- This topic has 224 replies, 60 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
Am i supposed to really believe that one horse over many years is so vastly superior to even other all time greats, nevermind regular annual "stars"?
I don’t think this thread was wise or required, given the inevitable reaction, however given the question has been posed, i think it’s likely Arkle and his abilities are overstated.
How is it likely that Arkle’s abilities are overstated ? The proof is in the form book and on video recordings for all to see. He carried an average weight of 12st 4Ibs during his chasing career, conceding lumps of weight to good horses – winning 22 from 26.
Can you imagine, even for one second, Kauto Star trying to concede 16Ibs to Denman over 3 miles and defeating that horse by 24 lengths, whilst smashing the course record by 17 seconds at the same time.
No,it just would not happen.
Whether Timeform’s figure is excessive or not, the fact remains that Arkle is the greatest steeplechaser of all time. If any horse in the future even comes close to what he achieved, then that horse will fully deserve all the praise and plaudits that will surely come its way. However, as much as I’d love to see it happen, I won’t hold my breath.
What I will say is that for sheer raw talent and presence, Sprinter Sacre is one horse who really excites me – he is a supremely talented individual, and for me, has the ability and potential to dominate all others in same manner Arkle did over 40 years ago. Thankfully, Mr Henderson’s outstanding horse will not be asked to concede lumps of weight to his contemporaries every other week.
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
As usual a really interesting read J17 and I agree with much of it but does that seperation really not exist in other sports?
How about cricket where Bradman’s 99.94 towers over the next best of 60.97?
How about golf where Nicklaus and Woods are well clear of anyone else in terms of majors?
Or tennis with Federer and Sampras?
I agree that is it perfectly pausible, indeed likely, that even Arkel will one day be usurped but I don’t think it follows that his rating was overstated. The form is there in black in white and nobody seems to want to "recalibrate" it to use an in vogue term!
He did actually beat those fantastic horses carrying all that weight. Either they all ran below form or he was as good as everyone says.
Woods was dominant in Golf, but in historical terms, has a few major rivals when discussing GOAT. Certainly not undisputed.
Federer is probably GOAT, but again, clear seperation does not exist. Other viable candidates for that title exist. Even within the modern generation, an outstanding generation, Federer can’t claim complete domination. Nadal was competitive, whilst Djokovic is now. Sure, Federer is now past his peak, but even during his peak, the Djokovic we see today would have been challenging him for majors.
Bradman is a curious anamoly. However, the disciplines and styles in cricket have evolved since his time.
Ice hockey might be a sport where domination of seperation does exist. Three players are considered largely to be the clear historical peak. Bobby Orr, a defenseman so far ahead of the rest. Wayne Gretzky, holder of so many NHL records, and scoring totals that seem absurd and implausible today and Mario Lemiuex ; injuries cost him career numbers, but the only player to really come close to Grtezky’s domination. Problem is ; 1980’s hockey is vastly different to 2000’s ice hockey. Goaltenders are far far better today aided by stronger equipment and a better fundmental understading of technique. Defense strategy is significantly better. The talent of depth players is also much stronger. 1980’s era witnesses many of the best seasons/prolific careers of the NHL. The problem is, many variables lead to a circumstance for these numbers being attainable. The talent we see today in the sport is arguably faster and stronger, yet league wide numbers/scoring is lower.
What this basically highlights is how an era can artificially increase it’s perceptions. I don’t doubt Arkle’s greatness. Exceptional horse, and worthy of such esteem. The problem is, i simply find it ludicrious to suggest he’s this far ahead of anything we’ve ever seen. i don’t buy it. I think a combination of variables have likely overstated his peak ability. The seperation is beyond statistically bizarre, if we are to truely believe the ratings.
A thoughtful post J17star, though perhaps as well to point out that Flyingbolt (from the same era) was rated just two behind Arkle on 210, so the equine Bradman is not alone a long way in advance of the rest
One can – and many have – argue that Arkle’s lofty rating is excessive; personally I’ve no idea and am not bothered anyway, as converting performance into numbers is by definition opinionated art spiced with a smidgen of science, and the science may have improved over the last fifty years
As others have said the remarkable performances of Arkle are there for all to see in grainy soft-focus monochrome, on the face of it have surely never been bettered and the 212 which has passed into folklore may not be ‘right’ but has most certainly bolstered the romantic, colourful legend
I don’t hold with the view that Arkle’s rating – or perhaps ability is a better if vaguer word – can’t ever be exceeded, just as I don’t believe Bradman’s 99.94 in Tests and 95.14 in all First Class cricket can’t ever be bettered: it is perhaps unlikely but never say never…statistically speaking
It is however patently absurd to lumber a young chaser who’s just graduated from the Novice ranks with the moniker ‘the new Arkle’ let alone ‘better than Arkle’, though this thread is just the latest in a succession of ‘provocative’ posts from Cormack cast with a hook bearing a very large ‘beware’ sign, a garishly flourescent line and Caithness Flagstone sinker
Plenty of bites, though my excuse is being accidentally foul-hooked during the dash from the crystal-clear lively babbling brook to the quiet, murky and dying reedbeds of Talking Horses and The Punters Lounge
An interesting debate and who can blame Cormack for starting it? We are in the middle of a long and gloomy winter and there is little else to talk about with the National Hunt season I mean Cheltenham still 6 weeks away. If you don’t like it don’t read it.
On the subject of "greatness" I found this article interesting – http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1626 … lete-great
J17 – for me Federer raised the bar in tennis. At his peak he was far and away the best of his generation and it is only in the later part of his career that others have caught him. To do so and to match him, players have had to evolve to such levels now where any tiny weakness will be exploited – like blistered feet for example. Watching that final the other day was to see Djokovic play as near to perfect tennis as I think I have seen. But Federer started all that. For me he transcended the sport. His record stands alone and I consider him to be clearly out front as the best tennis player ever in terms of statistics and style.
Bradman may be a curious anomaly to you and the game may well have evolved plenty but in that case why were other batsmen not recording similar averages either before, during or after? If you listen to the old timers they will tell you that it was harder in those days anyway what with uncovered pitches. Anyone that knows their cricket would say that Bradman is in a different league to all the other greats.
There is no doubt that, for those who have been around long enough to see him in the flesh, Arkle similarly holds that almost mystical, other worldy aura that Bradman has. There has never been anything before, during or after to compare to what he did in terms of statistics, style and the appeal he had in and outside of racing.
As someone else said earlier, in the same way that England had to invent Bodyline to quell Bradman, handicappers had to invent new systems to accomodate Arkle. That surely says it all.
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
Anyone that knows their cricket would say that Bradman is in a different league to all the other greats.
Not true. As a cricketer and team man (significant point here) many would put Sobers top of that list
Anyone that knows their cricket would say that Bradman is in a different league to all the other greats.
Not true. As a cricketer and team man (significant point here) many would put Sobers top of that list
As an all rounder yes as a batsmen certainly not.
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
How many times did Arkle perform achieve this 212 ?
The fact they gave Flying Bolt a 210, meaning that both horses would hammer out of sight horses like Kauto and Denman at levels…well i don’t buy it.The handicapping system back then had many flaws and timekeeping wasn’t as accurate as it is today. I’ve looked at sectionals between Sprinter Sacre’s run in the Tingle Creek and Arkle’s run in the Gallaher and they are very similar. It looks further between the Pond Fence and second last these days.
There is a marked difference between Arkle’s sectionals in the Gallaher and Sprinter Sacre’s sectionals in the Tingle Creek.
Sprinter Sacre was racing over 2 miles, carrying the same weight as five of his six opponents, i.e. 11st 7Ibs – a stone less than Arkle, who was racing over a mile further, whilst attempting ( and succeeding ) to give a previous Gold Cup and Hennessy winner 16Ibs.
Incidentally, the young beaks at Timeform are more than satisfied with Arkle’s rating and the rating of those chasers below him.
212 Arkle
210 Flyingbolt
191 Kauto Star, Mill House
187 Desert Orchid
186 Dunkirk
184 Burrough Hill Lad, Moscow Flyer, Long Run
183 Denman, Master Oats
182 Azertyuiop, Best Mate, Captain Christy, Carvill’s Hill, Kicking King, See More Business, Well ChiefGambling Only Pays When You're Winning
How many times did Arkle perform achieve this 212 ?
The fact they gave Flying Bolt a 210, meaning that both horses would hammer out of sight horses like Kauto and Denman at levels…well i don’t buy it.The handicapping system back then had many flaws and timekeeping wasn’t as accurate as it is today. I’ve looked at sectionals between Sprinter Sacre’s run in the Tingle Creek and Arkle’s run in the Gallaher and they are very similar. It looks further between the Pond Fence and second last these days.
I agree. it’s like putting jesse owens 30 pounds above usain bolt.
An interesting debate and who can blame Cormack for starting it? We are in the middle of a long and gloomy winter and there is little else to talk about with the National Hunt season I mean Cheltenham still 6 weeks away. If you don’t like it don’t read it.
It’s a fallicious question. The comparison is impossible to judge, given diversity in distances and that is was 50 years ago. We also know how the majority react to such a question.
On the subject of "greatness" I found this article interesting – http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1626 … lete-great
This article is actually interesting, and doesn’t spout the usual crap that people tend to use when discussing GOAT candidates. Statistical dominance of your peers is a must. There are many athletes with exceptional talent capable of exceptional plays, but unless the show of this talent is consistent ; it means little in this discussion. This peak needs to be a few years for human athletes. For horse racing, the problem is, that peak will usually be much narrower. Novice racing, aging and injuries take their toll on average more than for Human athletes IMO. Denman showed one year of exceptional domination. His other years don’t quite compare. Still, legitimate reasons exist for this, and that peka is unequivocally brilliant.
Discussions of wortk ethic, likability and "heart" are useless. You don’t measure a GOAT candidate because he worked hard. You measure his performances and sporting domination that likely stem from work ethic and determination. Work ethic and determination are not the measurements, they are catalysts to achieve those measurements. Likeability is irrelevant, or atleast, should be.
Becoming bigger than the sport, a global celebrity, is an interesting phenom to discuss, but has it’s flaws. Social media and the hype that transcends from it is a relatively recent commodity. If Tiger Woods, Roger Federer or Michael Phelps had partipcated in their sports 40 years ago, their image would be different, smaller and less relevant. Also, image is cultivated by personality. Asafa Powell was the fastest man of all time before Bolt/Gay, but even if he did possess that ability to perform when it matters, his personality would not have lended itself to be the global image Bolt is. But Bolt should be revered for his abilities and dominance, not simply because he is a tall young black male with a great deal of swag who is deemed cool by nerdy young white kids like myself.
Of course, much of the above is somewhat irrelevant given we are discussing horses, not humans. Nonetheless, an itneresting article and topic.
J17 – for me Federer raised the bar in tennis. At his peak he was far and away the best of his generation and it is only in the later part of his career that others have caught him. To do so and to match him, players have had to evolve to such levels now where any tiny weakness will be exploited – like blistered feet for example. Watching that final the other day was to see Djokovic play as near to perfect tennis as I think I have seen. But Federer started all that. For me he transcended the sport. His record stands alone and I consider him to be clearly out front as the best tennis player ever in terms of statistics and style.
Federer is in the discussion, but it is a
discussion
. It’s a little difficult to truely compare Federer to Nadal and Djokovic, given his peak didn’t entirely overlap theirs. However, we have enough evidence to show he wasn’t totally dominant over them at their peak. Hence, he hasn’t seperated himself enough to be truely considered the GOAT with definitive seperation. Brilliant? Yes. One of the best of all time? Absolutely. Warrants the reputation and perception that Arkle has relative to his historical competition? I don’t think so.
Bradman may be a curious anomaly to you and the game may well have evolved plenty but in that case why were other batsmen not recording similar averages either before, during or after? If you listen to the old timers they will tell you that it was harder in those days anyway what with uncovered pitches. Anyone that knows their cricket would say that Bradman is in a different league to all the other greats.
Bradman played so many years ago, in an environment that was far less competitive. The majority of sports are more competitive today. The variants of cricket and their importance are also evolving. Bradman i think should not be compared to modern day cricket players. Impossible to compare i think. His domination is exceptional over his peers, but i think it is a unrewarding endeavor to extrapolate that to modern day cricket and draw comparisons.
There is no doubt that, for those who have been around long enough to see him in the flesh, Arkle similarly holds that almost mystical, other worldy aura that Bradman has. There has never been anything before, during or after to compare to what he did in terms of statistics, style and the appeal he had in and outside of racing.
I dont disagree. I simply find it bizarre and unlikely that the seperation is that significant. Horse racing has not evolved like human sports (Meaning the breed isn’t witnessing the same improvements we see in other sports) but again, few to no sports have one man so far ahead of the rest. Drone correctly pointed out that Flying Bolt is rated closely, however again, it seems strange to suggest that horse is so far ahead of everything else too. And Flying Bolt isn’t revered anywhere near to the same extent Arkle is.
As someone else said earlier, in the same way that England had to invent Bodyline to quell Bradman, handicappers had to invent new systems to accomodate Arkle. That surely says it all.
This is a romantic statement that has no implicit substance to it. The comparison also fails. England simply devised a strategy to beat Bradman.
The mention of Usain Bolt reminds me of the fallout after the ten-second barrier was broken in the 100m, if memory serves at the Mexico Olympics in 1968; and while not wholly comparable with this Arkle ‘greatest ever/greatest there ever will be’ debate does pretty well prove that sporting records are there to be broken and in all likelihood will be, given some indeterminate time
The opinion then of many wise men was that 9.9something would prove to be the fastest that a human could ever run 100m, as this was the ultimate limit of the human’s athletic ability/physical endurance/metabolic rate/biochemical reactivity…what you will
I believe it took until the 1990s for 9.90 to be broken, but since then the record has been reduced significantly
Is Bolt the greatest there ever will be? Beware the dogmatic yes or no would be my advice
The mention of Usain Bolt reminds me of the fallout after the ten-second barrier was broken in the 100m, if memory serves at the Mexico Olympics in 1968; and while not wholly comparable with this Arkle ‘greatest ever/greatest there ever will be’ debate does pretty well prove that sporting records are there to be broken and in all likelihood will be, given some indeterminate time
The opinion then of many wise men was that 9.9something would prove to be the fastest that a human could ever run 100m, as this was the ultimate limit of the human’s athletic ability/physical endurance/metabolic rate/biochemical reactivity…what you will
I believe it took until the 1990s for 9.90 to be broken, but since then the record has been reduced significantly
Is Bolt the greatest there ever will be? Beware the dogmatic yes or no would be my advice
Bolt will likely be overtaken at some point. Bolt himself hasn’t likely run to his peak potential. I think he can run a sub 9.50. Bolt has unusual mechanics for a sprinter. His height is a disadvantage in some senses, but that stride kills the others.
The limitations for humans over a 100M i couldn’t begin to accurate guess. I think Bolt’s records will likely remain for a good deal longer than the recent records set before him however.
If you compare performances between different eras you alkways have to allow for the differences in turf husbandry at tracks and the difference in training metohds. It’s very difficult to accurately compare horses 40-odd years apart, but I can’t remmber seeing such an impressive galloper and jumper as Sprinter Sacre since Arkle. Different events, different times, but judged against anything in recent years Sprinter Sacre looks something special.
Incidentally if we are going to compare athletics performances with horse racing, what about Ann Packer’s performance in winning the Tokyo 800m in 1964. Won going away in a time of 2m 1.1s, and 40+ years later international runners were generally going no more than 3 or 4 seconds faster on better surfaces. That performance was on a cinder track. In its context the performance takes some beating.
Rob
There is a marked difference between Arkle’s sectionals in the Gallaher and Sprinter Sacre’s sectionals in the Tingle Creek.
There’s not two or three stone diferent though, and the course still looks different.
The ratings of those horses in the 60’s is questionable and you cannot put them in a list alongside those rated today.
My father has seen both Arkle and Sprinter Sacre live and says it’s close. I’ll take his word for it because he considered Himself to be a monster.
fair play to him for remembering mark. Most who saw Arkle have enough trouble remembering who the prime minister is and whether they’ve emptied their incontinence pants, let alone a race
It’s a fallicious question. The comparison is impossible to judge, given diversity in distances and that is was 50 years ago. We also know how the majority react to such a question.
Bradman played so many years ago, in an environment that was far less competitive. The majority of sports are more competitive today. The variants of cricket and their importance are also evolving. Bradman i think should not be compared to modern day cricket players. Impossible to compare i think. His domination is exceptional over his peers, but i think it is a unrewarding endeavor to extrapolate that to modern day cricket and draw comparisons.This is a romantic statement that has no implicit substance to it. The comparison also fails. England simply devised a strategy to beat Bradman.
Which they wrote books and made films about – why be so dismissive?
Sorry Doctor Spock – I am clearly just a romantic with no implicit substance to me. Just a friendly debate whch I enjoy but if course most of it is opinion. I would say seperation does exist and there is such a thing as a freak of nature. With respect j17 your posts are excellent but you come across as a bit of a Doubting Thomas almost afraid to believe what he see’s if it defies your idea of logic. Sometimes animals and horses come along that are freakishly good. Frankel was one, Arkle another.
One last question – are you and the Ginge related?
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.