Phil Smith - Arkle

Gearoid, I presumed your initial question was partly tongue in cheek, partly rhetorical, so I let it go.

ORs only started somewhere around 1980, and they were originally 0-100, where 100 was the norm for top class, which would be the equivalent of 168 on the current scale.

Before that, horses were simply entered for handicaps and the handicapper published the weights. The top weight was normally 12-7 and the bottom weight 10-0, although some of the bigger races went down to 9-7. There was no 'long handicap' system or raising of the weights. If the top horses came out, it was possible the top weight in a handicap could be in with less than 11-0.

Poor horses pretty much had to be found their level. If Horse A was allocated 10-0 in a decent handicap yet had already proved a stone better than Horse B, then Horse B just had to accept it would have to carry 10-0 in that handicap. If they both went for a weaker race and Horse A was allocated 11-0, then Horse B could have been allocated 10-0.

Arkle was allocated 12-7 in every handicap after he'd established himself. Often, the next weight was 10-0 or 9-7, which every other horse had to carry. Because of this, the introduced the 'new' system of framing two sets of weights: one with Arkle on 12-7 and the rest off 10-0 or 9-7, and the other 'without Arkle', in which the top weight was 12-7 and the rest of the handicap in order.

In the early 1960s, Phil Bull came up with the idea of converting ability into pounds and allocating horses a rating accordingly. A top class chaser would therefore be allocated 175 (12-7 in pounds) and a top Flat horse 140 (10-0). With the benefit of hindsight, it was stupefyingly simple.
 
Oh, I was under the impression it was something they had looked back at recently enough. Cheers.

I would love to know what race he got his 212 for and what was his best performance on ratings outside of the handicaps.
 
EC1

At the Jumps Classifications Awards last year, Smith referred to the rating as 'nonsense', so forgive me for being rather cynical as to whether he's going to approach the task with an open mind.
 
I didn't know that, dj.

Maybe he's commissioning a couple of his team to do the research rather than do it all himself.

If I had access to all the form from back then I'd have a go at it myself.
 
In the early 1960s, Phil Bull came up with the idea of converting ability into pounds and allocating horses a rating accordingly.
Click to expand...

Phil Bull was doing this in the 1940s through Timeform and possibly before that.

He/they ignored jumps racing until publishing jumps Black Books from the early-1960s on (1960/1, I seem to remember).

Arkle's 212 assessment was published in an end-of-season Timeform jumps Black Book in the mid-1960s (sorry, but I forget precisely which season), so it was in the public domain from the outset.

Timeform annuals did not appear until the mid-1970s but Arkle's assessment was confirmed by Timeform in the late-1970s/early-1980s.

They issued ratings for the top hurdlers of the 1960s/early-1970s, derived from the assessments that were published in the Black Books at the time, in the early-1990s.
 
davidjohnson said:
EC1

At the Jumps Classifications Awards last year, Smith referred to the rating as 'nonsense', so forgive me for being rather cynical as to whether he's going to approach the task with an open mind.
Click to expand...


i didn't know that either David..i'll guess he will probably give Arkle about a 190 then if he has made his mind up beforehand that A is overrated

i would rather Euronymous did the calcs:lol:
 
J Alfred Prufrock said:
Phil Bull was doing this in the 1940s through Timeform and possibly before that.

He/they ignored jumps racing until publishing jumps Black Books from the early-1960s on (1960/1, I seem to remember).
Click to expand...
Thanks for the correction, JAP.

J Alfred Prufrock said:
Timeform annuals did not appear until the mid-1970s but Arkle's assessment was confirmed by Timeform in the late-1970s/early-1980s.
Click to expand...

I think it might pre-date that a little. I have the 1972 one and I'm sure my brother has the 1971 one.
 
The first Timeform Chasers & Hurdlers annual covered the 1975/6 season, though, as already mentioned, Timeform jumps ratings were being published in Black Books for about 15 years before that.

Is it possible that you are referring to "Haig Racehorses", a forerunner of Superform? A birthday present of the 1973 Flat copy of that is what I have to blame/thank for a mild interest in racing becoming an all-consuming passion.

It was, not surprisingly given that some of the people involved were ex-Timeform, similar in content to Timeform.
 
No problem. It was the Flat ones to which I was referring. I hadn't realised Timeform had started as early as the 1940s. I'm sure I once read a bio of Phil Bull too!

My older brother started buying the Flat Annual when he was at uni. He'd have started there around 1967/68. I think he stopped after about five years as the price was going up quite steeply. Not sure where they all went. I know I have one and another brother has another. Mine has a maroonish cover. My brother's is black and bluish.
 
Have really enjoyed following this discussion thusfar - fascinating stuff lads. The one question that remains untouched is surely that of Flyingbolt's rating, however. He never got the credit his record probably deserves having lived in Arkle's shadow, and the same now seems to be happening (rather predictably) to the subject of his rating.

Greg Wood (amongst others) has made the fairly compelling argument that the chances of the two greatest steeplechasers of all time being together in one yard at the one time is hugely unlikely statistically. That would have most likely earned him a box from my grandfather, however, who fervently maintained that Flyingbolt's 1966 Irish National was the most impressive equine performance he ever witnessed (and who told me countless times of the day he congratulated Dreaper after Arkle had won a moderate race at Navan only to be told that he had an even better prospect going later that same afternoon - Flyingbolt).

Flyingbolt's rating is surely as deserving of closer scrutiny as that of Arkle. Arkle's dominance today seems to suggest he was the undoubted star of the show; many of the stories I've been told (hardly rock-solid evidence but still!), as well as the fact that Timeform only had them 2lbs apart, suggest that the rivalry between the two may have been somewhat akin (in more ways than one) to that between Kauto Star and Denman today...

Just a thought.
 
Last edited:
Greg Wood (amongst others) has made the fairly compelling argument that the chances of the two greatest steeplechasers of all time being together in one yard at the one time is hugely unlikely statistically.
Click to expand...

Greg Wood actually said "It is many millions-to-one against", which anyone with even the most basic comprehension of probability knows is utter rubbish rather than "fairly compelling".
 
I'm glad I'm not the only who thought so, Prufrock. Since when were horses randomly dispersed amongst owners and trainers?

Then again, it's not as if arguably the two best steeplechasers of the last 20 years occupy neighbouring boxes at this very minute... oh, wait...
 
Points taken. Impossible to even make a wild stab without the contemporary data but hadn't read that particular comment from Wood, J Alfred Prufrock.

Anyway, what price would either of you that two horses 20lb better than either of Denman or Kauto Star today?
 
Gareth Flynn said:
I'm glad I'm not the only who thought so, Prufrock. Since when were horses randomly dispersed amongst owners and trainers?

Then again, it's not as if arguably the two best steeplechasers of the last 20 years occupy neighbouring boxes at this very minute... oh, wait...
Click to expand...

I do not think it is remotely comparible given the stable in question came within a whisker of landing all 4 major prizes at Cheltenham and have dominated jump racing like no other for a considerable amount of time if ever. Whats more both cherry picked from France and Ireland (fair to say both were probably the most promising horses either on the track in France and in the point to points in Ireland)...a considerable pool of horses. Nicholls is going to be churning out these Champions (perhaps not to the level of Kauto Star and Denman) akin to Ballydoyle does with the flat bred as they have the best people buying the best young horses and then handled masterly.

I personally think if Denman had put up the performances similar to Kauto Star then there would be more belief in his merits at challenging Arkle than say Kauto's - he is the more favoured with the true NH brigade given his breeding and style of racing - unfairly I would hasten to add.
 
And can I ask again what race did Arkle get his 212 for and what was his highest rated non handicap success?
 
Back
Top