Bar the Bull
At the Start
Would you remove the fillies/mares allowance, Miller?
Would you have women folk playing off ladies' tees in the US Masters?
What Steve and Brough are saying makes 100% sense and is the way it should be from a sporting perspective. It is just not practical.
Harbinger
At the Start
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 11,282
Define sporting? It could be argued that horse racing has found a pretty good way of allowing horses of different ages and genders to compete against each other, whilst other sports segregate their events thus diluting the competition.
Championship sport is about finding the best. End of. Not who might be the better the following year if they happen to improve by an arguable equine industry average. Of course there is a place for these allowances within racing, just not when you are trying to determine THE best at a given time. There is nothing wrong with having 1/10 shots in four horse fields in these limited circumstances.
Last edited:
I pointed out the same thing earlier - i.e. that Frankel would have won anyway.
This is fine until you get to Championship level. Any 3yo that gets concessions from older horses can only ever be called a "3yo champion" not a champion. A true champion (full stop) is something that takes on all-comers on level terms regardless of age, sex or other allowances.
Sea Bird, Dancing Brave, Mill Reef. Not Champions
Great horses and three of the best we have seen. Like Frankel these were up to beating the older horses on level terms, but because of the WFA concession... Mill Reef of course was a Champion (without qualification) at four.
Last edited:
Brough Scott adding to a point made by John Gosden.
Sea Bird, Dancing Brave, Mill Reef. Not Champions
They are, as racing currently defines champions to be, they have reached the most exacting standards asked of them. Other sport, correctly IMO, apply more exacting standards.
Last edited:
Frankel is the best miler i've ever seen, although i'm just in my 30's so it's a much more limited scope than some.
Sea The Stars is still the better all round racehorse and I couldn;t see Frankel Winning the Arc but I could see him winning Group 1's from 6-10f - Has that ever been done before in the UK?
As an aside - Sea the Stars was the better looking colt in my opinion. The best looking animal I have ever seen. When I saw him on guineas day I couldn;t take my eyes off him and he got better as the year went on.
Sea The Stars is still the better all round racehorse and I couldn;t see Frankel Winning the Arc but I could see him winning Group 1's from 6-10f - Has that ever been done before in the UK?
As an aside - Sea the Stars was the better looking colt in my opinion. The best looking animal I have ever seen. When I saw him on guineas day I couldn;t take my eyes off him and he got better as the year went on.
Sea The Stars was beaufifully balanced and a lovely looking example of the breed. Frankel is a rougher sort of diamond, not perfect in conformation but with huge scope.
Frankel is a stunningly powerful looking horse - Sea The stars I agree is probably the most perfect racehorse I have ever seen - saw him at York - he took your breath away in the paddock as well as on the racecourse.
Bar the Bull
At the Start
Group 1 clashes of the generation would rarely produce a 3yo winner.
Therefore, it would be very rare for a trainer to race a 3yo in these races.
Racing would be incredibly boring if there were to be no clashes of the generations.
I think it is a shit idea.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
As things stand, the current setup produces champion worthy champions and great battles. It has also been very effective at earmarking future stallions, as horse that have won wfa championships as 3yo have been extremely effective sires recently (Oasis Dream and Galileo, for instance).
It is fair.
It produces exciting racing.
It offers a means to compare inter-generations.
Therefore, it would be very rare for a trainer to race a 3yo in these races.
Racing would be incredibly boring if there were to be no clashes of the generations.
I think it is a shit idea.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
As things stand, the current setup produces champion worthy champions and great battles. It has also been very effective at earmarking future stallions, as horse that have won wfa championships as 3yo have been extremely effective sires recently (Oasis Dream and Galileo, for instance).
It is fair.
It produces exciting racing.
It offers a means to compare inter-generations.
spot on and quite obvious.
It's only a shite idea because of the financials.
If horses were kept in training till they were fully mature and beyond there would be plenty of intergenerational clashes, only on a level playing field. Flat racing might even become interesting - it would be more like National Hunt racing only with a few interesting bits removed.
Fast maturing horses are favoured by the weight for age allowances, and are more likely to be successful at stud because they are more likely to have progeny that will be fast maturing. If horses went to stud at 7 or 8 years of age maybe some other stallions would come to the fore whose progeny make their breakthroughs at 5 or 6, or would if they were made appropriate introductions.
If horses were kept in training till they were fully mature and beyond there would be plenty of intergenerational clashes, only on a level playing field. Flat racing might even become interesting - it would be more like National Hunt racing only with a few interesting bits removed.
Fast maturing horses are favoured by the weight for age allowances, and are more likely to be successful at stud because they are more likely to have progeny that will be fast maturing. If horses went to stud at 7 or 8 years of age maybe some other stallions would come to the fore whose progeny make their breakthroughs at 5 or 6, or would if they were made appropriate introductions.
Last edited:
Bar the Bull
At the Start
But the financials do exist.
Nobody wants to sit around for years waiting for a horse to mature.
They want to raise the feckers to run at 2. To peak at three/four. And they want to have a valid means to compare across generations.
In an ideal world we'd have Sea the Stars still racing now.
In an ideal world we'd all be fit, healthy, and taking fresh air with our loved ones. Instead of sitting on our hoops eating processed food on a nice day half working, half getting annoyed that somebody on the internet disagrees on the most valid way to test the relative merits of different aged thoroughbreds.
Nobody wants to sit around for years waiting for a horse to mature.
They want to raise the feckers to run at 2. To peak at three/four. And they want to have a valid means to compare across generations.
In an ideal world we'd have Sea the Stars still racing now.
In an ideal world we'd all be fit, healthy, and taking fresh air with our loved ones. Instead of sitting on our hoops eating processed food on a nice day half working, half getting annoyed that somebody on the internet disagrees on the most valid way to test the relative merits of different aged thoroughbreds.
Bar the Bull
At the Start
I think it would be terrible.
Suny I'm getting a little irritated by this silly confrontational language that you adopt… Why is your estimable opinion is it ABSURD as you put it? You may well disagree with it (although that could only be because you misunderstand basic definitions), but it is not absurd... A champion is something that on level terms is better than anything else.
Bar the Bull
At the Start
Not in racing it isn't, Steve. I understand that you disagree. I disagree with your disagreement, but I think we should both agree to disagree before things get disagreeable.
Agreed?
Agreed?
...well in racing too. 3yos are correctly referred to as "3yo champions" (i.e. champions of their age group).
Horses in different distance categories can be call "middle-distance champions", "staying champions", etc. A filly can be called "champion filly". The list is endless. The common denominator is that they are all "qualified".
They cannot correctly be referred to as "champions" unless they have beaten everything on at least level terms. Few horses achieve this status.
Arkle was a proper champion. Sea The Stars was a champion 3yo.
But I will agree with you... You and anyone else can call them what you like. The point is too tedious to continue with I agree.
Horses in different distance categories can be call "middle-distance champions", "staying champions", etc. A filly can be called "champion filly". The list is endless. The common denominator is that they are all "qualified".
They cannot correctly be referred to as "champions" unless they have beaten everything on at least level terms. Few horses achieve this status.
Arkle was a proper champion. Sea The Stars was a champion 3yo.
But I will agree with you... You and anyone else can call them what you like. The point is too tedious to continue with I agree.
Last edited: