Timeform's Highest Rated Chasers (since 1948)

Diamond Geezer

Diamond Geezer

Gone But Not Forgotten
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,884
212 - ARKLE
210- FLYINGBOLT
192p - SPRINTER SACRE
191 - KAUTO STAR
191 - MILL HOUSE
187 - DESERT ORCHID
186 - DUNKIRK
184 - BURROUGH HILL LAD
184 - MOSCOW FLYER
184 - LONG RUN
183 - DENMAN
183 - DON COSSACK
183 - MASTER OAT

Anyone disagree ? :ninja:
 
I'm probably ok with the top 5, but I'm not sure about the bottom 4. Was Don Cossack's a vintage GC; Master Oates won a GC on very soft ground; and Long Run's 2011 GC win was better that Denman's two Henesseys and GC? And I wasn't aware Masterminded's 19-length CC win had been so discredited.
 
Last edited:
Whether you were a fan or not it's hard to fathom how Best Mate fails to make the list but there's room for Don Cossack (his GC was as weak as any of Best Mate's once Cue Card departed), Long Run (really ?) and Master Oats (the Bristol De Mai of his generation)

Those three shouldn't be in that list.
 
The merits and otherwise of the ratings have been debated frequently on here over the years.

Master Oats's best form was well worthy of his big rating.

Best Mate was a bit of a donkey next to some of these :lol:
 
Grey said:
Did you see either of them race?
Click to expand...

Timeform have admitted they given minimum marks based on winning certain races. The one that stands out to me is Markhab's master rating of 125 the year he won the Sprint Cup. That horse never ran to 120 his entire career but one fluke bad renewal of a Group 1 and he gets an artificial rating
Go back 50 years Arkle and Mill House retire and the staying chase division becomes a wasteland of bang average horses before L'escargot shows up (a bit like that void couple of years in tennis between Sampras and Federer.)Stalbridge Colonist and What a Myth were at the top of the tree in those
National Hunt void years and the minimum ratings they achieved Markhab styley for winning/placing at Cheltenham had a knock on effect of way over inflated marks for horses who beat them giving them stones
My list:

Arkle 198
Flyingbolt 196
Sprinter Sacre 191
Kauto Star 191
Desert Orchid 188
Mill House 185
Denman 185
Burrough Hill Lad 184
Moscow Flyer 184
Dunkirk 183
Azertyuiop 182
Best Mate 181
 
Last edited:
Long Run’s rating is based, I think, on his 2011 GC win. He beat three previous GC winners in a course record time, but none of those previous winners were at their peak. That rating might be reappraised. Master Oats never won a race after that GC, and was a soft ground bully. Does See More Business deserve a higher rating? GC and KG winner? Kicking King? Don Cossack has no place there at all.
 
I cant argue with the top two.
I remember reading about Flyingbolt and he was a wonder horse.

I remember backing Dubacilla ew in master oats' gold cup at 28s and it finished 2nd.heavy going suited master oats.
A lot of gold cups were won by a class horse beating high handicappers.
Best mate and kauto star came into that category.
For me DENMAN should have been higher.top class chaser.
 
183 Denman vs 183 Don Cossack at their peak? No contest really.

Master Oats did win a Welsh National off a heavy burden in his Gold Cup season also but would take fellow Welsh National victor Carvills Hill (182) over him also at their best.
 
Captain Christy a major omission for me.
He defeated Pendil fair and square in 74 King George and ran away with 1975 race after a Gold Cup win as a novice.
He was just defeated by April The Seventh In 1975 Whitbread giving that horse 2 stone.
Master Minded's Champion Chase win at 5 was jaw dropping .
Pearlyman was a dual champion chaser in a very competitive era and must have just missed out on this list, being top rated chaser of his era.
 
Don Cossack's 183 i'd imagine is purely down to that 26l hiding of Cue Card in the Melling Chase, without that your looking at 177/8.
The fact that Cue Card wasn't the same Cue Card that nutted Vatour hasn't been taken into account by TF, But then again why should it.
 
If we're talking omissions, it's hard to ignore the only triple Champion Chase winner who was also the only one to officially win by a distance.

The problem is that the rankings are very different if you're talking best single career performance (ie Timeform) or best Cheltenham Festival performance (most of the rest of us).

I'm personally convinced that the Badsworth Boy from that blessed day in 1983 would have beaten any 2 mile chaser in the Timeform era other than Flyingbolt.
 
Last edited:
Moscow Flyer should have a ‘+’. Never got to the bottom of him, imo.

Can’t agree with Outsider’s comments about Kauto Star, and comparisons with Best Mate about only beating high-end handicappers. He comfortably reversed form with Denman in the 2009 Gold Cup, and he was a champion at all distances from 2m to 3m2f. Hard to believe he remains maligned in some quarters. Denman was built to carry weight. Kauto a different type altogether. Respect both equally, I say.

Long Run the outlier in that list. Top class, but worth a 180+ rating? Not for me.
 
Last edited:
Len Madeiros said:
Master Oats never won a race after that GC, and was a soft ground bully.
Click to expand...

Maybe the GC bottomed him. It was quite a performance. Maybe trying to win the National so soon after Cheltenham bottomed him but he was clearly never the same horse again. He wasn't so much a soft ground bully - I don't think - as simply a bit of monster in it.
 
Euronymous said:
Go back 50 years Arkle and Mill House retire and the staying chase division becomes a wasteland of bang average horses before L'escargot shows up (a bit like that void couple of years in tennis between Sampras and Federer.)Stalbridge Colonist and What a Myth were at the top of the tree in those
National Hunt void years and the minimum ratings they achieved Markhab styley for winning/placing at Cheltenham had a knock on effect of way over inflated marks for horses who beat them giving them stones
Click to expand...

I think this was mentioned in previous debates but I'm not sure what the evidence is to back up the assertion.

Even in eras when there really isn't a stand-out performer the best tend to be around the 167/168 mark. Arkle was giving those types 35lbs and beating them.
 
Desert Orchid said:
Maybe the GC bottomed him. It was quite a performance. Maybe trying to win the National so soon after Cheltenham bottomed him but he was clearly never the same horse again. He wasn't so much a soft ground bully - I don't think - as simply a bit of monster in it.
Click to expand...

Yes, DO, you’re absolutely right. He was a monster that season, but again it was just the one season. I sometimes feel robbed that the great performances are never repeated because you can never get a proper gauge on how good the best horses could have been.
 
You have to wonder if it will ever again be possible to achieve a mark anywhere close to the top two, which tells me there's something not quite right with them.
 
TheBear said:
You have to wonder if it will ever again be possible to achieve a mark anywhere close to the top two, which tells me there's something not quite right with them.
Click to expand...

I think that's a perfectly valid stance and I reckon it's why many people can't accept the ratings. We'll probably never get the definitive answer to the question about whether the ratings are accurate but don't forget Phil Smith attempted it and gave up after a long time studying the relevant form. Maybe my memory is playing tricks on me but I recall he gave up because his research was leading towards the conclusion that their ratings were conservative, which even he found difficult to reconcile.

You'd also think an operation with the human and technological resources that Timeform has at its disposal would be interested in back-analysing those ratings with a view to correcting them if the evidence so demanded and setting the records straight. Perhaps they already have and decided the figures are correct.

I don't have any problem accepting them as they are.
 
There's a similar debate going on in one of the Facebook groups and someone states that Arkle made the handicapper produce two lists, one for if Arkle ran and a separate one in case he didn't.
Have no recollection of that.
 
Desert Orchid said:
I think this was mentioned in previous debates but I'm not sure what the evidence is to back up the assertion.

Even in eras when there really isn't a stand-out performer the best tend to be around the 167/168 mark. Arkle was giving those types 35lbs and beating them.
Click to expand...

There's no concrete evidence really but there were no French breds around in those days and the horse volume was much lower. So it stands to reason the chances of a sub par sort of late 150s winner - a Lord Windermere or a Cool Ground would have been more likely then than it is now.
 
Diamond Geezer said:
There's a similar debate going on in one of the Facebook groups and someone states that Arkle made the handicapper produce two lists, one for if Arkle ran and a separate one in case he didn't.
Have no recollection of that.
Click to expand...

Even I remember that, DG :)

Yes, Arkle usually had 12-7 and the rest started about 9-7. In those days there weren't official ratings or raising of weights so if Arkle didn't run it would have been near-impossible for jockeys to make the weights so they introduced the system of creating two handicaps. The one without Arkle started at 12-7 and most horses would have carried their allotted weight as in those days they usually went down to 9-7.
 
Diamond Geezer said:
There's a similar debate going on in one of the Facebook groups and someone states that Arkle made the handicapper produce two lists, one for if Arkle ran and a separate one in case he didn't.
Have no recollection of that.
Click to expand...

Yes that was absolutely right as I remember it.
I always find the problem with statements like those made by The Bear is that let's say Arkle was really only a 190 horse, then apart from Flyingbolt (who was just that) and perhaps Mill House, then the best horse in the UK and Ireland was a 155 horse at best for about 7 years. I find that harder to understand than what I saw with my own eyes: The majesty of Arkle
 
Euronymous said:
There's no concrete evidence really but there were no French breds around in those days and the horse volume was much lower. So it stands to reason the chances of a sub par sort of late 150s winner - a Lord Windermere or a Cool Ground would have been more likely then than it is now.
Click to expand...

I think there were French breds but obviously nowhere near as many as now. The general volume was lower too but I'm not convinced it follows that the next best to Arkle and Flyingbolt were necessarily poor. Take them out and the likes of Mill House would have been on the scene and no-one is questioning his rating.

Transfer the argument across to the Flat. Sea Bird was of the same era yet no-one is really questioning his 145 rating. A few years later Brigadier Gerard and Mill Reef earned higher ratings than Nijinsky. And then there was Frankel a generation later.

My own theory is that Arkle and Flyingbolt were doped to the eyeballs but their form merits the ratings.
 
Back
Top