2018 Gold Cuppin'

Desert Orchid said:
It's not indisputable. Cue Card is arguably the best horse from yesterday's field.
Click to expand...

Things are rarely indisputable, DO, but it is not really arguable that Cue Card was the best horse in the race yesterday. Only your narrow interpretation of how the race played-out attempts to suggest it....and yet he was still beaten readily. Your theory holds no water, imo.
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
I didn’t see a single thing wrong with WP’s jumping myself, TheBear. He is low and fast and doesn’t leave much margin for error, but he jumped them absolutely fine yesterday, on my viewing (and he was the only horse in the race I was watching).
Click to expand...

I’ve watched it again. It’s the early fences where he jumps them a bit big that concerned me, but yes he soon gets into a nice rhythm. I’m being influenced by a previous bad experience which shouldn’t really be a factor, although I am genuinely concerned about the ground. Until now they’ve campaigned this horse specifically to avoid either ends of the season but their hand is forced now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Grasshopper said:
That's a different question. We're talking about a single, specific result here.
Click to expand...

Not really. We're talking about race-reading.

First things first, I'm not for a second trying to imply that I am a better race-reader than anyone else on this forum. Then again, I don't always agree with others' reading of a race. That's what this forum should be about anyway, surely.

I only looked at the times yesterday evening to see if they went anyway to confirming what the naked eye was telling me. I'd said en route I reserved the right to change my mind.

To be honest, I half-expected to have to change my mind, swallow a little pride, suck it up and take the flak, etc

So I was, I suppose I have to admit, gratified that the study of times - as primitive as it may have been - appear to confirm what I first said, namely that they went too fast in the race, that Cue Card didn't get an efficient ride and WP did.

I stand by my opinion that Cue Card would have won had Brennan employed less aggressive tactics but he maybe felt he could win by taking the field out of its comfort zone. Maybe he felt CC's stamina would make that possible. Let's face it, he was very nearly right. CC beat everything else a fair bit.

WP got the best tactical ride [in that race] on the day. He may well improve past CC should they meet again but that's irrelevant in the context of yesterday's race. WP might well be a one-dimensional hold-up horse who won't get near the lead against top-class opposition who don't overdo the pace through the race. Only time will tell.

But I do genuinely believe yesterday WP won because of the way the race played out.
 
Last edited:
The winning time yesterday was bang on the same as last years renewal (which CC won). If you factor in that it was worse ground yesterday then you’ve got to say that’s about as good as Cue Card is. He may have been a length closer had WP not taken his ground after the last.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Desert Orchid said:
Not really. We're talking about race-reading.

First things first, I'm not for a second trying to imply that I am a better race-reader than anyone else on this forum. Then again, I don't always agree with others' reading of a race. That's what this forum should be about anyway, surely.

I only looked at the times yesterday evening to see if they went anyway to confirming what the naked eye was telling me. I'd said en route I reserved the right to change my mind.

To be honest, I half-expected to have to change my mind, swallow a little pride, suck it up and take the flak, etc

So I was, I suppose I have to admit, gratified that the study of times - as primitive as it may have been - appear to confirm what I first said, namely that they went too fast in the race, that Cue Card didn't get an efficient ride and WP did.

I stand by my opinion that Cue Card would have won had Brennan employed less aggressive tactics but he maybe felt he could win by taking the field out of its comfort zone. Maybe he felt CC's stamina would make that possible. Let's face it, he was very nearly right. CC beat everything else a fair bit.

WP got the best tactical ride [in that race] on the day. He may well improve past CC should they meet again but that's irrelevant in the context of yesterday's race. WP might well be a one-dimensional hold-up horse who won't get near the lead against top-class opposition who don't overdo the pace through the race. Only time will tell.

But I do genuinely believe yesterday WP won because of the way the race played out.
Click to expand...


It is a different thing.

I questioned your reading of this particular race, and you applied that to all races. It's there in black-and-white if you wish to re-read it.

I'm not looking to change your opinion - even if it is based on self-accepted 'primitive' use of the times. I'm only here to express my opinion, and it's my opinion that you are wrong in this particular instance.

There is no more dispute beyond that.
 
It's not different at all, GH.

It's about race-reading.

The principles of how a race unfolds crosses all racing. Yesterday's race was just one example of it.
 
DO, I questioned your reading of the Ascot Chase alone, and you responded as follows:

"So we should take all results at face value?"

Note your use of the word "all" (my emphasis), which self-evidently refers to a much-wider spectrum of races than just yesterday's Ascot Chase - which is the only race where I have challenged your view.

It therefore is different, and your obstinacy about this, does not change that fact.

Please accept this and move on.
 
Last edited:
TheBear said:
I’ve watched it again. It’s the early fences where he jumps them a bit big that concerned me, but yes he soon gets into a nice rhythm. I’m being influenced by a previous bad experience which shouldn’t really be a factor, although I am genuinely concerned about the ground. Until now they’ve campaigned this horse specifically to avoid either ends of the season but their hand is forced now.


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

Ground worries more legit than jumping ones, I reckon, TheBear..........though they often go hand-in-hand.
 
I can't accept your argument so why should I just move on.

To say that I should look at yesterday's result in isolation - regarding what the best horse in the race was - is a misdirection.

That's like saying I should accept that Dancing Brave wasn't the best horse in his Derby.

Nearly every week there's a comment somewhere on this forum about how a horse could/should have won a race but was beaten by the jockey/tactics.

"Tried to come from too far back there."

"Went too soon, should have won."

Yesterday's race was no different. My remarks about the race were in the context of general race-reading.

We shall have to agree to differ.

Can we do that?
 
DO, I am not disputing your right to call a race as you see it.

You are looking under the wrong rock.

I questioned your reading of the Ascot Chase alone, and you appear to have interpreted that as me as either a) telling you to accept every race result at face-value, or b) that you're incapable of reading a race...........in which case you are wrong on both counts.

As I said several posts back, there is a divergence on how we read the Ascot Chase - nothing more than that - and I have no idea why you continue to push the suggestion that there is a bigger issue here.


To get back to the Gold Cup, and more specifically the Gold Cup market.

Does anyone here bet with 188? I have a vague recollection that they are a bit moody/useless/crooked, from previous posts?

Reason I ask is that some of their book-management decisions look positively bizarre today. They have pushed the price on Might Bite, Our Duke and Edwulf (who have all won their preps), but shortened Blaklion and Valsuer Lido (who were both humped in their preps). WTF are they all about?
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
As I said several posts back, there is a divergence on how we read the Ascot Chase - nothing more than that - and I have no idea why you continue to push the suggestion that there is a bigger issue here.
Click to expand...

There was more to it than that. You dismissed my opinion as plain wrong. By extension you put yourself forward as being right.

I researched evidence to support my opinion.

You offered no evidence to support yours other than the bare result.

I'll say no more.
 
Grasshopper said:
To get back to the Gold Cup, and more specifically the Gold Cup market.

Does anyone here bet with 188? I have a vague recollection that they are a bit moody/useless/crooked, from previous posts?
Click to expand...

They are a bunch of ******* cowboys. I took money off them last festival after signing up. I had to chase them for the promotional bonus and the withdrawal method was more convoluted than an episode of Lost.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Desert Orchid said:
There was more to it than that. You dismissed my opinion as plain wrong. By extension you put yourself forward as being right.

I researched evidence to support my opinion.

You offered no evidence to support yours other than the bare result.

I'll say no more.
Click to expand...

I find posts like this exasperating.

You have your opinion, and I have mine, and we both think we are right - otherwise what's the point in expressing an opinion?

Your research is what I questioned, and contrary to your most recent assertion, I did offer "evidence" (if that's the right word) to back-up my scepticism; namely that 2m5f is CC's minimum trip these days, Brennan was right to go hard from the off because of it, and that the jockey gave CC the best possible chance of winning the race.....and in my view, the result actually bears this out, rather than contradicts it.

Beyond that, I don't really need to provide any additional evidence that Waiting Patiently was the best horse in the race, because he actually won the fu*cking thing!

It is you who is suggesting something 'controversial' here - not me - and the onus is therefore on you to provide evidence which backs-up your 'controversial' assertion. However, given it is 'controversial', you should reasonably expect it to be challenged/dissected by others, to determine if it has merit.

I have come to the conclusion that it does not, for the reasons I have given above; to wit, CC was given a ride that saw him to best effect, which is contrary to the main thrust of your argument.

As I will say again - for the third time and last time - there is no more to this argument than a simple difference of opinion, regardless of what you might think.
 
Last edited:
I basically have The Biter and The Dook against the field.

I'm quite happy with that jockey-booking, to be honest....though obviously contingent on Sizing John making the race.
 
Of the 79 runners who have run in the last 20 CGCs having run on Heavy ground on their previous outing, none have won. Have to rule out Our Duke on that basis although I suppose the trend will be broken one day.

Just not this year :whistle:
 
"Waiting Patiently’s odds for next month’s Ryanair Chase were halved from 8-1 but Jefferson’s pragmatism showed in her resistance to the idea of going there with a horse thought to need soft ground and time between his races. “There’s plenty other races bar Cheltenham. Everyone else is obsessed, except us. We’re not that fussed.” Surely the most important target for him will be the King George on Boxing Day."" Ruth Jefferson - article on Guardian website
 
Back
Top