The 'point' would be to establish just how good he is/was. The owner didn't need the money. He wanted the pleasure and the glory of watching his outstanding chaser win the top races - understandably - but most of the racing world would like to have known just how good he was - and we don't. Paul Nicholls, plus many of his fans, reckon he was at least as good as Arkle. Hen Knight thought the same of Best Mate, but if anybody said 'prove it, by running in the Hennessey, and giving weight to handicappers according to the ratings difference' - none of them want to take up the challenge (in my opinion, largely for fear of their horse being proven not to be as good as they want to think they are. Best Mate was beaten in a handicap off 169 - Hen Knight thought the handicapper had been unfair to raise him to that mark after winning an uncompetitive race at Exeter). It's a sport, and people still talk about Arkle because he took on, and usually succeeded in, massive tasks. Winning 5 KGs proved a lot, and was a magnificent testimony to the horse and trainer, but it didn't prove he was a better horse than if he'd won 3 KGs and packed it in.

Where's the sport in beating, again, the same horses under the same conditions?

It is true that there were very few w-f-a races of any value for non-novices in the 60s. The Hennessy and the Whitbread were pretty much on a par in importance with the Gold Cup and were more valuable and prestigous than the King George,which was an allowance race then.

Yes that's very true. There cannot now be big field handicaps which have a bunch of top class horses at the top of the weights, as there were in the early runnings of the Hennessey, Whitbread, Mackeson, and Schweppes Hurdle. Pity, as there's nothing to beat that kind of race, imo.

Perhaps they could get Phil Smith to compress the weights for the Hennessey and 'Whitbread'. Is there a good reason not to?

In fact the Grand National is slowly going in the 'class' direction where better quality horses race for good prize money over easier fences.
And I agree there was no need for KS to run in handicaps but I believe the only true way to test a rating is to run of it. That's what Arkle did and that is what Dessie did. Hence their ratings were proven.

I saw himself twice in the flesh (aged 13).  Never spoke to Mr Dreaper though.  It IS a good story but doesn't seem to appear anywhere though apart from on here. There's a good Pat Taaffe "comparision" comment that is true though

Below meant for Zippers Myth comment

Kauto Star actually ran in 3 handicaps (albeit limited), winning 1 and finishing 2nd twice

engineer     18 Mar 14 10:54
 
'..........  For example look up when the first sub 10 sec 100m was run. the record now is about 9.6 so its gone down 0.1 sec about every 10 years. Its no that there won't be another Arkle its just that we have not seen it yet.
----------

Very, very, much - DOUBT IT.

The comparison is flawed - because ...

In Arkle's day - the Average height of a man was around 5ft 8/9inches.
Anybody who was a '6-footer' really was TALL.

Nowadays - even 14 yr-old girls can be 6ft 2ins

HORSES, though - were on average, probably, 16 hands in Arkle's day -
- are STILL 16 hands TODAY - and will, more than probably...
- STILL be 16 hands in 50 years time, too.

Meanwhile -14 yr-old girls will, possibly, be pushing 6ft 6ins, by then

Just look at how low the doorways are in those old, preserved, buildings - some, 5ft Maximum.

Nowadays - they have had to start making longer beds for teenagers -
and everyday shoe sizes, in the shops, have increased to what were previously only hand-made sizes.

Whilst HORSES remain roughly the SAME size.

I think you will find the decreases in the world 100 metres times is as much a result of technology as anything else. The newly laid tracks are much faster than in previous era.

The point I was making about the 100m times was to point out how little fundamental human performance has improved over the years. Its hardly changed at all because as some have pointed out its technology, tracks etc. I think its probably the same with horses-they have not actually improved very much. I think we expect and perceive improvement that is not really happening because of all the changes driven by technology which are clearly vast. That makes it difficult to think that a horse from 50 years ago could be better than todays best. But have a look at Sugar Ray Robinson on you tube and think if he would be a match for todays fighters. He looks like he might be which is kind of counter intuitive because as someone else pointed out people are bigger and presumably healthier. So really there have been standout performers throughout history whose achievements have not been exceeded for many years. After all we had to wait for Einstein to prove that Newton was slightly incorrect - although I agree some others had suspected it before that. So thats what Arkle was, he was the Newton of horse racing and we are now awaiting Einstein.

Arkle was not pampered, the likes of Best Mate, didn’t run a lot, Kauto swerved the handicaps, he took it all and ran often, it was the handicapper that killed him.

http://www.arkle.org/#!arkle/cwyq

Plus my main problem, as stated in my initial posting is with Flyingbolt. Even if the Arkle situation was absolutely true, what are the chances that Flyingbolt was just 2lbs behind and still about 25lbs and more better than everything else then and since?

My tiny brain cannot comprehend this.