...and if either of the 2 was a freak, it was Flyingbolt. His range of distance was more impressive than Arkle's. His performance in his Massey_ferguson was more impressive than Arkle's. His performance in his Irish National was more impressive than Arkle's. he was a better hurdler than Arkle. His sire was a Derby winner, and his dam's sire was 2nd in a 2000gns, and 2nd in the Derby, and his dam's dam was by The Tetrarch, one of the fastest horses ever.

The main problem today is these horses do not run in handicaps to test their rating whereas Arkle and Dessie did.
There are horses running today that cannot win a handicap off 104 yet are rated over 120 because they have run in Group races. Instead of the Group race runners beaten by a horse who cannot win a handicap off 104 being dropped the 104 horse is raised ffs. It's crazy.

ged  • March 16, 2014 12:20 PM GMT 


ebul - Flyingbolt won at Cheltenham 3 years in a row - 3 different races. In the first year, he won the Supreme Novices by daylight at 4/9, still the shortest price ever for the race. In his 3rd ever hurdle race, as a novice, he'd beaten the reigning champion hurdler.

2 years later, he won the Champion Chase, by daylight at 1/5, still the shortest price ever. 

I accept that ged

he was brilliant a la Sacre Bleu

but it was only the one season, that he equalled Arkles weight carrying performances?????

the following season well he had gone..brucellosis whatever..he was not within 2 stone of Arkle

...if he'd been kept to hurdles, he would almost certainly have won the Champion Hurdle at 6yo, and 7yo - but Tom Dreaper wasn't into training hurdlers - he trained chasers. Flyingbolt would probably still have won the CH the day after he'd won the Champion Chase (as a7yo), but he ballooned his hurdles, as you'd expect from a horse who had been chasing for 2 seasons (and the day before). As a novice, he was quick and flat over his hurdles.

We're happy enough to praise Sea The Stars. He was brilliant for 1 season only - as a novice, getting weight from his elders when he met them.

There is a myth that Arkles Timeform rating was derived from his handicap performances and can't really be taken literary for Grade One level weight race performances.  However Denman ran in handicaps i.e. the Hennessey Gold Cup which he won twice giving lumps of weight.  Yet according to Timeform Arkle could give 28lb and beat him, it's clearly rubbish.  I don't believe  Arkle would beat Kauto Star in the King George or any G1 giving 20lb either.  I don't believe Arkle could have beat Desert Orchid giving 26lb.  I don't believe over two mile chases Flyingbolt could have beat Sprinter Sacre giving 17lb or Moscow Flyer giving 25lb.

Timeform had just started assigning ratings to national hunt horses in the 60's and clearly the early rating are skewed.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2009/dec/28/arkle-timeform-rating-phil-smith

@1st time poster -- most human athletes have improved 10 fold in 40 years why would horses be any different

Because unlike humans, racehorses have been selectively bred for over 200 years and more than a thousand generations.

Maybe less than a thousand generations. Sorry -- distracted by work.

Kirriemuir.

Ramruma - I was countering the argument that "Arkle and Flyingbolt were in neighbouring boxes, so they can't both have been all time greats". Jackqueen isn't alone in arguing that - I think Chris Cook in the Guardian argued it too (if it wasn't Chris Cook, it was another Guardian racing writer).

This argument that because human athletes have improved enormously, therfoire racehorses must have too - is garbage imo.

Human training has improved out of all recognition over the years. When Roger Bannister broke the 4 minute mile in the 1950s, his training consisted of going for a run on a Wednesday evening, and competing in club events at weekends. He didn't use a gym, and didn't use 'nutritional supplements', which ALL top athletes use today - whether they're illegal or not.

Horses are still trained by galloping them up and back, and round and round. They don't go to a gym and use high-tech equipment, and they don't go to train in the high deserts of America of Africa - they're still fed oats and water, like they were 100 years ago.

up untill this week horses like lord windermere would be rated vastly inferior to the likes of denman,kauto etc,so u,d have gold cup winners rated 50lb inferior to arkle,even if you believe the ratings of the top horses decent 3 mile chasers even gold cup winners rated 50 lb inferior,
plenty of arkles biggest supporters in ireland have seen the second coming loads of times in horses eventualy rated stones and stones behind arkle can so called good judges of horse flesh be that far out

salmon spray

Kauto Star at his best couldn't beat Long Run ffs. Long Run couldn't win a handicap off 158 and only narrowly beat Burton Port who couldn't win a handicap off 157. The clues are all there. Nine of the Grade 1's Kauto Star won weren't in existence when Arkle was running.

Kauto Star was beaten by Imperial Commander who won a handicap off 139 and he beat Alberta's Run who couldn't win a handicap off 155. And all off level weights. Arkle beat handicappers who won top handicaps so his rating has been fully tested.

Why is it so hard to check Arkle's rating?

Money, presumably.

You'd want to digitise contemporary form books into a computer, and then either let the machine work out the ratings (as Racing Research does) or spew the form out to manual handicappers, like the BHA or Timeform.

You can't take a short cut from the official ratings of the time, because they did not exist. Handicaps were drawn up and weights assigned on a race by race basis. The only company that maintained a running free handicap was Timeform, and it is their rating that is being questioned.

A minor problem is that iirc results were not recorded for the whole field.

I cannot see a problem. The handicappers of the day used the same system they use today. Timeform replicated that system until the official handicapper came into existence at the end on the 70's then Timeform raised their ratings to be different from the Official handicapper. Why would the owner of a mare or stallion use the Timeform rating as a promotion if it was the same or lower than the Official rating? For Timeform it's all about money. Not so the OH imo.

I'm not reinventing history Storm. There are legions of examples.

Take Sommersby. Couldn't win a handicap off 156, went into Graded races and reached 170. Couldn't win so went down until it ran in another handicap in a photo of 155. It is a 155 rated horse not 170. All you hear trainers saying now on TV when they have won a decent handicap 'I have to run in Listed and Group races now because he can't win off his new mark'. It's mad.

I know times can be a bit iffy, but Arkle did break the 3m course record at Sandown in 1965 - still stands today - carrying 12st7lbs. I think the going was firm that day and I'm not sure how close  any other horse has got since. It's on youtube and the fences look the same to me, if anything they were firmer then. There were not many runners, but its still a great time. I can't really see much of an argument against it because even if  there were 20 runners Arkle could have won from the front. If he can break the course record by 17 secs carrying 12st 7lbs and win by 20 L then he was and still is the best at Sandown over 3m. Can't see why it would be different at any other course. When Beamon did his 29ft long jump in 68 he was the best until it was broken recently. So lets wait until a horse breaks the Sandown record. It should happen because its supposed to be more competitive now. If it does not happen then Arkle is still the best at 3m.

In the Hennessy above Freddie was 1/2 without Arkle in the betting. Arkle had 12st 7lb and Freddie 10st 3lb. Arkle beat Freddie by 15 lengths, Freddie carried top weight of 11st 10lb in the Grand National, was red hot favourite, but got beaten 3/4 length by Jay Trump.