Road to the 2014 Cheltenham Gold Cup

sunybay said:
I dont think Best Mate would have won a Gold Cup in the kauto and denman era.
Click to expand...

neither would any other horse in the last 20 years..when those two were in their prime

BM would have won any other one though...thats why he took all 3 he took part in..it wasn't just coincidence or lucky years,,imo
 
Ardross said:
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 .
Click to expand...

looked a good one beforehand...in fact one of the best in the last 20 years..take out KS and Denman years

winner has beaten good horses...SC and Bobs worth were in that field and failed to win it.

can't see how it was a bad race with those that took part in it

its a bit like saying a 100 metre final with Bolt in is a bad race if he don't win
 
The race did fall into his lap the other day but a bit of me thought it might.

All form lines say BW was a long way below last year's form but actually about where he has been this season. I thought he'd win easily and backed him but only for the tenner offer at 4/1 with Hills. I thought he'd win from Silviniaco Conti but beyond them it was anybody's race so the 9/1 LW without those two really appealed. I took the 40/1 ew in the hope he'd run third with the outside possibility that SC might blunder his way out of it and maybe BW's form this season was an indication of last year's race leaving its mark.

For me, what Friday's race told us is that Silviniaco Conti wouldn't have won last year and never will win the race. I said before the race I couldn't get him above 173. He couldn't run to that the other day.

Was it a bad race?

Going into it, you'd have to say no, given there was a 179 reigning champ and a 173 second fav. Does their running below form make it a bad race? Depends on how you define 'bad'. I'd prefer to call it disappointing (apart from the actual result for me).

The front three have probably run to 168/169. For me the benchmark for a Grade 1 is 168 so by definition I'd have to say it was an average race but I want to see the big races won by horses that are better than average.
 
BobsWorth needs soft ground to show his best and was over rated last year when he stayed on past horses ridden prominently throughout . Siiviniaco Conti didnt see out the trip clearly and is a 6L better @3M. This year it was said by his trainer that The Giant Bolster would be ridden to stay and not race with the leaders and so he did and was unlucky to put in a bad jump at a critical stage and also take a bump.
It was an average GD.1 ratings wise 168,168,169..the best horses finished 4th and 5th.173 ,174.
 
It didn't look that good beforehand and looks worse after. I can't get my head around the result to be honest.
 
Tomorrow I'll check back through Best Mate's Gold Cups to see what ratings I had for him in those races and elsewhere.

From memory, I think I had him around 178.
 
In the days of D L Moore training Tied Cottage and L'Escargot LW would fit right in.
He was not ready for Newbury and the rough race set him back with scars and what not so he was not ready for Lexus. The ground and pace did not suit there either.
Davy, having his first ride on him since RSA in Irish Hennessey was quite happy saying he would be spot on for Gold Cup.
You can hardly blame the horse if the race falls in his lap after all.
Nick Mordin was sweet for his form on undulating tracks.
He was best horse on the day.
Nobody here would reject a present of a 165+ chaser or hurdler on grounds of being "not up to standard"
Folk were complaining that WPM dominance was ruining racing: well he came up short here.
What more do you want ?
 
I've just read that Culloty hadn't had a winner since August prior to his two festival winners :blink: that might explain LW's improvement.

Doesn't explain On His Own though.
 
Desert Orchid said:
For me, what Friday's race told us is that Silviniaco Conti wouldn't have won last year and never will win the race. I said before the race I couldn't get him above 173. He couldn't run to that the other day.
Click to expand...

No one can say that Silviniaco wouldn't have won last year, and considering he was beaten less than 2l this - with both ground and pace against him - it's equally preposterous to say he won't in future.
 
Aragorn said:
Doesn't explain On His Own though.
Click to expand...

I'd have been seriously miffed if On His Own had won. I backed him in the last two Nationals in the belief he must have been held in high regard for Ruby to have selected him ahead of anything else Mullins or Nicholls had. He was off 148 in those races so he had to be considered at least a 155 horse at home. The fact they decided to supplement him him had to be an indication that he was better than that again. I thought he might have a similar chance to The Giant Bolster but never imagined either being involved in the fight for first place.
 
EC1 said:
looked a good one beforehand...in fact one of the best in the last 20 years..take out KS and Denman years

winner has beaten good horses...SC and Bobs worth were in that field and failed to win it.

can't see how it was a bad race with those that took part in it

its a bit like saying a 100 metre final with Bolt in is a bad race if he don't win
Click to expand...

I couldn't disagree more - take out BW and SC it looked like a handicap chase .
 
Mumuqa said:
WL lost because Dawn Run got 5lb.
Click to expand...

Yes and he was also alleged to have been a gallop short , the following year although he was 12 it was a weak field only for snow to come down and then melt and bugger the going and having looked a possible winner over the last he faded into fifth .
 
Mumuqa said:
WL lost because Dawn Run got 5lb.
Click to expand...

WL lost because he couldn't maintain his gallop up the hill. You can see his stride shorten. Silviniaco Conti was almost a carbon copy. Came through to win the race but couldn't get up the hill. WL never won the race in spite of all his ability and Silviniaco Conti will never win it. Expect him to be 110% for the King George next season before being put away for the Grade 1 at Aintree.
 
Last edited:
Desert Orchid said:
WL lost because he couldn't maintain his gallop up the hill. You can see his stride shorten. Silviniaco Conti was almost a carbon copy. Came through to win the race but couldn't get up the hill. WL never won the race in spite of all his ability and Silviniaco Conti will never win it. Expect him to be 110% for the King George next season before being put away for the Grade 1 at Aintree.
Click to expand...

I agree he didn't quite get up the hill but had they not brought in the mares allowance that year he might have just got up it !
 
No, he'd have run the exact same race. The issue is whether the mare would have been able to pass him carrying 5lbs more. She might and she might not. We could never know for sure. I think she wouldn't but I don't have a problem with the allowance.
 
The proximity of Lyreen Legend is a good form guide - beaten 7l and by the same margin against Tidal Bay. How good is the form? An av. GD1 nothing more.
 
Desert Orchid said:
WL lost because he couldn't maintain his gallop up the hill. You can see his stride shorten. Silviniaco Conti was almost a carbon copy. Came through to win the race but couldn't get up the hill. WL never won the race in spite of all his ability and Silviniaco Conti will never win it. Expect him to be 110% for the King George next season before being put away for the Grade 1 at Aintree.
Click to expand...

SC will go for the Gold Cup next year, and - given his ground - with a major chance.
 
Well Ive been a follower of SC for some time. After that spectacular Aintree win he continued to be a little underrated. But whist i think its daft to use the word "never" in any horse race, I am pretty well of the conclusion that hes not one for the GC regardless of ground or pace. And frankly, with BW not performing and maybe not doing so again, this was as bad a field as he could have faced. It was now or never
 
I only brought up the DR 5lb allowance as Wayward Lad is my all-time favourite horse and the ‘legend’ of DR allows him to be wiped from the memory – ‘The mare’s gonna get up …’. 3m 2½fur plus a hill finish always pushed WL to his limits but he was some Rolls-Royce of a three-miler. Regarding the ground for SC and BW was it not the case back in WL’s day that the truly top-class chasers acted on any ground? WL set a course record on good to firm for his 2nd KG and repelled all challengers on heavy for this third. He won 27 races on 17 (I think) different courses – left and right-handed. Why is it that so many modern-day horses seem only to be able to race one way? This all started with DO, perhaps. Back to the race in question, Cheltenham’s unique challenge and the distance of the Gold Cup do lend it to ‘ordinary’ outcomes as seen last Friday. Fair play to Culloty, Russell and connections and you can’t crab back to back festival wins for LW but the Gold Cup is so hyped that you do want to see a class performance. TGB’s Gold Cup record (423) is admirable but until last Friday his highest ever rating was 164 – not what we associate with top class chasers. BW’s rating of 180 for winning a couple of races (albeit grade 1s) and SC’s of 177 do appear inflated. Returning to the earlier era weren’t the likes of Wayward Lad, Silver Buck, Night Nurse (over fences), etc rated around 175/176 max for all their longevity at the top and grade 1 wins galore? Think it was MM’s destruction of VPU which led to this modern-day over-rating at the top echelon. Sorry to go on a bit.
 
Back
Top