- This topic has 55 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Clivex, if Arkle had not existed it would have been necessary to have invented him.:cool:
I appreciate that everybody has their own way of doing things, and that what works for one person might not neccessarily work for another, but there seems to be a distinct lack of logic at times on this thread.
Firstly, Arkle: is it not the case that subsequent handicapping philosophies have stopped horses being rated as high as him? The fashion in recent times has been to discredit, to not take ratings at face value, and generally rate races lower because folk are wary of giving praise, for whatever reason. That’s a stone-cold fact in my view. It applies to all walks of life – we are a cynical nation! Yet in racing this attitude prevails despite all evidence strongly suggesting that horses are better and faster than ever before. If the general level of the handicap is lower than it was forty years ago (let alone thirty, twenty or ten) how on Earth can latter-day racehorses be rated on the same level as those from the past?
Secondly, there seems to be an acceptance that a horse cannot achieve a big rating unless all other horses in the race have shown very high levels of form previously. Otherwise, the winner ‘hasn’t beaten anything’. This relates in a way back to the point I made about Arkle. The Market Man himself summed up this general attitude by saying something along the lines of ‘most developed horses are consistent and run to about the same figure every time they run’ before using this year’s 12f horses as an example. While there is clearly some truth in this, it surely isn’t the whole story. The effect this attitude has is that races cannot be rated highly, as the assumption is that most horses fall into a ratings band that they cannot ever rise out of.
If it’s green, falls from a tree and can be turned into cider I would assume it to be an apple. If more people adopted a similar apprach to horseracing – the rationale, not the supping of cider – instead of allowing themselves to be carried away to the Land of Irrational Hyperbole by the likes of Mottershead, the world of horse racing appreciation would be a better place. But somehow I don’t see it happening…<br>
(Edited by Bosra Shambles at 9:29 am on Dec. 12, 2006)
Good point Zorro
Thing is, in those black and white films, all ive seen is him galloping on his own.
No crowd. No Derek Thompson. No turftrax.
Could be anything….
I don’t believe Lester was as good as they make him out to be either. As for Gordon what’s his name if the jockeys were any good he would not have set that record . Right? And there was Ali; who did he ever beat ? Nobody equal to today’s heavyweights.The boxers of the sixtees were clowns. Ask George Forman. As for Vincent winning three nationals and three gold cups and three champion hurdles before he decided to go flat racing! Not worth mentioning since they did not know how to train in those days.I mean that was the FIFTIES. The reason we cannot beat their records is because we are so much better.Right!
Mill House would have been remembered as one of the greatest chasers of the second half of the 20th century, yet he was put in the shade by Arkle. He carried 12-10 in the Massey Ferguson over 2m 4f and was just beaten given lumps of weight to two distance specialists, and that was a week after winning the Hennessy. Arkle gave a Gold Cup class horse in Stalbridge Colonist 35 pounds and was beaten a length the next year in the Hennessy. He thrashed the course record at Sandown in the Gallaher Gold Cup by seventeen seconds. He finished a close second on three legs in the King George.
In his 34 races under rules, he carried at least 12 stone in 23 of them but finished with a career total of 27 victories.
In my opinion there hasn’t been a better chaser in my lifetime.
Rob
We all accept that Michael Dickinson / Martin Pipe changed the way racehorses are trained and therefore racehorses are now way fitter and healthier than they used to be.
Could the fact that Arkle was so far in front of his challengers be because he was trained differently / better than the rest? Maybe because he was a better athlete and therfore unlike others didn’t really need training for fitness?
Today – all horses are very fit is this why horses are arguably rated closer together?
Again Timeforms top three horse Arkle, Flyingbolt, Mill House all from the same era yet jump racing has been going on for yonks. I find it hard to believe that the best three just happened to be around at the same time.
Quote: from The Market Man on 7:44 pm on Dec. 12, 2006[br]We all accept that Michael Dickinson / Martin Pipe changed the way racehorses are trained and therefore racehorses are now way fitter and healthier than they used to be.
Could the fact that Arkle was so far in front of his challengers be because he was trained differently / better than the rest? Maybe because he was a better athlete and therfore unlike others didn’t really need training for fitness?
Today – all horses are very fit is this why horses are arguably rated closer together?
Again Timeforms top three horse Arkle, Flyingbolt, Mill House all from the same era yet jump racing has been going on for yonks. I find it hard to believe that the best three just happened to be around at the same time.
Well his training regime was pretty open so I dont think he was doing anything radically different from any other horse and believe it or not, at the time many trainers did do interval training…though without the label. Other then that youraise some interesting points. I dont believe training methods changed that much in the 70’s though and there still wasnt another Arkle? I dont know really….You would want to have lived through it all I suppose
SHL
Have a look at Robnorth’s post and see what he was doing to Grade 1 class horses in handicaps. We’ve seen the likes of Well Chief, Kauto Star, Azertyuiop and Moscow Flyer justify high 170 low 180 ratings based on their handicap form. If the likes of them were giving 30+ length beatings out to the likes of Newmill, War of Attrition, Beef or Salmon etc etc, then it is fare to assume they could easily be rated 200+. The nature of racing has changed since then so it’s most unlikely we’ll ever get to see the chance for them to run to such ratings. Maybe when Kauto Star has won 4 Gold Cups, Nicholls might run him in the Hennessy off 179 after he’s won the boat race and ended Federer’s domianance at Wimbledon.
TMM<br>It is indeed strange, on the face of it, that three such highly rated horses should be around at the same time, and I can understand why you would find it hard to believe.<br>I would point you to the year 1970, when the Flat scene was graced by Nijinsky (then three), and both Brigadier Gerard and Mill Reef (then two).<br>The latter two are the best Flat horses I have ever seen, with the other snapping at their heels.  Yet they all raced in the same year, and two of them were exact contemporaries, so it can be done!<br>I’ve had a good look at Arkle’s career, and some of the things he did were absolutely astounding. I’ve no doubt in my mind he was not just the best ever, but by some way.<br>Flyingbolt’s career lacked longevity and while some of his performances could rightly be highly rated, he didn’t really get the chance to dominate over a period, as Arkle did.<br>
Quote: from andyod on 6:00 pm on Dec. 12, 2006[br]I don’t believe Lester was as good as they make him out to be either. As for Gordon what’s his name if the jockeys were any good he would not have set that record . Right? And there was Ali; who did he ever beat ? Nobody equal to today’s heavyweights.The boxers of the sixtees were clowns. Ask George Forman. As for Vincent winning three nationals and three gold cups and three champion hurdles before he decided to go flat racing! Not worth mentioning since they did not know how to train in  those days.I mean that was the FIFTIES. The reason we cannot beat their records is because we are so much better.Right!<br>
Ah, but your attempt at Reductio ad absurdum is misdirected; if this thread was implying that some members of a particular generation are liable to prejudice (but I would say, more generously in this case: nostalgia and sentimentality), it was those who lived during the Fifties. I think that racing is particularly prone to sentimentality, even above all other sports. Probably because horses are so loveable. I’m sure if horses didn’t exist, and instead the sport revolved around, say, freakishly large Dobermans, the exploits of the past wouldn’t have such a cosy charm.
I’m sure that I’ll growup the same, but far worse. I’ll be telling my grandchildren (or otherwise random children on the estate) about the great Rifleman, and the way he boosted a nation’s moral with his feats at radiant Hexham.<br> <br>
Did they have milkshakes in Arkle’s day? If so, what were drug testing procedures like? ;)
Quote: from Mounty on 9:07 pm on Dec. 13, 2006[br]Did they have milkshakes in Arkle’s day? If so, what were drug testing procedures like? ;) [/quote
Probably not good but go faster juice for horses has argueably never really existed despite a list of prohibited substances existing.
SHL
Thisthatandtother would have murdered Arkle, Brigadier Gerard wouldn’t have seen which way Dubai Millenium went, and Sir Percy would be far too classy for Nijinsky.<br>That’s what I think, and I’m not alone either.<br>I asked Father Christmas and the tooth fairy what they thought, and they both agree with me.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.