Good vs Bad trainers

[chevy86 2,704]

I have often cogitated about the regularly cited statement that such-and-such horse has succeeded because so-and-so is a "good trainer".Occasionally there is the concession that it also performed well because of it's proven genetic inheritance.

Implicit in the "good trainer" label is the assertion that a low stable success rate or absence of a star performer is attributable to being a "bad trainer".

I would be grateful to the forum if some posters could enlighten me on what makes a "good trainer" vs the afflictions of a "bad trainer" ,apart from the obvious deficiencies of not feeding enough, being in the boozer, missing track work, unhealthy stables, lack of access to the right "vitamins" etc.

From my point of view such accolades are unbalanced and often misplaced. The bottom line to me is primarily the raw material available to the trainer. Earlier this season Stephen McKee and Roger James were mentioned on Cafe for their limited success--did that mean they were" bad trainers" in just the contrary way that Chris Turner was a "good trainer" because Veandercross walked into his stable?

I would like to believe that all trainers do their best with the livestock at their disposal, so be congratulatory towards the trainers when their horse succeed by all means, but the real marker is the athletic prowess of the horse itself.

[Ohokaman 5,839]

Agree with that last sentence Chevy. Nobody tries to be, or wants to be a "bad" trainer, whatever that means.

Some have more talent at it than others, that's true in every occupation, and all of them have their ups and downs.

Just because the winners aren't happening every five minutes does not make them "bad" overnight.

Could never understand why Roger James cops so much on here, his record is damn good over the years, his record with both sexes but particularly 3yo's in the Derby is outstanding. Throw in Silent Achiever, He's Remarkable and others...not bad is it ?

Good to see the stable firing lately too...Romantic Maid and Von Tunzelman come to mind. Hangar might be ok too....

[Sayer 183]

In my early days I had an interest in a mare and on her retirement I went to do a deal with a Waikato Stud. I told them it was a winning mare and secured a foal for foal deal. On producing her to the Stud, in conversation with a  studmaster, I was asked who trained her. When I gave my reply I was told "I thought you said she was a winner". When I replied "she was" he said she must have been a good horse then. I replied that we had three wins and a half dozen second places and the same again for thirds etc and the response was "you must have had a bloody champion then". Found out the trainer was know as "fence-post" as that was the major feed for the horses. Later found she was worked only twice a week "because no horse needs more work". That might account for the many seconds thirds and fourths.

Guess that is a reasonable example of a not good trainer.

I was young, foolish and learning. Now I am  old, not so foolish and still learning.

[Ohokaman 5,839]

28 minutes ago, Sayer said:

In my early days I had an interest in a mare and on her retirement I went to do a deal with a Waikato Stud. I told them it was a winning mare and secured a foal for foal deal. On producing her to the Stud, in conversation with a  studmaster, I was asked who trained her. When I gave my reply I was told "I thought you said she was a winner". When I replied "she was" he said she must have been a good horse then. I replied that we had three wins and a half dozen second places and the same again for thirds etc and the response was "you must have had a bloody champion then". Found out the trainer was know as "fence-post" as that was the major feed for the horses. Later found she was worked only twice a week "because no horse needs more work". That might account for the many seconds thirds and fourths.

Guess that is a reasonable example of a not good trainer.

I was young, foolish and learning. Now I am  old, not so foolish and still learning.

What might have been eh Sayer.....

[Trump 2,741]

How to tell a bad trainer ? Not sure but I can recall a certain trainer giving a 2yo, wait for it... 17 Starts !! !! As a 3yo, it hardly did a thing. I think that could be classed as a "Bad Trainer".

[Tauhei Notts 1,413]

Have a look at the number of horses that they buy for $60,000 or less, that they turn into racehorses that at some time in their life have a market value in excess of $190,000.

They are the champion trainers.

[Midget 4,489]

I must be a hell of a trainer and a very good judge then !!!

The last five horses I've raced ( but sold on or disposed of in some cases ) have been 

1. Who Dares Wins, 20%, cost $40k, won nothing, bad decision to buy him.

2. Little Red Devil, 50%, cost nothing, bought in utero, sold after winning his maiden then won four in Ozz including one in the city.

3. Girl Of My Dreams, 50%, cost nothing, a gift because she wasn't good enough to enter into a sale, now a G1 performer and won over 240k.

4. Riding Shotgun, 100%, group and stakes performer, best G1 placing a fourth, cost 45k, won over 300k

5. Consensus, cost a service fee, about $4500 from memory, a G1 winner and G1 placed,  won just over 360k.

Can't be as bad as some on here say !! using your criteria, less than a 100k outlay, about a million in stakes, and the value of the residual stock which would have a net worth ( including dam and sister ) of say 1.2 million.

That's not a bad model for a bloke who someone described here last week as being a useless trainer with no idea  

How would it stack up with the combined staff of NZTR, Trackside, and the NZRB ?

 

[Ohokaman 5,839]

43 minutes ago, Tauhei Notts said:

Have a look at the number of horses that they buy for $60,000 or less, that they turn into racehorses that at some time in their life have a market value in excess of $190,000.

They are the champion trainers.

Fair bit of luck or good fortune involved there TN wouldn't you say..?

Bruce Perry would be among the best at picking the right type - Lucia Valentina and Sofia Rosa were both around the $60k mark. He also bought Atlante after it didn't make a $50k reserve, Nahema for $10k, Dal Cielo and Malandrino $95k, Maygrove $110k.

[Poisoned Dwarf 4]

16 hours ago, Midget said:

I must be a hell of a trainer and a very good judge then !!!

The last five horses I've raced ( but sold on or disposed of in some cases ) have been 

1. Who Dares Wins, 20%, cost $40k, won nothing, bad decision to buy him.

2. Little Red Devil, 50%, cost nothing, bought in utero, sold after winning his maiden then won four in Ozz including one in the city.

3. Girl Of My Dreams, 50%, cost nothing, a gift because she wasn't good enough to enter into a sale, now a G1 performer and won over 240k.

4. Riding Shotgun, 100%, group and stakes performer, best G1 placing a fourth, cost 45k, won over 300k

5. Consensus, cost a service fee, about $4500 from memory, a G1 winner and G1 placed,  won just over 360k.

Can't be as bad as some on here say !! using your criteria, less than a 100k outlay, about a million in stakes, and the value of the residual stock which would have a net worth ( including dam and sister ) of say 1.2 million.

That's not a bad model for a bloke who someone described here last week as being a useless trainer with no idea  

How would it stack up with the combined staff of NZTR, Trackside, and the NZRB ?

 

You forgot   Give 'em the Bash !!!!!

[Midget 4,489]

As I said the last five, I could've made it six and included the stakes performer Two Over One...but five is five and I was just responding to an earlier post.

[Varro 244]

18 hours ago, Trump said:

How to tell a bad trainer ? Not sure but I can recall a certain trainer giving a 2yo, wait for it... 17 Starts !! !! As a 3yo, it hardly did a thing. I think that could be classed as a "Bad Trainer".

I have never seen anything like that before but surely that is just pure madness.  did it even manage to win a race.

 

I was always a bit critical of the trainer of sir slick, racing week in week out, consistently season after season

[Midget 4,489]

Check March Legend and Jealous Lover.

It's actually irrelevant how many times you race them at any age, what matters is do they train on or have you worn them out ? Therein lies the essence of a good trainer, longevity, because many trainers stuff them at home by galloping the fook out of them, but it largely goes unnoticed.

Hrlp me understand the difference or the best option please, wear them out at home earning nothing or letting them perform raceday when everyone benefits ?

[Varro 244]

21 hours ago, Midget said:

I must be a hell of a trainer and a very good judge then !!!

The last five horses I've raced ( but sold on or disposed of in some cases ) have been 

1. Who Dares Wins, 20%, cost $40k, won nothing, bad decision to buy him.

2. Little Red Devil, 50%, cost nothing, bought in utero, sold after winning his maiden then won four in Ozz including one in the city.

3. Girl Of My Dreams, 50%, cost nothing, a gift because she wasn't good enough to enter into a sale, now a G1 performer and won over 240k.

4. Riding Shotgun, 100%, group and stakes performer, best G1 placing a fourth, cost 45k, won over 300k

5. Consensus, cost a service fee, about $4500 from memory, a G1 winner and G1 placed,  won just over 360k.

Can't be as bad as some on here say !! using your criteria, less than a 100k outlay, about a million in stakes, and the value of the residual stock which would have a net worth ( including dam and sister ) of say 1.2 million.

That's not a bad model for a bloke who someone described here last week as being a useless trainer with no idea  

How would it stack up with the combined staff of NZTR, Trackside, and the NZRB ?

 

duckworth lewis?

[Varro 244]

3 hours ago, Midget said:

Check March Legend and Jealous Lover.

It's actually irrelevant how many times you race them at any age, what matters is do they train on or have you worn them out ? Therein lies the essence of a good trainer, longevity, because many trainers stuff them at home by galloping the fook out of them, but it largely goes unnoticed.

Hrlp me understand the difference or the best option please, wear them out at home earning nothing or letting them perform raceday when everyone benefits ?

I agree.

 

Surely at the moment, you have to give huge credit to Mr G Vile and the job he is doing with Jackstar.  He has come on leaps and bounds in the last year, and he has been up a very very long time, but still keeps performing, for mine, that is an example of a bloody good trainer who continues to have his horse conditioned to continue running competitively over a sustained period of time.

 

 

There must be a balancing act between getting the required amount of work done, but no overworking them were you take the sharpness away, but not under working them and risking injury etc.

 

I guess the other thing as well with larger trainers with 40 plus horses, the actual trainer probably doesn't have the same approach and has more staff to carry out duties.  My preference has always been a smaller trainer who is more hands on

[Midget 4,489]

43 minutes ago, Varro said:

duckworth lewis?

I was only talking about the ones I owned myself, or owned a significant part of.

 

 

[Baz (NZ) 1,722]

I remember old A J Robinson from Matamata lining up Mystic Monarch about 25 times as a 2yo!!!!

Wasn't a bad horse actually from memory?

[gubellini 3,996]

Baz bang on. Mystic Monarch raced 24 times at 2 winning three of them. His first win was at Thames on 5/1/85 ridden by Brian York.Next win 27/4/85 at Avondale ridden by Cathy Costin. Also won at Ruakaka on 19/7/85 again ridden by Cathy Costin.

[gubellini 3,996]

Midget Jealous Lover started 24 times at 2 winning 6. March Legend also won 6 at 2 from 20 starts.

[SMD is rife 211]

See if anyone remembers this horse; 22 starts as a two year old for 8 wins. Who am I?

[Midget 4,489]

Trained by Bill Sanders ?

[von Smallhaussen 3,226]

sire Idameneo?

[TBL 32]

good or bad trainer is the experience you get. Also will greatly depend on your own interest to the deal/horse. There are infinitely numerous dynamics and variables as skills upon training and it is not tell you see some right/wrong 'patterns' or an open disclosure from others experiences that you MAY just bite your lip.

 it dawned on me that it is NOT the trainer per say, but the stables and operation or how the training is approached with professionalism and as a business structure versus old-fashioned horsemanship of the better small trainers. Yet, large stables will carry a 'brand'/logo which widely influences peoples perspective as 'better'. More horses go through, more so it is a numbers game to get the right one and or, as they develop up and also 'better' clientele with the pockets.

From own experience (& not having the pocket) but when going to a top trainer and went to visit my girl, only to see the foreman ran the shift-operation and the trainer seemed always away though we booked our 'visit in advance only to find they where busy tending to a noted stud & their horses. That was okay, tell the phone went and there was a problem with her  rearing in track work. Got her home and couldn't make out anything wrong. Gave her a long spell.

Went to a small trainer (old slow patient methods) and horribly learnt had the wool pulled over our eyes ..... by two pre-trainers breaking tactics & their feed-back ( 2nd one from above trainer operation). 

I shopped around for ages, looking for 'right' trainer who might fit the horse. He is a battler and good trainer ( in my eyes) because of right inputs for the horse. There was a lot of re-education. Yet by others their accounts he doesn't rate ...yet got other horses going for a large renowned stable to have them winning. No credit given back either.

ranting on the mare..... I know/he knows and other reputable ex-jockeys have ridden to know she has 'it' by how she feels in the saddle but can't (to date) get the result.

Why...and this is what I mean by big stables having a reputation/ 'brand' /logo to securing top jockeys & enforcing their 'might' elsewhere I might add.

So....  The mare likes clean space and to lead out in front and she has more than enough to at the very least pick up some stakes. But what do the jockeys do, ignore instructions, pull her back and get her in a pocket time & time again. Then pull the whip out - she goes backwards cause they can't get the best out of her. The Feedback from jockey is 'wet' nonsense.

So I went to ex Dave O'sullivan jockey/staff) ) and asked what do you reckon is going on....

Greater trainers know how to fine-tune.

Jockeys make or break the horse, hence make her break the stables/trainers reputation. Its all inclusive. The innate skills of good riders & greater riding is not there, cause of change of apprenticeship standards and the idea of professional riding has changed to accommodate racing as we know it today. There's the pity.

There are 'bad' trainers out there who are just plain farming clients & their money. Those are the horses, where the owners are well away from the situation by location or are gullible in themselves that they are satisfactorily trained and can accept a 'gentle-lie'  - mate, your horse is well and eating well. Yeah...don't that sound nice!

Stats on trainers don't mean a things....its the horse all-right but I fear (better) small trainers don't get honest chance. It's an industry problem.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[gubellini 3,996]

2 hours ago, SMD is rife said:

See if anyone remembers this horse; 22 starts as a two year old for 8 wins. Who am I?

Thought it might be Ballybrit but he won 7/11 as a 2yo. Will stick with the Wandering Eyes and guess Sly Wink?

[SMD is rife 211]

All wrong so far, this horse ran after all the aforementioned horses.

[gubellini 3,996]

In the 1979-80 season Summer Haze won 8/12 at two and Yir Tiz won 11/17 as a 2yo.