Golden Horn
- Thread starter Bluesky9
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Taking nothing away from Golden Horn, his win was a first class effort, but I just can't rank him above Sea The Stars. Only horse to win the Guineas, Derby, Arc treble. He finished the year rated 140. Rated number 1 in the 2009 World Thoroughbred Rankings.
You must log in or register to see media
The problem with comparisons Cyc, is how often do we have vintage crops? If one horse is head and shoulders above the rest, and the rest are not well above average, it's quite likely that horse will win everything going. So winning everything going is not a fool proof means of assessing greatness. I know there are lots of knockers of the clock but, to my mind, the only way to tell what a horse is capable of is to take the best time it has ever achieved, adjusted for the conditions, and then make as an objective view as possible as to how much faster it could have gone based on how easily it won. This gets rid of the form of tactical races where a horse wins easily because it has superior finishing speed. Nothing can guarantee that if the horse had got to the furlong pole (say) 2 secs faster that it could have produced the same burst of acceleration. It's all very subjective but not as subjective as counting the number of Group 1 races won, beating the same horses over again, however easily,
Timeform clearly try to do something like this but even they can get some horribly wrong. We all know that some of the ratings are "laughable" as they are based on how close they got to a highly rated horse. Conversely though had the the inferior horse been rate more objectively and the higher rated horse rated relative to that, maybe some of those highly rated horses would have been given a lower rating.
Comparing horses of different generations is always going to be subjective and therefore will always result in differing opinions.
On the Golden Horn v Sea The Stars my opinion, for what it's worth is:
Haven't a clue.
Timeform clearly try to do something like this but even they can get some horribly wrong. We all know that some of the ratings are "laughable" as they are based on how close they got to a highly rated horse. Conversely though had the the inferior horse been rate more objectively and the higher rated horse rated relative to that, maybe some of those highly rated horses would have been given a lower rating.
Comparing horses of different generations is always going to be subjective and therefore will always result in differing opinions.
On the Golden Horn v Sea The Stars my opinion, for what it's worth is:
Haven't a clue.
Ron, that is why I go on and on in rating Sea Bird II so highly. The field in the 1965 Arc was a veritable Who's Who of really top-class racehorses of that day. He swamped them, despite hanging badly to the left in the last furlong or so.
A good lady with a racing outfit in London once spelt it all out for me, each and every runner in that epic race, but I went and lost the damn thing she sent me.
A good lady with a racing outfit in London once spelt it all out for me, each and every runner in that epic race, but I went and lost the damn thing she sent me.
I have never been much on sectionals on the huge variety of tracks in Europe. Left hand, right hand, uphill, downhill, sharp, galloping, undulating, you name it. Sectionals are of much more value on the standard dirt or synthetic left hand tracks of North America. For sectionals in Europe, each individual track must be considered separately IMHO? A very complicated business over here, but when I lived t'other side of the big pond, I really did take an interest in sectionals. Paid-off sometimes, too.
The International Federation of Horseracing have released the latest LONGINES World’s Best Racehorse Rankings, dated up until 4th October.
According to the accompanying press release, the following significant changes have occurred over the last month:
Golden Horn remains rated 130 as he did not better his Eclipse rating in either the Irish Champion Stakes or the Prix de l’Arc de Triomphe.
On Arc Trials Day, Treve was rated 126 for her victory in the Prix Vermeille, which moved her up to third place in the list behind the American Triple Crown hero and the Epsom Derby winner.
With his facile victory in the Irish St Leger, Order Of St George produced a 123 rating to move into the list for the first time.
Winning the Prix de la Forêt was a sufficiently improved performance by Poulains winner Make Believe to make him a rankings newcomer with a mark of 121; whilst Flintshire is rated 123 for finishing runner-up in the Arc and New Bay joined the list with a rating of 122.
According to the accompanying press release, the following significant changes have occurred over the last month:
Golden Horn remains rated 130 as he did not better his Eclipse rating in either the Irish Champion Stakes or the Prix de l’Arc de Triomphe.
On Arc Trials Day, Treve was rated 126 for her victory in the Prix Vermeille, which moved her up to third place in the list behind the American Triple Crown hero and the Epsom Derby winner.
With his facile victory in the Irish St Leger, Order Of St George produced a 123 rating to move into the list for the first time.
Winning the Prix de la Forêt was a sufficiently improved performance by Poulains winner Make Believe to make him a rankings newcomer with a mark of 121; whilst Flintshire is rated 123 for finishing runner-up in the Arc and New Bay joined the list with a rating of 122.
I agree, tracks too different, going, even temperature makes a difference. You can garner a horse ability against the rest of the field and if it was far better from sectionals. I was interested to see what STS final 2 furlongs were in his arc.
Isn't every Arc a who's who of top class race horses of that day?
The only question mark I'd have over Sea Bird, is the fact they lied about how far he won by. The record books say 6 lengths, but if you watch the replay it's knowhere near that
Isn't every Arc a who's who of top class race horses of that day?
The only question mark I'd have over Sea Bird, is the fact they lied about how far he won by. The record books say 6 lengths, but if you watch the replay it's knowhere near that
1) No it isn't, 1965 was one of the very best Arc fields of all time. Very few Arc fields have compared with it since. You are just guessing.
2) Rubbish, no one lied about anything. Sea Bird II hung badly left, probably due to the atrocious conditions on that particular day. A mistake was made on the final winning distance, but to say people lied about it is nonsense. You probably read too many Dick Francis novels?
As I said, I have unfortunately lost the full details of each and every runner in the 1965 Arc, but here's a bit from Wikipedia. I believe there were about 16 runners in the field, which also included many other big race winners apart from those shown here:
"1965: three-year-old season:
As a three-year-old, Sea-Bird won all five starts, starting with a three-length win in the Prix Greffulhe. He next appeared in the Prix Lupin, which he won by six lengths from Diatome.
In the Epsom Derby, Sea-Bird started at the 7/4 favourite in a field of twenty two. There was an incident the night before the race in which police and security staff repelled a gang which had attempted to enter the stable of the 2000 Guineas winner Niksar.[13] Before the race, Sea-Bird was described as looking "plain and high". He raced on the outside behind the leaders until the turn into the straight and then moved up to take the lead on the bridle with Glennon sitting "still as a statue".[14] Sea-Bird won effortlessly by two lengths, never coming off the bit, from Meadow Court, who went on to win the Irish Derby and the King George VI and Queen Elizabeth Stakes, with I Say in third.[15] In July, Sea-Bird ran in the Grand Prix de Saint-Cloud, which he won, easing down, by two and a half lengths from Couroucou.[16] He was then rested until the autumn.
In the Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe, Sea-Bird faced a very strong field, including Irish Derby winner Meadow Court, Preakness winner Tom Rolfe, French Derby (Prix du Jockey Club) winner Reliance, Prix de Diane winner Blabla and Russian Derby winner Anilin. Starting at odds of 6/5, Sea Bird won easily despite veering across the track, with jockey Pat Glennon patting him down the neck in the final 100 yards, by six lengths (though photographs of the finish show it to have been closer to four and a half lengths) from Reliance. Five lengths further back in third place was Diatome (though photographs show it to have been closer to four lengths), who went on to win the Washington, D.C. International. Fourth place went to Free Ride, fifth was Anilin and sixth was Tom Rolfe."
Last edited:
A 1-1/2 lengths problem, oh how awful! If he'd have managed to run straight it would have been 7-lengths possibly?
I am truly amazed that on the fuzzy black and white films of the 1950's one can detect a difference of 2-1/2 lengths (8.5 - 6.0). Hmm, how clever. KS, to accuse the French of screwing around because they didn't like the Italians at that time is questionable, it was "le Boche" they hated.
Last edited:
1) Thats a different argument all together now, as your comparing it to different generations. I was just pointing out that most if not all Arcs are a who's who of top class horses, of those who are in training at the time.
2) Was Jimmy Wonder judging the distances that day?
1) It was the sheer number of really top-class racehorses in 1965, that is what I'm getting at. I am not really trying to compare generations. Ribot was indeed a truly great racehorse, but a right bastard too! It is that I don't like to see Sea Bird II even slightly downgraded, until Frankel the best I ever saw.
2) Probably. A bad error was made (weak excuse would be across-the-course angle at the finish), but I don't think anyone fibbed.
2)
Probably. A bad error was made (weak excuse would be across-the-course angle at the finish), but I don't think anyone fibbed.Tom Rolfe (the Preakness winner) was a son of my favourite but he was beaten in half his races in America and he was virtually a pony, being only 15h 2 tall. Longchamp was hardly going to be a suitable course for him.
Meadow Court, who finished second to Sea Bird in the Epsom Derby, and won the Irish version beating those below average horses Convamore and Wedding Present (can't get a much weaker Irish Derby than that), wasn't anything special and the Russian Derby winner could have been anything. Reliance had, in the absence of Sea Bird, won the French Derby at odds of 1/2, indicating the weakness of the rest of the field. In the KG that Meadow Court won he beat another average horse in I Say.
The line up for the Arc sounds more impressive than it actually was. However, Sea Bird could hardly have won his races more easily so it's understandable that he was regarded as a superstar.
Meadow Court, who finished second to Sea Bird in the Epsom Derby, and won the Irish version beating those below average horses Convamore and Wedding Present (can't get a much weaker Irish Derby than that), wasn't anything special and the Russian Derby winner could have been anything. Reliance had, in the absence of Sea Bird, won the French Derby at odds of 1/2, indicating the weakness of the rest of the field. In the KG that Meadow Court won he beat another average horse in I Say.
The line up for the Arc sounds more impressive than it actually was. However, Sea Bird could hardly have won his races more easily so it's understandable that he was regarded as a superstar.
Good points, Ron, it does weaken my argument, just wish I had that full list of runners. Those mentioned weren't the only ones who'd won a classic. Erm, you were a bit harsh on I Say, if my memory hasn't let me down, I believe he was trained by Walter Nightingall? If so, this racehorse was some front runner, he couldn't half set a gallop. Nevermind, Ribot and Sea Bird II were both great racehorses, no dispute there. I had finally returned from Canada in April, 1965, so Sea Bird's Derby win lives in the memory. Astounding honestly, tight rein, Glennon barely moved, the most facile of victories, and Meadow Court wasn't that bad. Don't think Lester often said truly daft things, but this was an exception as he reckoned he should have beaten Sea Bird on Meadow Court. They could have run the race 20 times over and his mount would never have got near the winner IMO. Come on, Lester!
In that article the other day Lester did say that Sea Bird was the best he'd ever seen. Put Frankel 3rd after Ribot.
As regards I Say and in fact nearly all Nightingall they were front-runners. When Walter retired and some of horses plus his jockey moved to Peter Walwyn, Duncan Keith was asked why he always led on Nightingall's horses. He said that Walter so mistrusted jockeys that he wanted them always to lead to show they weren't pulling the horse.
As regards I Say and in fact nearly all Nightingall they were front-runners. When Walter retired and some of horses plus his jockey moved to Peter Walwyn, Duncan Keith was asked why he always led on Nightingall's horses. He said that Walter so mistrusted jockeys that he wanted them always to lead to show they weren't pulling the horse.
Yes, as it was for Dancing Brave in the 1986 running of the Breeders' Cup Turf at Santa Anita, where this great racehorse could only finish 4th to Manila. However, it has to be said that he suffered an injury during the race from a clot of turf getting into an eye.
Difficult, if I was the colt's owner I would think enough of him not to bother. I would be thinking, "heck hasn't he done enough for me after such a long and hard season?" Nevertheless, a tough decision for the owner, but the old boy sure doesn't need the money!
Difficult, if I was the colt's owner I would think enough of him not to bother. I would be thinking, "heck hasn't he done enough for me after such a long and hard season?" Nevertheless, a tough decision for the owner, but the old boy sure doesn't need the money!