Timeform's greatest

[Ron]

Timeform ratings on the Flat stretch right back to the first Racehorses annual, which came out in 1948, and over jumps to the time of the first jumps Black Books in the early-60s.

Timeform's Greatest Racehorses - Flat
Highest Timeform Annual Ratings (Flat 3yo+)
147 Frankel
145 Sea-Bird
144 Brigadier Gerard, Tudor Minstrel
142 Abernant, Ribot
141 Mill Reef
140 Dancing Brave, Dubai Millennium, Harbinger, Sea The Stars, Shergar, Vaguely Noble
139 Arrogate, Generous, Pappa Fourway, Reference Point


Timeform's Greatest Racehorses - Hurdlers
Highest Timeform Annual Ratings (Jumps - Hurdlers)
182 Night Nurse
180 Istabraq, Monksfield
179 Persian War
178 Comedy of Errors, Le Sauvignon
177 Lanzarote, Limestone Lad, Constitution Hill (profile to follow at end of career)
176 Bird's Nest, Bula, Faugheen, Golden Cygnet
175 Baracouda, Gaye Brief, Salmon Spray, Sea Pigeon


Timeform's Greatest Racehorses - Chasers
Highest Timeform Annual Ratings (Jumps - Chasers)
212 Arkle
210 Flyingbolt
192p Sprinter Sacre
191 Kauto Star, Mill House
187 Desert Orchid
186 Dunkirk
184 Burrough Hill Lad, Moscow Flyer, Long Run
183 Don Cossack, Master Oats
182 Azertyuiop, Best Mate, Captain Christy, Douvan, Carvill's Hill, Kicking King, See More Business, Well Chief



Timeform's Greatest Racehorses - Jumping Mares

Highest Timeform Annual Ratings (Jumps - Mares)
173 Dawn Run
171 Anaglogs Daughter
170+ Annie Power
166 Dubacilla, Flakey Dove
165 Lady Cricket, Lady Rebecca, Honeysuckle(profile to follow at end of career)
164 Quevega
162 Apple's Jade, Asian Maze

 

[Ron]

There is only one horse in the above that I don't recall, and that is Abernant

 

[OddDog]

Every chance we’ll be seeing two of the all-time greats this season over hurdles (Constitution Hill) and fences (Galopin Des Champs). Exciting times indeed.

 

[Ron]

I think it's great that you can click on any of the horses to get an article on the horse, especially for the younger generation, for whom most of the names will be unfamiliar

 

[NassauBoard]

Long Run showing that bias is produced when other horses are rated highly at the same time. Not a chance should he be in that list.

 

[SwanHills]

There is only one horse in the above that I don't recall, and that is Abernant

Yes, even this old geezer has difficulty remembering the great sprinter Abernant. who raced shortly after the end of WW2. Just beaten a short-head by eventual Derby winner Nimbus in the 1949 2000 Gns. when his stamina just didn't last out. He was indeed a superb sprinter, as this article from Wikipedia also relates (additional item to the above Timeform section on Abernant):

Abernant (horse) - Wikipedia

 

[OddDog]

The ratings don't reflect versatility though do they? In April 1988 Desert Orchid won the Whitbread Gold Cup over 3m 5f at Sandown carrying 11st 11lb and 7 months later he won the Tingle Creek over 2 miles on the same track again giving lumps of weight away. Not many chasers in the list had that trip versatility

You must log in or register to see media

 

[NassauBoard]

The ratings don't reflect versatility though do they? In April 1988 Desert Orchid won the Whitbread Gold Cup over 3m 5f at Sandown carrying 11st 11lb and 7 months later he won the Tingle Creek over 2 miles on the same track again giving lumps of weight away. Not many chasers in the list had that trip versatility

You must log in or register to see media

And Kauto would have lapped him.

 

[OddDog]

And Kauto would have lapped him.

Should think so - he was rated 4lbs higher

 

[Ron]

Similar story on the flat with Ribot; not to mention his understated 2nd Arc win. Sill, it's nice to see their names and backup articles for a little reminiscing

 

[Ron]

I won't mention Flying Bolt - might bring someone out of the woodwork

 

[Ron]

Great to see Pappa Fourway in the list. I remember him fondly from my young days

 

[stick]

I know Kauto was better but how does DENMAN not make that list of chasers?

 

[NassauBoard]

I know Kauto was better but how does DENMAN not make that list of chasers?

he would have demolished Dessie and most if not all below him in the list

 

[Ron]

I know Kauto was better but how does DENMAN not make that list of chasers?

Yes, that is a strange one. I can only think that his heart problem prevented him achieving a higher rating. Whereas "Kauto Star was a constant record-breaker, the only horse to ever regain the Gold Cup, win five King George VI Chases, four Betfair Chases and the Stayers’ Triple Crown.". But should he be 10lb below KS given that he did beat him fair and square once, and that being a GC?

 

[Ron]

he would have demolished Dessie and most if not all below him in the list

Obviously wouldn't have got near Dunkirk over 2 miles, or 2.5 miles

 

[Ron]

I reckon "we" could argue about some of the relative ratings. Should have just listed the greats in alphabetical order and let us just read the articles we are interested in

 

[QuarterMoonII]

Since you have started a thread about the subject of “all-time” ratings, I am going to throw the cat amongst the pigeons...

I simply do not think that these ratings (especially for the flat) over a long period of time hold any validity; a statement that I will support thus:

Go and look at a racecard today and the race distances as listed, for example Wolverhampton 5:00 1m 1f 104yds, Wolverhampton 8:00 5f 21yds, Hereford 12:45 2m 3f 147yds, Hereford 2:45 2m 5f 163yds. Modern race distances are much more accurately measured and reported than they used to be years ago. Back in the 1950s or 1960s, how many races were actually run over the reported distance? On the flat in the days before starting stalls were commonly used, that Wolverhampton 5:00 would have been “about 10 furlongs”. Can Timeform really rely upon times set in different eras when comparing horses of other eras when the races might not have been run over the same distances? I have old racecards dating back to the 1980s where race distances are given as “about 1 mile and 4 furlongs” because, as still happens today, the clerk of the course would move the running rails around to find the best possible ground, especially when it was easy ground as it regularly was at the York Ebor meeting after it had rained on a track that John Smith had watered.

In the National Hunt game, I suspect that race distances are even more dodgy as starters let the races start at various distances from the designated start point and presumably those timing the race start the stopwatch when the flag falls not when the first horse passes the designated start point. In a race today, if the flag falls while the horses are five feet from the start or five yards from the start could have a material effect on the result if it is a photo finish.

Surely improvements in the quality of the racing surfaces have resulted in times improving with time under both codes.

And is Constitution Hill not supposed to be winning the 2023 Derby? I am sure I saw that mentioned somewhere...

 

[Sir Barney Chuckles]

Long Run showing that bias is produced when other horses are rated highly at the same time. Not a chance should he be in that list.

We are going over very, very, very old ground here but must say (I think I'm contractual obliged to) that's a bit harsh, old boy.

My goodness what a true champion Long Run was. Expertly handled and placed by the forum's favourite trainer and the Waley-Cohen's were equally superb in their respective roles as owner and Corinthian rider.

A legend of the sport and, in my opinion, one of the best horses to grace the 21st century.

 

[Ron]

Since you have started a thread about the subject of “all-time” ratings, I am going to throw the cat amongst the pigeons...

I simply do not think that these ratings (especially for the flat) over a long period of time hold any validity; a statement that I will support thus:

Go and look at a racecard today and the race distances as listed, for example Wolverhampton 5:00 1m 1f 104yds, Wolverhampton 8:00 5f 21yds, Hereford 12:45 2m 3f 147yds, Hereford 2:45 2m 5f 163yds. Modern race distances are much more accurately measured and reported than they used to be years ago. Back in the 1950s or 1960s, how many races were actually run over the reported distance? On the flat in the days before starting stalls were commonly used, that Wolverhampton 5:00 would have been “about 10 furlongs”. Can Timeform really rely upon times set in different eras when comparing horses of other eras when the races might not have been run over the same distances? I have old racecards dating back to the 1980s where race distances are given as “about 1 mile and 4 furlongs” because, as still happens today, the clerk of the course would move the running rails around to find the best possible ground, especially when it was easy ground as it regularly was at the York Ebor meeting after it had rained on a track that John Smith had watered.

In the National Hunt game, I suspect that race distances are even more dodgy as starters let the races start at various distances from the designated start point and presumably those timing the race start the stopwatch when the flag falls not when the first horse passes the designated start point. In a race today, if the flag falls while the horses are five feet from the start or five yards from the start could have a material effect on the result if it is a photo finish.

Surely improvements in the quality of the racing surfaces have resulted in times improving with time under both codes..........

I suppose that did make it a bit tricky