- This topic has 2,377 replies, 90 voices, and was last updated 2 days, 12 hours ago by
.
- Posts
“I’ve watched the replay back a couple of times and I’m not sure how much of a difference it makes but Brighterdaysahead knocked the hurdle with her back legs and the hurdle moved forward. Had that hurdle not moved Constitution Hill makes it”.
“It’s unequivocally a greater achievement to win three championship races than one.
However, too many people confuse the number of wins (and/or the names of the races won) with the actual quality of performance. The two are totally different things”.
Value Is Everything“So … let’s say that, if Constitution Hill and State Man didn’t fall, who would’ve won”?
Constitution Hill’s fall was too far out to know for definite who would have won, GORV.
But if both horses would have run to their bests then The Hill would’ve won by a considerable margin.
However, The Hill has had major problems that he’s needed to recover from since he put up his best performances. Few horses are as good once they’ve had something significant wrong with them. So it still remains to be seen just how good The Hill still is. ie Had they both stood up the gap between CH and SM may not have been as big as it would’ve been had they both been at their career bests.
Value Is EverythingExpectations for Constitution Hill were sky high after his victory in the Supreme. Many people (including me) thought he would go on to be the best ever hurdler. All the hype was turned up another level by Buckley’s talk of trying to emulate Dawn Run.
Looking back, perhaps expectations were too high. His following season was good but for all his talent, he “only” has one Champion Hurdle and a few other weak Grade 1s to his name (although he at least had a worthy opponent at Kempton this season). The “Dawn Run” talk looks a bit foolish now.
He had ailments which need to be taken into consideration. But he has also been campaigned negatively and defensively by a cautious trainer.
If he is to win a second Champion Hurdle, he will be going into unprecedented territory. No horse has ever won his second Champion Hurdle three years after his first.
It will help him that there don’t look to be any obvious novices to challenge for the race next season (I can’t see The New Lion winning). However, State Man did not look like a back number and Ricci must want to run Lossiemouth next time.
I took the 12/1 against Constitution Hill only winning one Champion Hurdle and had a small covering bet at 7/2 against him winning two. I will be very surprised if I don’t collect on one of them.
“The “Dawn Run” talk looks a bit foolish now.”
Coolmore hype up their horses at every possible opportunity (yes, I’m fully aware that they have stallions to sell). It’s part of the game.
I’m sure the fact that Constitution Hill ran way below his best in the Aintree Hurdle, his only attempt at a longer trip, swayed connections into sticking to the two-mile route.
The “weak Grade 1s” argument is nonsense, unless you call beating a former Champion Hurdler on the bridle, giving seven pounds, by double-digit margins – twice, no less – “weak” form. And his demolition of State Man in the 2023 Champion Hurdle was a real tour de force – had Nico wanted to, Constitution Hill could have won that by twelve or fifteen lengths. If Constitution Hurdle hasn’t beaten anything, name me one genuine top-class horse that Istabraq defeated in his entire career? The best horse he faced was Moscow Flyer, who was a better chaser than hurdler, anyway.
All this knocking of one of the best- in terms of form figures produced on the racecourse – hurdlers of all time is really quite tedious. Yes, he could have been campaigned more aggressively. But it isn’t the horses’s fault that connections opted to keep him in his box, or that he has suffered various ailments over the last couple of years.
His Champion Hurdle win is his only other performance I would consider great. I don’t really care much about him beating Epatante.
Connections had the chance to make him one of the all time greats but they didn’t. There was no reason why he couldn’t have run at either Aintree or Punchestown after the Supreme. He could have won an Irish Champion Hurdle against State Man rather than his Kempton penalty kick and then gone to Punchestown rather than Aintree.
I suppose it is unfortunate he is in the era where Cheltenham has become The Only Meeting That Matters. Horses are campaigned differently now and perhaps it has become pointless to compare generations. But Constitution Hill will never be great in the way the likes of Night Nurse and Sea Pigeon were great.
The tedious soap opera surrounding him hasn’t helped either. I am sorry for the horse he fell on Tuesday but I can’t say I am sorry for his connections. Buckley gave it all the talk but if a soft option was there it was taken. Coolmore’s hype is entirely different and (though occasionally laughable) is perfectly understandable.
“But Constitution Hill will never be great in the way the likes of Night Nurse and Sea Pigeon were great.”
I agree with you completely, there. A horse with only eleven runs in his life can in no way be put on the same pedestal as those hardy perennials when we’re talking about quantity.
But the quality of his performances fully entitles him to be in the discussion with the greats of yesteryear.
I can’t remember if I said it earlier but it depends how greatness is measured.
To change the subject to Flat racing: I believe Zafonic would have beaten every Guineas winner of modern times bar Frankel, El Gran Senor and possibly Dancing Brave. It was a great performance. But is he an all time great? He never won again and he lacked the longevity that some people believe is a key part of greatness.
I will never forget Constitution Hill’s win in the Supreme. It was unquestionably a great performance. But does his subsequent career entitle him to be considered alongside the all time greats that performed at a high level year in, year out (and had some seriously hard races)? I am not so sure.
Rather like “which horse is the greatest”, it is one of those questions without a definitive answer. Neither side is wholly right or wholly wrong and both sides should be humble enough to recognise it as such.
“Rather like “which horse is the greatest”, it is one of those questions without a definitive answer.”
Again – agree completely.
But let’s say that Katchit (for example) won three Champion Hurdles and in none of those three wins did he run to more than a rating of 165. Some would say he’s a greater horse than Constitution Hill by virtue of winning three Champion Hurdles. I would say that Constitution Hill is the better horse, as he has run above 165 many times.
As you say, “neither side is wholly right or wholly wrong” but actual merit should surely count for something?
You could use the same argument about Best Mate. One of the select group of horses to win 3 Gold Cups.
Some people might say that more than entitles him to be considered great. But others could plausibly argue that he never had to beat very much and only scrambled home in the third race.
Personally I think he is a great horse within the history of racing, no matter what the ratings might say. And there are issues with ratings as well.
Arkle was undoubtedly great but his rating of 212 is absurd, awarded in an era before modern analysis. Timeform ought to modify it but unfortunately it seems to have become holy writ and anyone who questions it deemed a heretic.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2009/dec/28/arkle-timeform-rating-phil-smith
These are Timeform’s ratings. Are they seriously asking us to believe Arkle was 20lbs superior to Sprinter Sacre?
212 Arkle
210 Flyingbolt
192 Sprinter Sacre
191 Kauto Star, Mill House
187 Desert Orchid
186 Dunkirk
184 Burrough Hill Lad, Moscow Flyer, Long Run
183 Don Cossack, Master Oats
182 Azertyuiop, Best Mate, Captain Christy, Douvan, Carvill’s Hill, Kicking King, See More Business, Well ChiefTo my mind, Timeform are in effect being stubborn and saying “No horse can ever be better than Arkle”. That strikes me as unfair.
I am sure some people who saw Sea Bird never thought there would be anything better. But at least his rating was not impossible to surpass, which it is for modern chasers.
Some of Timeform’s ratings are laughable, agreed.
But Ginge is the one who swears by them, not me.
Is it possible the Supreme win was slightly overrated anyway? I mean visually it was something else and its still obviously very good to win a Grade 1 at the festival by that distance but if memory serves me they went a crazy gallop that day (Dysart Dynamo?) which can exaggerate winning distances. Both Jonbon and Kilcruit had massively overinflated reputations for differing reasons coming into that season, Kilcruit was that hype bumper horse who never really did it over hurdles or fences, Jonbon had the pedigree and the price tag and he did it on the track over hurdles to some extent but its not like he was smashing horses up over hurdles either, he was always meant to be a chaser which is where he’s excelled.
Don Cossack, 1lb behind Moscow Flyer. And only 4lbs behind Desert Orchid.
I would love to know what they were smoking in Timeform Towers when they agreed on that one!
TheTinMan87
It’s not overrated in the slightest. He set a new course record on the bridle and was 6 seconds faster than the Champion Hurdle on the same day.
The most amazing thing about the run. After a breakneck gallop all the way,he still managed to come up the hill faster that Honeysuckle and he did it at a canter.
It’s the greatest performance over hurdles I’ve ever seen and I actually think his Champion Hurdle win is slightly underrated and not far behind.
Timeform ratings are laughable – I often wonder if they truly understand how analysing data actually works? The answer is often, not at all. And there is an inherent bias when rating horses purely on the divison they race in. That’s not how you rate horses objectively.
And ‘Most successful’ is not always the same as ‘The Greatest’…..something all too often confused by sporting fans, reporters, journalists in all sports.
Beating the same horses in small fields year after year doesn’t qualify for greatness…..longevity, yes.
I’m not totally convinced CH is a great (very good, yes), too small body of work, and in a discipline which currently has limited competition……..
The Timeform ratings for hurdlers are:
182 Night Nurse
180 Istabraq, Monksfield
179 Persian War
178 Comedy of Errors
177 Lanzarote, Limestone Lad, Constitution Hill 176 Bird’s Nest, Bula, Faugheen, Golden Cygnet
175 Baracouda, Gaye Brief, Salmon Spray, Sea PigeonAnyone who thinks ratings are the definitive answer must accept that Constitution Hill is only the joint sixth best hurdler. And Timeform believes Istabraq was superior.
But again, are all these ratings genuinely accurate?
“But Ginge is the one who swears by them, not me”.
I once wrote a post on Kauto Star, Glad’; (or was it Sprinter Sacre?). Saying that I don’t believe the Timeform Arkle / Flying Bolt ratings and that today’s stars are probably nearer, if not better than they were. Ditto on Sea The Stars re- Sea Bird.
I don’t “swear by Timeform” – everyone gets things wrong from time to time – but they are generally incredibly accurate in their working out / ratings (all data driven)… And understand far more than most about the nuances of horse racing.
Value Is Everything“Anyone who thinks ratings are the definitive answer…”
Ratings are the definitive measure of a racehorse’s performances. They can be used to define who is “the best”. I don’t swear by Timeform, RPR, or any other ratings, by the way, but rather use them as a guide.
They cannot define who is “the greatest”, as that term has no universally accepted definition.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.