- This topic has 117 replies, 42 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
Vaguely Noble was a very good horse, no question – and like Ribot would gallop the opposition into submission, but neither would have coped with the electrifying burst of Sea Bird – who, quite simply, was the best middle distance horse ever – so there !
Sea Bird may be the superhorse but I feel that Dancing Brave would’ve had the Kryptonite to nail him
He would have needed Kryptonite and much more besides to nail the nonpareil.
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
Vaguely Noble was a very good horse, no question – and like Ribot would gallop the opposition into submission, but neither would have coped with the electrifying burst of Sea Bird – who, quite simply, was the best middle distance horse ever – so there !
Sea Bird may be the superhorse but I feel that Dancing Brave would’ve had the Kryptonite to nail him
He would have needed Kryptonite and much more besides to nail the nonpareil.
But the ‘Brave’ was unique too.
I often wonder about this match and always see Sea Bird easing 2 or 3 length clear whilst The Brave moves into his slipstream. At first, DB struggles to get to grips with SB but then … WHOOSH! … his turbo kicks in and the wrath of the devil is unleashed. DB conquers by half length
But the ‘Brave’ was unique too.
I often wonder about this match and always see Sea Bird easing 2 or 3 length clear whilst The Brave moves into his slipstream. At first, DB struggles to get to grips with SB but then … WHOOSH! … his turbo kicks in and the wrath of the devil is unleashed. DB conquers by half length
And I thought unique meant one of a kind. Oh well.
You must have some imagination is all I can say. Seriously though, it is one of those dream scenarios which neither can be proved or disproved either way. Suffice to say that even I, in my wildest imaginings, could not envisage any racehorse, from any era, and given any sort of lead (however wide or narrow) "whooshing" past Sea Bird.
Dancing Brave, very good horse though he was, couldn’t whoosh past Shahrastani and Manilla, so what chance against an imperious horse like Sea Bird, whose effortless and dynamic style of racing ensured that no top class three year old in 1965 could even get him off the bridle – let alone extend him. Such was his class. He was, as Big Mac rightly said, " the perfect racing machine."
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
I know Red Rum ran at Aintree as a 2yo.
I know Lester Piggott rode Red Rum as a 2yo.
I know Red Rum won as a 2yo.
I’m fairly sure that Red Rum ran in a Seller as a 2yo.But did all these things happen in the same race? ie, Did Lester Piggott ride Red Red to victory in a 2yo 5f Seller at Aintree?
I know Red Rum ran at Aintree as a 2yo.
I know Lester Piggott rode Red Rum as a 2yo.
I know Red Rum won as a 2yo.
I’m fairly sure that Red Rum ran in a Seller as a 2yo.But did all these things happen in the same race? ie, Did Lester Piggott ride Red Red to victory in a 2yo 5f Seller at Aintree?
Lester Piggott finished second on Red Rum in the Earl Of Sefton stakes ( run at Aintree ).
His first race was a 5f seller at Aintree, in 1967. He was ridden by the late Paul Cook, where dead-heated with a horse called Curlicue.
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
Nayef. Sir Percy. Cockney Rebel
Isn`t this like having Jeremy Bates in the tennis hall of fame?
Combined, you’ve denigrated the winners of the Richmond, the Dewhurst, an English and Irish Guineas, the Derby (beating two multiple Group winners in stunning visual style); the Prince of Wales Stakes, the Golden Shaheen and many others I can’t remember. Add several hard core runs in top races like the King George and I’m wondering what more do you want?
Several other posters have mentioned Celtic Swing. I would argue cogently that all three of my horses have more right to a Hall of Fame position, but I respect the right of others to an opinion and this isn’t an argument thread.
I also put the three horses up for variety and to represent recency. We’re all prone to powerful judgmental heuristics which favour horses like Eclipse, Flying Dutchman, Pretty Polly and Arkle at the expense of modern horses because they’ve been subject to so much literary speculation and analysis over the years. Their feats have become fish stories. For instance, I would disagree with Himself about Sea Bird II vs Dancing Brave and the Dutchman won many of his races against a single opponent.
Let’s see your selections then?
Maxilon,
The reason I put up Celtic Swing is he was one of the best ever two year olds. Beating Singspeil by eight lengths in a canter, in course record time (Hyperion Stakes). Then won the Racing Post by 12 lengths, a performance that achieved a Timeform Rating of 138. I would think for a horse to train on, to make normal progress he has to "improve" 7lbs just to stay still. Celtic Swing in my opinion did not make that improvement.
He did not train on as a three year old. Even though second in the Guineas and won the French Derby, those performances were nowhere near the form of his Doncaster run at two.
Should a top class three year old, who showed nothing much at two, and failed to train on at four; be excluded from the Hall Of Fame?
I myself do not see why one of the best two year olds in the last 40 years should be excluded? But I did ask in my original post; "should Celtic Swing be included"?
Value Is EverythingSir Percy and Cockney Rebel were surely "ordinary" group 1 winners. In that their form by winning the races they did; was nothing out of the ordinary. Compared to other Group 1 winners.
Mark
Value Is EverythingWho was better, Sea Bird or Dancing Brave? Well, Sea Bird does have a Timeform Rating of 146 to Dancing Brave’s 140. But that really is just judging them against their own time zone.
So it does not take in to consideration how the thoroughbred racehorse (or rather training methods) have improved over the years. If race horses are not getting better, then how come record times are getting faster and faster? It can not be down to ground conditions, because there was even more firm (fast) ground in Sea Bird’s era. And these days watering is the norm, which was not prevalent in the 60’s. I can not see that racecourses inside rail diameters are getting any shorter today either.
Therefore, I would say, if you picked up Sea Bird from the 60’s (how good he was then) and placed him at the start of Dancing Brave’s Arc. Dancing Brave would probably have come out on top.
Mark
Value Is Everythingthe Prince of Wales Stakes, the Golden Shaheen and many others I can’t remember. Add several hard core runs in top races like the King George and I’m wondering what more do you want?
Nayef was a nice animal (my Jeremy Bates comment was a tad flippant) but he never cracked the 130 barrier – which is surely manditory for any HoF candidate. The first hall of fame was for Baseball, and that sport has certain benchmarks that must be met for most writers to vote for inclusion.
Who was better, Sea Bird or Dancing Brave? Well, Sea Bird does have a Timeform Rating of 146 to Dancing Brave’s 140. But that really is just judging them against their own time zone.
So it does not take in to consideration how the thoroughbred racehorse (or rather training methods) have improved over the years. If race horses are not getting better, then how come record times are getting faster and faster? It can not be down to ground conditions, because there was even more firm (fast) ground in Sea Bird’s era. And these days watering is the norm, which was not prevalent in the 60’s. I can not see that racecourses inside rail diameters are getting any shorter today either.
Therefore, I would say, if you picked up Sea Bird from the 60’s (how good he was then) and placed him at the start of Dancing Brave’s Arc. Dancing Brave would probably have come out on top.
Mark
For one usually so fastidious and pedantic, I am surprised that you have afforded Sea Bird an even higher Timeform figure than he was actually given. Your arguments (set above) would certainly have held/ hold no sway with Phil Bull, Reg Griffin and Jim McGrath – three gentleman who headed the august publication. Bull did once question Brigadier Gerard’s 144 figure ( though Reg Griffin held firm on that one ), but all three were unanimous that Sea Bird was, and still is, the benchmark for all middle distance classic racehorses. Phil Bull said that Sea Bird put up the greatest performance he had ever witnessed from any racehorse, at any time – and the great man was around in 1986 when Dancing Brave was strutting his stuff.
Anyhow, it’s all about opinions, and I suppose that tired old phrase, "let’s agree to disagree" should now be brought into play.
Incidentally, Sea Bird’s Arc was won on good to soft ground.
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
Himself,
Oops did I over rate SB? Sorry am working away from home at the mo, doing this from memory. knew it was either 146 or 145. Anyway:
It does not matter what going Sea Bird or Dancing Brave raced on.
The fact is record times (no matter who makes them) are being broken. Very few record times from the 60’s still stood in 1986. Therefore, racehorses as a bunch must be getting quicker. If they are getting quicker (capable of a better times) then as a bunch those in 1986 must be capable of better form than those in 1965.
If not can you explain why record times are getting faster Himself?
Sea Bird, I believe deserves the better rating; bacause he was better compared to his year as a whole. Than Dancing Brave was in his year as a whole.
Mark
Value Is EverythingWhat actually concerns me about Sea Bird’s Arc is the fact that he won it in a canter with the opposition highly strung out like washing on a line … isn’t this an indication that most of the other horses weren’t running up to their best form? Even his winning margin of 6 lengths seems to appear a lot shorter to me … looks more like 4 lengths!
If you look at Dancing Brave’s Arc, the horses, spread across the track, are taking each other on and sprinting with 2 furlongs to go … this formation being a sure indication that nearly all the horses are running up to their best. As someone rightly mentioned on Youtube, DB needed a ‘target’ to aim at due to his racing style … and boy did he shoot that Arc field down!
Rob V,
I hope this doesn’t alarm you too much and that you will get a good night’s sleep, but what you have just written is exactly what I’ve been thinking for the last half an hour, to a word.
Euro, I’ll have to go away and have a look at general Hall of Fame rules because there seems to be a few different criteria going about. With your strict criteria, I’d trim my list down to four, including the great Dancing Brave.
In the original list, I put Chaplins Club up, (Gerald nominated Juwwi, presumably by similar logic), and my specific reason for that is that amazing mid-summer winning streak in the mid-eighties which made the national news, in the days when racing still made the national news.
Ginger, I wasn’t criticising Celtic Swing at all. He’s worth a nomination for the Hyperion Stakes romp alone – which was every bit as gobsmacking as Arazi (well, nearly). In fact, I wrote a Hall of Infamy post (which I didn’t post), with nominations including the Swing’s owner Peter Savill. Not for his labyrinthine betting negotiations, but for his decision to bypass the Derby.
Sad. Mad. Bad.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.