• REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do much without having been registered!

    At the moment you have limited access to view all discussions - and most importantly, you haven't joined our community. What are you waiting for? Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Join Talking Horses here!

Himself

Those numbers are the official marks he was off for those three races. They aren't a reflection of his performance in each race.
 
Check out Gallagher Gold Cup 1965. 12/7 , wins by 20 lengths, breaks course record by 17 seconds which may well still stand.
Beaten only four times over fences, twice (at least ) with a valid excuse.
Find me better (apart from Flyingbolt at his pomp.)
 
Trying to knock Arkle down from Timeform’s 212, is just as hard as trying to justify Timeform’s 212.

Phil Smith’s error wasn’t in his giving-up - it was in his starting in the first place.

Time to let the number be, and accept that Arkle was peerless in his era, like no horse has been before or since. That’s his legacy.
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
Trying to knock Arkle down from Timeform’s 212, is just as hard as trying to justify Timeform’s 212.

Phil Smith’s error wasn’t in his giving-up - it was in his starting in the first place.

Time to let the number be, and accept that Arkle was peerless in his era, like no horse has been before or since. That’s his legacy.
Click to expand...

The only time arkle wasn't peerless was in his era.
 
HawkWing said:
The only time in history that he had a peer was the contemporary Flyingbolt, rated 210.
Click to expand...

Flyingbolt was a contemporary of Arkle - not a peer, because they never met in a race, and no direct comparison could be made.

If you’re going to make feeble attempts at being a contrarian, I suggest you start yourself off at a lower level than me. I’ve been chasing amateurs like you off racing forums for 20 fu*cking years.
 
Last edited:
why does a peer mean they had to meet in a race?

Generally in common parlance, 'peerless' would generally mean that he had no one his equal, or even near to it. It was amusing that you would call him peerless 'in his time', when it was the one time in history where he had a horse of a legitamite claim to being his equal was in his time (between 1964-66).

And go **** yourself into hibernation, and whoever made you think you have any sort of authority on any racing forum.
 
Grasshopper said:
Flyingbolt was a contemporary of Arkle - not a peer, because they never met in a race, and no direct comparison could be made.

If you’re going to make feeble attempts at being a contrarian, I suggest you start yourself off at a lower level than me. I’ve been chasing amateurs like you off racing forums for 20 fu*cking years.
Click to expand...

Arent the whole point of ratings to evaluate the ability of horses who haven't raced and aren't contemporaries - actually its the whole point of the debate.

Arkle and Flyingbolt are rated through a common opponent - Height o'fashion - placing them 2lbs apart - something less controversial than comparing him with Desert Orchid or Kauto Star.

Now **** off and stop thinking you are so great.
 
HawkWing said:
Arent the whole point of ratings to evaluate the ability of horses who haven't raced and aren't contemporaries - actually its the whole point of the debate.

Arkle and Flyingbolt are rated through a common opponent - Height o'fashion - placing them 2lbs apart - something less controversial than comparing him with Desert Orchid or Kauto Star.

Now **** off and stop thinking you are so great.
Click to expand...

I’ll try and make my position on this a little more clear, as you’re clearly too fu*cking dense to have assimilated it first time round.

You - and everyone else - are wasting their time, fretting your little dandruff-spattered brows about whether 212 is legit or not.

It can never be proven or disproven one way or the other, because it is subjective.

What is not in dispute, is Arkle’s greatness, and that has never been threatened or questioned at any stage, by anyone, ever since he last stepped off a racecourse.......with the possible exception of arseholes like you, who self-evidently know no better.

Trust this is now clear and explicit.

Now, for the second time, please fu*ck off back to your Mum’s basement, and spend some time thinking about what you’ve done.
 
Last edited:
The McCarthy /Keane Saipan debate was never as hot a topic as this 212 rating .
Tom Dreaper took a long time to admit Arkle being superior to Prince Regent, his 1946 Gold Cup winner.
His light was kept under a bushel due to events in Europe at the time.
Imagine having a Guineas horse burning up the gallops only to have to face the delay now happening; especially if you were from a smaller yard.
Thoughts with all horse owners/ breeders / staff at this time.
 
Desert Orchid said:
Unusually hesitant commentary from O'Sullevan at Sandown.
Click to expand...

Sandown was an ITV track, O'Sullevan was always BBC. Had to be added later.

Must be difficult for people who weren't there to accept that Arkle was worthy of 2012. My own view was that that you have to rate him (with the exception of Flyingbolt) as 21lb better than any other horse (Mill House) he ran against from 1963-1966, and 30lb+ better than all the rest. If he was only a 190 horse what happened to jumpers during that period? If he was just a 190 horse then the Gold Cup of '67 was won by a 155 horse. Were they that bad?
Again my view I think it is possible that Mill House was overrated, but not by much. Mill House was such a beautiful horse. When he won all he did and won the Gold Cup it must have been hard to believe you could get a more perfect horse. Maybe he wasn't quite that good, maybe he was only a 185 horse. But it still makes Arkle a 206 horse.
So perhaps Arkle couldn't give Denman 30lb, but I'm pretty sure he could give him 20., .
 
Eleanora Duse said:
Sandown was an ITV track, O'Sullevan was always BBC. Had to be added later.

Must be difficult for people who weren't there to accept that Arkle was worthy of 2012. My own view was that that you have to rate him (with the exception of Flyingbolt) as 21lb better than any other horse (Mill House) he ran against from 1963-1966, and 30lb+ better than all the rest. If he was only a 190 horse what happened to jumpers during that period? If he was just a 190 horse then the Gold Cup of '67 was won by a 155 horse. Were they that bad?
Again my view I think it is possible that Mill House was overrated, but not by much. Mill House was such a beautiful horse. When he won all he did and won the Gold Cup it must have been hard to believe you could get a more perfect horse. Maybe he wasn't quite that good, maybe he was only a 185 horse. But it still makes Arkle a 206 horse.
So perhaps Arkle couldn't give Denman 30lb, but I'm pretty sure he could give him 20., .
Click to expand...

Jaysus! THat was some rating.
 
I’d just like to extend a public apology to Hawk Wing, for my rude and unwarranted posts on this thread on Thursday evening.

As anyone who read them will likely have surmised, drink had been taken in reasonable volumes, but that is no excuse.

All I can offer in mitigation, is that it’s been a fair old while since I had a blow-out on here, and one was probably overdue. I will try not to let it happen again for another long stretch.
 
Anyone watching the Bet 365 / Whitbread Gold Cup replays on RTV yesterday would have a fair shake of Arkle's ability, coming to the last carrying 12/7 , ears pricked, after a long season which began in October winning a 1m 5f maiden at Navan, .
He was a monster no doubt.
Great to see Titus Oats, The Dikler, Mill House and all the others also.
I remember reading of Larbawn's second win in 1969 in my father's Stud And Stable magazine when I first got interested in racing in the mid 70s and reading/seeing big race results of those times.
Boy those horses showed up for every race week in week out.
See also the crowds on course at the second last and last fences in those days pre Health and Safety .
 
Grasshopper said:
I’d just like to extend a public apology to Hawk Wing, for my rude and unwarranted posts on this thread on Thursday evening.

As anyone who read them will likely have surmised, drink had been taken in reasonable volumes, but that is no excuse.

All I can offer in mitigation, is that it’s been a fair old while since I had a blow-out on here, and one was probably overdue. I will try not to let it happen again for another long stretch.
Click to expand...

Apology accepted. I shouldn't have responded the way I did either. Onwards and upwards.
 

Recent Blog Posts

Back
Top