Ron, I don't recall that happening. I remember Arkle was due to run against Irish Imp in the Knightsbridge Chase at Newbury but it was called off owing to bad weather. In any event, Arkle would have destroyed Dunkirk over any trip.
Oddy, good Article, likewise Lydia Hislop’s. Personally, despite my adoration of National Hunt Racing, I’ve become saddened by many aspects which have developed... 1. Too many Graded races at the expense of handicaps. Denman’s great Hennessy triumph signalled the end of the road. Sadly, they’ve been consigned to history. 2. Rich owners monopolising the sport and, together with their trainers, showing a complete lack of ambition. A classic example...Last season, pre- March, Willie Mullins stated categorically that he chose the best race at Cheltenham which gave his horses the best chance of success. Hence he would run Benie Des Dieux in the Mares Hurdle. Henry De Bromhead likely felt the same about Honeysuckle. How unambitious is that? Both horses had the form to challenge for the Champion Hurdle - a race so hard to win for a mare and yet so coveted in the past. Just ask Dawn Run’s and Flakey Dove’s owners about that! Yes, Mullins got his just desserts- he lost the Mares Hurdle and a lower rated mare won the Champion! 3. Horses kept in cotton wool. It’s usual to run top horses only three or for times per year in Graded Races only- as opposed to six or seven times in past years(handicaps included). Paul Nicholls explained how fresh and spot on Cyrname was for yesterday’s King George. It didn’t work out did it? Did the horse just ‘sulk’ through not leading the field- as Nicholls proffered- or can horses fail through not being ‘hardened’ enough for the demands of steeplechasing? 4. Cheltenham ‘the be all and end all.’ Until they change this and start to rearrange the calendar, the previously traditional November to April season will arguably be further undermined. If next March’s fixture is lost to the weather, the rest of the season could be forgotten. I’ve said enough. Sorry if I’ve bored anyone. Happy New Year to everyone. Keep your family safe.
Quite right Tamerlo. Cheltenham should be reduced back to 3 days and 18 races. You don't have to lose the others but they should come earlier in the year and spread across tracks. Royal Ascot (which should also go back to 4 days) has the advantage for Flat Racing that it comes before mid-season and doesn't so impact the schedules of horses that Cheltenham does.. The Flat should get rid of the stupid Champions day too but then the Flat has an awful Group1 inflation anyway. I constantly hear on here how wonderful NH is but rarely does it match up to that. For some reason NH Racing has limited rather than broadened its horizons. Enjoyed the KG yesterday, great race but oh dear is that the best?
Very nice to hear from you Tam, I hope you are well? I do agree with so much you have said and also Benoit's post prior to that. There is a glimmer of hope though, a silver lining and something which we are seeing more and more of - racing syndicates. If you look at today's "Paddy's Rewards Club Chase" at Leopardstown the 6 entries are made up of 2 from Rich Ricci, one each for Gigginstown and JP McManus, the admirable Castlegrace Paddy owned by the equally admirable Clipper Logistics breeding operation of Steve Parkin and then finally the syndicate horse, Put The Kettle On. I will certainly be shouting on the mare and I think she has every chance of taking this and who knows potentially also the Queen Mother Champion Chase. Success breeds success of course but one can only wish these syndicates well and hope they continue to get good horses. I do think the novice scene in Ireland is a lot more competitive than in the UK. Whereas Shishkin has scared off most of the opposition (although it is by no means a penalty kick for him) the Future Champions Novice Hurdle looks to have any amount of depth (but unfortunately, as far as I can tell, no syndicate horse). I guess in fairness pretty much all of the top UK-based staying chasers were entered up in the King George yesterday (I probably only missed Champ and Topofthegame) but, despite my fondness for Frodon and Bryony, it won't go down as a classic King George because so many horses failed to run to their best. This is for various reasons, I'm sure, but also possible the lack of "battle-hardness" you mentioned. On paper the Savills Chase tomorrow looks an absolute belter, hopefully it will live up to expectations.
