Himself

[Desert Orchid]

I'm wondering if now is a good time for a thread on Arkle.

He pops up in debates every so often and there's disagreement one way or another so even after more than 50 years he's still making racing of yesteryear relevant.

I've only one more full day of total isolation left - I'm still convinced whatever I've had hasn't been coronavirus - and have been watching some Youtube stuff about him.

One thing I noticed that I don't recall anyone else ever saying before was that Tom Dreaper "discovered" interval training. It was Arkle's work rider Paddy Woods who said it. He said Dreaper told him to go down to the bottom of the gallop and come up about four furlongs, trot back down, four furlongs, repeatedly.

Then ally that idea to what Michael Dickinson said recently in an interview about when he took over from his mother - so maybe 20 years on from Dreaper and a few years after Martin Pipe in the mid-70s - about having a sports scientist review his training routine. After it he asked the visitor for his opinion. The reply was along the lines of, 'Is that it? If that was an athlete he'd only be just warmed up. You need to work them a lot harder.'

So, is it possible that Arkle was a great horse but whose ability was exaggerated relative to his opponents by being harder fit in the same way that Pipe's and Dickinson's runners were?

 

[Frankel]

Can of worms.

212 is amusing!

 

[Slim]

So, is it possible that Arkle was a great horse but whose ability was exaggerated relative to his opponents by being harder fit in the same way that Pipe's and Dickinson's runners were?

Name one good horse Martin Pipe trained?

 

[HawkWing]

Carvills Hill

 

[Slim]

Carvills Hill

and never won a Gold Cup. So can we throw out the training techniques makes great horses?

 

[Desert Orchid]

Name one good horse Martin Pipe trained?

Define 'good'.

 

[Slim]

Define 'good'.

He was a good trainer but he was a never a trainer who won the biggest graded races so I don't see the angle in knocking Arkle for being trained better than his opponents.

 

[HawkWing]

Is that the only measure of a good horse? I'd have Well Chief and Cyfor Malta as being good.

That he has won Grade 1s, Supremes, Arkle, Champion hurdles, Stayers hurdles, triumphs with so many forgotten horses is as much making the point - getting middling enough horses fit enough to beat more talented horses. Sondrio, Regal Ambition, Champleve, Or Royal, Contraband, who??

 

[redundant pal]

Pipe trained plenty of good horses. Longevity was the issue as he was so hard on them and they couldn’t stand up to such a training regime for more than a couple of seasons.

Carvills Hill could have bucked that trend as Pipe inherited him from a slow and steady outfit. If you watch the 89 and 92 Irish Gold Cups the contrast is striking - a far leaner animal 3 years on. Pipe definitely took him to another level.

 

[Desert Orchid]

He was a good trainer but he was a never a trainer who won the biggest graded races so I don't see the angle in knocking Arkle for being trained better than his opponents.

I'm as big a fan of Arkle as you'll find anywhere and I reckon his 212 rating might even underrate him.

I'm merely trying get a debate going.

 

[HawkWing]

Pipe trained plenty of good horses. Longevity was the issue as he was so hard on them and they couldn’t stand up to such a training regime for more than a couple of seasons.

Ending up in blinkers, sulking around gaff tracks, being bullied by Bridgwater and McCoy.

 

[Euronymous]

I'm as big a fan of Arkle as you'll find anywhere and I reckon his 212 rating might even underrate him.

I'm merely trying get a debate going.

My biggest issue with Timeform is that they will give a horse a minimum rating for winning a race. Good example last year is Donjuan Triumphant who before his last race at Ascot had run in 36 races and reached his level - he was thoroughly exposed, he was likely a 116/117 beast. He then lucks out in a Group 1 and Timeform have him in the early 120s. My arse.

And that's the issue with Arkle's rating. They look at the horses he beat who subsequently ran well or won Gold Cup's and give them minimum ratings - chances are they won below Cool Ground level editions. Something that would have been more likely in the 60s when the horse population was so small.

212 is a nonsense. We're supposed to believe he could give 30lbs in a mythical race to Denman. No chance

 

[granger]

212 is a nonsense. We're supposed to believe he could give 30lbs in a mythical race to Denman. No chance

In the cold light of day, this is very true

 

[Desert Orchid]

I'm merely trying get a debate going.

Wasting my time, obviously.

 

[simmo]

My biggest issue with Timeform is that they will give a horse a minimum rating for winning a race. Good example last year is Donjuan Triumphant who before his last race at Ascot had run in 36 races and reached his level - he was thoroughly exposed, he was likely a 116/117 beast. He then lucks out in a Group 1 and Timeform have him in the early 120s. My arse.

And that's the issue with Arkle's rating. They look at the horses he beat who subsequently ran well or won Gold Cup's and give them minimum ratings - chances are they won below Cool Ground level editions. Something that would have been more likely in the 60s when the horse population was so small.

212 is a nonsense. We're supposed to believe he could give 30lbs in a mythical race to Denman. No chance

He gave weight and a beating to gold cup horses, denman only managed to give weight and a beating to mid grade handicappers. Ergo.....

 

[granger]

I'm merely trying get a debate going.

You have.

A 212 rating for a horse is going to raise 10 times more questions than answers

 

[Slim]

Having looked at Timeform's top 10s this week (Intikab better than Fantastic Light - L O ******* L) I've concluded that their ratings are a bag of shite...

 

[Slim]

Having looked at Timeform's top 10s this week (Intikab better than Fantastic Light - L O ******* L) I've concluded that their ratings are a bag of shite...

https://www.timeform.com/horse-raci...ed-bin-suroor-highest-rated-racehorses-242020

Intikhab OR 117 - TF 135
Fantastic Light OR 130 - TF 134

 

[Desert Orchid]

I'm not getting questions.

I'm not getting debate.

I'm getting opinions that aren't backed up by any evidence.

I'm no fan of Timeform but back then they had some of the foremost analysts of form anywhere, working at the behest of a serious mathematician in Phil Bull.

Fulke Walwyn was one of the country's foremost trainers, arguably the epochal equivalent of Paul Nicholls. He knew what a top class horse was. When Mill House came along he rated him 'unbeatable'. Even Denman wasn't 'unbeatable'. David Nicholson, Mill House's jockey in that Sandown race later in the two horses' careers, had been told Mill House was back to his best at home and, in receipt of over a stone, got to three out gradually increasing the pace and thinking, 'I've done it, there's no way Arkle can get to me now', only to hear him closing him down and coasting past like he was standing still. Arkle beat the track record by 17s. That's well over a furlong. Under 12-7. Nicholson is on film talking about that race. He just shakes his head thinking about it. "Arkle was a phenomenon."

I can see why younger racing fans find it difficult to see past heroes they're more familiar with. I can see why people would rate Messi better than Pele.

Racing at least gives us a chance to crunch numbers.

I grew up worshipping Brigadier Gerard. I'd have backed him to beat Mill Reef over 10f any day of the week and twice on a Sunday, even though I knew there wasn't a lot between them. But they were both exceptional. And I couldn't see how Sea Bird could have been better than either. Until I started watching footage of Sea Bird and reading about what he had been beating.

Then we had the other great Flat champions. some getting high into the 130s and miles clear of contemporaries but not in the same league as the other three.

And then we had Frankel. I never thought anything would get a rating higher than Sea Bird. But as Frankel matured his figures just kept getting bigger. I now believe Frankel was better than Sea Bird and the rest. But that's because there is evidence leading me towards the conclusion.

I'm not seeing any evidence for the assertion that Arkle simply couldn't have been 30lbs better than the likes of Denman.

 

[Slim]

It is near enough the 10 year anniversary of Phil Smith admitting he had no idea how to put a handicap mark on Arkle so what chance have we. So claiming things are not backed up by evidence is a bit wide of the mark when the handicapper couldn't find enough to even guess a mark for him.

 

[Euronymous]

He gave weight and a beating to gold cup horses, denman only managed to give weight and a beating to mid grade handicappers. Ergo.....

Gold Cup horses covers a very wide range of ability.

Lord Windermere was one, yet he was no better than a very early 160s horse. Chances are the nags Arkle beat that went onto GC success were in that range. Is that a guess? A little. However since the early 90s there have been plenty of below 170 Gold Cup winners. In the 1960s with far fewer horses in the population those outliers would have been more commonplace. Stands to reason.

That makes Arkle a mid 190s horse, no better.

And don't forget, Phil Bull had no interest in Jumps racing so his best guys wouldn't have been handicapping the winter game.

 

[Desert Orchid]

It is near enough the 10 year anniversary of Phil Smith admitting he had no idea how to put a handicap mark on Arkle so what chance have we. So claiming things are not backed up by evidence is a bit wide of the mark when the handicapper couldn't find enough to even guess a mark for him.

Fair enough.

Trying to have a debate was obviously not one of my better ideas. Hopefully the thread dies a death.

 

[simmo]

Gold Cup horses covers a very wide range of ability.

Lord Windermere was one, yet he was no better than a very early 160s horse. Chances are the nags Arkle beat that went onto GC success were in that range. Is that a guess? A little. However since the early 90s there have been plenty of below 170 Gold Cup winners. In the 1960s with far fewer horses in the population those outliers would have been more commonplace. Stands to reason.

That makes Arkle a mid 190s horse, no better.

And don't forget, Phil Bull had no interest in Jumps racing so his best guys wouldn't have been handicapping the winter game.

Denman's highest rated Hennessy run was 182 for being beaten 15l by a 156 rated horse carrying 26lb less than him.

I'd measure that more literally as being high 160s at best. Still 30lbs less than your rating for arkle.

 

[Euronymous]

Denman's highest rated Hennessy run was 182 for being beaten 15l by a 156 rated horse carrying 26lb less than him.

I'd measure that more literally as being high 160s at best. Still 30lbs less than your rating for arkle.

That is incorrect.

In 2009 Denman beat Niche Market by 7 1/4

In 2010 he beat the same horse just the one length with a similar weight concession (mainly due to Niche Market carrying beefy overweight in 2010.

 

[simmo]

That is incorrect.

In 2009 Denman beat Niche Market by 7 1/4

In 2010 he beat the same horse just the one length with a similar weight concession (mainly due to Niche Market carrying beefy overweight in 2010.

He got an RPR of 161 for his first Hennessy, 174 for his second and 182 for coming 3rd in his last one.