This is my first attempt at creating what I hope is a 'thread' of interest to my fellow contributors. On my travels I picked up a small volume which divides the twentieth century into nine ages; up to 1919 then the remaining eight decades. Each chapter seeks to discuss the star horses of their 'decade' and some overall facets of horseracing during each period. My point of the thread is that the book claims the 'best' decade was the seventies and is titled 'A surfeit of excellence'. It supports the contention with early mentions of Brigadier Gerard, Mill Reef, Nijinsky, Allez France, Dahlia and Secretariat. Whether in agreement or not I hope this provokes an interesting discussion.
All the best with the thread Kenny. With so many great horses from the past and no real way of getting an easy way to offer up a reasonable response, I'll just put Ribot at the top of the 50s and drop in the names of Crepello, Never Say Die, Tulya, Arctic Prince, Nashua, Swaps, Tulloch and Forego etc.
Here we are. The decade is the decade in which the horses were 3yos. Includes all horses rated 135 or higher If we take horses rated 138 or higher then it looks like the 50's and 90's have it If we take 140 and higher then it's pretty even with a maximum of 2 per decade. Adding the 2 top rated together just gives the 40's the edge 20th Century Timeform Ratings by Decade Decade 40's 144 Tudor Minstrel 142 Abernant 138 Alycidon 136 Black Tarquin 136 My Babu 135 Coronation 135 Chanteur 135 Tenerani 135 The Bug 135 Souverain 135 Arbar 50's 142 Windy City 142 Ribot 139 Pappa Fourway 138 Star of India 138 Tulloch 137 Princely Gift 137 Never Say Die 137 Pinza 137 Right Boy 136 Herbager 136 Alcide 136 Ballymoss 136 Hafiz 136 Tantieme 136 Texana 136 Crepello 135 Arctic Prince 135 Supreme Court 135 Sicambre 60's 145 Sea Bird 140 Vaguely Noble 138 Exbury 137 Ragusa 137 Reliance 137 Molvedo 136 Floribunda 136 Relko 135 Petingo 135 La Tendresse 135 Match II 135 Right Royal 135 Charlottesville 135 Sir Ivor 70's 144 Brigadier Gerard 141 Mill Reef 138 Nijinsky 138 Alleged 137 Grundy 137 Rheingold 137 Kingston Town 137 Apalachee 137 Troy 136 Allez France 136 Bustino 136 Manikato 136 Thatch 135 Dahlia 135 Youth 135 The Minstrel 135 Sassafras 135 Le Moss 135 Kris 80's 140 Dancing Brave 140 Shergar 139 Reference Point 137 Moorestyle 137 Zilzal 137 Sunday Silence 137 Easy Goer 136 Warning 136 Slip Anchor 136 Bering 136 Old Vic 136 Northjet 136 El Gran Senor 136 Habibti 135 Trempolino 135 Known Fact 135 Nashwan 135 Never So Bold 135 Teenoso 135 Shareef Dancer 135 Sagace 135 Shahrastani 135 Petoski 135 Shadeed 135 Pebbles 135 All Along 90's 140 Dubai Millennium 139 Generous 138 Celtic Swing 138 Daylami 138 Cigar 137 Peintre Celebre 137 Mark of Esteem 137 Dayjur 137 Montjeu 136 Gentlemen 136 Helissio 136 El Condor Pasa 136 Suave Dancer 135 Arazi 135 St Jovite 135 Intikhab 135 Royal Anthem
You will be pleased to hear that the author agrees with you in that Sea Bird 11 was the finest winner we have seen in the Derby and the Arc; at least until 2000 when the volume was first published. "There were equally exhilerating performances on the flat: the French trained Sea Bird 11 cruised home in effortless style in both the 1965 Derby and the Arc de Triomphe." The book is in English, German and French and I seem to recall making the purchase at the gift shop at 'Munchen Riem'.
Certainly isn't. You can analyse as much as you like, but this was a truly great racehorse. The way he won The Derby in 1965 had to be seen to be believed. Cantered in on a tight rein. Won the Arc the same year by several lengths despite hanging badly left in the closing stages. Beat the best Arc field seen in years. A great champion. Am proud owner of six framed lithographs (50cm x 39cm) of some great champions (only 850 sets issued by Blenheim Fine Arts in June 1979, to commemorate the 200th running of The Derby). Sea-Bird II is included. Magnificent looking chestnut, rippling with muscle. Original painting by Roy Miller. What I do find 'silly' is Tudor Minstrel at 144? What in hell did he do to deserve that rating? Blew-up at Tattenham Corner in his Derby. Well, OK, he won 8 top races out of 10, but '144'? Never could understand that rating.
I wish I knew more about the decades in which Man o' War ran. He'd qualify for two decades I suppose, so maybe there is a case to be built for either of those spans. Having a horse of his abilities would give a decade a nice leg up I'd imagine.
I would find it very difficult to argue with Gordon Richards, not least because he's dead, but he always said Tudor Minstrel was the finest. Bit hard to judge him on his Derby run as it was a different world then and the Derby was the race for the 2000G winner. We don't see things that way now.
Knocking a sprinter/miler for not winning the Derby is a bit harsh. For all we know Frankel might not have won a Derby
Thanks for Timeform ratings list Ron. My 'live' highlight would be 1999 when I was fortunately at Chantilly to see Montjeu win the Prix du Jockey Club and again in Paris for his victory in the Arc. Looking down the straight it seemed impossible that he would catch El Condor Pasa however he succeeded. The next year Montjeu played with Fantastic Light in the King George. The only drawback was prior to the earliest of the above victories I held a substantial ante post voucher on Montjeu in the Epsom Derby. Fortunately I have wiped the stake and odds from my ageing memory!
Derby." It was a superlative performance, which would be etched in the minds of racegoers forever. Sea Bird had beaten the best English and Irish horses, such as Meadow Court (Who went on to win the Irish Derby and the King George), Are I Say, Niksar, Convamore, Cambridge,Gulf Pearl, Bally marais, Solstice, Alcade, Silly Season and Foothill." .... "such as Meadow Court" FFS Arc. "That year the strongest field ever contested the Prix del'Arc de Triomphe. It included Meadow Court, winner of the Irish Derby and King George VI Diamond Stakes...." I don't think so. "Pat Glennon urged Sea Bird and like a rocket propelling into the air drew away to win by the widest ever margin in the Arc-6 lengths." Oh no it wasn't. Photographic evidence shows conclusively that Ribot has that honour. Sea Bird was one of the greatest, no doubting that. But some of the claims are laughable, not to mention untrue. The ratings are very interesting as, until Frankel came along, Dancing Brave was the highest rated ever. Comparing horses across eras must be a nightmare for the handicappers and form analysts alike. At the end of the day we all have our favorites. Was Frankel better than Sea Bird ???????????????? I don't know. I have a picture of Red Rum, Arkle and Dessie on our Dining Room wall. If I were to have one of 3 flat horses I'm not sure which 3 I would have. Maybe I would have 4. Ribot Sea Bird Dubai Millennium Frankel
1965 was a magic year. Arkle, Sea Bird, Graham Pollock, Provoke, The Who, The Byrds and Bob Dylan's two greatest albums. We should be celebrating 1965
Don't agree with you on a few points, Ron, I leave it at that. Christ, you'd think it was me who gave Sea-Bird II the ****ing rating, wasn't my bloody fault . Wonderful racehorse. Had he managed to keep a straight line in his Arc, the winning distance would have been a bit further. Hell of a field he beat though. Ribot was brilliant but one nasty son-of-a-bitch. Frankel was the greatest IMHO. Trying to refresh the old memory on Tudor Minstrel, was just a young kid at the time. Remember the extreme disappointment in my old dad's pub when he lost the Derby, no one could believe it, everyone thought he was unbeatable. So, I guess he did deserve this very high rating, from what he had achieved up to Epsom? SwanHills will now eat the forum's special pie before turning-in......................
My suspicion is that there are not many that are going to be making much of a case for the years before World War II, as I am sure that the only person that remembers those days is Ron! The first thing that springs to mind is the old chestnut about comparing horses from different eras. All those Timeform ratings may be good or just a valid starting point for debate, but surely what Mark Twain said holds true: “It were not best that we should all think alike; it is difference of opinion that makes horse-races.” Should we be quantifying the “best” decade as the one that produced the highest number of very highly regarded horses or should we be looking for the decade that produced the most top class competition? Would the great clash in 1971 when Brigadier Gerard, Mill Reef and My Swallow met in the 2000 Guineas at Newmarket not score more points because of the quality of the race even though My Swallow was rated less than 135 by Timeform? What about the 1986 Prix de l’Arc de Triomphe when Dancing Brave trounced three horses rated 135 or more? As the ratings do not take into account the race distances surely we should be looking for the decade that featured most of the great contests? Nobody can forget the 1975 King George VI and Queen Elizabeth Diamond Stakes, still considered by many to be the Race of the Century, but Grundy and Bustino effectively finished their careers that day and the ratings say that neither of them would have given Mill Reef a race. When I look at the big names on the list that I actually saw race, most of them represent spectacular performances, like Dayjur winning the 1990 Nunthorpe Stakes unchallenged in course record time, they were not great races just individual great horses.
Just watched Dayjur in Breeders Cup sprint again; including the famous 'jump'. Repeated views suggest he would indeed have won as he had moved about a neck clear of Safely Kept before the mishap. Thought the shadow may have been caused by the Churchill Downs towers however the meeting was held at Belmont Park in 1990. My mum and I were at York in August that year to see him thrash a good field in the Nunthorpe.
