Better Or Worse

This debate is rearing its head again , i think i might just add some of my thoughts to the debate without being rude.

Lets get the facts out of the way 1st.

1: the thoroughbred was created for 1 purpose only , to race as fast as possible.
2: racehorse are not pets, they might become important parts of our lives but essentially they are what point 1 says.
3: In all walks of life the harder one pushes/works/perseveres the better one gets

Now lets talk about 2 trainers and not mention names

Trainer A
has 40 horses in his care, trains mainly for 3 or 4 patrons and mostly they have become friends.

Trainer B
has 140 horses in his care, trains for 12 patrons but there are only a few that have become friends.


Trainer A comes on a forum and states that its all about the horse, he states that a better horse be default makes a better trainer and the real difference between himself/herself and the trainer with 140 horses is the 100 horses and the greater buying power.

I think different, I think Trainer B trains horses to win, he pushes them to breaking point (using his judgment not to break them) and because he has the luxury of previous success and the extra 100 horses sadly if 1 or 3 break down its not a catastrophe (it is a catastrophe for the owners/trainer on a personal level ) but NOT on a racing level.
This belief of mine is vindicated by some of the great stables of the world that have an intake of 100's of yearling and only a few make it to the course. They push them hard and therefore they sort out the wheat from the chaff.


Trainer A might have a decent horse in his stable BUT that is 1/40, so he treasures it , chooses his races carefully, leaves a bit of work to be done, dares NOT push it incase it breaks down and he both loses a decent horse and has to phone a friend and break the bad news to him.

I love horses, i am not advocating cruelty at all. But i have been around long enough to know that training methods vary, also very often one hears from BIG stables "only the great ones break down" i hear that more from big yards than from small yards. Is this because they push them harder?

I have often cited the story of a horse that a mate of mine was an underbidder on. This horse was purchased and taken to a friend of mine who won everything as a 2 year old. The horse then was sold to dubai owners. She won 8 or 9 races as a 2 year old. My buddy that was the underbidder said to me that had he been succesful he would have had a 8 time winner, i told him NEVER because had he bought the horse it would not have go to Corne Spies but to Geoff Woodruff and Woody would certainly have not campaigned the horse that often as a 2 year old. So is it about the horse or NOT.

I dont think it can be, i think trainers and training methods have a huge role in a horses career and form.

Its only the last 3 or 4 years that the Hannons have now consistently been challenging with 3 year olds and older horses. This took a rethink on their part, instead of running a 2 year old 8 times they now plan things differently.

I know i talk alot of kak but i not a numptie, ive been around long enough to know that not all trainers are equal thats not a bad thing but also we do need to recognise the achievements of those that year in year out surpass all expectations and provide us with awesome racing machines that challenge times and form.

Why dont you just be straight up and say you are referring to craig eudey and flyfirstclass.

i really am not

craig and i spoke about lots of things and we cool please dont stir

if you need names

pick from these

A almost any trainer
B godolphin/coolmore

easy Wrote:

---

> Trainer A comes on a forum and states that its all
> about the horse


yes you are not talking about him and I am stirring. because WE HAVE SO MANY TRAINERS ON THE FORUM.

and the filly my bud was underbidder on was Rock Opera

anybody that can tell me that ANY other trainer would have got more out of her as a 2 year old than Corne did ill eat my hat.

but by the same token had she gone anywhere else she would have been campaigned differently OBVIOUS

so that tells me it is the trainer and NOT the horse

easy Wrote:

---

> and the filly my bud was underbidder on was Rock
> Opera
>
> anybody that can tell me that ANY other trainer
> would have got more out of her as a 2 year old
> than Corne did ill eat my hat.
>
> but by the same token had she gone anywhere else
> she would have been campaigned differently
> OBVIOUS
>
> so that tells me it is the trainer and NOT the
> horse


I agree with you on that. Only Spies would run the horse as much as it did. Had some good results early with it.

There really is no debate that's why we have a Trainer's Log - Why can one trainer buy a 20K horse and win two or three races and another also spends 20K and the horse retires a maiden - Is Training the only career where some people are luckier than others ? What about two appies that both start riding at the same time and weigh the same - one becomes a top rider the other turns it up in his second year of riding? Or two horses that are bred to exactly the same stallion/mare and one wins five Graded races and the other can't win a Kimberley Maiden?

rock opera only won 4 RACES in her whole career all at 2 unless the other 5 were weekend bush races

Mr H

this is the 1 topic you and I agree on 100%

If I had to choose a trainer, I'd go for the one with best stats, like higher win percentage and place percentages. I don't believe it's necessary to be friends with the trainer. You'll soon see on the track whether you have a Pocket Power or a donkey. The trick is finding the right horse in the first place.

Just a thought , in F1 all cars are as close to being the same however its the little tweaks by different teams experts that get that little more out of the car and of course the driver and i am sure not all drivers are equal so why shouldnt this apply to trainers as well