Ratings, Steeplechasers

Originally posted by Galileo@Mar 16 2008, 08:41 PM
Which way do you come down on the discussion DO?
Click to expand...
I have a lot of sympathy with the view that the breed progreses, that training methods are better, feed is more nutritious, etc and that it is hard to conclude anything other than that horses today are better than they were. But I don't necessarily subscribe to it.

The instinct in a horse to run fast is a lot more ancient than it is in man, whose main instinct was to hunt. Just as I believe Sea Bird was the best (Hawk Wing apart :P ) Flat racehorse of the last fifty years - and not many appear to dispute it - I think the evidence is compelling that Arkle was as good as legend and lore tell us.

At the peak of his powers, when he was entered in a handicap he was alloted 12-7 and all the rest 10-0. The rest included all the top other horses of the era bar Mill House and Flyingbolt. The handicapper then framed a second handicap without Arkle, with the top weight on 12-7 and the bottom on 10-0, just in case he didn't run. These were the days before official ratings existed.

I'd contend the second top chaser in those handicaps would be the equivalent of a 175 horse (something like Neptune Collonges or Halcon Genelardais). Training methods and foreign breeding lines have produced the Denmans, Kauto Stars and Carvills Hills of modern times and I suspect in general there are more top-class NH horses around than in the late 1960s. I would genuinely expect Arkle to give Neptune Collonges or Halcon Genelardais a 35lbs beating. If you look at the footage of his runs, his speed is phenomenal next to the other established chasers. The only horse I've seen with that kind of speed is Master Minded, but he probably won't stay 3m.
 
I would believe that Arkle is clearly the best national hunt horse that raced, but the two handicap argument is a little irrelevant. Its usually used to supposedly wow those who question his superiority. Since the idea of a long handicap wasnt thought of then, were handicaps simply framed without consulation of official ratings back then? A guesstimate from a handicapper from those who chipped in and declared their interest in contesting?

So, as you say, there was one set of handicap ratings for when Arkle ran, when a couple of horses would be in handicap proper (Mill house, flyingbolt, Dunkirk etc)

But any handicap that Denman contests from now on, unless Kauto Star, Neptune Collonges, Exotic Dancer goes up against him, then there will be a lot of good horses getting upwards of 20lbs off Denman. Now, he isnt far enough ahead to give 28lbs to top class horses. And it is a given that Denman/Kauto Star is no Arkle yet, but Arkle was never asked to give 2 stone to Mill House or Flyingbolt at their best.

Height o'Fashion is the other arguement used to wow those who question Arkle's claim to 212 rating. She was beaten in a driving finish for the Irish national and I think its the reason why Flyingbolt is rated 210, as he gave her a similar beating. I dont know what races Height o'Fashion won or if they were any use. One thing is for certain is that those Irish Nationals were not the ultra competitive handicaps with a dozen unexposed handicappers lurking at the bottom. Arkle beat 6 rivals, Flyingbolt beat 5. At odds of 1/2 and 8/11 respectively.

Desert Orchid gave 28lbs away and a 12l beating to a more competitive field in 1990.

I'm not questioning Arkle's superiority over everything else that ever wore horse shoes, just questioning the idea that for a horse to be as good, they would have to give the full range of the handicap to a Denman/Kauto Star.
 
Originally posted by Garney@Mar 16 2008, 09:43 PM
Height o'Fashion is the other arguement used to wow those who question Arkle's claim to 212 rating. She was beaten in a driving finish for the Irish national and I think its the reason why Flyingbolt is rated 210, as he gave her a similar beating. I dont know what races Height o'Fashion won or if they were any use. One thing is for certain is that those Irish Nationals were not the ultra competitive handicaps with a dozen unexposed handicappers lurking at the bottom.
Click to expand...
I can tell you that when I was just starting to bet, aged about 15 or 16, a pal returned from a summer holiday in Ireland having attended a couple of meetings while there. We're talking circa 1971. He said his granda in Ireland had told him "they don't try in the big handicaps over here unless they think they've got a stone and a half in hand of the handicapper". This would suggest the big handicaps had no shortage of unexposed horses.
 
Arkle beat 6 in his Irish National win, and flyingbolt beat 5. Not the 18-20 runner affairs that are the norm now. From 1962-68, the number of runners in the irish grand national were
1962 - 11
1963 - 10,
1964 - 7 (Arkle win)
1965 - 4 (yes 4)
1966 - 6 (flyingbolt's win)
1967 - 12
1968 - 12

Regardless of whether those against Arkle and Flyingbolt believed they had a chance or a stone and a half in hand, those are the facts. Wouldnt it be more likely that those with a stone and a half in hand wouldn't race against Arkle on unfavorable terms. Maybe its no coincednce that it was a mare who was willing to chase Arkle/Flyingbolt home.
 
Surely the reason there were so few runners in Arkle's And Flyingbolt's Irish Grand Nationals was that those horses scared off the opposition?!

That wouldn't explain the 1965 figure...was the ground very firm?
 
Back
Top