Seeing as obviously none of these horses from over the years is ever going to race each other, so I can never have a bet on it, I consider this one of the most (among many) pointless ongoing geeky debates in racing.
That said, I'm a bit of a geek myself, consequently I do have a bit of a view.
Growing in popularity in recent years is the notion that the ratings of Arkle and Flyingbolt must have been inflated as it beggars belief two such highly-rated animals could have been in the same era, let alone the same yard.
There's also talk of how the modern racehorse faces a completely different training regime so comparisons with the past are futile.
But for me ratings link all the eras, and you have to assume and allow for the benefits modern training methods would provide for horses of yesteryear.
For me, Arkle still sets a benchmark that may (never say never, as Frankel surely demonstrated on the Flat) be surpassed, regardless of what that bunch of Millenials to Generation Z'ers with their limited historical database at the RP might think.
My view on Galopin Des Champs is he is a well above average, already multiple, Cheltenham Gold Cup winner, who is particularly lethal at Leopardstown, and I'm happy to leave it at that.
He will obviously never meet the outstanding chasers of yesteryear so, as originally stated, I'm not going to waste time wondering if he could have beaten any of them or not, as that time can be more usefully spent conniving to secure my next discounted Tesco Meal Deal.
