2016 Gold Cuppin

I don't think you have wasted your time at all, EC1....though I do remain sceptical. :)

You have drawn very-strong conclusions about the race, based on the ground, which is fair enough. I guess my question - and this might really encapsulate my concerns about times in Jumps races - is as follows:

Time is a very specific and precise measurement, but Ground/Going is not. Indeed, your own criteria for Ground/Going is on a sliding, rather than a fixed, scale. On this basis, can you be entirely confident about the times of the recent King George, and how they compare in a historical context, given not all measurements of 'Good to Soft' (the given Ground at Kempton for the King George) are necessarily the same?

Isn't there always going to be at least some degree of variance, even on Ground which is advertised as the same?
 
Last edited:
thats why i purposely put up a comparison that was run on officially slower ground as well...but when compling the figures you can glean the going to the nearest couple of lengths. But i did do a comparison with a KG on slower ground as well...which should have favoured CC..it didn't

as far as actually calculating the ground re every racetime on each day..without recourse to the official one..i'm confident that i can compare very similar ground with confidence based on going allowances

but if you read back..i did put in a slower ground comparison
 
Last edited:
long run was other one on slower ground

Right..another comparison

When Long Run won..the ground was officially G/S soft places..same as other two years....no going stick reading..but on my calcs it was a little bit slower than either SC's year or Cue Cards. We not talking much though..2 lengths per mile at most..but the important bit is..it was fractionally slower
[TABLE="class: cms_table"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]...........................[/TD]
[TD]F1-F7[/TD]
[TD]F7-F13[/TD]
[TD]F13-FIN[/TD]
[TD]Total[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]

[TABLE="class: cms_table"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD]2014[/TD]
[TD]Silviano Conti[/TD]
[TD]118.00[/TD]
[TD]130.60[/TD]
[TD]96.00[/TD]
[TD]344.60[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2015[/TD]
[TD]Cue Card[/TD]
[TD]119.40[/TD]
[TD]129.63[/TD]
[TD]98.20[/TD]
[TD]347.23[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2010[/TD]
[TD]Long Run[/TD]
[TD]120.71[/TD]
[TD]129.40[/TD]
[TD]94.40[/TD]
[TD]344.51[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]


Long Runs race was in the ground..again a decently run race..most KG's are from my data...finishing % was 98.7%..it was very decently run..up to F13 it was a sceond slower than Cue Cards..which is fair given slightly fractionally slower ground. As a pace scenario..all these races are really similar up to F13.

The crucial point again is..even though Long Run has used similar petrol to Cue Card at F13..on slightly slower ground..he has run from fence 13 to finish.....nearly 4.0 seconds faster than CC..thats 20 lengths

It can be said that of the 3 races Long Run ran slower to fence 7..some of that is slower ground...but his run from F7 to F13 was faster than the other two....and by the time they get to F13 he is just 5 lengths slower than CC..the ground accounting for some of that difference. But from F13 to finish..he has beaten CC by 20 lengths...on slower ground

What those 3 race figures show me..is that two of the winners stay very well..Long Run especially so...but that CC does not stay as well as either of them by some way.
 
Gold Cuppin

EC1 said:
thats why i purposely put up a comparison that was run on officially slower ground as well...but when compling the figures you can glean the going to the nearest couple of lengths. But i did do a comparison with a KG on slower ground as well...which should have favoured CC..it didn't

as far as actually calculating the ground re every racetime on each day..without recourse to the official one..i'm confident that i can compare very similar ground with confidence based on going allowances

but if you read back..i did put in a slower ground comparison
Click to expand...



EC, just out of curiosity when you compared previous years in King Georges did you allow for the fact, on Timeforms reckoning, that the start was moved forward (by around 66 yards) as a result of remeasurement before this year’s race? Wouldn't that make it an even slower finish if they had 66 yards less to race than in previous years?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Kauto Abu said:
EC, just out of curiosity when you compared previous years in King Georges did you allow for the fact, on Timeforms reckoning, that the start was moved forward (by around 66 yards) as a result of remeasurement before this year’s race? Wouldn't that make it an even slower finish if they had 66 yards less to race than in previous years!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

i didn't need to allow for them in the compariosn as i time from the first fence KA...if i timed from start it would be a slight negative for CC yes.

I've actually tried to favour CC re the comparison with a slower ground KG..re Long Run..and even then although using similar mid petrol..Long Run put in a 20 length better finish than CC..even on slightly slower ground..the comparison re SC is on very similar ground that i am confident about as well. Long Run just confirms the SC comparison with spades..imo

Its all about whether you believe in the figures or not..i personally do..others will not thing they are relevant.

One thing that is for certain..if anyone wants to run the videos side by side [from first fence] of those 3 KG's..and the ground difference favours CC v LR..and is near on same as SC....your eyes will pop out when you see how slow this years finish is compared to two other similar early+ mid petrol races. Watch how far both winners beat CC.
 
Last edited:
Gold Cuppin

Euronymous said:
Don Poli.
Click to expand...

Yes I must say I backed CC to win the KG and Immediately after the race put some of the winnings on him for the GC, I think €30 at 7/1. Over the next few day reading the sectional reports from Timeform & EC's excellent analysis I regretted it and after weighing up the other market principles I started to back Don Poli accordingly since. I really think the trip & course is made for him and as the old saying goes when the going gets tough the tough get going. I really love the notions that he'll be taken off his feet and needs it like a bog too, it makes me laugh.

Himself and Vautour are 100% at the course but I really have Vautour as a non stayer over the GC trip so for me Don Poli will be the 2016 GC winner.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Frankel said:
In agreement about how it would have played out. Is though about opinions and some may see it differently.

You will always have an immediate view after a race. Though clearly makes sense to watch back to draw a firm conclusion. Watching back can alter ones view at times, I certainly have at times.
Click to expand...

It's usually politic to form a view before the race, too :). Mine was that - on a number of previous occasions - DC had shown unlikely to have the speed to win a KG, and nothing I saw in the race served to modify that view. For the very same reason, I also doubt he'll have the speed to win a CGC on anything faster than proper soft ground.
 
i'd be struggling to see how a horse that has recently won at 20f..layed up with a KG field....won over 24f..won at 23f..won over 25f..won over 20f..will struggle to have "speed" to win a 3m2.5f race

he looks a perfect candidate..a mix of speed stamina required to win the GC..i don't see he lacks for the GC in any area tbh.
 
EC1 three sectionals with intervals of roughly 2 minutes seems very broad to make direct comparisons. we can't see anything about how the race was run in the intermittent period, was it consistent pace or a stop start. Was it a slow pace for F 7,8,9 and then speed up for F10,11,12 or consistently the same for F 7-13 for example. the differences in between are important because different styles of races will affect a horses energy and rhythm in different ways.
How do you take account of these issues or do you not find them relevant?
 
treaty said:
EC1 three sectionals with intervals of roughly 2 minutes seems very broad to make direct comparisons. we can't see anything about how the race was run in the intermittent period, was it consistent pace or a stop start. Was it a slow pace for F 7,8,9 and then speed up for F10,11,12 or consistently the same for F 7-13 for example. the differences in between are important because different styles of races will affect a horses energy and rhythm in different ways.
How do you take account of these issues or do you not find them relevant?
Click to expand...

I only posted them like that for ease of visual..i time them initially from fence to fence..but to make sense of it split them into 6 splits usually. For instance..CC v SC is

Silviano Conti59.2058.8071.7058.9058.2037.80344.60
Cue Card59.9559.4070.4359.2058.9539.26347.19

<tbody>
[TD="width: 66"] F1 – F4 [/TD]
[TD="width: 66"] F4 – F7 [/TD]
[TD="width: 66"] F7 – F10 [/TD]
[TD="width: 66"] F10 – F13 [/TD]
[TD="width: 66"] F13 – F16 [/TD]
[TD="width: 66"] F16 – FIN [/TD]
[TD="width: 11"][/TD]
[TD="width: 86"] Total [/TD]

</tbody>

there aren't great slow and stop variations over the twigs in decently run efforts..hosses get into a rythmn and in a race like the KG where they usually go a fair gallop you don't get great variation. Its swings and roundabouts..one race is a little faster or slower in different parts

as in above example..
SC is about 4 lengths quicker f1-f4..
3 lengths quicker f4-f7.
so has gone 7 lengths faster than CC to F7...
f7-f10 CC goes faster by 7 lengths...
so at that point both are using similar petrol overall...
f10-f13 SC goes 1.5 lengths faster...
f13=f16 SC goes 3.5 lengths faster.

so by fence 16..SC has used more petrol..about 5 lengths more after they balanced up at fence 10..then kills CC off by running from f16-fin faster by about 7/8 lengths..after already using more petrol before f16

you can't measure and try to make sense of every inch of the race..but you have a damn sight more insight than most folk by splitting races up like this

you won't get any race having exactly the same pace for every inch..but with 6 splits you can see what has happened...and i can tell you by looking at other KG's..and even handicaps and felthams..that is a slow finish by CC off a pace where he should have been running probably 10 lengths minimum faster from 2 out to even remotely suggest he is as good a stayer at 3 miles as other KG winners

those are only KG winners...then add in they go 2.5m further up hill at the finish at Cheltenham...think about Long Run..who showed himself on the figures to run 20 lengths faster than CC from 2 out in a KG..thats the sort of staying performance you need to display in a KG to get such as the GC stretch out test.
 
Last edited:
Grey said:
I'm starting to think we've all being overlooking the obvious, which is that Cue Card has already won the two most important chases in England this year on merit. The best of the Irish chasers went to Kempton this season rather than stay at home and he narrowly got the better of them. I don't see why he can't do the same in the Gold Cup. He's the highest achieving and least complicated horse in the field and I agree with his trainer that he prefers Cheltenham to Kempton. I'm not overly concerned about the extra distance of the Gold Cup, if anything he found the King George trip a bit sharp and only just got up in time.
Click to expand...

totally agree. Exactly how is see it.

his excellent jockey has got a much more relaxed tune out of him too
 
I just can't understand why some can't see that dc fell with a very tired jump. It wasn't a fault or clipping the top. He just didn't get over it. That means one thing and one thing only. He was tired. More so than those that did jump. And he would not have picked up.

it was hardly surprising given the way he had travelled throughout the race.
 
Last edited:
reet hard said:
It's usually politic to form a view before the race, too :). Mine was that - on a number of previous occasions - DC had shown unlikely to have the speed to win a KG, and nothing I saw in the race served to modify that view. For the very same reason, I also doubt he'll have the speed to win a CGC on anything faster than proper soft ground.
Click to expand...

No sh1t sherlock :D

Can't agree with the reasons about the Gold Cup.

So who wins?
 
clivex said:
I just can't understand why some can't see that dc fell with a very tired jump. It wasn't a fault or clipping the top. He just didn't get over it. That means one thing and one thing only. He was tired. More so than those that did jump. And he would not have picked up.

it was hardly surprising given the way he had travelled throughout the race.
Click to expand...

Was he any less tired than CC who he had just reeled in?

He had more left than some think. Well certainly more than CC and V who was reeled in by CC.
There is a good angle from side on which convinces me he had a bit more left to give.
 
EC1 said:
I only posted them like that for ease of visual..i time them initially from fence to fence..but to make sense of it split them into 6 splits usually. For instance..CC v SC is

F1 – F4
Silviano Conti59.2058.8071.7058.9058.2037.80344.60
Cue Card59.9559.4070.4359.2058.9539.26347.19

<tbody>
[TD="width: 66"] F4 – F7 [/TD]
[TD="width: 66"] F7 – F10 [/TD]
[TD="width: 66"] F10 – F13 [/TD]
[TD="width: 66"] F13 – F16 [/TD]
[TD="width: 66"] F16 – FIN [/TD]
[TD="width: 11"][/TD]
[TD="width: 86"] Total [/TD]

</tbody>

there aren't great slow and stop variations over the twigs in decently run efforts..hosses get into a rythmn and in a race like the KG where they usually go a fair gallop you don't get great variation. Its swings and roundabouts..one race is a little faster or slower in different parts

as in above example..
SC is about 4 lengths quicker f1-f4..
3 lengths quicker f4-f7.
so has gone 7 lengths faster than CC to F7...
f7-f10 CC goes faster by 7 lengths...
so at that point both are using similar petrol overall...
f10-f13 SC goes 1.5 lengths faster...
f13=f16 SC goes 3.5 lengths faster.

so by fence 16..SC has used more petrol..about 5 lengths more after they balanced up at fence 10..then kills CC off by running from f16-fin faster by about 7/8 lengths..after already using more petrol before f16

you can't measure and try to make sense of every inch of the race..but you have a damn sight more insight than most folk by splitting races up like this

you won't get any race having exactly the same pace for every inch..but with 6 splits you can see what has happened...and i can tell you by looking at other KG's..and even handicaps and felthams..that is a slow finish by CC off a pace where he should have been running probably 10 lengths minimum faster from 2 out to even remotely suggest he is as good a stayer at 3 miles as other KG winners

those are only KG winners...then add in they go 2.5m further up hill at the finish at Cheltenham...think about Long Run..who showed himself on the figures to run 20 lengths faster than CC from 2 out in a KG..thats the sort of staying performance you need to display in a KG to get such as the GC stretch out test.
Click to expand...

20 lengths faster from two out? From same position you mean?

I find that very hard to believe. I'm sure That is about the distance from the last fence to the finish line. As well as about the distance between the last two

No
 
reet hard said:
It's usually politic to form a view before the race, too :). Mine was that - on a number of previous occasions - DC had shown unlikely to have the speed to win a KG, and nothing I saw in the race served to modify that view. For the very same reason, I also doubt he'll have the speed to win a CGC on anything faster than proper soft ground.
Click to expand...

Having hammered Cue Card,Djackadam and Roi du mee, 26 lengths 7lengths and 12lengths on the surface at 3 different distances is a fair indication to me, he's got speed, he has stamina and doesn't mind good ground at all.
 
Frankel said:
Was he any less tired than CC who he had just reeled in?

He had more left than some think. Well certainly more than CC and V who was reeled in by CC.
There is a good angle from side on which convinces me he had a bit more left to give.
Click to expand...

yes. When they can't get over a fence through sheer tiredness then my view is they will blow up. We've seen plenty that have just struggled over the top and then that's it. Cc and v jumped
 
should have been 3 out Clive..not 2 out...typo...or error due to age/....heading on data says fence 16 ..apologies for the error
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
long run was other one on slower ground

Right..another comparison

When Long Run won..the ground was officially G/S soft places..same as other two years....no going stick reading..but on my calcs it was a little bit slower than either SC's year or Cue Cards. We not talking much though..2 lengths per mile at most..but the important bit is..it was fractionally slower
[TABLE="class: cms_table"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]...........................[/TD]
[TD]F1-F7[/TD]
[TD]F7-F13[/TD]
[TD]F13-FIN[/TD]
[TD]Total[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]

[TABLE="class: cms_table"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD]2014[/TD]
[TD]Silviano Conti[/TD]
[TD]118.00[/TD]
[TD]130.60[/TD]
[TD]96.00[/TD]
[TD]344.60[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2015[/TD]
[TD]Cue Card[/TD]
[TD]119.40[/TD]
[TD]129.63[/TD]
[TD]98.20[/TD]
[TD]347.23[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2010[/TD]
[TD]Long Run[/TD]
[TD]120.71[/TD]
[TD]129.40[/TD]
[TD]94.40[/TD]
[TD]344.51[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]


Long Runs race was in the ground..again a decently run race..most KG's are from my data...finishing % was 98.7%..it was very decently run..up to F13 it was a sceond slower than Cue Cards..which is fair given slightly fractionally slower ground. As a pace scenario..all these races are really similar up to F13.

The crucial point again is..even though Long Run has used similar petrol to Cue Card at F13..on slightly slower ground..he has run from fence 13 to finish.....nearly 4.0 seconds faster than CC..thats 20 lengths

It can be said that of the 3 races Long Run ran slower to fence 7..some of that is slower ground...but his run from F7 to F13 was faster than the other two....and by the time they get to F13 he is just 5 lengths slower than CC..the ground accounting for some of that difference. But from F13 to finish..he has beaten CC by 20 lengths...on slower ground

What those 3 race figures show me..is that two of the winners stay very well..Long Run especially so...but that CC does not stay as well as either of them by some way.
Click to expand...


I don't really have an answer, EC1, other than to say that those other measurements you have taken, are also based on a sliding scale of 'slow ground' too, aren't they?

Here's the rub for me.

It's a truism that times are very precise measurements - yet they are based on something (Ground), which is a very imprecise.

Whilst I acknowledge that Centurions like yourself apply further logic to make sense of the bare numbers, I - personally - could only ever consider 'Time' as one amongst many factors, which come into play when assessing a race.

Whilst I have nothing but the utmost respect for you and your analaysis, I do wonder whether placing absolute faith in the time-analysis alone - as you have done with your assessment of CC and the Vulture - does perhaps mean that other influential, but admittedly less (at face value) precise factors, are being ignored.....or given less weight than is due.
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
One thing that is for certain..if anyone wants to run the videos side by side [from first fence] of those 3 KG's..and the ground difference favours CC v LR..and is near on same as SC....your eyes will pop out when you see how slow this years finish is compared to two other similar early+ mid petrol races. Watch how far both winners beat CC.
Click to expand...


Couldn't find Long Runs 2010 win on softer ground EC but did a split screen comparison there of Silvinaco Conti's 2014 win & Cue Cards this year. For anyone still wondering what they'll back in this years GC I'd strongly recommend trying this method, it might help you make up your mind.

On very similar ground (slightly better in 2015 if anything) it's clear to see SC has used a lot more petrol but still finished way faster than Vautour & Cue Card. When you consider what the hill done to conti and add in the extra two and a half furlongs off of a faster GC pace there's no way in hell surely that either CC or Vautour can win the GC?!

Another alarming fact for me would be that Dynaste & Champagne Fever actually finished ahead of where Vautour & CC did having followed SC around, both having also used more petrol throughout so it puts this years renewal in perspective.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
clivex said:
yes. When they can't get over a fence through sheer tiredness then my view is they will blow up. We've seen plenty that have just struggled over the top and then that's it. Cc and v jumped
Click to expand...

Doesn't stack up.
But yes CC and V jumped them all which is the name of the game.
 
fair comment Grass..its a pretty easy course to rate though..all 3 years are so close in ground loss..in fact they favour CC if anything. re Long Run year. I have them rated to nearest length though..not using the broad scale we discussed..when i say close ..i don't mean between two figures as per the scale..they to nearest length when i do comparisons like this

SC year = 12 lengths slow per mile
LR = 14 lengths slow per mile
CC = 12 lengths slow per mile

thats how close they are

good stuff KA..like i say..if the figures don't interest..then anyone can do what you have done...Long Runs is available on RUK site or sporting life one..that was is even more eye popping than SC's

the going really does favour CC if anything..all 3 are within 1 length per mile of each other in track speed...virtually insignifcant..but slightly against LR..and he still buries CC

i'd recommend anyone to do the side by side video look..its a very simple exercise that is more telling than figures
 
Last edited:
Back
Top