Arkle-Are we real???

davidjohnson said:
Can't see why people get hung up on this tedious argument. Would John Ruiz have beaten Muhammad Ali? By some peoples thinking on this thread, unquestionably. Comparing horses on a season by season basis is fruitless enough but comparing horses from 50 years ago is pointless.
Click to expand...

it gets started because people like to think they are seeing the best within their lifetime...its hard for some to accept the best is in the past

compared to its own generation of horses ,,Arkle has the biggest superiority we have ever seen in horse racing
 
Gareth Flynn said:
Let's get this into perspective - Bolt and Powell were born 50 miles apart on the same island and utterly dominate the historic record of their discipline; one which has had the focus of tens of thousands of competitors from across the world.
Click to expand...

Realistically only athletes who`s ancestors hailed from West Africa are capable of running that fast.
 
can't see a problem with that Gal...do you think that is not possible?

watch those you tube clips..he turned GC's into exercise canters against the best horses

the field sizes tell you a lot...it weren't even worth turning up.

no matter what anyone says...you cannot argue with those 3 GC's

if he had stayed sound he would have banged another 3 in as well

don't forget...Millhouse was a "wonder horse"

it just so happens...he was the unluckiest wonder horse in the history of racing
 
To be clear, it's only the notion that there's some kind of unacceptable coincidence about them being stablemates that I'm disputing. It's not like Dreaper was some kind of small time nobody who got lucky, is it?
 
Euronymous said:
Realistically only athletes who`s ancestors hailed from West Africa are capable of running that fast.
Click to expand...

Realistically, only horses who hail from a small part of Northern Europe are capable of being the best steeplechasers. And unlike their human counterparts, horses are selectively bred!
 
I think your point about Denman/KS is relevant Gareth

I haven't heard anyone say what a remarkable coincidence it is that Nichols trains both Denma/KS..throw in MM and you have a triple coincidence
 
EC1 said:
I think your point about Denman/KS is relevant Gareth

I haven't heard anyone say what a remarkable coincidence it is that Nichols trains both Denma/KS..throw in MM and you have a triple coincidence
Click to expand...

Its a believeable coincidence to train numerous top class animals at the same time....particularly when you have huge resources and top class purchases buying stop from Ireland, UK and France.

It's another thing altogether to have two horses rated 212 & 210 at the exact same time and for there not to be another chaser in the history of the sport to be rated within 19lbs.

Maybe I am the only one to see the difference....
 
money doesn't always buy success though Gal..so people in the future could still say..bit of a coincidence that Nichols having the 3 best chasers for 20 years all at the same time

to me having good resources and money doesn't always get you the best...look at man city:)
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyingbolt

Worth a read, especially the bit towards the end entitled Private Race, which maybe gives a clue as to why when a stable has one good horse it very often has at least one other.

By the way, Flyingbolt made his debut in a flat race but was allowed next time out to run in, and win, a bumper. That wouldn't be allowed nowadays. Also, he won the Champion Chase and was beaten only 3L in the Champion Hurdle in the same year.
 
Galileo said:
It's another thing altogether to have two horses rated 212 & 210 at the exact same time and for there not to be another chaser in the history of the sport to be rated within 19lbs.
Click to expand...

Brigadier Gerard and Mill Reef were the same generation and were about 19lbs better than the next best. They weren't trained hundreds of miles apart either. Not many are disputing that they are better than the best around since then but they were only six or seven years later than Sea Bird and fewer than that behind Arkle. Not many are disputing that Sea Bird was better than BG or MR either, for that matter.

To believe, as you are suggesting that Arkle wasn't much better than KS or Denman - let's say you'll accept that he was rated 200 - the fact remains he was a minimum of 2st better than his other contemporaries (bar Flyingbolt). That makes Mill House - as mentioned elsewhere a 'wonder horse until Arkle came along - only a 172 animal. Roughly on a par with Snoopy Loopy, you might say. Or Sir Rembrandt. Or Norton's Coin.

What does it make the ones Mill House was gubbing? 155-ish? The equivalent of a decent novice?
 
I think its fair to say that Flyingbolts rating was based mainly on weight giving performances ..which Arkle's were not solely based on

no mistake, Flyingbolt was a superb horse...shame they never met at levels to sort it out

maybe Dreaper had a time machine and transported them from the 1990's..probably they were just platers in that decade :)
 
Desert Orchid said:
Brigadier Gerard and Mill Reef were the same generation and were about 19lbs better than the next best. They weren't trained hundreds of miles apart either. Not many are disputing that they are better than the best around since then but they were only six or seven years later than Sea Bird and fewer than that behind Arkle. Not many are disputing that Sea Bird was better than BG or MR either, for that matter.

To believe, as you are suggesting that Arkle wasn't much better than KS or Denman - let's say you'll accept that he was rated 200 - the fact remains he was a minimum of 2st better than his other contemporaries (bar Flyingbolt). That makes Mill House - as mentioned elsewhere a 'wonder horse until Arkle came along - only a 172 animal. Roughly on a par with Snoopy Loopy, you might say. Or Sir Rembrandt. Or Norton's Coin.

What does it make the ones Mill House was gubbing? 155-ish? The equivalent of a decent novice?
Click to expand...

thats a very good post DO

its very clear from what I've read that Mill House was widely considered the best we had seen for years..probably the Denman of his age..it could happen now...next year a chaser comes along and hammers Denman and KS by 20 lengths...we would be rubbing our eyes...making excuses etc.

why is it not possible that a horse is that good?
 
Arkle, Flyingbolt and Millhouse were before my time. Watching film they seem highly impressive.The judgement of people I respect is that they were markedly superior to modern horses. These are facts.

The disciplines I employed in my former profession however lead to me question the degree of superiority. In any reasonable analytical assessment the ratings would be determined as anomalies, or more correctly one would require far more detailed examination before accepting them.
In all other sports involving the strength and speed of humans and/or animals (as far as I am aware) the rate of advance in training methods, feeding regimes, knowledge of anatomy ,etc. all show progressive improvement leading to improved performances with an acceleration throughout the 20th century.

In comparable sports anomalies have been the result of drugs, altitude or some other rational cause. As far as I am aware there are no such huge variations in flat racing figures. The internationalisation of breeding and improvements in breeding techniques would lead one to expect that this would create an improving trend not such a huge variation. Every way I look at it, it doesn't make sense.

I make no allegations nor have any amazing revelations but were these stats seen in other sports there would be a great deal of doubt.
 
Tout Seul said:
In all other sports involving the strength and speed of humans and/or animals (as far as I am aware) the rate of advance in training methods, feeding regimes, knowledge of anatomy ,etc. all show progressive improvement leading to improved performances with an acceleration throughout the 20th century.
Click to expand...

Do you really believe the theories apply to animals too?

Maybe a greyhound racing student can tell us if the likes of Westmead Whatever was faster that Mick The Miller?

I'd argue that humans have only been racing seriously against each other for just over 100 years. Sports science is far far younger.

Animals have been racing for survival for millions of years. Humans have been harnessing and exploiting their speed for thousands. The scope for enhanced improvement must be infinitesimal relative to their natural ability.
 
Fair comment DO but Darwin might have something to say about your thoughts. However that that might be your post does not explain a such a short term anomaly.

I don't have the base data-an acknowledged weakness- but I suspect that a graph of the ratings has a profile that is unlike that in any other sport. ie a huge spike.
Re the greyhound comparison I would suggest the money and effort expended in developing the abilities of horses is vastly larger than that spent on greyhounds.
 
Last edited:
Look at how Martin Pipe revolutionised fitness in horse training in the 80s and 90s....all his horses were not neccessarily better than the opposition but when your fitness levels are on a different level all together. Nicholls has now taken it to another level....Arkle would likely have "blown up" in this year's Gold Cup and pulled up in last year's severe test.

I found it fascinating listening to Jim Dreaper earlier in the year talking about how his son Tom had played a huge part in training his horses this season. Tom had previously been in England for the last few years riding pretty sucessfully but very much with an eye on coming back home to eventually train. Jim now talks about the completely different style of training his horses now this season compared to any other he can remember. Horses fitter and trained harder....and this season has been his most sucessful in years.

Every sport moves on, and racing is no different.
 
Last edited:
Desert Orchid said:
To believe, as you are suggesting that Arkle wasn't much better than KS or Denman - let's say you'll accept that he was rated 200 - the fact remains he was a minimum of 2st better than his other contemporaries (bar Flyingbolt). That makes Mill House - as mentioned elsewhere a 'wonder horse until Arkle came along - only a 172 animal. Roughly on a par with Snoopy Loopy, you might say. Or Sir Rembrandt. Or Norton's Coin.

What does it make the ones Mill House was gubbing? 155-ish? The equivalent of a decent novice?
Click to expand...

Mill House was rated 21lb inferior to Arkle, not two stone- which puts him on 179 if we accept the 200 Arkle rating. Perfectly ok in my opinion. As for the horses he beat easily, early 160s isn`t a problem in an age when the horse population wasn`t as high and one would have had more down years than we do now (Hedgehunter placing in a Gold Cup for example.)
 
Last edited:
Galileo said:
Look at how Martin Pipe revolutionised fitness in horse training in the 80s and 90s....all his horses were not neccessarily better than the opposition but when your fitness levels are on a different level all together. Nicholls has now taken it to another level....Arkle would likely have "blown up" in this year's Gold Cup and pulled up in last year's severe test.
Click to expand...

I`m with you on Arkle`s inflated rating, but not this. When putting Himself in the modern era we have to do it on a level playing field - so Arkle and Flyingbolt also have modern training methods. It`s an animals dominance in his era that counts historically.
 
Euronymous said:
I`m with you on Arkle`s inflated rating, but not this. When putting Himself in the modern era we have to do it on a level playing field - so Arkle and Flyingbolt also have modern training methods. It`s an animals dominance in his era that counts historically.
Click to expand...

It kind of goes hand in hand surely? Who's to say Arkle would have progressed or flourished under today's training regime styles or that he would have been up to it? Maybe I am not understanding the rating side completely and comparing it too broadly (or simply to timed athletes) but how can an unfit (by today's elite racehorse standards) be capable of hitting such heights yet the modern day improved animals don't get near those sort of performances?

Ratings are a measure of a horses ability or performance on a day....where would Kauto/Denman slotted into the 1966/65 Gold Cups have figured given their vastly superior fitness or is that not to be taken into account?
 
Doesn't Arkle still hold a course record at Sandown ? Which considering today's advanced training methods suggests that he was indeed a freak .

Mill House once had an OR of 191 -I think .
 
Galileo said:
Maybe I am not understanding the rating side completely and comparing it too broadly (or simply to timed athletes) but how can an unfit (by today's elite racehorse standards) be capable of hitting such heights yet the modern day improved animals don't get near those sort of performances?
Click to expand...

For one thing Arkle`s rating was based on his handicap performances. As for the modern horse, the top class one`s have more opposition now. Last year 22 chasers were rated between 155-170. I`m guessing that in the late 60s there were nowhere near that amount. Meaning competition for the top prizes once Arkle exited stage left was not that strong.

Another thing, Stalbridge Colonist and What a Myth were first and third in the 1966 Hennessy with Arkle between the pair them. Arkle conceded them 35 and 33lbs respectively. The former was later third (beaten a length) in the 1968 Gold Cup. The latter won the 1969 renewal. I don`t see either of those two in Timeform`s top rated chasers in history. Surely if they were let`s say 35lbs behind Arkle they should be in the late 170s??
 
Back
Top