- This topic has 55 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
You’ve got to hand it to Phil Smith – the Gold Cup result was down to strange sectionals, but the Pertemps was down to great handicapping.
Cribbing the Gold Cup result is absurd; it’s the most prestigious prize in the NH calender and the best horses turn up ready to run for their lives. Sometimes a horse gets the run of the race, is in the form of his life, jumps well and wins unexpectedly; that’s racing. Through The Giant Bolster, the form is quite similar to the last 2 yrs. It reminded me of Forgive’n’forget’s Gold Cup; on the day, it was fiercely competitive, and the best horse won.
Cribbing the Gold Cup result is absurd; it’s the most prestigious prize in the NH calender and the best horses turn up ready to run for their lives. Sometimes a horse gets the run of the race, is in the form of his life, jumps well and wins unexpectedly; that’s racing. Through The Giant Bolster, the form is quite similar to the last 2 yrs. It reminded me of Forgive’n’forget’s Gold Cup; on the day, it was fiercely competitive, and the best horse won.
It may seem like The Giant Bolster’s 3rd, 4th and 2nd give the winners "similar" form befair.
3rd: Beaten almost a length on Friday by Lord Windermere
4th: Beaten 15 3/4 lengths in 2013 by Bobs Worth
2nd: Beaten 2 1/4 lengths in 2012 by Synchronised2012 was thought to be one of the worst Gold Cup winning performances.
This was worse.Forgive ‘N’ Forget wasn’t a great Gold Cup winning performance, but he was a fair bit better than Lord Windermere’s. However, FNF improved afterwards and Lord Windermere put up by far his best performance to win it, so there’s a fair chance he will continue to progress.
Value Is EverythingThey did both have injury problems, but they were hardly stellar Gold Cup winners.
Kicking King was in the right place at the right time if you look at the horses he faced in his King Georges (beat non-staying Azertyuiop + Kingscliff, then fortunate to nose out Monkerhostin). With Take The Stand, Royal Auclair and co up close in his Gold Cup (devalued even further by Grey Abbey’s late scare), there have probably been better runnings of the William Hill Chase than that race.
War Of Attrition ran to a similar level. Both admirable horses who did their simple tasks well, but they fall some way short of the modern greats.
Kicking king was off the track for over 2 years and achieved a rating of 172(bobs worth is rated 180) and had he not been injured would at least have matched bob worthy rating. He lost the best two years of his career. War of attrition was off the track for 658 days and was on a mark of 174. He too lost the best two years of his career. They were must better than just admirable and as with last instalment weren’t able to show their true potential. I thought war of attrition was a super horse.
It wasn’t possible to go into huge detail in a blog, with other races competing for attention, and I wanted to make the comparison between the Gold Cup and the Foxhunter so that there were no queries about rail movements between races. But here are the results of a similar exercise to the one I posted on Twitter about another race on the same day.
Averaging the by-obstacle times for the previous 5 leaders and 5 winners of the Gold Cup, then pro-rata adjusting the resulting figures to this year’s overall time gives the following margins back from an average leader and average winner for the leader and for Lord Windermere in this year’s race:
11th fence: Leader 4.5 lengths behind, winner 7.5 lengths behind
15th fence: Leader 4.5 lengths behind, winner 7 lengths behind
18th fence: Leader 6.5 lengths behind, winner 10 lengths behind
20th fence (3 out): Leader 4 lengths behind, winner 10 lengths behind
22nd (final) fence: Leader 4.5 lengths behind, winner 6.5 lengths behind
Level at line.They were actually slightly ahead of normal pace for the early fences but, as can be seen from the above, they had dropped behind by halfway and further behind approaching the closing stages before there was quite a quick finish (compared to the overall race time). Or at least in the context of the averages from the previous 5 runnings of the same race.
There is no evidence that the leaders went too soon (unlike the year before), if anything, the opposite, though in an ideal world we would have many more races in the sample and attempt to adjust for the rail movements etc mentioned.
Nice work, Simon. It highlights how useful sectional timing is in analysis and how futile it is, in some cases, trying to apply it.
A rail movement of ‘between 7 and 11 yards’ might not sound like much: my immediate thought was that you’d get 2 or 3 horses racing on that line. But I watched the Kim Muir on Thursday, then the Gold Cup (rail moved overnight) and the difference is stark. That new ground seemed to easily have room for the whole GC field to race on throughout. Only as they turned in and horses came under pressure did they spread out.
How is the distance of a race measured? Along the inside,the outside, the middle? What difference does this fresh ground make? Are the stick readings based on the fresh ground, the older ground, an average?
That quicker-than-average early pace might account for Geraghty’s assertion that they were going a stride too fast for BW. But, as it steadied and slowed, we still see the winner under pressure at the tail, as he’d looked throughout. At the finish, three horses are still running fairly powerfully on the stands side, albeit all out, while on the inside the two ‘class’ horses look very tired, despite the indication from your figures that it was not necessarily a stayers’ race.
Other than the assumption that both SC and BW did not run anywhere near form – perhaps because it was
not
the stamina test that had been anticipated for both – I remain baffled!
Courses are measured two-horse-widths off the inside rails on bends and down the middle of obstacles otherwise. Official jumps distances are approximated to the nearest 110 yards (no, really) and not amended after movements of rails/omissions of obstacles etc. That is on top of compelling evidence that some of the approximated distances are wrong anyway. It is a farce which the BHA really needs to get a grip of. IMO. Surveying courses on the day of racing to establish correct distances is both realistic and affordable in this day and age.
I don’t pretend to have all of the answers wrt jumps sectionals, partly because no-one has ever paid me to investigate them thoroughly. You can estimate the effect of amendments by using between-obstacle sectionals and Google Earth measurements, fwiw, providing you have laid that groundwork in advance.
In the case of the Gold Cup, what seems difficult to dispute is that the overall race time was underwhelming compared to the other race run at the same C&D on the same day and the finishing speed was higher compared to the overall time than customary.
Winners’ times from 3 out and overall:
Kauto Star (2009) 58.2s, 404.6s
Imperial Commander (2010) 59.1s, 402.9s
Long Run (2011) 56.5s, 388.6s
Synchronised (2012) 56.1s, 394.6s
Bobs Worth (2013) 64.4s, 422.2s
Lord Windermere (2014) 57.2s, 405.1sBut, as it steadied and slowed, we still see the winner
under pressure at the tail, as he’d looked throughout
. At the finish, three horses are still running fairly powerfully on the stands side, albeit all out, while on the inside the two ‘class’ horses look very tired, despite the indication from your figures that it was not necessarily a stayers’ race.
Other than the assumption that both SC and BW did not run anywhere near form – perhaps because it was
not
the stamina test that had been anticipated for both – I remain baffled!
If sectionals aren’t key, then may be Lord Windermere’s temperament is the reason for his "improvement"?
Don’t agree with LW being
"under pressure at the tail, as he’d looked throughout"
Joe. Seemed to alternate between going well and pushed along. This might mean LW’s temperament/mood caused Russell to be (at times) more vigourous. ie Even when pushed along the horse actually had a lot more to give (at least up until the closing stages).
If LW has always had this trait it could explain why he was an unimpressive winner of the RSA. Only doing just enough and his ability was in fact better than winning distances suggested at the time. Temperament going some way to explain his inconsistency since too.
Having looked at Bobs Worth and Silviniaco Conti again, may be Ricky was right, ground (good) conditions are the most likely reason for their below par performances. Both seem at their very best on softer.
Value Is EverythingCourses are measured two-horse-widths off the inside rails on bends and down the middle of obstacles otherwise. Official jumps distances are approximated to the nearest 110 yards (no, really) and not amended after movements of rails/omissions of obstacles etc. That is on top of compelling evidence that some of the approximated distances are wrong anyway. It is a farce which the BHA really needs to get a grip of. IMO. Surveying courses on the day of racing to establish correct distances is both realistic and affordable in this day and age.
I don’t pretend to have all of the answers wrt jumps sectionals, partly because no-one has ever paid me to investigate them thoroughly. You can estimate the effect of amendments by using between-obstacle sectionals and Google Earth measurements, fwiw, providing you have laid that groundwork in advance.
In the case of the Gold Cup, what seems difficult to dispute is that the overall race time was underwhelming compared to the other race run at the same C&D on the same day and the finishing speed was higher compared to the overall time than customary.
Winners’ times from 3 out and overall:
Kauto Star (2009) 58.2s, 404.6s
Imperial Commander (2010) 59.1s, 402.9s
Long Run (2011) 56.5s, 388.6s
Synchronised (2012) 56.1s, 394.6s
Bobs Worth (2013) 64.4s, 422.2s
Lord Windermere (2014) 57.2s, 405.1sThanks for sharing Simon, very illuminating.
Value Is EverythingTemperament going some way to explain his inconsistency since too.
I think Lord Windermere has actually been very consistent since Ginger. Consistently
AWFUL
The Giant Bolster has been put up as the solid marker to the form but was running in last year’s race with supposedly 7lbs to find with Bobs Worth and was beaten 15 lengths. This year he was supposed to have 20lbs to find with Bobs Worth and yet finished 4 lengths ahead of him.
All the theories and handicapping discussions in the world fail to disperse the whiff of excrement that surrounds this year’s Gold Cup, for me at least.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Can’t believe this is still going on. Surely people have got better things to do than spending hours talking about a horse who might well struggle to win another race.
If you backed the winner, great for you but just file it under extremely lucky. Anything else would be pretty ludicrous. About on a par with playing darts blindfolded, hitting a bullseye and then trying to justify it. A complete waste of time.
The question is not just why did Lord Windermere win?
It’s why did LW show improved form?
Why did On His Own show improved form?
Why did Bobs Worth and Silviniaco Conti run below form?If we do not try and answer those questions then we miss the opportunity of identifying when/if these things are going to happen again and how likely they are to happen again.
It is quite possible The Giant Bolster ran a bit below his best, could have won had he jumped better.
If a punter can come up with correct reasoning for a hard to fathom race Stilvi – then he/she has an advantage in runners subsequent races. A bigger advantage than had he/she worked out an easier race; as most would know the answers and therefore little value in subsequent races. imo.
Value Is EverythingThe question is not just why did Lord Windermere win?
It’s why did LW show improved form?
Why did On His Own show improved form?
Why did Bobs Worth and Silviniaco Conti run below form?a) he didn’t
b) see "a"
c) Geraghty rode a poor race (hunting up the favourite when he should have sat and found a rhythm; switching to the inside at the last when he should’ve come up the outside); ground not soft enough.Ginger, if the ground was good, why was the time comparatively poor, yet BW was taken off his feet early and LW ‘never nearer’ until he responded to strong pressure late on (temperament might have played some part, but I think more evidence is needed).
Simon’s breakdown goes some way to explaining things, but on race-watching, well, it was just a very strange Gold Cup.
Ginger, if the ground was good, why was the time comparatively poor, yet BW was taken off his feet early
The time was "comparitively poor" Joe because (as Simon said) the pace slowed mid-race. "Comparitively poor" compared to what the Cheltenham Gold Cup would normally be run at on
Good
Ground. (that’s what I think is meant)
Was BW "taken off his feet early"? Who says so?
I didn’t see it that way.
Just didn’t jump as well as he can. BG wasn’t pushingearly
like he was when outpaced down the hill in the previous soft ground Gold Cup.
Will come back to you on the other points you make Joe.
Value Is EverythingThe question is not just why did Lord Windermere win?
It’s why did LW show improved form?
Why did On His Own show improved form?
Why did Bobs Worth and Silviniaco Conti run below form?If we do not try and answer those questions then we miss the opportunity of identifying when/if these things are going to happen again and how likely they are to happen again.
It is quite possible The Giant Bolster ran a bit below his best, could have won had he jumped better.
If a punter can come up with correct reasoning for a hard to fathom race Stilvi – then he/she has an advantage in runners subsequent races. A bigger advantage than had he/she worked out an easier race; as most would know the answers and therefore little value in subsequent races. imo.
I should know better in contradicting myself but just for the sake of a reply.
Firstly, quite obviously you cannot always find definitive answers as to why horses finished in a particular order whether it be a Gold Cup or a seller. Sometimes it is just better to move on.
Leaving aside the front three in the betting would anyone have been that surprised as to who filled the next three places? I doubt it. Lord Windermere might have improved for the better ground, return to Cheltenham and the stable hitting form just at the right time. On His Own might also have improved for the ground and course. The Giant Bolster has become something of a professional loser at this level so is it really that surprising he again found a couple of horses too good. Admirable he might be but he isn’t a win machine.
Last Instalment was never really travelling. Was it the ground? Was it the course? Was he feeling his injury? Who knows? It doesn’t really matter now as he has been retired.
At first glance neither Bobs Worth or Silviniaco Conti have run to their best form but are two runs in a season really enough evidence to determine whether a horse is capable of reproducing his best on the big day? Bobs Worth had already run one shocker on his seasonal debut. Perhaps too much was made of the perfect Cheltenham record and his Gold Cup win last year maybe wasn’t quite what it first looked with the second virtually walking over line. It is not inconceivable that around Cheltenham on good ground fourth place is just about the limit of Silviniaco Conti’s ability.
Whether they spend five minutes or five days analysing the race surely no serious punter is going to be rushing to back Bobs Worth or Silviniaco Conti for a Gold Cup?
Probably one of the most confusing big races ever. I think lw might run a big race at either aintree or punchestown but dont think oho or tgb will be near the front.Why bobsworth and sc didnt run up to their rating is anybodys guess but it makes it a fascinating prospect when they all meet again. Its likely to be decent ground at aintree but then much softer at punchestown so i wouldnt expect to see any consistent form if any horse runs at both those venues. No wonder the bookies coin it in.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.