- This topic has 34 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
Although some of your logic is flawed a little Jack you do make a decent point.
Two things – certain horses make such an impression when they are around that it is inevitable they will be revered as the years go by. Shergar, Dawn Run, Desert Orchid, Red Rum, etc.
For others, however, the passage of time can be kind or unkind. El Gran Senor’s status is in part due to the fact that the competition he beat at Newmarket was so very strong. Also, the manner of his last gasp defeat in the Derby and his subsequent Irish Derby victory stamped him as wholly versatile and throughly top class. Timeform rated him 136. This is higher than the likes of Nashwan, Kris, Pebbles, The Minstrel, Teenoso and Le Moss (for example) and, although I suspect had he stayed at a mile he would have excelled further and possibly been awarded a higher rating still, his form on the track placed him in the top 50 or so in the all time Timeform rankings, which are probably as reliable a benchmark as we have although, they would be the first to admit, not without it’s shortcomings.
At the minute GW looks like he will end up 130-132-ish depending on what happens in the Breeders Cup. That puts him in the Championship rather than the Premier League. He’s a Norwich to El Gran Senor’s Aston Villa, with neither challenging Seabird’s Manchester United!
The thing about George is that he may be better than that but he hasn’t been able to illustrate that due to the limitations of the opposition he has faced. Had he, for example, turned out in the Champion Stakes and beaten Pride et al by a couple of lengths in impressive fashion then he would be up there in the 135+ bracket but, through no fault of his own really, we can’t say that about him.
I do think though that we won’t forget him in a hurry Jack and neither will we forget other recent stars such as Dubai Millenium, Hawk Wing or ‘The Rock’, all for different reasons.
That’s a terrific post Corm, and would have been perfect except for your use of Scumchester United.  Poor Sea Bird! Can’t we say Real Madrid? (And Norwich might be a bit harsh on George too!)
The flip side of venerating the greats is, of course, the infuriating habit of voting the current No.1 as ‘greatest song/movie/footballer of all time’.  Just because it/he/she is best you have seen does not make it the best ever.
Finding a happy medium is tough, but possible.
(Edited by Sal at 11:26 am on Oct. 21, 2006)
It is true that it would seem that older horses seem to be revered more than today’s crop.  But we were absolutely spoiled as fans of the sport during the late 70s and most of the 80’s.  Ardross and Le Moss in the 2m bracket, the list that Corm noted (a very pleasing list, all great racehorses – bar Teenoso IMO), and Dancing Brave to top it all off, plus a great bunch of sprinters too (Moorestyle, Sharpo, Marwell, Habibti, and the extremely versatile Chief Singer).  We see the odd great, but for sheer year in, year out great racing the eighties will be very hard to match.  Every year seemed to have it’s greats.<br>I suppose that todays bunch (90s onward) are at a disadvantage, but there have been good ones.  Giants Causeway, Halling, Dayjur, Miesque and High Chaparral are good examples.  But they are few and far between.
Today’s style of training horses to be great at 3, then packing them off to stud before they have chance to prove themselves, may be partly the reason why we see the eighties as greater. It was all about track success back then. It’s now about the big money breeding operations.<br>
(Edited by Racing Daily at 2:09 pm on Oct. 21, 2006)
"Today’s style of training horses to be great at 3, then packing them off to stud before they have chance to prove themselves, may be partly the reason why we see the eighties as greater"
Ermm, unfortunate choice of comment on a thread about El Gran Senor who was great at 3 and then packed off to stud.
I think a key reason is that the expansion and globalisation of racing means a greater choice of top-class races for the best horses.  The best horses in each generation never need meet and can be kept at their own specialist distance, rather than being encouraged by the Pattern to challenge each other constantly at a progressive range of distances throughout the season.  More Group 1s mean it is easier to be a specialist champion and less straightforward to produce horses of the quality of El Gran Senor, who was champion 2yo, dual classic winner, champion miler and champion middle-distance horse.
Surely the last few years has seen an upsurge in the top class horses been kept in training at 4+ – mostly thanks to Godolphin’s policies?
Did Chief Singer or Lear Fan race on at 4? I know Rainbow Quest did (and a good thing too!).
BTW I do agree that we’re at a tipping point now with regards to the amount of Group 1s. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the top races (Arc, King George, Irish Champion etc.) eventually split off into some kind of "Super Group 1" division.
Plenty 80’s stars packed off to stud after 3 year old career, particularly those in the 1m to 1m4f division.
Henbit, Shergar, Golden Fleece, Secreto, Reference Point, Nashwan, Sadlers Wells, El Gran Senor, Lear Fan, Chief Singer, Darshaan, Dancing Brave, Zilzal, Shadeed. All off the top of my head and all packed off to stud at the end of their three year old careers. Rainbow Quest and Sagace were notable exceptions as were Teenoso and Slip Anchor.
<br>I think we do see more stars race on today than then but it’d be interesting to see a study of 3-y-o group 1 winners in the 80’s versus now.
<br>
An interesting discussion re. the merits of the present generation with those of El Gran Senor’s time and earlier.<br>Had a sense of deja-vu on reading about criticism levelled at 3-y-o’s being rushed off to stud nowadays. I recall the same criticism being levelled during the time of Robert Sangster’s zenith (anyone recall the mumblings when The Minstrel retired?).<br>Two things about flat racing in the 70’s that puzzle me though.<br>1) Why when races from that era are shown nowadays do they seem to look so slow and the jockeys so laboured?<br>and<br>2) Why, when talking about greats of the past, (especially the 70′) does Roberto get ignored. GP1 at 2, 3 and 4. Showed the odd signs of quirkiness but, imo, stuffed Brigadier Gerard fair and square, proving that, at his very best he was premier league. The horse never got the praise he deserved, mainly because he stuffed a golden idol. He became a decent sire too.
Yes it seems now that sentiment is even making people think the previous "greats" raced on till they were 6-7 year olds!!!! Far more than ever our top class colts and fillys are staying in training until they are 4 or 5.
Insomniac –
1) I think it has to do with the camera angles they used then. Big panoramic shots which don’t show them eating up the ground. I recall seeing a different camera angle on an L.Piggott documentary of one of Sir Ivor’s wins and it was scintillating.
2) Quite right about Roberto. Top racehorse and top sire too.
What amazes me when I watch some of the old races is how bunched up many of the placed and also rans are in behind the winner. If that happens today the form gets ripped apart.
I dunno what made me say that really. It just seemed that way at first thought. That arguement has been completely floored LOL<br>Maybe it’s just old farts like me who like to think that racing was in it’s prime at the same time I was ;)
Yeah I have to agree with you about that Aidan. Dancing Brave’s Arc had about 8 horses finishing within 2 lengths of each other, yet apparently that shows that all the horses ran to form… :o
If you do look at race times from the Guineas though, the last 15 years’ winners have been way faster than the likes of EGS.
Quote: from jackane24 on 12:06 pm on Oct. 22, 2006[br]If you do look at race times from the Guineas though, the last 15 years’ winners have been way faster than the likes of EGS.
"At a mile, only one horse in Europe was [Chief Singer’s] superior. That horse was, of course, El Gran Senor, who beat him two and a half lengths in the General Accident Two Thousand Guineas, recording a timefigure 1.54 fast (139) and putting in the form book the most impressive result of the season. Patiently ridden and virtually hacking through the race, El Gran Senor cruised up to join the leaders coming down into the Dip at the same time as Chief Singer came through on the rails. One glance was enough to tell Pat Eddery that he’d better get down to business. Chief Singer threatened to make a serious race of it and hung on for half a furlong, but El Gran Senor was in command and was going away as the post was reached. As a statement of comparative form among good horses this was the strongest Two Thousand result for many years. El Gran Senor gave a 6lb beating to Chief Singer, a 15lb beating to Lear Fan, a 22lb beating to Rainbow Quest and a 29lb beating to Keen – and these are class horses whose performances stand examination."
Phil Bull – Timeform Computer Timefigures of 1984.
For the uninitiated, the 139 is the figure on Timeform’s 0-140 scale represented by the timefigure.
Thank the Lord we’ve the likes of Jackane on here to debunk the Phil Bulls of this world.
Time is irrelevant. Unless you’re at HMP. Most of the records in the book are set by nonentities.
Just because Haafhd and Refuse To Bend and that mighty colossus Entrepreneur have paddled up the Rowley Mile slightly quicker than El Gran Senor, it doesn’t mean that they are better than him.
There are more Group 1 horses about these days because there are more Group 1s. Quality has nothing to do with it; opportunity does. There are horses winning Group races these days that would have been Listed-class at best 20 years ago.
Not to say that there aren’t class acts in this century. High Chaparral springs to mind.
I don’t think I’ve ever enjoyed reading a topic more on here than this one, fascinating debate and some good points made.
I think its human nature to think things were better years ago, nostalgia is everyones favourite. I find it interesting that Dancing Brave was rated 140 yet won the Arc by about 1 1/2 lengths with about eight horses within three lengths suggesting that all of those eight must have been 135+ horses. Either that was the strongest year in history regarding middle distance horses or the ratings were too high. I’d prefer the latter explanation it makes more sense. Dancing Brave before that beat Shardari by about a length in the King George and won the Eclipse by about four lengths. Was he really worth a 140 rating? I’m not for a second disputing that he was a top class horse but a 140 horse? Reference Point rated 137, really? Again another amazingly strong year?
As far as El Gran Senor is concerned the form of his 2000 Guineas success is unquestionable. Subsequant efforts from beaten horses tell you that as a hell of a guineas and I would definately rate him above George Washington who brilliant as he is, is unproven in a real battle and on soft ground. His bare form is good but it can’t compare with El Gran Senor’s. It’s just a shame we didn’t see more of El Gran Senor because I truely believe he’s one of the most brillant horses to have ever set hoof on a racecourse.
Times and ratings you can’t swear by they don’t tell anything like a full story. Timeform’s ratings for example would have Celtc Swing ahead of El Gran Senor. Sorry but anyone that really believes that Celtic Swing was the better horse is completely barmy.
Quote: from Lincoln Duncan on 12:11 am on Oct. 23, 2006[br]<br>There are more Group 1 horses about these days because there are more Group 1s. <br>
Good angle, and welcome to the forum
Quote: from jackane24 on 12:06 pm on Oct. 22, 2006[br]Yeah I have to agree with you about that Aidan. Dancing Brave’s Arc had about 8 horses finishing within 2 lengths of each other, yet apparently that shows that all the horses ran to form… :o
If you do look at race times from the Guineas though, the last 15 years’ winners have been way faster than the likes of EGS.<br>
Well two things about that. One thing is that according to some sources, horses are getting faster so its not fair to compare times across generations . I also wonder if modern turf track developement and know how surpasses what went on in the past thus allowing our tracks to ride faster….certainly the drainage of national hunt courses has come a long way
SHL
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.