Talk:Grand National/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Odds

What is the shortest Price a Horse has ever gone off in the national? Lazmac 10:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Answer;-- in 1935 Golden Miller was sent off at the insane price of 2/1. He had won the race in 1934 and the press hailed his as the greatest horse of all time. Despite winning in '34 Golden Miller hated Aintree and unseated his rider Gerry Wilson at the eleventh fence. Back in the days of the disputed Nationals of 1836-7-8 The Duke was sent off as the odds on 1/2 favourite in 1838. It should be noted that only three horses competed in 1838 {these being the days before the railways made it easier for horses to get to Aintree} For the record the Duke finished third Norniron

david thomas

why did someone remove the info about the australian jockey David K. Thomas? Why was it allowed to be removed? Keltik31 16:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This fact has been removed because it is both wrong and misleading. The first recorded rider of Australian birth to compete in the Grand National was William 'Willie Watkinson' who was born in Tasmania in 1886. In 1926 Watkinson not only rode in but won the event on Jack Horner. There may well have been other Australian riders pre war but this would require confirmation. While you are correct that a Mr Thomas did compete in 1950 on Stockman the fact that he was not the first of his nationality to compete makes it's appearance on this page not worthy enough to note.

William 'Willie Watkinson' never rode in australia. i have newpaper clippings of thomas being reported as the first australian rider in the national. david "bobber" thomas was my father. and who are you to say it is not note worthy? Keltik31 17:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

where did you get this information from? Keltik31 17:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

stop editing this part. he was the first australian rider, who actually raced in aussie, to ride in the national. if you cant prove me wrong, then dont edit it. Keltik31 21:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There are a group of around twelve official historians of the race. I emailed one of them and he has replied to say that your stats on David Thomas being the first Aussie rider is wrong. Email him yourself if you like. His name is Steve Porter and his email is esplisburn@aol.com

Hopefully I can settle this matter with some detail on Australian riders and Australian born riders. William Watkinson was born in Tasmania as has been stated but did not ride competitively in Australia, arriving in Scotland as a teenager. On the issue of Australian experienced riders, Tommy Pickernell aka Mr Thomas, an Englishman by birth, made his name riding in Australia before the local professional riders raised a petition against him. He returned to England where he later became a very successful National rider. I'm afraid that I would have to agree with the original objector to this item being listed as being incorrect. While the poster should be justly proud of his father's participation he does remain just one of many hundreds of riders to have participated for whom each could have a unique claim to being mentioned.

so was there an australian-born jockey, who had actually races in aussie, who rode the national before my father did? Keltik31 00:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There were quite a few Australian born and experienced riders who took the chance to stay in the UK after the first war. The only one who seems to have ridden in the National is A Saxby who took part in 1919.

Should a link to www.hometown.aol.co.uk/captainbeecher/NATIONALWINNERS.html not be retained as a source for this page? While Hometown is blacklisted for spam abuse this particular site is the most detailed web resource available on the race and has been used as the reference for the starting prices, weights etc of the winners.

did anyone who reads this know david k thomas aka "bobber thomas"? Ethmegdav (talk) 03:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Opening paragraph?

"It is also one of the most controversial, due to the number of injuries and fatalities suffered by the participating horses and has consequently been targeted by animal rights groups who have campaigned to have it banned"

This should be in a seperate section called Animal Rights Issues or something. It does not belong in the opening paragraph. Do others agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.136.194 (talk) 12:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

No I disagree. I am a huge fan and supporter of the race but it is a fact that the race carries with it controversy. I do agree however that the wording suggests that a horse is more likely to suffer injury or death competing in the National than in any other race. The truth is that a despite the huge nature of the fences, the National is probably the safest steeplechase in British racing as the levels of veterinary expertise at Aintree on national day is far superior to any other racecourse on Earth on any other day. Aintree is also close to a specialist horse hospital which has dealt with many horses that have suffered injury at the course. It is a fair point to state that many horses have recovered from injuries at Aintree which would otherwise have proved fatal at other courses because of the lack of such a hospital nearby. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainbeecher (talk • contribs) 20:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the previous comment. I'm also a great fan of NH racing and I've been to a few Grand Nationals but you can't get away from the fact that the race is pretty much the public face of jump racing, and equine fatalaties in it always get much more notice than similar events in other races. I'd leave the opening paragraph untouched personally.Bcp67 11:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It does belong in the opening section, but could there at least be some fleshing out later in the article. Examples of protests perhaps, or some statistics on the rate of injury and death. Evil Monkey - Hello 02:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think it should be entirely removed from the opening section, although it seems to have support here. At least, I would advocate replacing it with a sentence on the dangerous nature of the race, but elaborate on the controversy and opposition to it in a later section. Once I get my head around a few fixes for this disaster of a wiki, I might more formally suggest this.Chickendijon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC).

Mirabel Topham

I am rather surprisesd that there is no mention of Mirabel Topham in the article's history section, or elsewhere on Wikipedia. I am no expert on the race, but it seems to me that her part in the race's history was sufficient to merit a mention. Viewfinder (talk) 12:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Introduction statement of fatalities

In the introduction it states that between 1991-2008 ere have been 51 equine fatalities and 1 human. While the statement is linked to an article which explains that these were not in the Grand National, the wording in wikipedia gives the readerthe idea that these were in the Grand National. I am therefore changing this statement to show that since the race was first run in 1839 there have been 57 equine fatalities and 1 human. Captainbeecher (talk) 10:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Red Links

This article is riddled with red links. Wiki policy is to link to pages that exist, not link to pages that don't exist in the hope that one day they might. MrMarmite (talk) 09:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not quite what WP:REDLINK says. All the red links are for winning horses, jockeys and trainers, and winning the National seems like a pretty good claim to notability to me, so they all seem like "good" redlinks to me. David Underdown (talk) 09:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

From the policy "Do not create red links to articles that will never be created" I am sure some of the ones of more recent races might get created, but I am sure no one is going to be creating awiki page for every horse since the 1800s to win the National. I stopped at 1900 for the moment. Cheers MrMarmite (talk) 10:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Why not? There are certanily sources out there for them. - fchd (talk) 10:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

If someone really does create a page dedicated to the 1857 winner they can always add the link. At the moment the page looks a mess with its swathe of red link MrMarmite (talk) 10:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

That's your opinion, but it's contrary to policy. - fchd (talk) 11:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

In the right place, redlinks serve as an encouragement to create articles. I can't agree with removing them just because it "looks a mess". I am guessing that it would be a relatively straightforward task to create basic stub articles for most of the redlinks here (and on other horse race articles). _wjemather ^bigissue 11:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Source for winners list

The Aintree website has been used as the primary source for the winning connections on this page but it is common knowledge that their list is full of errors and gaps. Example They list an H Crickmere as the rider of Discount when the press of the time state clearly it was the well know rider John Crickmere who rode that day. They also don't list Dockeray as the trainer of Jerry and many other trainers are omitted. Their record was put together in the 1890s and by their own admission is full of mistakes. I propose that the much more reliable winners list from The highly respected Tb Heriatage site at http://www.tbheritage.com/TurfHallmarks/racecharts/GrandNational.html is used instead as it is the most detailed and accurate record of the winners to be found on the internet and is the that most published writers, Marcus Armytage in his A-Z of the Grand national now use as their source of fact. The date it holds has been collated from the press of the time rather than, as Aintree did, from fading memories of races from over sixty years earlier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Norniron (talk • contribs) 12:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC) =Here is an even more detailed and accurate list of winning horses, riders and trainers compiled by the British Horseracing authority. http://www.britishhorseracing.com/goracing/grand-national/previous-winners.asp I propose this is used as the source of the winning connections Norniron (talk) 10:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The Course

Two suggestions for GA consideration. First, stress and highlight the link to the diagram of the course layout, which is hidden in a footnote. Second, an explanation of why The Chair and The Water Jump are negiotiated only on the first circuit, and how they are avoided on the second. Good luck. --Reedmalloy (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of July 26, 2009, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The writing is generally OK, but there are a number of paragraphs consisting of only one or two sentences. There are a number of things that could do with improving from an MoS point of view. The Notes section is essentially a trivia section is everything but name, see WP:AVTRIV. The list of winners is so large that is would be better off as a separate List of Grand National winners. Items mentioned in the lead should also be included in the body of the article (WP:LEAD). For an example of a cleaner structure in an article about a sporting event, see FIFA World Cup or Rugby World Cup

2. Factually accurate?: Fail. A large number of paragraphs contain no references at all.

3. Broad in coverage?: Fail. The iconic status of the event as the most high profile in British horseracing is not discussed, neither is the importance of the event to the bookmaking trade. The fearsome reputation of the course caused by the number of runners who fail to complete it barely mentioned.

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass, no obvious edit wars

6. Images?: Pass, a photograph of the course would be useful though, maybe the one currently in Aintree Racecourse?

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Oldelpaso (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Controversy

Someone needs to start a section that discusses the controversies surrounding the Grand National. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vynbos (talk • contribs) 10:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You would need to build an entirely new wiki. There is a controversy of one sort or another every year going right back to 1836 when a gate was nailed shut Norniron (talk) 23:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone needs to start a section about the Grand National. This wiki is currently about three paragraphs on the race and an avalanche of dross about controversy and fatalities.Chickendijon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC).

History section

This surely ought to contain something on Golden Miller, the only Gold Cup winner to also win the National and, with the possible exception of Arkle, the greatest steeplechaser of all time. JH (talk page) 17:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The link to http://www.bbc.co.uk/theoneshow/highlights/events/grand_national.shtml BBC history of Grand National in the external links section on the footer of the page results in an error page. EddyE126 (talk) 09:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Distance of race

What is the correct value for the distance of the race? The imperial and metric values given in the article are inconsistent. Many sources give the distance as 4 miles 856 yards which is 7,220 m. Other sources give the distance as 4 mile 4 furlongs (= 4 miles 880 yards = 4.5 miles) which is 7,242 m. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.223.67 (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Well spotted. The info box gives 4 miles, 4 furlongs (880 yards). I can only imagine that the 4 miles 856 yards in the text is taken from the only source given - Marion Rose Halpenny, page 167. But the manual conversion in the text (not a convert template) is obviously wrong. It's hard to imagine that something in the article as basic as this can be wrong. But I do not have a copy of Halpenny's guide to hand. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I've only ever seen it referred to as 4 miles 4 furlongs, and always assumed the conversion into 4 miles 856 yards was correct! I'll amend it so that the article is consistent. --TBM10 (talk) 08:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

A book I have here, "Guinness Horse Racing - The Records", by John Randall and Tony Morris and published in 1985, gives the various distances that the race has been run over. It quotes 4m 856y from 1889 to 1976, and since then "about 4 1/2 miles". Only 24 yards difference in any case, and I think that British NH racecards nearly always put the word "about" in front of all race distances in any case. 4 miles 4 furlongs looks correct for the modern day.--Bcp67 (talk) 08:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds raesonable. (24 yards can mean quite a lot at the finish line!) Martinevans123 (talk) 08:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Each way pay-outs

Do fourth and fifth places always produce a return on an each-way bet, or does this vary between bookmakers? Yours grumpily, Martinevans123 (talk) 11:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It varies, fourth pays almost always, but some bookies will offer fifth as a special offer. Sky being an example with this year's GN, I know. --TBM10 (talk) 13:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Either way, is this ususual enough to include in the article? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't think so. Its the case for all races. --TBM10 (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I suppose these days, you can find on-line odds for any place you like. But would course bookies would give you anything for 4th place in most races? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Standard terms for each-way is to pay for fourth place only in handicap races with 16 runners or more - which would always therefore include the National. Racecourse bookies don't necessarily have to abide by those terms but most would.--Bcp67 (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. 16 runners is quite a lot in terms of all handicap races, but it's obviously not notable for the National. Indeed, in those terms, 5th or even 6th place, does not seem so outlandish. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed - even 6th place in a 40 runner handicap is some effort, for both horse and punter! Only become commonplace in recent years for 5th and 6th to payout ew though, and only from online bookies generally.--Bcp67 (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Horse welfare 1 fatality in the 1960s

The article states that there was only one fatality in the 1960s but the race reports of that decade show clearly that this was not the case. In total there were four recorded fatalities in the 1960s. Belsize II 1960, Avenue Nuielly 1963, Vulcano 1967 and Champion Prince 1968. I am therefore removing this statement from the article, not only for being unsourced but also incorrect.Captainbeecher (talk) 21:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Prediction

On 2 April 2013 it was reported that British mathematician and international chess master William Hartston had "perfected" a formula for predicting the winner of the Grand National horse race.^[1]^[2]^[3] Martinevans123 (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The story of the winning formula has since been widely thought to be an April Fools joke that many have fallen for.^[4] Martinevans123 (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

References

Early Grand Nationals - Lottery 5/1 favourite

In the Early Grand Nationals section it states Lottery won the 1839 race as the 5/1 favourite with three sources. All these sources have almost certainly taken their information from the Reg Green book A Race Apart, which in turn took his source from earlier books written in the early 20th Century. The Liverpool Mercury, the day after the 1839 Grand National shows that Lottery was not the 5/1 favourite but was sent off at 9/1. This is supported by The Times and Irish Newsletter, which both covered the 1839 race in detail at the time. The problem with much published Grand National history is that it carries many errors popularized, albeit inadvertently in the Reg Green book as Reg took what had been written by earlier authors for granted without checking for original source material. It is something of a quandry as Wikipedia works on the idea of facts on published sources. The question though is should these be used if the multiple sources are known to be wrong, even if it is popular perception? I would propose we, as writers on Wiki use this as a tool to correct these errors using the media of the time as much as possible as the most reliable source. If there are no objections I would like to start by changing this small detail in the page to say Lottery was 9/1, with no mention of him being favourite. using this online source which has taken its data from the press of the time. http://www.sportsbookguardian.com/horse-racing/grand-national/winners/lottery-1839-grand-national-winner Captainbeecher (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I mainly deal with flat racing but here goes. I would go for something like "Although most modern sources give the winner's starting price as x/1, contemporary accounts state that Lottery started at odds of y/1". If it needs to go in an infobox or table then use a footnote to explain. I think that in the period we are talking about there was no such thing as an official SP, just an account of the prices on offer on course. I had a similar problem with Quiz: every modern source gives his owner as Goodricke but the contemporary sources say Gilbert Crompton. I went with the primaries but mentioned the discrepancy in the article. Tigerboy1966 18:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a very good way to put it Captainbeecher (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Started to reword it but after changing it to 'the aptly named' I re-read it and felt there was no need to mention the starting price at all in that sentence.Captainbeecher (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Images

I have been adding images to the Cheltenham Festival pages, and am now thinking to do the same for Aintree. Not sure where these are best positioned as this page is far more complex than those for Cheltenham. (JockeyColours (talk) 22:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC))

2011

Ballabriggs

Oscar Time

Don't Push It

2013

Auroras Encore

Cappa Bleu

Teaforthree

2012

Neptune Collonges

Sunnyhillboy

Seabass

2008

Comply Or Die

King Johns Castle

Snowy Morning

2010

Don't Push It

Black Apalachi

State of Play

2009

Mon Mome

Comply Or Die

My Will

On the articles for the individual years would be preferable. Leaky Caldron 22:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

@Leaky caldron: Could you advise on placing colours for the Grand National? I have added full colours to the Talk pages for Grand National 2012 & 2013 following a request on Talk page (Item 4 - April 2013). Could these be incorporated, or perhaps the 1-2-3? I have added 1-2-3 images since 2008 to the individual pages of the other races at the Aintree Grand National meeting. (JockeyColours (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Grand National. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Why is it so popular?

Compared to all other UK horse races? Turkeyphan^t 04:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps National Velvet (film) (and related books and media) has a significant effect, perhaps especially outside the UK? --AJim (talk) 05:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge of 2020 Grand National into Grand National

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Been merged. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

This didn't happen, and the virtual event isn't notable. All we need is for the main article to have a few lines saying that 2020 was cancelled, and can include the mention of the virtual race too. But this non-event is not notable Joseph2302 (talk) 23:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Qualified support not sure if the event was notable or not, but , but it certainly wasn't a renewal of the Grand National. Maybe that article should be moved to Virtual Grand National with 2020 Grand National then being redirected here? _wjemather ^{please leave a message...} 07:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Support Although the cancellation of the race meeting is notable (probably not enough for a standalone article, though), the virtual race itself is not. Miniapolis 22:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

[1] [1]

[2] [2]

[3] [3]

[4] [4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]