2000 guineas 2012

Wall Street won a group 1 handicap over a mile at Flemington, Australia, in November 2010.

Is the dismal lack of post race analysis here a reflection of the race or a reflection of the way this forum has gone?

Thats rich coming from you! I contribute more times to my TV license (3 times a year) than you do on here!

This is true Gord…. The two are clearly not linked….

How’s the Antepost King faring?

So long as I back the odd winner I’m happy Aragorn!
Mind you I wouldn’t want you to be my accountant eh!
Remember

Evens and Odds

!

Nijinsky was on the cusp of greatness back in 1970 after winning the Triple Crown, and would definitely have usurped Sea Bird at the top of Timeform’s ratings had he won the Arc.

As I understand…
Timeform’s ratings are based on form (and time) H. What you win and how many times they win Group 1’s don’t come in to Timeform’s ratings. Nijinsky never won any Group 1 race by a wide margin and never beat an exceptional animal; therefore could not be rated a "Great". Had Nijinsky beaten Sassafras (I believe rated 135) in the Arc it is doubtful he’d have won by far, so it is unlikely Nijinsky would’ve been rated a 140+ racehorse (their idea of "Greatness") by Timeform. Of course it is possible Nijinsky was capable of "greatness", he just did not need to produce it on the racecourse for any of his wins, therefore (like so many others) can’t be rated as such. Had he run against Mill Reef or The Brigadier then Nijinsky may have taken his form to another level.

Also, Nijinsky ran below form in the Arc and Champion, but that does not alter the Timeform rating of Nijinsky’s best performances and therefore does not alter his master rating. Defeat did not lessen Nijinsky’s form ratings of his Triple Crown.

In truth, in form terms I doubt whether the St Leger performance was any better than the Arc. Didn’t have to be at his best at Donny. It’s quite possible the ringworm he suffered from before the Ledger was the culprit, not over-racing.

I beg to differ, Ginge. Years ago I read an article from Timeform’s Reg Griffin, where he spoke about Nijinsky. He said that they

took into consideration his last two defeats

and stated that had he finished his career after the Leger then Timeform would have definitely have given him a higher rating than he subsequently received. Had he won the Arc, he would have been allotted a mark exceeding 140. Nijinsky may not have won by great distances, but it was the manner and ease with which he won ( much like Sea Bird ) that marked him out as a colt of the highest quality. I have always felt that the Nijinsky who won the King George in the summer of 1970 would have beaten Mill Reef, Ribot and Dancing Brave.

Think you might have got the wrong end of the stick when reading Reg Griffin’s piece H.
Of course they "took into consideration his last two defeats", as in… They had a look to see if there was any reason why Nijinsky’s previous form could be rated any lower (or higher) for those defeats. As is the case with any collateral form.
What I mean is: A horse’s rating is not reduced just because it is beaten or runs poorly. And is not changed just because it wins. Sea The Stars Arc performance was not rated as highly as the Irish Champion or Eclipse, but his master rating was unchanged because there was no reason to doubt the form shown at the lesser distance. Timeform Racehorses annual gives the rating each horse was capable of given optimum conditions during that season. Those ratings are not effected by the horse running below form on its last two starts, unless collateral form indicates previous form can no longer be rated as highly.

ie Unless the new collateral form lines of the Arc and Champion suggest they got Nijinsky’s original assessment (of the Derby etc)

WRONG

; his master rating is not changed for a/two below par performance/s.

I beg to differ, Ginge. Years ago I read an article from Timeform’s Reg Griffin, where he spoke about Nijinsky. He said that they took into consideration his last two defeats and stated that had he finished his career after the Leger then Timeform would have definitely have given him a higher rating than he subsequently received. Had he won the Arc, he would have been allotted a mark exceeding 140. Nijinsky may not have won by great distances, but it was the manner and ease with which he won ( much like Sea Bird ) that marked him out as a colt of the highest quality. I have always felt that the Nijinsky who won the King George in the summer of 1970 would have beaten Mill Reef, Ribot and Dancing Brave.

Nijinsky was undoubtably a truly exceptional horse, I know it’s all a little academic, maybe he could have been good enough to beat the three greats you’ve mentioned, but that King George he won was pretty dire, himself apart of course.

As I remember he beat Blakeney very, very easily by about 2L, but do you not think Mill Reef, Dahlia, Grundy, Troy, Shergar, Dancing Brave, Reference Point, Mtoto, Generous, Nashwan, Galileo, Montjeu could have done the same. That’s a dozen King George winners off the top of my head, probably others beside that are at least 5 lenghths better that Blakeney.

Nijinsky didn’t need to be a great to win the races he won, although he won most with what appeared to be a fair bit in hand. I also seem to remember reading somewhere in one of Lester’s biography’s that he always rated Sir Ivor higher.

Himself

I totally support the comment of Ginger Tipster.This debate is of immense significance.It is debatable whether Nijinsky was the best amongst the pantheon of great racehorses.Personally I feel Timeform hardly did him justice when awarding an immortal like him 138 and I agree with the rectification made by the Racing Post team who adjusted it to 140 and rated him above Shergar,Vaguely Noble and Dancing Brave in the Rankings.(you may have rad the book by Tony Morris and John Randall on the champions of the last Century).

In a book ‘ Timeform Racehorses of the Century"infact they confirm that they did not reduce Nijinsky’s timeform rating because he lost the Arc and considered his wins in the Guineas, Epsom Derby,King George ,StLeger etc.Let us imagine Nijinsky winning the Arc ,beating Sassasfras by half a length or a neck..That was surely was not a performance equal to that of the great Sea Bird 11,Dancing Brave, Mill Reef or Ribot at their best.Sea Bird was awarded the 145 rating because of the great opponents he vanquished by such a big margins like Reliance,Diatome,Tom Rolfe ,Meadow Court Etc.Blakeney,the 1969 Epsom Derby winner had the lowest timeform rating of any post-war Derby winner of 126 in 1969.Similarly Ribot got his 142 rating because he won by 6 lengths beating colts like Tanerko and Talgo,morally by around 8 lengths against the official margin of 6 lengths.Infact Sassafras ‘s rating was lifted to 135 because of his performance in the 1970 Arc,3 lbs below Nijinsky.This proves that Timeform felt that Nijinsky at his best was atleast a length ahead of Sassafras.To be rated on par with Sea Bird Nijinsky would have had to beat Sassafras by atleast 5-6 lengths.

To me in terms of statistics Nijinsky was the greatest of all but his merely winning the Arc in addition to the triple crown,King George and Irish Derby would not necessarily make him morally the greatest.Morally,he may have been 5 lengths better than Blakeney in the 1970 King George but remember how effortlessly Mill Reef vanquished a better field in the 1971 King George by 6 lengths.Nijinsky’s field was not half as good as what sea Bird faced in the Arc of 1965 or that of Dancing Brave in 1986.

Overall ,I agree that Nijinsky at his best could have been next to Sea Bird and Ribot in the middle distance category but I would not rate him above 141 .Possibly 141 was the fairest rating to him.I complement John Randal for atleast adjusting Nijinsky’s rating to 140 and ranking him only behind Sea Bird,Ribot and Mill Reef.

I am happy with Ginger Tipster for confirming the basis of evaluation as it would be ridiculuos that Nijinsky came down from 145 to 138 because of his last 2 races.At his best to me if you account for strength of opposition and margin of superiority Nijinsky did not eclipse sea Bird or Ribot at their best and may have bettered Mill Reef or Dancing Brave only marginally.Timform’s ratings are made principally on the basis of the nature of opposition and superiority level rather than mere race record statistics.