Gold Cup 2009 (was: Denman)

Bregawn and The Dikler won having been placed previously in the race. In Bregawn's case, he was an improver. The Dikler was before my time but I'm guessing he improved, too.
 
Warbler said:
I'm afraid not, the figure that he's run with me is nothing too remarkable, 81.70 compred with Denman's 111.55 in the Gold Cup. I'd be more inclined to dismiss the 0-135 chase as being slowly run (I omitted it from the calculation of variance) rather than point to the 11.11 secs that the Aon was faster. I'm probably finding myself more impressed by something I saw a month or so back at Taunton that left no impression on me at all. Hohlelthelonely has put up an impressive time in a 0-115 hurdle race (91.60) which would normally be quite respectable, adjusted for weight this comes out at 83.41. A typical winner of a Supreme Novices runs about 100, which puts this one about 35L's behind. Tartak is the other one whose put in a notabel display but nothing burned the clock up today.

It was a feature of Denmans racing and indeed the fast times that he ran in winning his most impressive races (the SAC, the Henessey and the GC) that he simply went through the fractions furlong after furlong at a high crusing speed with dead straight accurate jumping, and simply destroyed the opposition. I don't thinktodays race was that fast, despite them finishing well strung out. I'm not suggesting it was slow either, I'd be more inclined to call it respectable.

You might like to try looking at the King George which was 30.29 secs faster than todays race. Now I made the track variance +3.13 on Boxing Day (good to firm) and given that 3 of the 6 winners on the card (Michael Flips +3.30, Harchibald +1.70 and Kauto Star +2.60) all beat standard I'd be happy that I'm not far off, given that they've done it with a bit to spare. This would also sugges that some of the horses in behind them will also have beaten standard too and so lends some weight to my suggestion of +3.13. Incidentally, Michael Flips (a novice hurdler carrying 11.8) beat Harchibald by 1.6 secs, suggesting that he's either very smart, or that the Christmas Hurdle wasn't terribly fast, yet still the front three beat standard comfortably. In any event it points to the ground being a lot quicker than declared, or the distances being shorter than advertised. I reckon today's going was -4.47 (Soft) so at a mile aggregate the ground was assisting Kauto Star by 7.60 secs over Madison du Burlais. Over 3 miles this would equate to 22.80 secs, which means the King George was about 7.50 secs faster (or 30L's in BHB language and 37.5L's in mine). You could extend this slightly by sticking the extra 4Ibs on his back which is something like 1L for every 0.75Ib at 3 miles, so that would be worth another 5.25L's for projections of 35.25L's and 42.75L's respectively. In the King George this would have been enough to finish close up to Air Force One who was 40L's behind Kauto Star in fifth. Madison beat Air Force One by 3L's in the Hennesey receiving 3Ibs, which woudl kind of confirm today's rating against Kauto through Air Force One. So a projection for his hypothetical King George run based on today's performance appears to be very close to where I have it I think.

Madison received 3Ibs in Hennesey which off levels would mean Air Force One would beat him by about 2L's. Air Force One lost by 40L's when meeting Kauto off levels, which means Madison would theoretically lose by 42L's were he in the same race once all the weights and going corrections had been factored in. If I use my figure of 42.75L's then I'd say he's pretty well replicated his Hennesey run on the clock. If I use the BHB scale of time for lengths etc then he's improved by 6.75L's from the Hennesey. Progressive? yes, but is he on schedule? No

I think the Best Mate era might have seduced us into thinking that defending Gold Cups was a reasonably straight forward task. It's easy to forget how rare it is, and I must admit to having been concerned from the very first moment that the Denman stories started. Mind you supporters of Kauto Star are having to defy an even more compelling stat regarding regaining one. I've had a feeling all year that we'll see a new name on the trophy and my long distance fancy was Neptunes Collonges until I convinced myself he's not relly a Cheltenham horse and appears better going the other way round.

I think Denman has a mountain to climb now, but fitness rather than anything else has to be a fair consideration. The thing i fear, and echo whats been said already, is that Denman won his races by setting and maintaining a searching gallop. If caution prevents them from doing this now, then there has to be a question mark over whether they can continue with him competitively.
Click to expand...

Warbler

I really favour looking at times over the jumps when two races appear over the same distance as we had yesterday...to me there is no issue then with other distances being changed..different goings on hurdle course etc..see where I am coming form?...we can totally rely on those two times yesterday. To me..mixing hurdles and chase times is totally flawed.

I made a particular point watching the 4.00 race and there is no doubt in my mind ...it was a truly run race...as well as the visual aspect another give away clue to a true run race...not too fast or slow...is that the winner and 2nd have come from both parts of the pace...which shows it was not an advantage to be on or off it.

My view based on that is that the handicap is a totally fair marker to work off. I'm amazed you think it was slow run...did you see the race?

I am not suggesting that Denman ran anywhere near his best...if he did then we have just seen another Arkle..yes?

The fact is that if Madison had beaten Denman by just a battling head...he would automatically have been 2nd fav for the GC...as it is..because most people believe that Denman has run 50lb below his best because he has been hammered here......the race is somehow no good.

I am hoping that most people will happily dismiss the race tbh and allow Madison drift out even further in the GC...he is a classic improving horse...but a lot of punters are more interested in why Denman didn't win to notice an emerging star...it's all good stuff int it? :cool:
 
Last edited:
I was more impressed with Tamarinbleu last year at Ascot than with MDB yesterday and we all know what happened afterwards



About MDB
31 chase races, only 9 wins,
well beaten in his all 5 races at Cheltenham

Won the Henessy in an OR 150

has posted in my figures
160 twice
158 once
157 twice


yesterday a provisional 164+

summing up, the 5/1 in some places is a joke
 
you underestimating him Suny imo

the thing about improving horses is...they suddenly start running well at tracks they haven't before...at class levels they haven't before..its what improvers do

Have you noticed how flexible he his compared with Denman?..none of this left handed requirements...he wins well both ways :p
 
If Madison has improved, for whatever reason? (cheekpieces etc) then I think it might well be dangerous to rely too much on his previous performances as a pointer, as the horse might need reassessing for performance patterns in light of the improvement and a new set of parameters drawing up based around when this improvement seems to have occurred onwards. I'd have no problem with that logic.

I'm still struggling to sustain the idea that the 0-135 chase was a quick pace though (no I didn't watch it, I was laughing at England trying to an impression of a rugby team). However, if you break the raw times down into mile aggregates the evidence wouldn't weigh on the side of your hypothesis.

Hohlelthelonely = -7.75
Tartak = -8.56
Madison du Berlais = -9.23
Pancake = -10.26
Pause & Clause = -12.02
Strawberry = -12.93
Bally Conn = -13.33

Now it's normally the case when split going is given that the hurdles course rides half or a full description slower than a chase course (although Kempton hasn't been without its well documented problems in this area to do with true distance). Indeed this appears tohave been the case yesterday with the chase course given as Good to Soft, soft in places and the Hurdles course as Soft, Good to Soft in places. The RP haven't given a hurdles going description out incidnetally, so I've had to use the Sporting Life. If anything though, you'd expect the chasers to be benefit, yet two of the hurdle races ,in what should have been weaker affairs than a 0-135 (one was a 0-115 handicap, and the other a novices race) also ran faster. My own going allowances (which would be coming under pressure admittedly for the smaller sample) work out thus;

Chase = -4.54
Hurdles = -4.32

In this case I wouldn't be too concerned about using times across the card to set a variance figure, (though obviously I do split them from time to time).

Now you could attribute the faster times than Strawberry to the respective class of the horses involved as otherwise you'd be comparing apples with pears. But surely this is why we use a class par? They may not be ideal, but they're better than anything else available to us, although I'm still not convinced they're as good for jumps as they are the flat. When I've given them the appropriate time back at the mile aggregate for the class of race then I get the following;

Hohlelthelonely = -1.15
Tartak = -1.36
Pancake = -3.06
Pause & Clause = -4.32
Madison du Berlais = -6.03
Bally Conn = -6.73
Strawberry = -7.33

It's this that would make me nervous about using the evidence put up by Strawberry as despite what you think you might have seen from the armchair, your eyes can easily decieve you. Indeed, there was some experiement done about gauging speed that involved jockeys being told to ride horses to a certain speed. What it proved is the jockeys weren't terribly good at knowing how fast they were going, and couldn't estimate pace to the extent they thougt they could (they eventually stopped co-operating with the experiement). I can't remember where I read it? but it sounds screwy enough to be soemthign Nick Mordin might have dredged up. What tended to happen is that jockeys took their indications from the signals the horse was sending out, rather than any ability they had with their eyes to estimate against visual reference points. If they can't do it therefore, what chance do we have watching from television (even though a lot of us would like to think we can). What I suspect we can do is reasonably accurately gague extremes of pace, but once we start hitting the middle area of a spread of speeds, we struggle to differentiate between 2 or 3 mph here or there, which is why we use stopwatches etc.

In fact it was mordin, because I remember him going on to implore us to drive a car at 35 miles an hour on an open piece of road with no other vehicles around for reference, and only look at the speedometer once we thought we'd achieved this speed. Then increase it 37 or 38 mph and do the same. He contended that most of us would be more experienced in terms of miles driven then jockeys would be at miles raced, and yet would struggle to gague the speed we were travelling at.

I don't know, I've never tried it:D

There might very well be a case for Madison, but at the moment I'd say it lies in things like stats, some formlines (although others contradict these) and the notion of an inform improver. I'm not sure the evidence is there on the clock yet though.
 
SteveM said:
No... that's how I saw it too, Denman was a shadow of himself (in fact I said as much). He undoubtedly needed the race though and will be better for it. He still has a lot to do in the next month, then again this is the best staying chaser I have seen for a great number of years.

It's difficult to rate MdB.While this will probably prove his best performance to date, it probably wasn't as good as it looked.
Click to expand...

-------------

MdB has been given an RPR of 176, some way clear of his previous best mark of 163 in the Hennessy and against an Official rating of 159 going into the race.
Denman was given a 160 against 185 for winning the Gold Cup and an OR of 182 going into the race. It should be noted that 160 is itself a respectable rating and as good as plenty of his earlier winning form.
It is a mark of how good this horse is that some are calling for his retirement already for running to 160. He’ll have to improve about 20lb on this to win the Gold Cup and clearly has an uphill task. But for a horse so clearly left short of work, blowing up a long way out I can see a stone or more improvement in him... I hope it’s enough.
There is no doubt that MdB is fast progressing at the right time, but my original impression stands that I believed it to be better than he had run before in his career but not as good as it looked.
 
I'm not happy about using different distances over the sticks though Warbler.

The reasons are many but mainly because distances are not consistent from meeting to meeting, they can vary from up to half a furlong..which means you could theoretically be 1 furlong out when comparing two races.

To me..over jumps I would always say that same distance comparisons are far more accurate than using all of them...as long as the marker race is assessed correctly..for one..you don't need any standard times...which have got to be very dubious at the best of times over the sticks.

I haven't just relied on my eyes with the 4.00..the fact that on and off pace horses were able to produce the finish tells me it didn't suit any style...which is good for pointing to a true pace.

The 4.00 was an easy one too assess pacewise..imo...and once that marker is in place you have a pretty good idea what MDB did.
 
Ardross said:
But Steve - he did a 2mile piece of work with NC and Ruby was apparently delighted.

He didn't look unfit today - he just didn't look the same horse
Click to expand...

I went through the videos of his races last year. He was very strong then. The trainer said they had built him up and worked it off last year. This year he started off quite lean and they have had nothing to work off. In such circumstance the horse would look his old self in a workout over two miles. A full-bloodied race is a different thing. They need to work him hard now and go straight for the Gold Cup. I can see improvement in him, but confess that I'm worried they have left it late. I'm hopeful rather than confident. But I am sure there is nothing wrong with him, simply short of work.
 
Last edited:
Your concern for his conditioning and comparisons to last year may be valid ones, certainly sensible, if not necessarily correct. My main problem with his performance, regardless of his conditioning or lack of it, was that at no point early in the race did Denman even take the slightest hold. At no stage did Ruby have to go "whoooaa", something which is so not the Denman we have seen in previous seasons, especially first time out when he is fresh and ought to be going yeehaa!

Thats what troubles me, as his tendency to take a hold and tank along was missing and that ought to have been there regardless of how short of work he was.
 
Denman looked burly yesterday and I have no doubt Nicholls left plenty to work on for Cheltenham. He didn't look fit, tight or lean - and I'm not going by watching it on the TV either.
 
uncle goober said:
Your concern for his conditioning and comparisons to last year may be valid ones, certainly sensible, if not necessarily correct. My main problem with his performance, regardless of his conditioning or lack of it, was that at no point early in the race did Denman even take the slightest hold. At no stage did Ruby have to go "whoooaa", something which is so not the Denman we have seen in previous seasons, especially first time out when he is fresh and ought to be going yeehaa!

Thats what troubles me, as his tendency to take a hold and tank along was missing and that ought to have been there regardless of how short of work he was.
Click to expand...
Spot on I think, but if he turns up in March striding around the parade ring like he can, then I'd want to be on. I really hope we see a different outlook from the horse who seemed a bit meek yesterday.
 
Shadow Leader said:
Denman looked burly yesterday and I have no doubt Nicholls left plenty to work on for Cheltenham. He didn't look fit, tight or lean - and I'm not going by watching it on the TV either.
Click to expand...


That's exactly where you're wrong though. He wasn't burly at all (although you would have expected that he should have been) - I was there. In fact he looked quite spare for him (which gave the impression he could be race fit, when in fact not). The explanation given for this by the trainer was that he has been much lighter this season and they have not had anything to work off. This explains his weakness. Last season they were able to build him up and then work it off, which is what is preferred with most racehorses... this adds strength.
 
Last edited:
I had MdB top rated for the Hennessy so his win wasn't a great surprise. When I went about rating the Hennessy I rated it through MDB's previous peak (on my figures) of 162 but the more I went through the form the more I found myself concluding he'd put up an improved effort and I have "(+7?)" noted at the top of the race. It was in my mind yesterday that maybe they'd found the key to the horse this season and that he might emerge as a Gold Cup possibility but I could only envisage him winning if Denman was below par.

John Francome was sending out warning signals about Denman during the race yesterday and he's usually quite astute in his observations. If the horse wasn't enjoying himself, he's run a really decent race. I, for one, would never put it past Nicholls to try and put Joe Public away every now and again, and I wouldn't pay too much heed to the negative vibes he's sending out this weekend.
 
I've just had a look at yesterday's result. Having stated before the race that I had reservations about everything bar MDB running to form, the logocal route to rating the race is to assume that MDB or Niche Market - which had tons to find on form - might be the most logical yardsticks by which to measure the form.

If MDB has run to my tentative 169 yesterday than everything else - including NM -has run a good two-stone-plus below form.

If we rate the race via NM's 143 for Ascot, Denman and Alberta's Run are below form but not by too much. It just means MDB (195) is now in the Master Minded / Desert Orchid class, which is a wee bit too much to be taking seriously.

If we say NM ran to his OR of 137, it only brings the figures down 6lbs.

For the time being, I'm going to assume, rightly or wrongly, that MDB found another 7lbs from Newbury and rate the race accordingly. If the 176 for MDB proves accurate it would entitle him to serious consideration for the Gold Cup, although as suny points out, he doesn't have a good record there. Mind you, young Scu cost him the handicap there at the festival a couple of years ago when I backed him as though defeat were out of the question.
 
Desert Orchid said:
I had MdB top rated for the Hennessy so his win wasn't a great surprise. When I went about rating the Hennessy I rated it through MDB's previous peak (on my figures) of 162 but the more I went through the form the more I found myself concluding he'd put up an improved effort and I have "(+7?)" noted at the top of the race. It was in my mind yesterday that maybe they'd found the key to the horse this season and that he might emerge as a Gold Cup possibility but I could only envisage him winning if Denman was below par.

John Francome was sending out warning signals about Denman during the race yesterday and he's usually quite astute in his observations. If the horse wasn't enjoying himself, he's run a really decent race. I, for one, would never put it past Nicholls to try and put Joe Public away every now and again, and I wouldn't pay too much heed to the negative vibes he's sending out this weekend.
Click to expand...

That seems a fair way of looking at it. Denman has a lot to do now, but I expect him to get at least most of the way there.
 
Ruby said in his post-race comments that he had to work hard to get Denman interested.

Madison looked well at Newbury and even better at Kempton, so was in an ideal state to take advantage of an under-par Denman, who is a stuffy sort and possibly blew up - he was certainly puffing going round the home turn.

Denman was reported okay after the race by the racecourse vet and, to be honest, I've seen Ruby look a darn sight unhappier than he did yesterday.
 
look at it this way if a human being has a funny turn with their heart on a squash court and is treated for it then the likelihood is the next time they are on the squash court they are not going to go hell for leather they are going to work their way back in and make sure they are.
Now im not saying a horse can think like a human but like PN said when he came back in he was barely making it up the hill. So there is the possibility the horse was keeping a bit back for himself thinking well i dont want that feeling again. After going around kempton alright with no problems he may push on next time.
 
EC1 said:
I'll just check the ignore list again :lol:

If yesterdays result had the first two reversed

what rating would have been given to Denman???
Click to expand...

no answer

probably because you all know that they would have rated Denman 180+...just shows you how ratings are biased sometimes depending on who wins

there would have been people on here saying it was the performance of the season etc

Madison is the real deal:p
 
beardo said:
look at it this way if a human being has a funny turn with their heart on a squash court and is treated for it then the likelihood is the next time they are on the squash court they are not going to go hell for leather they are going to work their way back in and make sure they are.
Now im not saying a horse can think like a human but like PN said when he came back in he was barely making it up the hill. So there is the possibility the horse was keeping a bit back for himself thinking well i dont want that feeling again. After going around kempton alright with no problems he may push on next time.
Click to expand...

there will be a thead appearing soon on this board...DENMAN OUT OF THE GC

it will be no surprise will it?
 
Back
Top