I stumbled across some fascinating records today. Can't believe how many times some horses used to run in the old days. Here is the link to good old Wikipedia with some incredible records. I have a good mind to complain though because the Italian wonder horse Ribot seems to have been omitted in the "Number of consecutive wins" (which, of course, is 16).
I'm also going to complain they missed out 10 consecutive victories of Nijinsky. Sad that they should miss at least 2 of the greatest racehorses of modern times
My mistake it was 11 consecutive wins that Nijinksy had before he was mugged in the Arc. He was the first racehourse I really followed (at a very tender age!!) and I would have loved to have seen him in the flesh. Got the next best thing when I saw his son Lammtarra in retirement at Dalham Hall
Ron, this is a good example of how facts can be made to look much better than they are in reality. What this article conveniently does not bother to mention is how many of the races that were won by the likes of Eclipse and Ormonde were matches. In that era, a good majority of races were matches with the prize money put up by the respective owners. I think Eclipse was retired eventually due to lack of opposition because he was so dominant. At least the mare Kincsem won her 54 races across Europe, against varied opposition and over various distances, giving her record more credibility. It is hard to imagine how exhausting travel must have been in those days before there were motorised horseboxes. She must surely have travelled by train to have competed in Germany, France and Britain as well as her native Hungary and neighbouring Austria. Whilst it was commonplace for horses to walk to the racecourses (taking days) in Britain, walking across Europe seems a little improbable! Camarero raced his entire career on two racecourses in Puetro Rico, beginning with eighteen wins as a two-year-old (I wonder if his trainer was related to Jack Berry). The horse died shortly after his 73rd career win from 77 starts, numbers that are never likely to be achieved in any nation where there is proper competitive racing. If Khalid Abdulla sent Frankel to Puetro Rico he could win a hundred races in a hundred days without doing anything more than an exercise canter. Now that the breeding operations are worth so much money, the era when top horses were raced for several years is probably permanently over, so many of these records are going to stand in perpetuity. If Frankel remains undefeated by the end of next year, that will surely only amount to fifteen or sixteen races.
Another interesting horse is Zippy Chippy. In 100 race appearences, he went winless. He had 8 seconds and 12 thirds. It seems that he was a mean son of a bitch, kicking and biting his way through life. His owner refused to race him in a claimer, fearing that he might lose his horse. His owner will keep him for life.
I think that's a little unfair on Ormonde. Of his 16 victories 7 came in what are now Group 1 events (including a Triple Crown, of course) plus a couple of Group 2 races. The remainder were pretty normal contests with the exception of a single match race.
Big Dipper, the Pattern has only existed for the last forty years. There were no Group races before 1971. That said, I accept that in naming a couple of famous ancestors of the current thoroughbred, Ormonde was probably a bad choice, although there is no guarantee that in some of those races the opposition was not what we would call “trees” these days. The phenomenon of the top horses scaring off their rivals is not new.
Sure - I was around when the pattern was introduced and in fairness I did say 'what are now Group 1 events'. Without exhuming my biography of Fred Archer from the attic I'm pretty sure Ormonde saw off some very useful opposition, Minting for one, but since I can't do that right now you can regard this information as hearsay.
