- This topic has 29 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
Ricky, the flat and National Hunt are two completely different sports and should be treated as such.
The term "racehorse" when applied to flat racing is perhaps too generic. Two year olds require different attributes in their physiology to three year olds to attain a level of performance and similarly three year olds to older horses. I do not deny that Sea Bird II etc were great racehorses in the limited frame of reference that they were tested. To me, that these great thoroughbreds were denied the opportunity to prove their universal greatness throughout their physical development is more often down to human rather than equine limitations.
Too readily, especially in the sensationalist world we inhabit, brilliance is mistaken for greatness. In the human condition, not everyone has the same spectrum of comprehension and emotion, the majority are more comfortable living within the boundaries imposed by limited expectation and thus regard anything outside those boundaries with incredulity.
Great should be reserved for the very best an allocated to no more than 1/2 dozen horses IMO
There’s no doubt in my mind the greatest were Secretariat and Sea Bird II. Over the jumps Arkle and Big Buck’s are the two I would put forward.
These horses were all but unbeatable and names like Brigadier Gerard, Mill Reef, Ribot, Kauto Star, Istabraq were’t far behind them.
It’s like boxing one man stands out Muhammad Ali the rest you could argue about all day.
When I look down the all time rankings and I see the likes of Harbinger and Sea the Stars rated the 8th best of all time I cringe.
They were brilliant horses but had they met the likes of Mill Reef, Sea Bird II or Secretariat they would have been regarded as no more than good.
Year after year we are sold a lie by the media using the word Great….it sells racing and keeps the interest up but the truth is greatness is a rare commodity.
That’s why I find today so very exciting. Sprinter Sacre has the potential to be right up there will Arkle himself. Frankel is challenging Sea Bird II as the greatest European of all time and Black Caviar is most likely already the greatest sprinter of all time.
That begs questions like Bosra who??
There has been much debate recently about what qualifies a racehorse to assume the mantle of an All-time Great.
While one race will usually stand out as the best performance of a racing career, one brilliant performance does not make a great racehorse. It merely shows that horse was capable of brilliance not greatness. Once you have established a criteria for greatness,then you can further refine it to establish who you regard as an all-time great.
My criteria;
Must have raced as a 2yo and shown championship winning form.
Must have raced as a 3yo and shown championship winning form.
Must have raced at least one more season and shown championship winning form.
Must have won at least 60% of career starts.
Must have had at least 10 career starts.Using this criteria I can identify;
Ribot
Brigadier Gerard
Mill Reef
Allez France
Miesque
Bosra Sham
FrankelI’m sure there are more examples especially pre-1939 and in the US.
Logically, this is incorrect. Obviously you are entilted to such views, but they do no logically make any sense.
Why does a horse have to be raced at the highest level as a 2 Yr old? Many types are backward, not ready, injured or simply at that stage in their careers, were not good enough to compete at that level. The legacy and performances they may leave later in their careers should not be undervalued simply because they didn’t perform at 2 within such criteria.
The same could be said about the 3 yr old idea logically, however unless a horse misses this season through injury, we must take the pragmatic approach and say all time greats will have shown exceptional abilities at 3.
The 60% stat seems somewhat arbittary. Why exactly 60%? Surely it’s more reasonable to simply say they remained largely undefeated.
10 races is somewhat fair, given we do need a sample size to judge if the shown performances are reliable or not. Harbinger’s King George performance is the best i have ever seen (Due to age) but i cannot deem him an all time great unfortunately.
In my opinion, a great race horse isn’t a horse who neccessairly has to show himself to have versatility or durability. These qualities do not come under the umbrella of great ; or rather, they do not have direct relevance to a horses ability to produce his absolute best form. Durability is important in a sense because without it, it is harder to judge greatness, but the quality itself doesn’t affect greatness, only it helps us realise it. Versatility should not be used a measurement of a all time great horse. It’s completely illogical to do so. Some horses have exceptional ability, but simply cannot perform at a variety of distances ; this does not mean what they did should be thought of as less in comparison to a horse who showed less peak ability/dominance but was able to perform at a variety of trips.
Basically, you can use Frankel Vs Sea the Stars as a very good anaology. Sea the Stars was a great race horse at a variety of distances, but Frankel is an all time great at one distance. Frankel’s form at his distance is stronger than STS’s at any distance, and thus in my eyes, he must be considered a better race horse.
Great should be reserved for the very best an allocated to no more than 1/2 dozen horses IMO
There’s no doubt in my mind the greatest were Secretariat and Sea Bird II. Over the jumps Arkle and Big Buck’s are the two I would put forward.
These horses were all but unbeatable and names like Brigadier Gerard, Mill Reef, Ribot, Kauto Star, Istabraq were’t far behind them.
It’s like boxing one man stands out Muhammad Ali the rest you could argue about all day.
When I look down the all time rankings and I see the likes of Harbinger and Sea the Stars rated the 8th best of all time I cringe.
They were brilliant horses but had they met the likes of Mill Reef, Sea Bird II or Secretariat they would have been regarded as no more than good.
Year after year we are sold a lie by the media using the word Great….it sells racing and keeps the interest up but the truth is greatness is a rare commodity.
That’s why I find today so very exciting. Sprinter Sacre has the potential to be right up there will Arkle himself. Frankel is challenging Sea Bird II as the greatest European of all time and Black Caviar is most likely already the greatest sprinter of all time.
That begs questions like Bosra who??
Big Bucks doesn’t deserve to be mentioned in such esteem. Kauto Star is a better race horse, and his peak performances are something Big Bucks has never come close to being able to match. Kauto Star will get undervalued somewhat i fear because he wasn’t as reliable, or wasn’t always at his best. His best, however, absolutely dwarfs Big Bucks or any contempoary National Hunt race horse.
Harbinger is rated such on one performance, but that performance deserves to be rated as such. It was an astonishing performance. We will never know whow good he was, but it is one of the best performances i will ever see. The peformance deserves to be recognized as such.
I do however agree with Sea The Stars.
I would say that to be great, the horse must have brilliance, but brilliance does not necessarily equate to greatness.
Eclipse
fair enough , point taken , there have also been several brilliant 2 yr olds that folded at 3 and some who folded early as 3 yr olds
Apalachee was hailed as the second coming , and Zafonic was spoken of in hushed terms , such was his brilliance as a 2 yr old
Apalachee was rated 137 in 1973 , Arazi was rated 135 in 1991
both never returned to anything like their 2 yr od form
We will never know how good those fabulous 3 yr olds were once packed off to stud , but I am totally convinced Sea the Stars would still be raved about as one of the best horses of all time had they continued to race , trained by one of the best and ridden by the best , how could he have failed
I know Jumping has it own set of legends , but it was Arkle thet hooked me on this game , and he is still the best horse of all time in my book
Ricky
A staying hurdler one of the two best NH horses of all time? No chance.
I can’t summarise it any better then Ted Walsh – "A staying hurdler is either not brave enough to jump a fence or too slow to win a Champion Hurdle".
A staying hurdler one of the two best NH horses of all time? No chance.
I can’t summarise it any better then Ted Walsh – "A staying hurdler is either not brave enough to jump a fence or too slow to win a Champion Hurdle".
I agree with that
Big Bucks
is a Great staying Hurdler,very possibly the ‘Greatest All Time Staying Hurdler’ but he’s not an ‘All Time Great Racehorse’ as National Hunt Racehorses aren’t meant to fail miserably over Fences,he did and he could be a different proposition over them now but he wont get that chance to redeem himself anymore unfortunately! I’d still only offer 5/1 for next years Gold cup myself though!
I don’t think you can say a horse is a champion UNTIL he/she wins at the highest level against the best horses and on level weights.
2yo and 3yo form is restricted class racing and just as much about being an early maturing type as it is about overall talent and ability.
I also place less emphasis on results with age allowances and fillies and mares allowances. For example, 3yo’s winning in open company carrying a postage stamp and a feather – take it for what it is, yes – but declare it as proof of absolute greatness – no!
And I’ve seen hulking mares beat up on all sorts of horses and geldings whilst getting weight off them…….discount that too…….but of course if they can do it at level weights then I’m the first to say they deserve all sorts of praise.
It puzzles me how anyone can say with any conviction that a horse is great until they carry the same weight (or more) than the absolute best opposition there is, and get the results on that basis.
True greatness of flat racehorses should asses the distances the horse has vanquished the opposition,the acceleration revealed,the nature of opposition,ability to adapt to different distances,consistency and temperament.Most of the all-time great race-horses came in the middle distance category who proved themselves at their best principally over ten furlongs to a mile and a half like Ribot,Sea Bird,Mill Reef,Nijinsky,Shergar,Dancing Brave,Vaguely Noble or Dahlia.Brigadier Gerard almost matched Sea Bird’s superiority over the distance of a mile and also won over ten furlongs and a mile and a half .However over the 12 furlong distance I don’t envisage him beating Mill Reef or Sea Bird.
In terms of pure race record Nijinsky tops the list with his outstanding wins in the triple crown legs plus the Irish Derby and King George and he certainly would have added the Arc ,but for his facing a bout of ringworm.Sea the stars(guineas,Derby,Eclipse,Irish Champion ,Judamonte International and Arc) is just nosed out in that respect in 2nd place,with Mill Reef(derby,eclipse,King George and Arc) and Brigadier Gerard sharing 3rd place,and Dancing Brave in 5th place.
However what made Sea Bird the outstanding champion was the superiority he displayed over the best of opposition in the 1965 Arc.The best middle distance performance after Sea Bird’s 1965 Arc win was Dancing Brave’s 1986 superlative Arc victory coming from behind.In terms of versatility Ribot and Mill Reef were the ultimate champions winning on both firm and heavy going .Sadly we hardly saw enough of Vaguely Noble who could have proved himself in the Sea Bird class as he showed when beating Sir Ivor in the 1968 Arc by 3 lengths.
The most underestimated champions to me by Timeform were Sir Ivor,Golden Fleece,Zafonic and Dahlia.There has never been a more versatile racemare than Dahlia while Golden Fleece and Sir Ivor were rated by Vincent O’Brien as being in the Sea Bird class.Golden Fleece was rated by many experts to have matched Nijinsky in ability.Zafonic was arguably the best miler after Brigadier Gerard and Frankel.I alos feel Peintre Celebre was well above the mark of 137 awarded by Timeform.His Arc win in 1997 was in the Sea Bird class.All the mentioned horses should have atleast got a 138+mark.
Overall I feel the 138 rating hardly does justice to Nijisnky,placing him below horses like Generous and below Shergar,Vaguely Noble and Dancing Brave.Nijinsky’s rating was correctly rectified by racing post to 140 which correctly ranked him above Dancing Brave ,Shergar and Vaguely Noble.
It is very hard to correctly evaluate Sea the Stars.The first stream rates him the best of all middle-distance champions(like Tony Morris),the second the best since Sea Bird ,the third in the class of the great champions and the 4th of the racing post not in the Sea Bird or Nijinsky class.(like John Randall)I feel atleast the third stream is correct classifying him with the all-time greats.He may not have revealed the superiority of Sea Bird and the acceleration of Dancing Brave but his versatality and consistency ranked him with those stars.The range of difference between the views of Tony Morris and John Randall is amazing on the evaluation of Sea the Stars.
There should be a category of ‘very good’ horses ,’great’ racehorse and ‘superhorses’.In the superhorse category we surely have Sea Bird,Ribot ,Nijinsky ,Brigadier Gerard,Mill Reef,Dancing Brave,Shergar and finally Frankel.Over 10 furlongs i place Dubai Millenium as a superhorse,the best ever over 10 furlongs.In the ‘great ‘category I would place Sir Ivor,Generous,Troy,Alleged,Daylami,Crepello,Dahlia,Vaguely Noble and Peintre Celebre.etc.140+ should be the mark of a superhorse while 138 + should be the mark of a truly great racehorse.
The most debatable exclusions in all-time great category are Nashwan and Lammtara who were statistically great but did not face outstanding opposition.However remember how highly both Dick Hern and Willie Carson rated Nashwan( the best horse he had ever ridden).
I just spent 15 minutes writing a post then realised I had already said my bit some time ago….at least it was almost a carbon copy of my first one so at least I’m consistent is a little bit senile
One thing I will say to those who doubt if Big Buck’s should be given the handle of great or not is perhaps heed what PN’s said in an interview. I think it was last year or perhaps the season before. "Big Buck’s is the best racehorse I have ever trained"
Considering he trains Kauto Star who many rate is the best chaser since Arkle himself that says one helluva lot about Big Bucks.
Give over Hurdy – we can’t laugh at O’Brien for daft comments about his horses and then quote Paul Nicholl’s comments as gospel thus proving your point. Although I do give more credence to Nicholl’s as he isn’t a walking Stallion Signboard.
What are your thoughts on Ted Walsh’s comment? This echoes many peoples thoughts on the staying hurdle division, but clearly not yours. I’d be glad to read your opinion why you think Walsh and myself are wrong.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.