Grand National- Are the fences too big?

[JustKickOn]

I am fully aware that this question may ave been asked, and how controversial the topic is, but after reading news reports on the race and the number of fallers, the question has been rattling around my head ever since the race finished yesterday.

Reports have said that the 'obstacles' on the course had to be avoided, meaning that fences were missed out of the race, presumably a first in many years if ever according to some reports...
Ornais was said to have broken his neck, Dooneys Gate with a broken back. Since 2000 there have been 20 horses die due to the Grand National, with many other falling. This year only 19 finished out of a field of 40, those statistics don't seem all too healthy...
Yes there are horses who finished fine, and clear the majority of fences with no problem, but even the winner yesterday, Ballabriggs (who tipped on landing at one of the fences) looked a little off behind? Although I'm sure most others would be the same having jumped that many fences of that calibre over 4 miles of galloping.
I am aware that the height/width of the fences has previously been reduced, but they still seem to be a massive challenge!

ETA: Fence sizes... http://www.grandnational.org.uk/fences.php

Just interested as to who other people's opinions are regarding this subject?

Lizzie

 

[3Beasties]

No they are not too big, horses fall and die over hurdles/smaller fences, very sad when it happens but that is how it is.

The horses in the National have the ability and are trained to jump bigger jumps, just like horses who compete at 4* eventing are, you wouldn't take a PC pony capable of jumping 2'3" to Badminton and expect them to make it round would you, just like the trainers/owners wouldn't put a horse in the National if they didn't think they had the ability to make it round in one piece.

I really don't think we need any more threads about the Grand National and the rights and wrongs of it

 

[JustKickOn]

More questioning the fence size. I'm aware that horses fall and die over hurdles, both pro and amateur racing. I'm merely interested in people's opinions and appreciate your input.

It's a current topic which has always had much discussion for and against it. Posts are going to happen, it's inevitable.

 

[teagreen]

No, they are not too big. Regular chase fences are 4' 6"ish and are more solid than the National fences which are easy to demolish. They are also very inviting, with take off boards and they slope - they are not 5' 3" straight up and down. They are wide, however the widest fences usually jump the best - there were no fallers at the Chair, which has a massive ditch in front of it.

Interestingly, I rather agree with some of the writers who say that since they made them faller, they are inclined to go faster, causing more fallers.

 

[rosie fronfelen]

The heat must be considered and the going was fast, very unusual at GN time,the course looked like a golf course-

 

[lachlanandmarcus]

No the fences arent too big as unlike eventing obstacles they are made of spruce branches and hence horses can plough through and in most cases remain on their feet.

I do however believe that although fewer fall on the faster ground such as this year, the speed with which the race goes on faster ground makes the falls potentially more deadly. Whereas on bottomless ground, everyone tends to fall but they all tend to get up again, and also arent as exhausted due to the heat, which encourages mistakes.

I would like to see a watering policy which would mean that the National course was always at least good to soft going. Im aware that would make it less attractive to some top class Cheltenham type horses but I think it would be sensible to reduce fatalities.

It could alos be considered to reduce numbers of entries a little maybe to 35, tho I dont think it would be significantly safer below that as the course is very wide.

I dont think you can eradicate danger, and I dont think the height of the fences in themselves (especially now lowered as they are already and with orange take off strips to help horses see the fence and judge it) is the main issue.

 

[Munchkin]

Reports have said that the 'obstacles' on the course had to be avoided, meaning that fences were missed out of the race, presumably a first in many years if ever according to some reports...

The 'obstacles' were dead horses laying behind the fences, hence the field avoiding those fences on the 2nd circuit. Not because the fences were too big!

 

[Maesfen]

Short answer, no, you'll jump a lot bigger out hunting which won't be so forgiving.

 

[JustKickOn]

The 'obstacles' were dead horses laying behind the fences, hence the field avoiding those fences on the 2nd circuit. Not because the fences were too big!

I am aware of this, hence why I went on to comment on the two horses who were fatalities. Thanks ""
ETA- I know the fences were not missed because of the size, other wise they wouldn't have been jumped initially.

 

[BroadfordQueen]

Nope.

 

[SusannaF]

No the fences arent too big as unlike eventing obstacles they are made of spruce branches and hence horses can plough through and in most cases remain on their feet.

I do however believe that although fewer fall on the faster ground such as this year, the speed with which the race goes on faster ground makes the falls potentially more deadly. Whereas on bottomless ground, everyone tends to fall but they all tend to get up again, and also arent as exhausted due to the heat, which encourages mistakes.

I would like to see a watering policy which would mean that the National course was always at least good to soft going. Im aware that would make it less attractive to some top class Cheltenham type horses but I think it would be sensible to reduce fatalities.

It could alos be considered to reduce numbers of entries a little maybe to 35, tho I dont think it would be significantly safer below that as the course is very wide.

I dont think you can eradicate danger, and I dont think the height of the fences in themselves (especially now lowered as they are already and with orange take off strips to help horses see the fence and judge it) is the main issue.

I agree. If our springs are getting warmer and drier, perhaps it needs moving to earlier in the year too.

 

[Munchkin]

I am aware of this, hence why I went on to comment on the two horses who were fatalities. Thanks ""
ETA- I know the fences were not missed because of the size, other wise they wouldn't have been jumped initially.

Well then I must be completely missing your point. What does them missing out fences have to do with the height of them? The horses didn't fall because the fences were too big... one somersaulted, the other had a second horse land on him.

 

[Lobelia_Overhill]

no the fences are not too big, nor is the race too long, or any of the other "reasons to ban the Grand National"

Horses die every day of the week from a variety of injuries/illnesses, I knew a horse that died after being out in the field grazing all day - are we to limit the amount of time horses spend in the field?

Or what about the other horse who somehow managed to break his leg in the stable overnight and had to be PTS the following day? Do we adjust how we stable horses...?

When I worked at an animal shelter the woman who ran it was called out to a horse that had been "lying down for a few days", turned out the horse had a broken neck (but was still alive) sustained after being chased by stray dogs. What alterations to fields, and dogs should we make to prevent that happening again?

The only changes I'd make would be to reduce the number of runners, and make them qualify to enter, and possibly raise the weights a few pounds to slow them down, as it's the speed they were going at that was causing all the falls...

 

[lcsd114]

The fences are not too big. In fact , some of them have been modified to make them more forgiving to mistakes. Becher's had the slope on the landing side made less of a slope plus the "brook" on the landing side is covered up. Others have been shortened and the spruce covering them falls more easily than before, making it easier to slide through if you are too close or too low. I said back then that doing that would make the injuries worse rather than better and I was right.
It is sad that the horses died yesterday but the fences had little to do with it. Ornais dived at the fourth fence and Dooneys Gate misjudged Becher's.
I agree with others on here. The speed, encouraged by the good ground and lower fences, contributed to the fallers. I don't want to see any more National's like 2001 when Red Marauder won in a mudfest but keeping the ground on the soft side of good will discourage the speed somewhat. Also, maybe cutting the size of the field to 30-35 would help, as would (and this is my big one) making the qualifications more stringent. Right now, any chaser with a rating of 110 can be entered. This can be reached in relatively few races, so inexperienced horses and ones not suited to the race are entered every year. I'd like to see a National where the 100-1 outsiders are not that because they have only run and lost over hurdles but they have chased and just may not get the distance or something similar.

 

[Mithras]

I think if you made the fences smaller, you would increase the speed they were taken at and decrease the likliehood of the horses respecting them and backing off. Its the combination of fast ground, large fields and speed of travel that make the fences dangerous, not just the height.