Barny
16th January 2012, 11:53 AM
From stats posted on here the evidence is irrefutable that there's no credibility to applying a blanket number of days between runs that will improve / or should be part of a system. It seems to be one of those myths that continually get busted.
Now having said that, let me say this ..... there are wise people who state that the days between runs should be taken into account, but ONLY when referenced to the individual horse. Some horses like a certain break, so it seems logical to look at when a horse performed well previously, and how many days break it had. Sounds good. eh?
Now having said that, let me say this ..... A wise poster has stated that a horse running in the wet, or a horse that's been flogged by the jockey takes longer to recover than normal. So that puts paid to the scenario above doesn't it?
Now having said that, let me say this ..... wise people, especially one certain poster on this subject, suggests that we avoid entirely all fillies and mares backing up in 7 days, 'coz they're just not physically capable of doing so (they're potential champions if they can this poster suggests).
Now having said all of the above ..... I do know that there are many times a trainer gets frustrated because he simply could not get his / her horse racing within two weeks, and that extra weeks delay has really given the horse no chance at all. I'll give you an example, the racehorse Blackie's last run during the Sporing Carnival. There are many other examples.
So where do we stand?
1) No use taking a blanket approach and applying a fixed number of days between runs.
2) Fraught with danger with far too many variables trying to work out what the best break is for individual horses.
The only thing certain here, is the uncertainty of it all.
I'll find the post and table that provides (supposed) proof about the myth of certain days between runs being better than others.
Comments. BTW, I did love Malcolm Fraser (for those oldies here who've picked that up !! Haha) only 'coz he was the No. 1 Blue Baggers ticket holder and I got his autograph on a limited edition poster in the change rooms after we beat Richmond in '82 GF.
Now having said that, let me say this ..... there are wise people who state that the days between runs should be taken into account, but ONLY when referenced to the individual horse. Some horses like a certain break, so it seems logical to look at when a horse performed well previously, and how many days break it had. Sounds good. eh?
Now having said that, let me say this ..... A wise poster has stated that a horse running in the wet, or a horse that's been flogged by the jockey takes longer to recover than normal. So that puts paid to the scenario above doesn't it?
Now having said that, let me say this ..... wise people, especially one certain poster on this subject, suggests that we avoid entirely all fillies and mares backing up in 7 days, 'coz they're just not physically capable of doing so (they're potential champions if they can this poster suggests).
Now having said all of the above ..... I do know that there are many times a trainer gets frustrated because he simply could not get his / her horse racing within two weeks, and that extra weeks delay has really given the horse no chance at all. I'll give you an example, the racehorse Blackie's last run during the Sporing Carnival. There are many other examples.
So where do we stand?
1) No use taking a blanket approach and applying a fixed number of days between runs.
2) Fraught with danger with far too many variables trying to work out what the best break is for individual horses.
The only thing certain here, is the uncertainty of it all.
I'll find the post and table that provides (supposed) proof about the myth of certain days between runs being better than others.
Comments. BTW, I did love Malcolm Fraser (for those oldies here who've picked that up !! Haha) only 'coz he was the No. 1 Blue Baggers ticket holder and I got his autograph on a limited edition poster in the change rooms after we beat Richmond in '82 GF.