Road to the 2014 Cheltenham Gold Cup

Agreed that the drying ground made for a different result. The Giant Bolster was ridden as he was in 2012 so matched that run this year in form terms. BW didnt act on the going and SDC didnt stay up the hill.
BW r 174 sft
SC r 174 @ 3M
LW r 168
OHO r 168
TGB r 169
 
We shouldn’t expect each year’s Gold cup to be the best ever. It was nevertheless as exciting a race as we could wish to see.

Bob’s Worth is just not as good on quicker going, as Henderson said they were always going a gear higher than he was comfortable with, because of the better ground. Paradoxically the better ground brought them together rather than bottomless ground (as is more usual) doing the same.
 
Ardross said:
Well the performances of the 160s horses shows that they have run below their best . I am pretty sure that all the Grade 1 staying chase ratings since 2011 have been skewed by Long Run being given far too high a figure for winning that GC when Denman was in decline and Kauto was convalescent . I adored Kauto but don't for a moment think he was a 183 horse when he won his last KG a rating given because Lr was rated 182 - he should have been 172..

I think BW is a low 170s horse not a 180 and SC about 170 at best .
Click to expand...

I agree

and the same is happening in the Champion Hurdle division with Hurrican Fly so overrated

I have Jezki 6 or 7 pounds lower than RPR
 
sunybay said:
I have Jezki 6 or 7 pounds lower than RPR
Click to expand...

It's not a recent thing though


This year's race:

Jezki 173
MTOY 173
TNO 173
HF 168
CceeBee 160

2006:
Brave Inca 171
Mac's Joy 170
HE 166
Al Eile 160
Arcalis 160


Ardross is correct about the chasers. It boggles the mind that Timeform have Long Run on a higher lifetime rating than Denman. If the Henderson horse had been a couple of years older and been at his peak in 2008 best case scenario he'd have finished upsides Halcon Genelardais
 
Last edited:
Its interesting when viewing this years race and Synchronised's... how easy it was to run down Best Mate's wins purely from a ratings point of view

using the rule of thumb that was used with him...i wonder what rating would have been given to Bobsworth or SC if either had won by a length

is it not the case that just winning this race shows you more about a horse than ratings can actually measure
 
EC1 said:
Its interesting when viewing this years race and Synchronised's... how easy it was to run down Best Mate's wins purely from a ratings point of view

using the rule of thumb that was used with him...i wonder what rating would have been given to Bobsworth or SC if either had won by a length

is it not the case that just winning this race shows you more about a horse than ratings can actually measure
Click to expand...

A fair point because it is such a unique test . Best Mate's ratings were also artificially compressed in my opinion because certainly when he was at his pomp in 2003 the contenders were so destroyed by the gallop he was able to keep up that outsiders ran past them into the places.
 
Ratings are a measure of performance as much as ability.

I could never get any of Best Mate's runs [anywhere] close to the ratings of the commercial firms. A couple of races he won quite easily allowed me to put a '+' next to the rating but it was laughable that he was so often mentioned in the same breath as Arkle just because he [BM] was the only decent chaser around in a poor era.

That's not the case with Kauto Star, Denman or even Long Run and it is not the cse with Bobs Worth.

I said before Friday's race that I couldn't get Silviniaco Conti above 173 therefore a repeat performance by Bobs Worth would see him an easy winner. The simple fact is Bobs Worth didn't run to form and Silviniaco Conti didn't run to 173 as he did a Wayward Lad.

Last year BW was 16 lengths in front of The Giant Bolster who in turn was a good way clear of horses rated 165 and 169. That's an indication of how far below form he was on Friday when he could only beat two horses rated 153 and 146. I've no doubt something will come to light.
 
Desert Orchid said:
Ratings are a measure of performance as much as ability.

I could never get any of Best Mate's runs [anywhere] close to the ratings of the commercial firms. A couple of races he won quite easily allowed me to put a '+' next to the rating but it was laughable that he was so often mentioned in the same breath as Arkle just because he [BM] was the only decent chaser around in a poor era.

That's not the case with Kauto Star, Denman or even Long Run and it is not the cse with Bobs Worth.

I said before Friday's race that I couldn't get Silviniaco Conti above 173 therefore a repeat performance by Bobs Worth would see him an easy winner. The simple fact is Bobs Worth didn't run to form and Silviniaco Conti didn't run to 173 as he did a Wayward Lad.

Last year BW was 16 lengths in front of The Giant Bolster who in turn was a good way clear of horses rated 165 and 169. That's an indication of how far below form he was on Friday when he could only beat two horses rated 153 and 146. I've no doubt something will come to light.
Click to expand...

but what if all Best Mate's wins were in races like yesterdays...where even though you have good horses in there ..the lesser ones finish more prominently

what would you or anyone else have rated Bobs Worth if he had won by a length in this years race?...not much more than you will rate the actual winner i'll wager....so if Bobsworth put 3 GC wins of a similar ilk together he would also look like a below par GC winner..even though had won it 3 times....and yet his rating away from the GC would be lots higher

so it seems to me..that actually putting a rating on a GC is pointless in judging the worth of the race...as it doesn't actually refer to ability..ratingwise...at all.
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
but what if all Best Mate's wins were in races like yesterdays...where even though you have good horses in there ..the lesser ones finish more prominently

what would you or anyone else have rated Bobs Worth if he had won by a length in this years race?...not much more than you will rate the actual winner i'll wager....so if Bobsworth put 3 GC wins of a similar ilk together he would also look like a below par GC winner..even though had won it 3 times....and yet his rating away from the GC would be lots higher

so it seems to me..that actually putting a rating on a GC is pointless in judging the worth of the race...as it doesn't actually refer to ability..ratingwise...at all.
Click to expand...

Yes, they can only beat what's there and the rating would reflect that performance. You'd have to looks at all his ratings in all his races to get an idea of his ability.

Kicking King is actually a good example.

I have him on 170+ for his Gold Cup but 177+ for his King George the time before. That would lead me to say he was a 177+ horse at his best.

He also beat Sir Rembrandt a helluva lot further than Best Mate.
 
Desert Orchid said:
He also beat Sir Rembrandt a helluva lot further than Best Mate.
Click to expand...

On one occasion?..not conclusive enough to make a judgement of either horse imo

I'd struggle to rate kk's king george higher than 170...the second horse never better than a 167 horse imo,,if kingsciff was really higher it would have won the peter marsh off 169
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
if kingsciff was really higher it would have won the peter marsh off 169
Click to expand...

He was long odds on to win (off 160) but returned with muscle problems after running a decent second in ground that was softer than he liked. That form can be discounted.

He did subsequently beat Beef Or Salmon and Kicking King in the Betfair so he was no mug.

He was well beaten in the PM off 169 the following season but by then he was a dodgepot and the heavy ground would have been a problem.
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
a quick scan over Kicking King's form would show he was about a ohr 170 horse max using the rating of those he beat..imo
Click to expand...

Good man.

All things being equal he was prob around this mark. There are a number of horses he would have put away comfortably who have been given similar marks over the years.
 
granger said:
Good man.

All things being equal he was prob around this mark. There are a number of horses he would have put away comfortably who have been given similar marks over the years.
Click to expand...

I totally agree

this is the limitation of handicapping

lets say we could magically get 20 ..170 horses in one race together..all with suitable conditions...you can guarantee one horse would beat the others...and there would be gaps between each horse...even though on paper they all look the same ability

lets say the winner won by 5 lengths...is he now a 175 horse?
 
EC1 said:
I totally agree

this is the limitation of handicapping

lets say we could magically get 20 ..170 horses in one race together..all with suitable conditions...you can guarantee one horse would beat the others...and there would be gaps between each horse...even though on paper they all look the same ability

lets say the winner won by 5 lengths...is he now a 175 horse?
Click to expand...

That would be down to suitability of conditions, mistakes etc on the day but all things being equal if you had 20 horses of genuinely equal ability with conditions etc to suit and no jumping errors and all on their A game on the day, it would probably be a blanket finish. There is no shortage of examples in the form book of horses of equal ability finishing alongside each other.
 
Desert Orchid said:
That would be down to suitability of conditions, mistakes etc on the day but all things being equal if you had 20 horses of genuinely equal ability with conditions etc to suit and no jumping errors and all on their A game on the day, it would probably be a blanket finish. There is no shortage of examples in the form book of horses of equal ability finishing alongside each other.
Click to expand...

Doubt you'd ever see a 20 runner field all with conditions to suit, and pace would have a massive influence anyway.
 
it was hypothetical

my point was that the ratings do not measure will to win...consistency etc

so even a field of similar rated horses will find a hierarchy
 
Desert Orchid said:
Yes, they can only beat what's there and the rating would reflect that performance. You'd have to looks at all his ratings in all his races to get an idea of his ability.

Kicking King is actually a good example.

I have him on 170+ for his Gold Cup but 177+ for his King George the time before. That would lead me to say he was a 177+ horse at his best.

He also beat Sir Rembrandt a helluva lot further than Best Mate.
Click to expand...

That is hardly surprising Sir R was wrong in 2005 and was a soft ground horse - it was very quick ground that year and soft in 2004 .

The fact that Best Mate won THREE Gold Cups is ignored by ratings fans . His 2002 win was against a field full of Grade 1 winners - in 2003 he won very easily and could have won by the same length of track again and in 2004 it was soft ground , the rest of HK's horses were out of form and he was according to Culloty a gallop short .

It is a much better indicator of his ability that he won three Gold Cups .

As for Long Run's rating it has always been absurd as he was rated as if Denman and Kauto were near their best in 2011 when both ran way below their previous best form .

The idea that LR could give Best Mate 7lb in a Gold Cup strikes me as laughable .
 
Ardross said:
That is hardly surprising Sir R was wrong in 2005 and was a soft ground horse - it was very quick ground that year and soft in 2004 .

The fact that Best Mate won THREE Gold Cups is ignored by ratings fans . His 2002 win was against a field full of Grade 1 winners - in 2003 he won very easily and could have won by the same length of track again and in 2004 it was soft ground , the rest of HK's horses were out of form and he was according to Culloty a gallop short .

It is a much better indicator of his ability that he won three Gold Cups .

As for Long Run's rating it has always been absurd as he was rated as if Denman and Kauto were near their best in 2011 when both ran way below their previous best form .

The idea that LR could give Best Mate 7lb in a Gold Cup strikes me as laughable .
Click to expand...

i think LR & BM were similar rated bar a couple of lbs..the big difference between them is one won 3 GC's..ratings cannot seem to measure that difference

instead BM is judged just by the rating

its a bit like 2 horses run 20 times each...1 wins all 20 and is rated 170..other wins 3 races and is rated 173

which is the better horse?
 
Last edited:
I still cannot believe that nobody is questioning LW last 3 runs, almost fav for the Hennessey................beaten out of sight.
Lexus..............beaten out of sight
Irish Hennessey.............beaten out of sight.

On what basis could have anyone fancied the beast?
 
Ratings is much more accurate for me.
Neptuno collonges was a better horse than Best Mate is he never won a Gold cup.
I dont think Best Mate would have won a Gold Cup in the kauto and denman era.
 
tiggers1972 said:
I still cannot believe that nobody is questioning LW last 3 runs, almost fav for the Hennessey................beaten out of sight.
Lexus..............beaten out of sight
Irish Hennessey.............beaten out of sight.

On what basis could have anyone fancied the beast?
Click to expand...

Calamity Jim blamed his stable form and the way he was ridden at Leopardstown.

I think the race fell apart and fell into his lap on Friday. It is the worst Gold Cup I can recall for a very long time .
 
Back
Top