- This topic has 22 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
I detest the seemingly growing obsession with The Cheltenham Festival. Don’t get me wrong, the event itself is terrific. Mind you, as a 3 day festival, to paraphrase the poster Betfair, it was 3 days of unmissable ‘White Hot Quality’.
The 4th day has diluted this badly, but this is still not my main bugbear. For any fans of the 4th day, consider one point (among many that could be made) – if Dawn Run was around today, she would in likelihood have won a Mares Hurdle and a Rynair in lieu of the legendary status she is afforded today. I digress :
The wonderful sport if NH Racing is being brought in to disrepute. Prestigious races, and non- prestigious, are being treated with contempt with unfit, or non-triers, being ran as a matter of course to aid a tilt at their ‘cup final’ at Cheltenham. Even worse, this is accepted as the norm.
Does any horse of recent times act as a poster boy of this culture more than Lord Windamere?
Clearly talented horse won at Cheltenham in a G1 as a Novice, but was then hammered 59 lengths in 3 races before a miracle, and timely, revival a year on to win the Gold Cup.
This season the title-holder has been parading his crown in two stuffings, mind you only an aggregate beating of 16l in two races to date is perhaps an improvement of sorts.
LW is only an example, but I am so fed up with this. I feel like apart from 4 (should be 3) days in March the sport I love is being trampled on and laughed at. If Cullotys charge retains his crown I will be absolutely gutted.
Am I just a miserable whiny git not moving with the times, or is anyone like minded with anything too add?
Cheers in advance for replies of either persuasion.
I agree, the whole of the NH season running up to Cheltenham is like the classic trials on the flat these days. However some of the horses concerned have less runs than the classic colts and fillies.
It is making racing less palatable for younger people I would think.Clearly talented horse won at Cheltenham in a G1 as a Novice, but was then hammered 59 lengths in 3 races before a miracle, and timely, revival a year on to win the Gold Cup.
Well PC it was a ‘miracle’ I had the pleasure of being part of.What I learned from
Lord Windermere
last season was that ‘Boston Bob’ probably wouldn’t have won the RSA like I had preached he would and that RSA winners are automaticlly granted Gold Cup pretender status just by the very nature of winning the ‘Novices Gold cup’ (RSA).Granted good ground again in March this fellow will be a well backed single figure player.
What will you do when the 11yoGet Me Out of here
finally gets his head in front in the Coral cup and breaks his duck at the fifth attempt of winning at the festival? Every Man and his Dog know now that this horse has only ever been trained for the festival and came so close every year even though he’s gone off totally unfancied because of the way Jonjo plays the system.That is Horseracing and its always been that way.You wont succeed in anything by being PC,PC!
I detest the seemingly growing obsession with The Cheltenham Festival. Don’t get me wrong, the event itself is terrific. Mind you, as a 3 day festival, to paraphrase the poster Betfair, it was 3 days of unmissable ‘White Hot Quality’.
The 4th day has diluted this badly, but this is still not my main bugbear. For any fans of the 4th day, consider one point (among many that could be made) – if Dawn Run was around today, she would in likelihood have won a Mares Hurdle and a Rynair in lieu of the legendary status she is afforded today. I digress :
The wonderful sport if NH Racing is being brought in to disrepute. Prestigious races, and non- prestigious, are being treated with contempt with unfit, or non-triers, being ran as a matter of course to aid a tilt at their ‘cup final’ at Cheltenham. Even worse, this is accepted as the norm.
Does any horse of recent times act as a poster boy of this culture more than Lord Windamere?
Clearly talented horse won at Cheltenham in a G1 as a Novice, but was then hammered 59 lengths in 3 races before a miracle, and timely, revival a year on to win the Gold Cup.
This season the title-holder has been parading his crown in two stuffings, mind you only an aggregate beating of 16l in two races to date is perhaps an improvement of sorts.
LW is only an example, but I am so fed up with this. I feel like apart from 4 (should be 3) days in March the sport I love is being trampled on and laughed at. If Cullotys charge retains his crown I will be absolutely gutted.
Am I just a miserable whiny git not moving with the times, or is anyone like minded with anything too add?
Cheers in advance for replies of either persuasion.
Lord Windermere isn’t just a below average winner of the Gold Cup, he’s a comparitively poor one. Form doesn’t stack up but taking form out of the equation has always been an inconsistent type. I don’t buy this "one target" stuff. If there’s a really good prize it simply does not make sense not to try and win it. No reason a horse can not win both races. Albeit Lord Windermere is a horse suited by Cheltenham (horses for courses). But is there another reason for LW’s poor form?
Gold Cup win was the middle of 3 wins in a row for Culloty. First coming with his only other 2014 Cheltenham runner Spring Heeled in the Kim Muir. Third winner an Even money shot on the 20th of that month. It’s been
49
runs without a winner for the trainer since. Before those March winners he’d had a run of
23
losers going back to August 2013 (again Spring Heeled).
Although there’s been a few who’ve run well without winning – it suggests
all
the trainer’s runners have been below form – not just Lord Windermere. If Culloty does deliberately run his Cheltenham horses below form, then why would he do the same consistently with his non-Cheltenham horses? When horses come back to form at the Cheltenham Festival, trainers would rather everyone believed there was "one target". JC appears a trainer who struggles to keep ANY horse fully fit.
There are of course those best at the course or in the spring (such as Holywell)… But in truth there are many many other horses who lose their form, yet when they also fail at Cheltenham nobody thinks of them as "trained for one target". Lucky Culloty, it all coming right two seasons in a row just at the right time.
I do think it is a shame when horses do not run very often on the build up to Cheltenham. Lightly raced sorts often win because they’re the best horse, not because it’s lightly raced. You don’t get winners who’ve had a busy season described as winning because of that busy season. However, I’ve seen less of the Best Mate effect as that horse goes further in to history. Indeed, Paul Nicholls has said the reason why Silviniaco Conti ran poorly last year was the gap between King George and Gold Cup. However, nobody should be surprised when Cheltenham Festival winners don’t have the same record elsewhere or at a different time of year.
Value Is EverythingHow come everytime an unfancied horse wins a race like the gold cup, then that particular race becomes a poor renewal. How on earth can last years gold cup winner be a poor winner when Bobs Worth and Silv Conti were both put into the race with winning chances. Synchronised suffered the the same exact labeling.
Lord Windermere isn’t just a below average winner of the Gold Cup, he’s a comparitively poor one.
He’s the best one I’ve ever had at 33/1……
Gaelic Warrior Gold Cup Winner 2026
Lord Windermere is either a dire Gold Cup winner or a horse with a very unskilled trainer or both. Likely both.
The mark of a good Gold Cup winner is a horse who wins regularly through the year, shows the soundness and versatility to rule their division and beats the best rivals at Cheltenham. Lord Windermere isn’t just being called names because he won at a big price – it’s because he doesn’t fill any of those criteria.
Look at any recent Gold Cup winner prior to Lord Windermere. Even the lesser lights like Synchronised and War Of Attrition had won Grade 1s and showed some solid consistency at the top.
Lord Windermere’s chasing career:
12 starts
,
Only 3 wins
(2m 4f Novices’ Chase, lucky winner of RSA, Gold Cup)
Beaten fair and square by:
Mikael D’Haguenet, Dylan Ross, Texas Jack, Boston Bob, Don Cossack.
4 appalling no-shows
So he’s been tonked by several low 150s animals and rarely turns up in the form to get within 10 lengths in a G1 race. Even if you blame Jim Culloty for failing to keep his horse primed for a whole season, the best of Lord Windermere isn’t particularly inspiring.
But like Strawbear has pointed out he beat Bobs Worth and Silvinaco Conti. To my untrained eye the races in Ireland are not a start to finish gallop at a quick clip. Lord Windermere at Cheltenham was looking close to being tailed off in the early stages in the Gold Cup so it’s likely they were tanking along and he had more in reserve at the end of the race. His previous win was also at Cheltenham in the RSA so it could be a case of the course and the way the races are run that suit him.
Gaelic Warrior Gold Cup Winner 2026
Nath,this is why we cleaned up on
Lord Windermere
last year at 33/1…Because so many punters just cant see the wood from the trees.Anyone who knows their horses had a field day backing ‘Windy’ in running last year,Davy oozed confidence detaching him from the field and 50’s was freely available as he just skipped round.What those of us knew already, simply through his RSA run was he’d stay all the way to the line but we also knew he thrives on Good ground something ‘Silviniaco’ doesn’t and anyone taking 3/1 about him for Gold Cup victory needs their head testing,as a 16/1 shot he was always worth staying loyal too as his freakish performance in March may well have been just a one-off.On heavy ground I believe the Nicholls horse will win as he is a dour stayer who can maintain a gallop,on good ground he will be run out of it.A horse like
Holywell
will fly past ‘Conti’ on Good ground,he wouldn’t know what hits him,even my old pal ‘Windy’ hasn’t the pace of Jonjo’s lad.Friday the 13th will prove that the superstitious amongst us will be keeping everything crossed.My concern is I back the Gold Cup winner every 2nd year,never 2 years in succession!
This is the year to break that hoodoo then! Completely agree with the OP. However, what do you do? As someone who also follows Sportscar racing, they have a similar ‘problem’. The Le Mans 24 Hours overshadows all the other races in the Championship; it is the be all and end all for most of the participants. Win that one race, and the rest if the season doesn’t matter.
Connections of LW have done nothing wrong; so I’m not sure what the solution is. Using Gd1 races as a prep is a big no-no in my opinion.And when you come to rate a horse, you should include all ‘poor’ runs, especially if they outweigh the good ones. With LW, his 2 festival wins are looking like ‘outliers’, beyond the norm performances.
If Lord Windermere repeats the performance in March we will know that he’s probably a horse who comes good at the course at that time of year.
When trying to predict if that is likely we need to ask if the fancied horses he beat last year actually ran their best races?
Had Lord Windermere simply beaten Bobs Worth and Silviniaco Conti it would be easier to believe he was the best horse on the day. The facts tell us though, that On His Own and The Giant Bolster also beat a former Gold Cup winner and the current King George winner. This makes it harder for me to accept that Bobs Worth and Silviniaco Conti were on form on the day.
The Giant Bolster usually runs his best race of the season in the Gold Cup but very few would have visualised him going so close to actually winning it. On His Own was my Grand National selection ante post at 25/1 in 2013 but he clearly didn’t stay on the day. He’s a decent sort but he’s a shade short of top class for me.
Relatively fast ground at Cheltenham can throw up funny results and it is my belief that the ground last season was what caused the disappointing run from Silviniaco Conti. He was below par when warm favourite on similar ground in The Charlie Hall and has looked well suited ridden positively on yielding ground both before and since that race.
Bobs Worth is harder to fathom out with some poor efforts since triumphing in the 2013 Gold Cup. He has form of sounder ground and his trainer has just blamed the soft ground in the Lexus for his poor run. The trouble I have with accepting that excuse is the fact that he won the Gold Cup on soft, in a time more than twenty seconds slower than Lord Windermere’s win the following season. My thinking is that Bobs Worth just might not be as good as he was and his Lexus win that looked good at the time doesn’t read as impressively as it did at the time, with only Lord Windermere and Unioniste managing to win since, and runner-up Lord Lieutenant having proved very disappointing in the past couple of years.
Lord Windermere was running on fumes at the end of last season’s Gold Cup and rain for him will be like tabloid headlines to Prince Andrew.
Getting back to the original post and the obsession with Cheltenham I am not sure much can be done to prevent prioritising, as it should be the owner’s prerogative as to which race means most to them and their horse. What bugs me more is this casual sending out of a horse first time, clearly not ready to do themselves justice.
Silviniaco Conti never looked likely in the Charlie Hall, Bobs Worth was a no show in the Lexus, Lord Windermere wasn’t that bad on his first start but didn’t seem to progress at all to his second run. On His Own was beaten 79 lengths by Road To Riches in the J N Wines on his seasonal debut and then casually improves to run the same horse to 1 and half lengths in the Lexus.
All of these bad runs seem to be met with a casual shrug of the shoulders from trainers and a vague "not suitable ground" as an explanation (at best)
I think punters deserve to expect that trainers are actually putting horses into races straight enough to run somewhere near their best form, rather than running like a scabby shire horse dragging 10 tons of slag from the pit!
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Arent we overanalysing here?
Lord Windemere is clearly an in and out sort….he is hardly the first. His opening run this season was very decent and I think it would be madness to lay him at large odds for the gold cup. He is clearly a rogue.
On his own was a horse on the way up, unusual but not unheard of at the age of 9. Would have won the lexus if he jumped straighter.
The giant bolster, usual credible Cheltenham run. Nobody slams him or his trainer inspite of a number of disastrous efforts away from the festival
Bobs worth on the way down.
There you go
Let that be the end of it now!!
SHLSHL
Sure, Lord Windermere is an in-and-out sort. So were several Gold Cup winners, but that didn’t stop them from winning Grade Ones on their off days.
Kauto Star was a great because he could win races even when looking rather laboured. Even on his ‘off days’, he was a major force. He was right in the mix when falling in Snoopy Loopy’s Betfair Chase, he was just nutted by Our Vic in the Betfair Bowl not long after finishing legless behind Denman in the Gold Cup and was not far away from Aintree legend Monet’s Garden in the Old Roan despite being visibly unfit and conceding weight. Lord Windermere can’t compete in top handicaps, let alone Grade 1s in 10 months of the year.
Even less heralded Gold Cup winners like See More Business, War Of Attrition, Kicking King, See More Business, Looks Like Trouble, Best Mate and Mr Mulligan ran mighty races in defeat in top races away from Cheltenham.
You need to show at least a little versatility and durability to be considered a decent Gold Cup winner. Some of the arguments here seem to be "I backed Lord Windermere, therefore he is a good Gold Cup winner", which is obviously biased to say the least. It’s hard to deny that Lord Windermere is a Cheltenham and good ground specialist. Even accounting for that, given the history, the stats and his generally woeful standard of form, it takes a pretty massive leap of imagination to say he’s not the worst winner since Cool Dawn.
Lord Windemere is clearly an in and out sort….he is hardly the first. His opening run this season was very decent and I think it would be madness to lay him at large odds for the gold cup. He is clearly a rogue.
I initially felt Lord Windermere made a good seasonal return, but all five runs from that race since then have seen unplaced efforts.
A lot may hinge on how good Don Cossack turns out to be, early signs from The John Durkan aren’t encouraging.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
To me lw is never going to be at the front of top races during the winter as all his best form is on sounder surfaces. Hence the reason to does so well at Cheltenham. I’ll be backing him each way in the gold cup at hopefully decent odds.
Lord Windemere is clearly an in and out sort….he is hardly the first. His opening run this season was very decent and I think it would be madness to lay him at large odds for the gold cup. He is clearly a rogue.
I initially felt Lord Windermere made a good seasonal return, but all five runs from that race since then have seen unplaced efforts.
A lot may hinge on how good Don Cossack turns out to be, early signs from The John Durkan aren’t encouraging.
Bit early to be judging the Durkan form imo as the only finishers to run since are Lord Windermere and Boston Bob. It’s likely Rathlin and Baily Green would have been well beaten, and struggle to see how they can be used as a form guide given how early they fell. As I suspected Boston Bob confirmed the Durkan form with Lord Windermere, even though he would have hated the ground in the Lexus. However, I do have my doubts about the form. Texas Jack got tired in the latter stages of the race while Boston Bob was badly hampered. The way the race panned out, everything fell into Don Cossack’s lap.
Lord Windemere is clearly an in and out sort….he is hardly the first. His opening run this season was very decent and I think it would be madness to lay him at large odds for the gold cup. He is clearly a rogue.
I initially felt Lord Windermere made a good seasonal return, but all five runs from that race since then have seen unplaced efforts.
A lot may hinge on how good Don Cossack turns out to be, early signs from The John Durkan aren’t encouraging.
Bit early to be judging the Durkan form imo as the only finishers to run since are Lord Windermere and Boston Bob. It’s likely Rathlin and Baily Green would have been well beaten, and struggle to see how they can be used as a form guide given how early they fell. As I suspected Boston Bob confirmed the Durkan form with Lord Windermere, even though he would have hated the ground in the Lexus. However, I do have my doubts about the form. Texas Jack got tired in the latter stages of the race while Boston Bob was badly hampered. The way the race panned out, everything fell into Don Cossack’s lap.
I start judging the form as early as possible Tommy, I don’t always get it right but sometimes you can gain an edge by taking the view that, while you might be condemning the race in question prematurely, there has been nothing to suggest the race was as good as may have been thought as they crossed the finish line.
I’ll be against Lord Windermere come Cheltenham, particularly if it is soft. If the ground is good I still feel Road To Riches will confirm the form because he has excellent form on a sound surface and most of his poor efforts have been on soft.
I suspect Road To Riches won The Lexus despite the ground not being in his favour. If it comes up good at Cheltenham, we know Silviniaco Conti won’t be favoured by it and that leaves scope to oppose the warm favourite. Road To Riches is rated higher than Lord Windermere now, he has been consistent and arguably has more scope for improvement than last year’s winner. Perhaps I’m missing something here but I think Road To Riches looks the best value in the race.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
This is the year to break that hoodoo then! 
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.