Cheltenham Gold Cup 2015

Tanlic said:
I have pointed this out before and I have researched it. Cheltenham start this year earlier than it has for long time.

The 9th of March and over the last 5 years races that took place on that date were run on heavy, Soft and Good to Soft with very few courses racing on good ground.
Click to expand...
Two or three errors there. Firstly, the meeting starts on March 10th which means that the Gold Cup will be on the 13th. For the last 12 Gold Cups, the going has been Soft once (Bobs Worth), GS three times and Good eight times. In that period the Gold Cup was on March 13th twice with good ground in 2003 and GS in 2009 (ie the last time the meeting started on the 10th). Last year the race was on the 14th and it was good ground. Best sack your researcher. :whistle:
 
Desert Orchid said:
I've just watched the recording of today's race for the first time.

Anyone who questioned his jumping today watched different race from the one I saw.

He was deliberate at the first but although he was a little off-centre at a couple of others he never touched a twig at any fence at all. It was a far better round of jumping than I'd expected.

He also added five lengths to his lead from the last fence to the line despite being eased.

I'd say that was extremely satisfactory.
Click to expand...

To be kind you would call it novicey...
He's ran against trees today and had all the time in the owrld to make decent leaps. You wouldnt want him jumping like that at pace.

(A couple of others?) He was bent out of shape over at least 5...
 
Digger said:
To be kind you would call it novicey...
He's ran against trees today and had all the time in the owrld to make decent leaps. You wouldnt want him jumping like that at pace.

(A couple of others?) He was bent out of shape over at least 5...
Click to expand...

similar view really..its not that he made really bad mistakes,,its just he doesn't look a natural jumper..novicey definately..and he didn't have any distraction of other horses around him today..the GC is a scrum at every fence.

i think the question is..would you back a novice in the GC?

If you look at Coneygree..people think he's a good jumper..but are wary of backing him in a GC because he is a novice..and he jumps better than Holywell
 
he jumps like one though..even after ten runs over fences..and will face the stiffest test of jumping he has ever faced in a GC...not for me when there are reliable jumpers proven at the highest level in the same race
 
I take your point, EC - and I am biased as he is in my TTF both here and another compo - but he does tick a lot of other boxes: progressive; from JJO's stable; runs well at Cheltenham; McCoy riding, obviously; etc.
 
I have, honest. My comment was meant tongue-in-cheek, which is why I used the word "obviously" ironically. Oh, sod it, I'll throw in one of these:

:)
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
Like I say, if he jumps like that in a Gold Cup, he will need to be a half-stone better than the rest, because he will lose ground at every fence.

AP said he jumped well, but it was in the context of a race where Holywell was able to dictate matters entirely, and where he was so far ahead in class terms, the opposition were never going to be able to put the gun to his head. It will be entirely different in the Gold Cup.
Click to expand...

I disagree. If he jumps every fence like he jumped the first yesterday he has no chance but he was fine at the rest. He was the one taking half a length off the others at most of the fences yesterday. As I mentioned before, he made plenty of mistakes in his win last year.

Grasshopper said:
AP said he jumped well, but it was in the context of a race where Holywell was able to dictate matters entirely, and where he was so far ahead in class terms, the opposition were never going to be able to put the gun to his head. It will be entirely different in the Gold Cup.
Click to expand...

You're putting words into AP's mouth. He didn't contextualise that remark. He simply said the horse jumped well. Or are you just contextualising things for him? That's very kind of you. If you think that's patronising, how about:




Grasshopper said:
You're not an idiot, DO - you know this to be the case, and I shouldn't need to point it out to you.
Click to expand...




Grasshopper said:
I say all this as someone who has backed Holywell for the Gold Cup, and who hasn't written his bet off. But he will need to be much slicker at Cheltenham, if I am going to collect - that much is clear to me, and it should be clear to anyone who has seen yesterday's race.

As for the value of the form, the other three were in a race of their own, and I wouldn't put too much stock in the lbs-per-length margin of victory.......though equally, it doesn't hurt to have hammered them out of sight, without coming out of a canter, and AP gave him a particularly good ride, in terms of getting him match-fit for Cheltenham.

There's reasons to be hopeful, but room for improvement.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure he needs to be that much slicker. I reckon he can jump as he did yesterday - the same as at Aintree - and be fine. I have no doubt he will improve a good bit in terms of his race readiness. Jonjo will not have had him fit for his life yesterday. He will next month.

I'm not worried about a big field either. He demolished a big enough field in both the Pertemps and last year. AP said he likes to be ridden positively. Maybe that's why he's so good at the festival. They usually go a good pace and he doesn't need heavy restraining. The Gold Cup will be all the more so.

Yesterday's face-value collateral form? They seemed only to go a moderate pace for the first circuit, which probably accounted for the slow overall time. The others did run their own race for the minor honours and that aspect of the form can probably be taken at face value. However, it isn't as if Holywell took them out of their comfort zone. They let him do his own thing at his own pace while they did their own. That's why I'm more inclined to view his superiority positively. He was clearly a lot more superior than the winning margin. Had AP just allowed him to stay a couple of lengths in front of the others and win by ten lengths, nobody would be saying we should take the winning distance at face value. If the others had tried to go at his pace on the second circuit they'd have been beaten sooner and would have been beaten much further. This isn't to say the collateral form should be taken literally but I think it is reason not to be negative about it.

I'm happy with my ante-post bet on the horse. Do I think he'll win? I don't know. I think he has a very good chance but I was saying yesterday to my brother when we were discussing the race that it's almost satisfying enough to have struck the bet so early (20th March), before anyone else latched on to it.

I'm genuinely keen on the chances of Lord Windermere (which I haven't backed just yet) as I think he is a good 5-7lbs better than the bare form of last year and is entitled to have improved again and, like Holywell, will be primed for the day.

I'm not worried about Silviniaco Conti. He might be a good thing but he isn't on my figures anyway so he can win if he wants at the price. I won't bat an eyelid.

I'm more interested in Bobs Worth. Geraghty gave him another quiet mention on the ML the other day. He's giving the impression they think he really is back to his best. He's an interesting price but I haven't backed him yet either.
 
He did indeed make errors at last year's Festival, and still won his race. However, that was from a mark of 145, and in class terms, he meets horses around 20lbs better in the Gold Cup. If you think he can get away with the same kinds of errors in a much better race, then you have more faith than me. Again, I have backed him, but I take a more pessimistic view of his chances, principally because his jumping is not as fluent as I like to see in a Gold Cup horse, and I think you are underplaying this aspect.

I realise you have fancy prices about Holywell, and I would be delighted (for myself) if you land your bet - but it is clouding your judgement a touch, in my view.

This is an observation, not a criticism, so please keep your hair on.
 
Last edited:
Cmon DO he wasnt fine...he wasnt jumping and then bang on to next stride at many of the fences. Doing that in the GC will loose him lengths at fences...and that happened at at least 5 fences. He's a nice horse but surely you can see he has jumping issues.
 
Have only just watched the Kelso race. I think there's been a bit of an overreaction on here tbh. He's never been great at his obstacles but not unlike Long Run he never really looks like falling. His jumping yesterday was no better or worse than when he beat the mare at last years festival giving her half a stone.

Yes his fencing may cost him a few lengths but in an average renewal he still has a live chance imho
 
Digger said:
Cmon DO he wasnt fine...he wasnt jumping and then bang on to next stride at many of the fences. Doing that in the GC will loose him lengths at fences...and that happened at at least 5 fences. He's a nice horse but surely you can see he has jumping issues.
Click to expand...

Both AP and the RP race reader said his jumping was fine. AP said he "jumped well". AP is good at these feedback items. think back to his immediate post-race analysis of If In Doubt the other week. He went through its performance with a fine tooth comb, saying where and when it had gone well or not well. He tells it as it is for the most part. I'd err on the side of caution as far as the Gold Cup is concerned in the sense that he'd maybe want to underplay, if anything, how the horse ran.

Earlier you said he was murder at 75% of his fences. now you're saying it was 'at least 5'. Out of how many fences? He made more - and far worse - errors than that at Cheltenham last season.

I thought he had jumping issues last season. I didn't back him in that race at Cheltenham. In my post-race review I even mentioned that at one point I said to myself we could rule him out because he wasn't jumping well but he still came there strongly late on and the further they went the better he went.

Tom Segal wrote a piece a few weeks back saying he no longer set any store by horses' reputations for jumping. I suspect if Holywell jumps badly in the Gold Cup everyone will be on like a flash to say I told you so. If he jumps well they'll say he'd jumped well at Aintree too.

His jumping doesn't bother me now. I know he can jump well enough. If he doesn't on the day that's racing. He could jump perfectly well and still not win. That's racing too.

Can anyone name a Gold Cup winner who didn't get at least one fence wrong?
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
Denman
Click to expand...

2008:
led 12[SUP]th[/SUP] hit next, not fluent 4 out
Click to expand...

I've no intention of going through every re-run. I'll leave that up to those who wish to make a point but sometimes mistakes aren't reported.

I recall Best Mate, normally a fluent jumper, making mistakes, and he was up against handicappers.

My point is that the odd mistake will not stop a horse from winning the race. Sometimes several mistakes will not stop them. It depends on how the race pans out. Holywell could put in an exhibition round and might find one (or more) beating him.

I'm also trying to make the point that I don't have a hard-on for Holywell. I'm just saying I don't think his jumping will be the big issue others are making it out to be.
 
Last edited:
'Who would you rather be on for the Gold Cup. Carlingford Lough or Holywell?'

Holywell. I don't see beating Foxrock by 3/4 length as worth a 166 rating.
Compare the Cheltenham records of the two. CL was reported as making mistakes at the 1st, 3rd and 5th fences in the RSA and finished nearly 10 lengths down on the winner's time of 6m0.32s carrying 11-4 on good ground. The day before, carrying 11-6 on good to soft, Holywell won over the same CD in 6m1.80s.
 
All I've been trying to do is point out that his jumping hasn't been tested at Gold Cup level.....and that I'd have wanted to see more fluency about it, in a tin-pot race like the one he ran in yesterday.

Regardless - I hope we both collect.
 
Back
Top