You aren't alone Joe. New Approach will never be recognised for how good he was. We don't need to try to convince the non believers. As you rightly say, there are a number of exceptional horses that don't perform to their full potential on a firm surface. Some horses aren't at their best on soft going. Take Sea The Stars for example. Everybody's favourite but was he ever run on soft as a 3yo? Look at the horses he beat. Were they World beaters? No. Would he have run in the Arc had the going been soft? Most unlikely because it's conceivable he would have been beaten. Keep a horse unbeaten by not running on unsuitable ground and it becomes a great. Be stupid enough to run a horse on unsuitable ground and the poor horse gets criticised for under performing. I don't like to see horses being slagged off; they just run to their ability, even if hurting or badly ridden. Some horses are elevated to greatness on their ability to perform only in their ideal conditions. There is nothing wrong with that as this is the owner/trainer looking after the horse's welfare. However others are knocked because they suffer defeat in unsuitable conditions and that is down to the owner/trainer not looking after the welfare of the horse; it's not the horse's fault and it is not fair on the horse to be criticised in such circumstances. We should acknowledge the achievements of horses not criticise their under achievements for whatever reason. Also when there are legitimate reasons for an under performance it would be nice (and fair) if they were consistently referred to as reasons instead of reasons for some horses but feeble excuses for others. As for comparing horses of different generations there is no way they can be indisputably compared. The only way of telling which horse has produced the best performance over a course and distance is, after taking account of all relevant factors, by comparing the time (ie Horse A got from A to B in a faster time so therefore it would have finished in front. However (with a f**ing great capital H), we all know that there are so many variables (too many to mention) that even that is far from acceptable.
o He trumps everything Ron and in any debate, if you can quote from the gospel of Supreme Arkle you win. It's like quoting scripture in a religious argument, it's seen as the last word.
In seriousness to add a penneth worth to the debate - I tend see classic winning horses in a number of ways with regard comparisons 1 All time Greats ( Frankel, Dancing Brave, Shergar, etc ) 2 A very high quality horse when compared with any given year. (New approach, Galileo, Nashwan, Generous etc ) 3. A good horse among it's peers in the year or two it raced ( Workforce, Dawn approach, Camalot) 4. Fortunate to be a classic winner due to a poor crop (Sir Percy, Kris kin, ) Some horse of course suffer from having a poor peer group and so never end up being able to be tested too much and of course could have been better than we ever saw. In my view (and of course it's only that) New Approach came into the second category.
I think I would extend the definition of 4. by adding "or the best horse(s) in that year were unable to take part". (eg Hard Ridden because Alcide, a very good horse, was unable to take part)
I would tend to agree with Dex and place him in 1, the only reason that could likely be questioned is that his manner of racing meant he would never pull away from horses in the style of many all time greats which always left you wondering if he would have found what you expected if pressed harder than he was. He is definitely a hard one to call but I would place him in 1 but would not be able to argue too passionately if someone were of the view he should be in 2.
It is weird that if a horse is a good sire he's viewed as a better racehorse. Classic case of that being Brigadier Gerard versus Mill Reef. Both could run on virtually any going, yet the Brigadier's star is slightly tarnished by the fact he was a failure at stud. Can't see as Dancing Brave is 1 yet See the Stars is 2? I think Sea the Stars is just about the best Arc winner I've seen. Did Shergar beat much? No doubt an outstanding horse, but not a great year. New Approach is an interesting horse as his Derby form does not mark him out as an outstanding horse. However I was at Newmarket the day of his Champion win and it is hard to imagine a more imperious demolition of a field. Few would have beaten him that day.
No one claimed New Approach to be superior than Sea The Stars as far as im aware. Bluesky has it spot on I think, New Approach in with Nashwan, Generous etc And Sea The Stars is in the category above with your Frankels and Dancing Braves. The debate was about the class of 2008 and Henry and Ravens dont get into cat 2, class horses that they were.
stick, would you like to borrow my smiley from 606 below please log in to view this image please log in to view this image Sorry, I appear to have lost them
