Time of the GC suggests it wasn't the highest quality renewal: Clocked at 6m43.88s. That's 6.88 secs slower than standard but more to the point just 6.62 secs faster than the Foxhunters (the Foxhunters carry 4lbs more than the GC runners). That probably puts the Foxhunter winner about 22.5L behind the GC winner but compare 6.62 secs with the time difference between the GC and Foxhunter in the last 6 Festivals:
For those that missed it when Timeform published its Festival ratings last Wednesday, it's given Lord Windermere the lowest rating for a GC winner since the mudlark Master Smudge in 1980 (he was 2nd past the post 8L behind Tied Cottage but was given the race after the winner failed a dope test).
QUOTE
Jumps Handicapper Phil Turner reflects on the 2014 Cheltenham Festival.
Lord Windermere has been awarded the lowest Timeform rating for a Gold Cup winner since 1980.
Unflattering odds can be deceiving when it comes to the Cheltenham Festival, where horses often go off at much larger prices than their form entitles them to be due to the competitiveness of the racing.
For example, the legendary L’Escargot was a largely unconsidered 33/1 shot when winning the first of his two Cheltenham Gold Cup wins in 1970, whilst Hardy Eustace was returned at the same odds when claiming the first of his two Champion Hurdle wins in 2004- despite the fact both of these horses had already won novice championship events at the Cheltenham Festival previously.
Therefore fans of Lord Windermere (c163) will point to the fact that his shock 20/1 win in the latest Gold Cup shouldn’t be dismissed on account of his odds (the placed horses were 16/1 and 14/1), particularly as it came 12 months after the gelding had won the RSA Chase at the meeting. However, there are far more solid grounds than those SPs to suggest that a low view should be taken of the form. It was a muddling race which resulted in a bunched finish (less than seven lengths covered the first six home) and the time comparison with the same day’s Foxhunter over that course and distance didn’t reflect well on the Gold Cup. As a result, Lord Windermere has been awarded the lowest Timeform rating for a Gold Cup winner since 1980.
It's not a decision we've taken lightly. Considering that runner-up On His Own (c163) had tried and failed to win off a BHA mark of just 144 when last seen on British soil three months earlier and the proximity of the fully-exposed Knockara Beau (c149x) in seventh, it's actually arguable that we could have awarded an even lower figure to Lord Windermere.
Third-placed The Giant Bolster (c165), of course, is a prime example of how it can be dangerous to dismiss prominent displays by outsiders in championship events, having now made the frame in both Gold Cups since finishing a shock 50/1 second to Synchronised in 2012. He arguably should have won this year too, having compromised his chance with a mixed round of jumping and then being hampered at a vital stage when bumped into at the second last.
The highest-rated runners in the field, though, remain the next two home Silviniaco Conti (c176) and Bobs Worth (c176?), who clearly didn’t give their running on the day and possibly paid for pressing on too soon off what was a muddling pace.
Comments
Well done Smiffy.
Clocked at 6m43.88s. That's 6.88 secs slower than standard but more to the point just 6.62 secs faster than the Foxhunters (the Foxhunters carry 4lbs more than the GC runners). That probably puts the Foxhunter winner about 22.5L behind the GC winner but compare 6.62 secs with the time difference between the GC and Foxhunter in the last 6 Festivals:
2013: 10.44 secs
2012: 8.21 secs
2011: 7.50 secs
2010: 12.1 secs
2009: 9.35 secs
2008: 13.36 secs
Bloody exciting race though.....
QUOTE
Jumps Handicapper Phil Turner reflects on the 2014 Cheltenham Festival.
Lord Windermere has been awarded the lowest Timeform rating for a Gold Cup winner since 1980.
Unflattering odds can be deceiving when it comes to the Cheltenham Festival, where horses often go off at much larger prices than their form entitles them to be due to the competitiveness of the racing.
For example, the legendary L’Escargot was a largely unconsidered 33/1 shot when winning the first of his two Cheltenham Gold Cup wins in 1970, whilst Hardy Eustace was returned at the same odds when claiming the first of his two Champion Hurdle wins in 2004- despite the fact both of these horses had already won novice championship events at the Cheltenham Festival previously.
Therefore fans of Lord Windermere (c163) will point to the fact that his shock 20/1 win in the latest Gold Cup shouldn’t be dismissed on account of his odds (the placed horses were 16/1 and 14/1), particularly as it came 12 months after the gelding had won the RSA Chase at the meeting. However, there are far more solid grounds than those SPs to suggest that a low view should be taken of the form. It was a muddling race which resulted in a bunched finish (less than seven lengths covered the first six home) and the time comparison with the same day’s Foxhunter over that course and distance didn’t reflect well on the Gold Cup. As a result, Lord Windermere has been awarded the lowest Timeform rating for a Gold Cup winner since 1980.
It's not a decision we've taken lightly. Considering that runner-up On His Own (c163) had tried and failed to win off a BHA mark of just 144 when last seen on British soil three months earlier and the proximity of the fully-exposed Knockara Beau (c149x) in seventh, it's actually arguable that we could have awarded an even lower figure to Lord Windermere.
Third-placed The Giant Bolster (c165), of course, is a prime example of how it can be dangerous to dismiss prominent displays by outsiders in championship events, having now made the frame in both Gold Cups since finishing a shock 50/1 second to Synchronised in 2012. He arguably should have won this year too, having compromised his chance with a mixed round of jumping and then being hampered at a vital stage when bumped into at the second last.
The highest-rated runners in the field, though, remain the next two home Silviniaco Conti (c176) and Bobs Worth (c176?), who clearly didn’t give their running on the day and possibly paid for pressing on too soon off what was a muddling pace.
UNQUOTE