- This topic has 59 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
The arguments over ratings is somewhat futile. The overriding fact is that Sea The Stars competed in six group 1 races as a 3 year old, winning all; ranging from a mile to a mile and half, and defeating every horse put up against him – some of whom went on to win group 1 races at the end of that year and this.
The bottom line is that Sea The Stars was one outstanding racehorse.
Mick Kinane is adamant that he is the best he has ever ridden. That alone speaks volumes if you consider some of the great horses he partnered during his career.
Exactly.
I know – I just know – that I’m going to turn into an old man who will not countenance any flat horse being better than Sea The Stars.
Every Generation has its defining racehorse. Sea The Stars is mine.
BlueSky @pghenn.bsky.social
So don't run, just like the others always do
Sea The Stars has ended up with a comparatively poor rating given the unique sequence of Group 1 wins he accumulated – something no horse as ever done before. And his Arc victory seems to be what has anchored his rating.
Eh?
Sea The Stars was rated 140 by Timeform, "one of the greats". Equal best since Brigadier Gerrard. So can’t see where you get "ended up with a comparitively poor rating". The Arc has "anchored" nothing.
Actually I think the Brigadier receieved a top rating of 144. STS 140 is equal to Dancing Brave (which you may have been thinking of) and interestingly Harbinger. Mill Reef, Ribot, Abernant Tudor Minstrel, and Sea Bird all receieved ratings above STS. He is in fact equal 7th with the two already mentioned, Shergar, and Vaguely Noble.
Of course I dont suggest for a minute that STS is not regarded, in ratings terms, as a "great". However I do believe the Arc performance resulted in him being possibly unfairly downgraded.
If he had gone away and won the Arc in the manner of Sea Bird for instance, he would have ended up with a rating which imo would have been more becoming of his unique achievement in winning the sequence of 6 G1s which no horse had done before.
I think the way the Arc panned out (ie. having a poor position for most of the race and then having to sprout wngs late on) meant the performance in that race may have been underrated. If he had sat on the tail of the leader as he had done at Epsom the performance may have been afforded a better rating which may have pushed his 140 end of year figure higher – to something approaching Sea Bird’s. As it turns out according to the RPRs in Monday’s post STS’s Arc is inferior to Dalakhani, Sakhee and Hurricane Run, horses who in nobody’s book achieved anything like STS.
Obivously two of the races STS won at 3 did not even exist when the Brigadier and Sea Bird were running, but nevertheless, I think I am right in saying that no horse had ever won the 2,000G, Derby, Eclipse and Arc before STS – Sea Bird only won two, the Derby and Arc, admittedly in tremendous style against formidable opposition, paricularly in Paris.
To my mind the ahcievements of STS rank alongside any of the all time greats and I do think that when you are dealing with horses like this quibbling over a few pounds here and there can detract from the horses true ability.
I guess in 20 years time the youngsters of today will be looking back and (hopefully) saying STS was some horse to win all those races as nothing has come remotely close since. Alternatively they may ask was he really that good as horses such as Sea Bird, Ribot and Mill Reef were rated higher.
I repeat:
It seems to me you do not understand what Timeform ratings are. You may well rate horses in a totally different way, which is your perogative. Timeform do not measure durability or number of wins, or whether a horse has a big reputation in a punters mind. Their ratings are purely judged on what a horse beat in each race, by how far and how easily. Also sometimes by time.
If Sea The Stars ran again in a race, then given ideal conditions and fitness, its readers need to know what rating is capable of. Same as any horse running anywhere.
Adding numbers to the rating purely on how many Group 1’s a horse has won is clearly wrong for their ratings. As it would exaggerate a horse’s chance in its next race.
Whether a horse "deserves" a particular rating on "durability" does not come in to it, although they will mention that and its genuine temperament in the write up.
They can not rate the Arc PERFORMANCE any better, because to do so would mean elevating Youmzain, Cavalryman and co. The PERFORMANCE rating in no way downgrades the HORSE’S rating.
Value Is Everything
- Total Posts 17716
Reminds me of the salesgirl who asked her boss why the area manager had a Ford Capri and she only had a Fiesta yet she was the one bringing in all the business. He said "your’re right" "leave it with me" then took the Capri off the area manger and gave him a Fiesta as well.
Sea the Stars is the best middle distance racehorse after Sea Bird.He has vanquished the bset of opposition in winning the Guineas,Derby,Eclipse,Champion nad Arc and revealed phenomenal acceleration.It is not a joke to be unbeaten against the likes of Conduit,Fame to Glory,Mastercraftsman,Youzmain Rip Van Winkle etc. .Tony Morris of Racing Post rates him as an equal to the graet Sea Bird.In terms of distance he has revealede versatlity greater than Mill Reef or Dancing Brave and would certainly have won the triple Crwon if given the chance.His only drawback was that he was not a champion on soft going.The consistency of acceleration over such a long season in big races is something unequaled by any graet like Nijinsky and although Mill Reef won by great margins or Dancing Brave had better finishing speed they were not as complete a champion as Sea the Stars who posessed great acceleration and staying power.
Absolutely right Harshthakor, winning at different trips throughout a long season, often in the face of team tactics, made him indisputably one of the greats
To me one point worth noting is that the modern champions post significantly faster timings imilraly to milers in the Olympics.Let us compare the winning timeso f Sea the Stars,Peintre Celebre to Dancing Brave or Mill Reef.We have to analyse whether timings can be atrue criteria.Then Sea the Stars or Peintre Celebre would be many lengths ahead of Mill Reef,who is rated ahead on timeform.A very important criteria is the going.We know for sure the level of superiority of greats like Sea Bird compared to current or recent champions but can we make an accurate measure without considering the timings and improvement in competition.Sea Bird performed oustandingly against the greatest opposition ever,but his timing was well below the current Arc champions.Infact Brough Scott had raised this point in his recent book.
Overall to me Sea the Stars had marginally greater raw ability than stars like MillReef,Dancing Brave and Nijinsky.What may go against Sea the Stars overall rating is the failure to run as 4 year old like Ribot,Mill Reef and Brigadier Gerard and inabilty to be outstanding on soft going.Over 10 f Sea the Stars is the best horse I have seen.He had greater acceleration than Mill Reef and better staying power than Dancing Brave.Statistically,in the moral sense Nijinsky should have been the ultimate champion wh was robbed the distinction of winning the Triple Crown,Irish Derby,King George and Arc and been crowned the ultimate middle distance champion.Overall however I feel Sea the Stars would have overpowered Nijinsky.
Sea the Stars to me deserved a 142-143 rating just edging out Mill Reef and just being edged out by Ribot,because of his versatality of winning in any type of going and being better chamoion at 4 years.I will not discuss Brigadier Gerard as he is the greatest miler of all time and not in the Sea Bird class over a mile and a half.Over 10 f Sea the Stars would have beaten Brigadier Gerard on any type of going.
I complement ‘Himself’ on a rational assesment,giving the Stars his deserving due.
While Sea The Stars put up many stellar performances throuthout his career including breaking the track record in the Eclipse and in the International, i agree that his performance in the Arc remains his best. After 2 furlongs of the race i simply refused to believe that he could possibly win given how hard he had pulled for his head, after another 4 furlongs i was even more convinced as he continued to pull violently on the inside, surely in a race of this staure and quality it wud be impossible to winj doing this. then at the top of the false straight he got shuffled back past midfield and was trapped in a pocket ….At that stage i lost all hope that the great one could achieve the impossible, in a 0-75 handicap it would be icredible but to do it in an Arc after you have been racing in Classic and top level Group 1’s for 6 straight months and when the race goes wrong in every way thats possible, would be an astonishing performance and then …… Well the rest is history –
His greatest performance by a mile in my opinionHimself.
I agree with your evaluation which does justice to all the superstars placing them all in the correct light.However have you not forgotten Shergar?In 1981 he trounced his opposition in the Epsom Derby like no horse before and even eclipsed Sea Bird’s 1965 win.He cruised on the bit to win by 10 lengths which would well have been 15 had the rider not eased him.Many believe on the day of the Epsom Derby he was the best horse they had seen.I would bracket Shergar with the likes of Sea Bird,Mill Reef and Nijinsky.Surprised his name was not mentioned in the discussion.Ofcourse he did not face the same level of opposition as Sea Bird or Dancing Brave and did not beat older horses or mantain his form throughout the season like Mill Reef or Nijinsky.However no flat racehorse displayed as much superiority over his rivals as a 3 year old.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.