Scottsville - why's it so tricky?

No disputing the facts ... the figures show it again and again ... Scottsville is a graveyard for the form horses. Why is this, anyone know? There's nothing all that obvious about the course configuration that the eye can see, except that the sprints appear to be downhill for the first half, then swing uphill to the finish (could be wrong though, it's just what appears to my eye). Thinking of Saturday ...

You got it exactly right. It is the uphill and downhill factor.

I can not remember of any top sprinter that has won a race from pillar to post at the testing 1200m .
1. Trainers instructions to jockeys must play a huge part in my opinion.
2. Going "hell for leather" from the starting stalls has been the undoing of many in the past. (Val de Ra might prove me wrong)

Jockeys and trainers know that the course has an downhill and a uphill and should ride accordingly (a point that Muis Roberts made last year during a meeting in his honour).

For me, if a horse runs strongly over a 1300 or 1400m in any other course, I think such a horse will do well over the Scottsville 1000 metre and 1200metres straight course.

Thanks for the valid points.

East has summed it up perfectly. Because the first part of the course is downhill, the temptation must be very strong to go like the clappers from the start. The uphill finish then catches these horses out. Like East says, you either want a horse who stays a bit further than 1200m, or a horse (or jockey) who can sit in off the pace and quicken past tiring horses in the climb to the finish.

I don't know about Pmb, but we've had quite a lot of rain in Durban this week and if the sting is out of the ground then the need for some stamina tomorrow will become even greater.

eastexpo Wrote:

---

> You got it exactly right. It is the uphill and
> downhill factor.
>
> I can not remember of any top sprinter that has
> won a race from pillar to post at the testing
> 1200m .
> 1. Trainers instructions to jockeys must play a
> huge part in my opinion.
> 2. Going "hell for leather" from the starting
> stalls has been the undoing of many in the past.
> (Val de Ra might prove me wrong)
>
> Jockeys and trainers know that the course has an
> downhill and a uphill and should ride accordingly
> (a point that Muis Roberts made last year during a
> meeting in his honour).
>
> For me, if a horse runs strongly over a 1300 or
> 1400m in any other course, I think such a horse
> will do well over the Scottsville 1000 metre and
> 1200metres straight course.


Hi East on your point 2 above - you forget one horse named National Colour - I suppose this is one of these one in a million examples though.

Thanx Eastexpo ...

mmm ... it's set me thinking about something different but related: How do jockeys actually guage their horse's speed? Is it the effort the horse is putting in? The horses around you? Or something else?

What I'm coming to is, it must be tricky to judge pace in a sprint that starts on a downhill. The first sectional of any race is usually 2-3 seconds slower than the next, as a ton or so of horseflesh gets into motion. But if it's costing the horse less effort (going down the hill), and if everyone else is hurtling off ahead of you ... must be going slower than I think, let slip a bit of rein ... try to catch up ... push to catch up ...