y does everyone say a chaser is betetr than a hurdler ?

Ted seemed to have the view that the best hurdlers are the 2 mile category because the CH is considered to be the cahmpionship race and that Big Bucks is inferior because he can "only" win over 3 miles. For chasers the opposite is true in the Walsh world-the Gold Cup is the top race so the GC winner is superior to the QM winner. Strange logic indeed. In my view a horse that dominates its division as Big Bucks has done can be considered to be the best NH horse in training. I happen to think that if he had stood up in that fateful Hennessy Gold Cup he would have won that day and be the dominant staying chaser now.

I dont.Horses should be judged on whatever they do best.Be it the CH,WH,GC OR QM.
We can all have our favs,but no way would i say that Kauto Star is better than Istabraq was,for example,or Denman is better than Moscow Flyer.To me its daft.

Agreed Buddleia, and the relative merits of them should be judged on margins of victory and consistency of performance. The recent CH winners/runners have all beaten each other and none is dominant. Either we have a vintage crop of 2 mile hurdlers or they are all mediocre.

bud to me it's daft to even see Istabraq compared to Kauto or Denman to Moscow. Different division.

The 3mile hurdling division is always full of horses who failed to make the grade as a chaser or are too slow for the Champion Hurdle.

Look, Big Bucks, Katchit, Tidal Bay, ended up in the world hurdle because of an inability to compete in other divisions.

More prize money means better horses will be aimed at the Gold Cup and Champion Hurdle. Big Bucks will never be spoken in the same breath as Denman and Kauto Star unless he wins a gold cup.

why ratings always higher for chasers?

Agree as regards the WH,cv.

And course its daft to compare Istabraq or any CHurdler with GCup winners.

CVB- Bit harsh proclaiming horses that have won the triumph hurdle, champion hurdle, arkle, maghull chase, Kingwell etc etc have an inability to compete in the 2 / 2.5 mile divisions. God help the 99.9% of horses in training that will never even get near that level.

It is something of a puzzle, isn't it, as the Champion Hurdle and the Gold Cup do seem to have caught the imagination more than the QM and the WH, though we'll each have our own favourite races from that list.

Maybe it has something to do with what we look for in a test of jumping. One of the most exhilarating things in NH racing (apart from seeing your 100/1 outsider romp home) is seeing a top race won by a horse who has seen off his rivals through a brilliant round of jumping, as Kauto has done so often in winning the King George.

With the Champion Hurdle a horse can almost literally win the race through the superiority of his hurdling and the rhythm maintained through the race because of that slickness. That is perhaps not true to quite the same extent with the WH; or, to put it another way, brilliance in hurdling is not quite so obvious or so well exemplified in the winners of the WH.

With the QM, fast and low jumping is clearly one of the qualities that most of the past winners have been able to show on the day. That is one of the things that makes it a fantastic race to watch. But perhaps for the enthusiast there is also the recognition that there is possibly a higher degree of arbitrariness with the QM about which horses complete the race. Jumping at such speed over two miles leaves so little margin for error with even the most fluent jumpers, that a top fancied horse can be going exceptionally well in the race but still make a fractional misjudgement that puts him out of contention effectively. We have seen that with horses like Moscow Flyer and Well Chief, for example. This contributes perhaps to a sense that the winner of the QM is often the one that has that bit more fortune on the day, rather than necessarily being the best horse on the day among the field that lines up.

By contrast, with the Gold Cup, there is a higher chance that any significant jumping errors that occur, will arise when a horse is already on the back foot and coming under pressure or tiring. That helps to increase the chances with the Gold Cup that the race is won on merit, as opposed to the slightly more unsatisfactory situation you have sometimes with the QM where you feel the outcome of the race contains a slightly more arbitrary element than you would like to see i.e. because when a horse is jumping so fast and so low over fences at the minimum distance, the margin between clearing the fence and going through the top with a consequent fall is so slight it leaves you thinking there is a tad more element of luck in who wins the race than is perhaps ideal in terms of making it a really classic contest.

Then again, it could just be a British thing that the Gold Cup is elevated above the QM by many. We go for a test of stamina and endurance over anything flashy and slick.

It is mainly a matter of tradition. The GC and CH were the established championships as soon as Cheltenham was founded along with the Grand Annual. The QM has been important for the last 50 years but the World Hurdle was something of a sideshow until the likes of Barracouda, Inglis Drever and Big Bucks came along. The Betfair Chase is even more recent having taken over from the old Cathcart and it will take a generation to recognise it as a true championship race.

DukeofMarmalade the reason Tidal Bay & Katchit ended up in this years World Hurdle is because they can no longer compete at grade 1 level in the other divisions.

I'm not saying they are bad horses, I will always have a soft spot for both horses thanks to the 2008 festival, I especially love Wee Katchit, little legend gave me some great days.

Drama. Visual impact. Power.  Athleticism. The Grand National.

Some people expect/fear catastrophic falls when watching steeplechasers.  Comparing a hurdle and a fence as 'obstacles' makes a hurdle almost laughably slight. Although a hurdling fall can be more dangerous than a fencing fall (usually because of the greater speed over hurdles and the minimised chance of the jockey baling out in time), it's the 'chasing falls that tend to make people draw a sharp breath.

The perceived power required to launch a half ton thoroughbred travelling at 30 mph over a big black fence can also have a lasting impact on viewers.  The athleticism sometimes shown when a steeplechaser takes off 'outside the wings' and still clears the fence to land running is a fabulous sight.  (there's a fantastic picture of Pendil doing just this; I think it was at Kempton but can't find anything on google images).

It's not so easy to get out onto a racetrack as it used to be but some courses still allow it.  If you ever get the chance to go and stand beside a fence for a top grade 2 mile steeplechase, that's all the explanation you will need.

aka's point about hurdlers is a good one. A very slick hurdler is a much rarer thing than a fine jumper of fences.  Quick, low hurdling with hardly a break in stride, is much more likely to win races over hurdles than flawless jumping over fences is.  But such hurdling, by its very efficiency, is unspectacular and tends to go almost unnoticed by less experienced viewers.

Finally, the Grand National sets the standard in the minds of the vast majority of the population when jump racing is mentioned.  If you sited a hurdle in the ditch at The Chair, you wouldn't even see the top of it.

To be fair the world hurdle does get filled with all of the outcasts from other races but Big Buck's is in a league of his own. My personal favourite race is the Champion Hurdle.

i wasnt talking about the quality of the races i meant the quality of the horses. like when trainers say if hes not good enough over hurdles we will send him chasing