The problem with some high ratings is that if the horse has not had the opposition to ensure a strong gallop resulting in a fast time (relative to the conditions) it is pure speculation how that horse may have coped had there been such opposition. Beating average or just above average horses easily and/or by long distances doesn't mean they would have beaten top rate horses. In the case of Sea The Stars and Fame & Glory, my view (for what it's worth) is that they should have rated Fame and Glory for what he achieved, not by how far he was beaten by Sea The Stars. Conversely Sea The Stars should have been rated on his best performance (presumably he was). A horse need do no more than beat what's pitched against it. Horses from different generations can't physically race against each other which makes it impossible to conclude which would have been superior. A virtual race is merely a program which is as good as the data fed in (and the programmer who programmed it) and no more. As such it is of interest but has no value.
STS for me was very good but I dont rate him as high as my top 4 in DB, Nijinsky, MR, BG, and probably Shergar. Rip Van Winkle would of beat him if Kinane did not strike RVW with his whip as he was about to draw level. RVW and *** were decent but not real top class in my view and the likes of Tryptich, Shahrastani, Bering were superior but DB beat those comfortably. Shergar like STS I dont think beat the best of quality he was beating them 4-10l and could of put a couple of length on top of that if flat out to the line.
On times Just had a quick glance at the winning times of some of the greats in the King George - very interesting The Minstrel 2:30:48 Troy 2:33:765 Dancing Brave 2:29::49 Nashwan 2:32:47 Daylami 2:29:35 Galileo 2:27:41 Monjeu 2:29:98 Mill Reef 2:32:56 Brigadier Gerrard 2:32:91 Shergar 2:35:40
And only an 'eejit' ignores winning distances, and purely focuses on the grade of the race. Though that logic came back to bite you when that 'handicapper' ran away with the G1 Irish Derby. Sea The Stars didn't look in any of his victorys like he had a tank full of energy left. He looked like a horse who was flat out to score by a small margin. So wether he had more left in the tank or not, we'll never know, but to me he didn't look like he had a lot left. Regardless my point still stands, how can he be rated 140, when he clearly didn't run to that level. Was it when he beat Delegator, Fame And Glory, Rip Van Winkle, Mastercraftsmen or Youmzain? I really fail to understand what one of his small margin wins warrants a 140 rating. It seems to me that because he won so many races, the handicapper felt the need to overrate his talents. Rather than to judge each individual race on its own merits. A rating is all about what sort of level a horse has proven it can run to, so regardless of wether Sea The Stars may or may not have found more if challenged by a genuine high 130s horse, he never proved he could run to that level. So isn't worthy of a 140 rating. Had Rip Van Winkle and Fame And Glory been around in any other era they'd have been rated what they where, which was around about the mid 120s. But the handicapper overrated them to justify his rating of Sea The Stars
This has been a really good thread in terms of debate and it has (for the most part - you know what I mean) been in good spirit. I thought I would throw in a few observations though: (1) Quoting Shergar's time in the Derby is a nonsense - he was eased down to a canter well before the line (2) Dancing Brave's Arc is WIDELY regarded as probably the strongest renewal ever seen - by the great and good racing afficionados. His Derby is even more memorable because of the ground he made up in the straight - had he been ridden a little more prominently he would have won easily. (3) Winning distance alone (even in a G1) is no measure of greatness - for what it's worth I though Generous was more visually impressive than Shergar in his Derby. Generous quickened clear off a strong pace (set by 2000GNS winner Mystiko) and only Marju could get anywhere near him. If you watch Shergar's Derby most of the field are already beat coming round Tattenham Corner (more evidence it was a weak race, as the pace wasn't that strong) One of my favourite Derby winners was Generous, and he was even more spectacular in the King George. For whatever reason he just didn't fire in the Arc but I have great memories of him.
Selectively choosing times that are quicker than Shergars Shergar didn't set the pace in any of his wins, so could only kick clear off the gallop that was set. Horse racing is not a race against the clock, it is to win the race, regardless of how its run
I was on Generous in that Derby - unbelievable price! Lammtarra was another impressive derby winner and followed up with a King Geroge and Arc
Wasn't hard - since Shergar won it in 1981, only 1 horse has recorded a slower winning time and that was Mtoto on desperate ground in 1988.
I love a horse that wins time and time and again just doing enough. It's not that STS won one race like that, he did it often, I'd say he was very rarely out of 3rd gear and I remember John Oxx saying he was the smartest horse he has ever known. Mick Kinane also noted once he got his head In front he stopped until something came to him and them just picked up as much as he needed to keep ahead. Hard to know when you are at the bottom of horse like that. Comparing horses over generations is pointless. I much rather admire and appreciate what they achieved on track than argue points that can never be tested against each other. The way I see it, if STS, Shergar, Dancing Brave or whoever won by 50 lengths in a race...There will always be someone out there to pick a hole in something about the performance so whilst these debates alway are entertaining, they are always personal arguments of my horse is better than yours! None of us owned the horses, so just appreciate what they did when they were around.
NB - That's not a dig at Shergar's ability - he was a fantastic horse - just the other horses from his generation were below par!!
But your main argument against ST'S has that he's not won by far yet your also agreeing that the main thing is to win no matter how the race is run ???..which is what STS did. Your contradicting yourself on a lot of your points to suit your ideas!
No contradiction whatsoever! Most horses are not front runners, so they should not be judged on how quick the time is, what they should be judged on, is when the buttons are pressed how impressively can you win the race. And Sea The Stars never had the gears to really put daylight between himself and his rivals
Or maybe there just wasn't any pace in the races he ran in. That doesn't make his rivals of poor quality just because there wasn't a horse setting a strong gallop. Infact it makes Shergars big wins even more impressive as he was kicking clear of them off a slow gallop, which makes it even harder to win by further
We are debating his rating though, and whilst he done everything right by winning his races. He didn't win with enough authority to warrant a 140 rating
I don't get too bogged down by ratings or time analysis, because firstly, ones completely subjective and the other's at the mercy of your competitors, unless you front run. No, I reserve most respect for the actual races the horse wins. And if they can string together wins over various distances and show versatility that's when they'll earn the most respect. A Guineas, a Derby and an Arc. Yep, that's good enough for me
