Paddy Power Gold Cup 2023

Maxbet said:
Sebastopol trounced Stage Star by 5 lengths at Newbury giving him 5Lb, and he's in receipt of 8Lb..

4/1 or 40/1...There has to be some value ... Sebastopol carried 12-00 last time out against a rapidly improving horse....
Click to expand...

I backed the winner and I backed the 3rd, but I'll have to wear a Balaclava when I rob the bookies, with Sebastopol, because he will be part of the charge, especially if the going is good and he's part of the lightweight Brigade...
 
Always interesting [to me] when TS figures are higher than ORs when checking results. Often the sign of very fast-run races and strong form.

For good measure, Iberico Lord's TS figure also exceeded his OR in the Greatwood.
 
Desert Orchid said:
Simon Rowlands has his say on some of the Cheltenham races at the weekend there:

Sectional Spotlight | At The Races
Click to expand...

I was with him until I got to this bit

Jonbon’s rivals were not far off matching him in the first of those sections, but the pace he had taken them through before that did for them. It did for him a bit in the end, also. His final furlong was slower than Nube Negra’s also as it happens.

Quite how you can adduce Jonbon’s time of the final furlong as in anyway meaningful when there was virtually nothing else left in sight by that stage is beyond me. Maybe the earlier pace had “done for him”, but I very much doubt it. Much more probably, with everything so soundly beaten you might as well just stroll in whilst reflecting on a job well done.
 
Last edited:
Author’s Note: All of the following applies to my view on this article specifically and times over Jumps generally. I make no comment on Flat or All-Weather racing.

There’s a section in Simon Rowland’s (I alway’s knew him as Prufrock from my days on TRF) article, that encapsulates my main issue with Sectionals/Times, and it reads as follows:

”The ground on the chase course on Sunday (and Saturday) was softer than on Friday, but by a little rather than a lot….”.

I’m not really in a position to judge too harshly, as I freely admit I don’t place huge stock in times over Jumps, and this sentence neatly encapsulates why.

The rest of the article is based around various assessments of time-over-distance, comparative class pars, and efficiency distribution. If one was inclined to feel charitable, you might even say it was ‘scientific’ in its application.

But it all rather falls apart - for me at any rate - when the highlighted sentence is dropped in mid-article.

Given the scientific bent to the assessment generally, and the undeniable linkage between pace, time, and the nature of the surface being raced on, the ‘science’ of the numbers appears to be built upon the thoroughly unscientific measure of “a little but not a lot”.

The natural question which follows is: “How little?”.

If the conclusions in the article are to be accepted, then surely some deeper reference to (and analysis of) the going must be made? And in the absence of such a reference/analysis, how much stock can we really place in those conclusions?

Even in the era of the going-stick, the ground is, was and always will be the most nebulous factor in a horse-race - something that can be guessed at with a degree of accuracy, but which can never truly be measured; very unlike sectional times, finishing speeds and all the other barometers which clock-watchers use to draw their conclusions.

Each to their own, and if some find it useful in their form analysis, then who am I to say they are wrong? But in my view, the promotion of this sort of study as holding greater merit than others by providing a science-based insight (my emphasis) into performance, is basically illusory.

Sweep it into the pile with paddock-watching, ratings analysis, yardstick handicapping, statistical and trends analyses, and pimping for yard snitches. Master all of those sins, and you probably won’t go far wrong. Master one (or in fact none), and you might still be able to put forward a coherent enough argument.

EC1/2 would undoubtedly have a field-day with this. Is he still around?
 
Last edited:
barjon said:
I was with him until I got to this bit

Jonbon’s rivals were not far off matching him in the first of those sections, but the pace he had taken them through before that did for them. It did for him a bit in the end, also. His final furlong was slower than Nube Negra’s also as it happens.

Quite how you can adduce Jonbon’s time of the final furlong as in anyway meaningful when there was virtually nothing else left in sight by that stage is beyond me. Maybe the earlier pace had “done for him”, but I very much doubt it. Much more probably, with everything so soundly beaten you might as well just stroll in whilst reflecting on a job well done.
Click to expand...
Been saying it long enough; it's futile putting numbers on NH races and I'd doubt there's anywhere on else this planet where it's even given the nod of credence.
 
barjon said:
I was with him until I got to this bit

Jonbon’s rivals were not far off matching him in the first of those sections, but the pace he had taken them through before that did for them. It did for him a bit in the end, also. His final furlong was slower than Nube Negra’s also as it happens.

Quite how you can adduce Jonbon’s time of the final furlong as in anyway meaningful when there was virtually nothing else left in sight by that stage is beyond me. Maybe the earlier pace had “done for him”, but I very much doubt it. Much more probably, with everything so soundly beaten you might as well just stroll in whilst reflecting on a job well done.
Click to expand...

Quite staggering that last sentence by the Author.

Can you imagine him doing sectionals on Usain Bolt.......................
 
reet hard said:
Been saying it long enough; it's futile putting numbers on NH races and I'd doubt there's anywhere on else this planet where it's even given the nod of credence.
Click to expand...

A Grassy says I think it’s a part of the picture. I thought they were going a reasonable clip, but not excessively so - maybe that was influenced by the presence of Editeur Du Gite up front - , but the sectionals show they were hammering along which would have surprised me had I not already heard Dan Skelton mutter “never been so fast in my life” as he went back to the changing room.

I know I'm a rampant Jonbon fan, but it’s really the evidence of Dan Skelton and the sectionals that convince me it was much more than the very good performance I originally thought.
 
Desert Orchid said:
Easy As That's owner was pretty honest this morning when he said the horse might struggle. It did look to me, though, like it was a prep for something else but it has no immediate engagements.
Click to expand...

Easy As That entered for the December Gold Cup, Caspain Cavier thingy, or whatever it's called now, DO.
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
Author’s Note: All of the following applies to my view on this article specifically and times over Jumps generally. I make no comment on Flat or All-Weather racing.

There’s a section in Simon Rowland’s (I alway’s knew him as Prufrock from my days on TRF) article, that encapsulates my main issue with Sectionals/Times, and it reads as follows:

”The ground on the chase course on Sunday (and Saturday) was softer than on Friday, but by a little rather than a lot….”.

I’m not really in a position to judge too harshly, as I freely admit I don’t place huge stock in times over Jumps, and this sentence neatly encapsulates why.

The rest of the article is based around various assessments of time-over-distance, comparative class pars, and efficiency distribution. If one was inclined to feel charitable, you might even say it was ‘scientific’ in its application.

But it all rather falls apart - for me at any rate - when the highlighted sentence is dropped in mid-article.

Given the scientific bent to the assessment generally, and the undeniable linkage between pace, time, and the nature of the surface being raced on, the ‘science’ of the numbers appears to be built upon the thoroughly unscientific measure of “a little but not a lot”.

The natural question which follows is: “How little?”.

If the conclusions in the article are to be accepted, then surely some deeper reference to (and analysis of) the going must be made? And in the absence of such a reference/analysis, how much stock can we really place in those conclusions?

Even in the era of the going-stick, the ground is, was and always will be the most nebulous factor in a horse-race - something that can be guessed at with a degree of accuracy, but which can never truly be measured; very unlike sectional times, finishing speeds and all the other barometers which clock-watchers use to draw their conclusions.

Each to their own, and if some find it useful in their form analysis, then who am I to say they are wrong? But in my view, the promotion of this sort of study as holding greater merit than others by providing a science-based insight (my emphasis) into performance, is basically illusory.

Sweep it into the pile with paddock-watching, ratings analysis, yardstick handicapping, statistical and trends analyses, and pimping for yard snitches. Master all of those sins, and you probably won’t go far wrong. Master one (or in fact none), and you might still be able to put forward a coherent enough argument.

EC1/2 would undoubtedly have a field-day with this. Is he still around?
Click to expand...

I have to say, I do find this kind of measured deconstruction so much more interesting to read than the occasional 'guy's a fanny, ignore him' kind of offering.

My own take on the 'a little rather than a lot' remark is that the guy is working within limitations on his time and space on the website and that he is simplifying things for the casual reader. His conclusion is very probably based on a considerable amount of detailed calculations that he probably knows the average reader will just gloss over anyway.

The graphic showing how much faster than par they were going backs up, as Bj says, Skelton's post-race remark.

My take, watching the race live, was that EDG wasn't going early with his usual verve but maybe he was and Jonbon was just able to go that speed without seemingly exerting himself at all. That's got to be the sign of a high class horse.

Bear in mind I backed two in the race against him - :lol: :o - I wasn't convinced he could do that.

He certainly changed my opinion about him.

(Better to come to the party late than miss it altogether.)
 
Space constraints are probably fair enough, DO.......though I think the going would still merit more mention than the cursory reference it received, given how critical it is to time analysis. :thumbsup:
 
Yes. Personally I'm not entirely convinced about deriving ratings from goings on different days but - again just personally - there's an element of acceptance that the guy has complex calculations for deriving [to him] meaningful going allowances to marry two different days' goings.

(I seldom even attempt this, even when the going descriptions and going stick readings and wind readings are the same across two different days. My own take is that a horse cannot run faster than its ability so if an exposed Class 5 horse appears to have posted a Class 2 time, the chances are the prevailing conditions have allowed it and the times of the Class 2 races on the card are probably a fair bit slower than could otherwise have been expected.)

Again, though, for me, SR's stuff is always worth the read whether one agrees with it or not.
 
Marb said:
Easy As That entered for the December Gold Cup, Caspain Cavier thingy, or whatever it's called now, DO.
Click to expand...

Prices out, Easy as That 12s. As ever pumpkin has the fav (they really are unimaginative wankstains bookmakers) in Il Rodoto. I'm interested in In Excelsis Deo
 
barjon said:
A Grassy says I think it’s a part of the picture. I thought they were going a reasonable clip, but not excessively so - maybe that was influenced by the presence of Editeur Du Gite up front - , but the sectionals show they were hammering along which would have surprised me had I not already heard Dan Skelton mutter “never been so fast in my life” as he went back to the changing room.

I know I'm a rampant Jonbon fan, but it’s really the evidence of Dan Skelton and the sectionals that convince me it was much more than the very good performance I originally thought.
Click to expand...
Just had a look and it's clear from race times they weren't "hammering along" in comparison to last season's Arkle,which was run 10.35 secs quicker on very similar ground (Dan Skelton didn't ride in it).
The bald facts alone indicate he has work to do to reverse form with El Fabiolo,anytime soon.
 
Last edited:
Simon Rowlands:

[FONT=&quot]The Arkle was strongly run, courtesy of Dysart Dynamo, and El Fabiolo was sensibly kept several lengths back before engaging going to two out. He led soon after that fence and more than doubled his margin over Jonbon late on the run-in, the still shorter trip no problem on this ground, with this pace, and on this track.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It might well not need me to tell you that El Fabiolo is a high-class performer and a big threat to the established chasers at this trip and a bit further, but it possibly does need me to point out that this impression is very much backed up by the clock.[/FONT]
Click to expand...

The obvious difference is that EF was kept back off the strong pace in March. Jonbon the other day wasn't.

I have no opinion at this stage about which is the better but comparisons about times set on days eight months apart regardless of what the going description might have been aren't something I would want to take too seriously.
 
Back
Top