Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 55

Thread: Himself

  1. #21
    Senior Member Euronymous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Leyland
    Posts
    18,859
    Thanks
    336
    Thanked 833 Times in 691 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by simmo View Post
    He gave weight and a beating to gold cup horses, denman only managed to give weight and a beating to mid grade handicappers. Ergo.....
    Gold Cup horses covers a very wide range of ability.

    Lord Windermere was one, yet he was no better than a very early 160s horse. Chances are the nags Arkle beat that went onto GC success were in that range. Is that a guess? A little. However since the early 90s there have been plenty of below 170 Gold Cup winners. In the 1960s with far fewer horses in the population those outliers would have been more commonplace. Stands to reason.

    That makes Arkle a mid 190s horse, no better.

    And don't forget, Phil Bull had no interest in Jumps racing so his best guys wouldn't have been handicapping the winter game.
    Last edited by Euronymous; 8th April 2020 at 1:11 PM.

  2. #22
    Senior Member Desert Orchid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    23,661
    Thanks
    2,930
    Thanked 3,483 Times in 2,743 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Slim View Post
    It is near enough the 10 year anniversary of Phil Smith admitting he had no idea how to put a handicap mark on Arkle so what chance have we. So claiming things are not backed up by evidence is a bit wide of the mark when the handicapper couldn't find enough to even guess a mark for him.
    Fair enough.

    Trying to have a debate was obviously not one of my better ideas. Hopefully the thread dies a death.
    Illegitimi non carborundum


  3. #23
    Senior Member simmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    South Lanarkshire
    Posts
    5,524
    Thanks
    306
    Thanked 397 Times in 357 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Euronymous View Post
    Gold Cup horses covers a very wide range of ability.

    Lord Windermere was one, yet he was no better than a very early 160s horse. Chances are the nags Arkle beat that went onto GC success were in that range. Is that a guess? A little. However since the early 90s there have been plenty of below 170 Gold Cup winners. In the 1960s with far fewer horses in the population those outliers would have been more commonplace. Stands to reason.

    That makes Arkle a mid 190s horse, no better.

    And don't forget, Phil Bull had no interest in Jumps racing so his best guys wouldn't have been handicapping the winter game.
    Denman's highest rated Hennessy run was 182 for being beaten 15l by a 156 rated horse carrying 26lb less than him.

    I'd measure that more literally as being high 160s at best. Still 30lbs less than your rating for arkle.

  4. #24
    Senior Member Euronymous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Leyland
    Posts
    18,859
    Thanks
    336
    Thanked 833 Times in 691 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by simmo View Post
    Denman's highest rated Hennessy run was 182 for being beaten 15l by a 156 rated horse carrying 26lb less than him.

    I'd measure that more literally as being high 160s at best. Still 30lbs less than your rating for arkle.
    That is incorrect.

    In 2009 Denman beat Niche Market by 7 1/4

    In 2010 he beat the same horse just the one length with a similar weight concession (mainly due to Niche Market carrying beefy overweight in 2010.

  5. #25
    Senior Member simmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    South Lanarkshire
    Posts
    5,524
    Thanks
    306
    Thanked 397 Times in 357 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Euronymous View Post
    That is incorrect.

    In 2009 Denman beat Niche Market by 7 1/4

    In 2010 he beat the same horse just the one length with a similar weight concession (mainly due to Niche Market carrying beefy overweight in 2010.
    He got an RPR of 161 for his first Hennessy, 174 for his second and 182 for coming 3rd in his last one.

  6. #26
    Senior Member Euronymous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Leyland
    Posts
    18,859
    Thanks
    336
    Thanked 833 Times in 691 Posts
    Those numbers are the official marks he was off for those three races. They aren't a reflection of his performance in each race.

  7. #27
    Senior Member simmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    South Lanarkshire
    Posts
    5,524
    Thanks
    306
    Thanked 397 Times in 357 Posts
    So they are. Doh!

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    North Cork. Home of steeple chasing
    Posts
    5,341
    Thanks
    2,209
    Thanked 1,335 Times in 801 Posts
    Blog Entries
    7
    Check out Gallagher Gold Cup 1965. 12/7 , wins by 20 lengths, breaks course record by 17 seconds which may well still stand.
    Beaten only four times over fences, twice (at least ) with a valid excuse.
    Find me better (apart from Flyingbolt at his pomp.)

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to edgt For This Useful Post:

    Slim (8th April 2020)

  10. #29
    Senior Member Grasshopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    16,018
    Thanks
    1,467
    Thanked 1,553 Times in 1,112 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    Trying to knock Arkle down from Timeform’s 212, is just as hard as trying to justify Timeform’s 212.

    Phil Smith’s error wasn’t in his giving-up - it was in his starting in the first place.

    Time to let the number be, and accept that Arkle was peerless in his era, like no horse has been before or since. That’s his legacy.
    Last edited by Grasshopper; 9th April 2020 at 7:03 PM.
    "Beat the price and lose. It's what we do".

    SlimChance, March 2018

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Grasshopper For This Useful Post:

    Colin Phillips (10th April 2020)

  12. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,891
    Thanks
    84
    Thanked 318 Times in 204 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Grasshopper View Post
    Trying to knock Arkle down from Timeform’s 212, is just as hard as trying to justify Timeform’s 212.

    Phil Smith’s error wasn’t in his giving-up - it was in his starting in the first place.

    Time to let the number be, and accept that Arkle was peerless in his era, like no horse has been before or since. That’s his legacy.
    The only time arkle wasn't peerless was in his era.

  13. #31
    Senior Member Grasshopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    16,018
    Thanks
    1,467
    Thanked 1,553 Times in 1,112 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    WTF does that even mean?
    "Beat the price and lose. It's what we do".

    SlimChance, March 2018

  14. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,891
    Thanks
    84
    Thanked 318 Times in 204 Posts
    The only time in history that he had a peer was the contemporary Flyingbolt, rated 210.

  15. #33
    Senior Member Frankel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    4,766
    Thanks
    77
    Thanked 175 Times in 161 Posts
    Another can of worms.

    210 is amusing!
    All comers, all grounds, all beaten!

    This perfect mix of poetry and destruction.

  16. #34
    Senior Member Grasshopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    16,018
    Thanks
    1,467
    Thanked 1,553 Times in 1,112 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by HawkWing View Post
    The only time in history that he had a peer was the contemporary Flyingbolt, rated 210.
    Flyingbolt was a contemporary of Arkle - not a peer, because they never met in a race, and no direct comparison could be made.

    If you’re going to make feeble attempts at being a contrarian, I suggest you start yourself off at a lower level than me. I’ve been chasing amateurs like you off racing forums for 20 fu*cking years.
    Last edited by Grasshopper; 9th April 2020 at 10:34 PM.
    "Beat the price and lose. It's what we do".

    SlimChance, March 2018

  17. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,891
    Thanks
    84
    Thanked 318 Times in 204 Posts
    why does a peer mean they had to meet in a race?

    Generally in common parlance, 'peerless' would generally mean that he had no one his equal, or even near to it. It was amusing that you would call him peerless 'in his time', when it was the one time in history where he had a horse of a legitamite claim to being his equal was in his time (between 1964-66).

    And go **** yourself into hibernation, and whoever made you think you have any sort of authority on any racing forum.

  18. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,891
    Thanks
    84
    Thanked 318 Times in 204 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Grasshopper View Post
    Flyingbolt was a contemporary of Arkle - not a peer, because they never met in a race, and no direct comparison could be made.

    If you’re going to make feeble attempts at being a contrarian, I suggest you start yourself off at a lower level than me. I’ve been chasing amateurs like you off racing forums for 20 fu*cking years.
    Arent the whole point of ratings to evaluate the ability of horses who haven't raced and aren't contemporaries - actually its the whole point of the debate.

    Arkle and Flyingbolt are rated through a common opponent - Height o'fashion - placing them 2lbs apart - something less controversial than comparing him with Desert Orchid or Kauto Star.

    Now **** off and stop thinking you are so great.

  19. #37
    Senior Member Grasshopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    16,018
    Thanks
    1,467
    Thanked 1,553 Times in 1,112 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    Boo fu*cking hoo, you nit-picking tedious twat.

    Fu*ck off.
    Last edited by Grasshopper; 9th April 2020 at 11:15 PM.
    "Beat the price and lose. It's what we do".

    SlimChance, March 2018

  20. #38
    Senior Member Grasshopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    16,018
    Thanks
    1,467
    Thanked 1,553 Times in 1,112 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by HawkWing View Post
    Arent the whole point of ratings to evaluate the ability of horses who haven't raced and aren't contemporaries - actually its the whole point of the debate.

    Arkle and Flyingbolt are rated through a common opponent - Height o'fashion - placing them 2lbs apart - something less controversial than comparing him with Desert Orchid or Kauto Star.

    Now **** off and stop thinking you are so great.
    I’ll try and make my position on this a little more clear, as you’re clearly too fu*cking dense to have assimilated it first time round.

    You - and everyone else - are wasting their time, fretting your little dandruff-spattered brows about whether 212 is legit or not.

    It can never be proven or disproven one way or the other, because it is subjective.

    What is not in dispute, is Arkle’s greatness, and that has never been threatened or questioned at any stage, by anyone, ever since he last stepped off a racecourse.......with the possible exception of arseholes like you, who self-evidently know no better.

    Trust this is now clear and explicit.

    Now, for the second time, please fu*ck off back to your Mum’s basement, and spend some time thinking about what you’ve done.
    Last edited by Grasshopper; 9th April 2020 at 11:28 PM.
    "Beat the price and lose. It's what we do".

    SlimChance, March 2018

  21. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    North Cork. Home of steeple chasing
    Posts
    5,341
    Thanks
    2,209
    Thanked 1,335 Times in 801 Posts
    Blog Entries
    7
    The McCarthy /Keane Saipan debate was never as hot a topic as this 212 rating .
    Tom Dreaper took a long time to admit Arkle being superior to Prince Regent, his 1946 Gold Cup winner.
    His light was kept under a bushel due to events in Europe at the time.
    Imagine having a Guineas horse burning up the gallops only to have to face the delay now happening; especially if you were from a smaller yard.
    Thoughts with all horse owners/ breeders / staff at this time.

  22. The Following User Says Thank You to edgt For This Useful Post:

    Colin Phillips (10th April 2020)

  23. #40
    Senior Member granger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Moscow Flyer Stables
    Posts
    18,887
    Thanks
    831
    Thanked 1,027 Times in 736 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by edgt View Post
    Check out Gallagher Gold Cup 1965. 12/7 , wins by 20 lengths, breaks course record by 17 seconds which may well still stand.
    Beaten only four times over fences, twice (at least ) with a valid excuse.
    Find me better (apart from Flyingbolt at his pomp.)
    Some people say he’s the best since Arkle and that’s certainly true when you look at what he’s done

  24. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to granger For This Useful Post:

    Desert Orchid (10th April 2020), Eleanora Duse (10th April 2020)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •