Comparing Chamions Of Different Eras

[xanadu]

This is a subject which gets a wide range of views from racing people. Whether you can compare the champions from one era to another. For example , Phar Lap was the champion of the 1930's. Bernborough was the champion of the 1940's and Tulloch was the champion of the 1950's. There were numerous candidates in the 1960's with Kingston Town the champion of the late 1970's and early 1980's. Since then we have had many top horses and many pretenders. The qualities which these special horses possess are very rare-win against all opposition, under all conditions and at all distances, regularly with crippling weights.
In my opinion it is almost impossible to effectively compare one champion as "better" than another because so much has changed over the last 70-80 years.
Look at human performance over this period and how things have changed.
For example, the swimmer, Johnny Weismuller, won a swag of Olympic medals in the 1920's and was proclaimed "the greatest swimmer" in history. He later starred as "Tarzan" in a series of Hollywood films.
However, today, with better nutrition, better health and advances in science and medicine he would be "lapped" by a 12year-old girl. Therefore, to compare racehorses from era to era is a very hard task and they should be acclaimed as the best of their era and it should be left at that.
Any opinions out there and any nominations for "greatest horse(s) ever?
I look forward to opinions on this matter with a great deal of interest.

Cheers

I feel that the tags "champion", "greatest", immortal" should only be given when the horse or competitor has retired. With hindsight the true picture emerges. As you said Xanadu, they win under any and all conditions, often with massive weight penalties or injuries.

Each year we have champion 3yo, sprinter, horse of the year etc. These titles are bestowed at the end of the year, not part way through and then only for that year. So a horses entire race history must be reviewed before bestowing a "champion" tag. And then only for that horses era.

On northerly, he is a great horse. A good horse can fluke a major win, not successive Cox plates, Australia cups, a caulfield cup plus many other G1 races. I think the recent Sydney carnival performace will prove to be the differance between a great horse and a champion.

A champion does not always win, but only gets beaten by other good or great horses. Also a champion always races to win, which means a trainers etc. race tactics can blur the picture. Of modern horses Sunline stands out in this regard. Yes, yes Northerly got beat by Freemason in the BMW in one hell of a race. But his other race loses?

In conclusion, "champion" is the highest accolade, so very few should be considered and even fewer qualify.

horse cents

[xanadu]

Well put Horse Cents,

Couldn't put it any better.
The term "champion" is bestowed too readily these days because it usually equates to a very lucrative stud career.
Let's hope the powers that be do not depreciate the title too much because true champions remain in our memories. We still talk about their deeds after 40, 50-70 years since they last raced..... that's the true mark of a champion!
Enjoyed your views on this matter.

Cheers.

The tag of champion is cajoled,bandied around,and misconstrued so much these days it is an absolute joke.I will put my head on the block here and say (my opinion only)that Lohnro and Northerly ARE NOT champions.They are very very good racehorses,but definitely not champions.The only two horses that I would put in the "champion status"in this so called modern era would be Kingstown Town and Sunline.Both thesew horses were capable of winning at a variety of distances against top class opposittion,and carrying huge weights.In my opinion Northerly is only a WFA performer,as his record in handicaps would attest to.The adulation these horses recieve means you can never get on,so you either back something to beat them or stay out.The Doncaster was a classic example.

[xanadu]

Good to hear from you angel!

The tag of champion is definitely overused these days. Your equation of a "true champion" was very precise-congratulations to you!
A lot of very good horses have to clear a very high bar to reach "champion" status.
As usual, we encourage all views in relation to this topic, let's get a bit of "constructive" debate going!
I'v got to admit, that I have reviewed my opinion of Lonhro and I really hope that he emulates the feats of his sire and other "champions."
Cheers.

[topsy99]

not sure i agree. northerly is a wonderful horse.
in any era (now) we need a champion they are what makes racing special.
northerly's win in the caulfield cup was a great performance as were many of his other big wins.
the difficulty is that a lot of "champions" achieve without confronting each other.
lonhro with 5 group 1's this season is a top effort but doesnt confront the northerly's or many horses that force him out of 2nd gear.
his win on saturday was impressive but he out-accellerated pentastic. hardly a northerly.
its hard to guage many sydney good horses as they are generally good in sydney.
tie the knot was a case in point.
for many years now the sydney wfa period seems to lack consistent top liners.
lonhro is the horse of the past couple of years. tie the knot was for his era spinning hill is showing as a top line sprint champion(oops)
back in the old days there seemed always to be a bridesmaid to force the best out of the champion.
for now northerly will do me.
i agree sunline was special and won all over the place. sydney melbourne new zealand.
super impose had that capability was he a champion.

[osulldj]

Hi all,

I agree that the tag "champion" is bestowed to readily these days.

The debate can sometimes be a very emotional one because we all have our personal views and bias.

My own definition of a champion is
"A horse who has been able to "consistently" defeat the best horses the sport has to offer against them over an extended period of time".

Part of being a champion is staying at the top for a period of time so in my mind it's key that a horse must prove their consistent winning ability over the best around for more than one year.

There are not many horses that have been able to do this....and that's why there aren't many champions.

Defeats or periods of poor form in my view do not preclude a horse from being a champion (especially if that horse is past their peak). Sure they might change the degree in our mind, but doesn't mean that horse is not a champion.

History is littered with true champions of all sports who have performed for periods of time at much lower levels than what we expect of them. That doesn't mean they are not champions.

Anyway, back to horses. There are not many who have been able to consistently defeat the best that can be put against them over a number of seasons.

Going by my personal definition Sunline is a champion...for a number of seasons she defeated the best the sport had to offer at the time. Of course you can analyse the credentials of the horses she beat and argue about that, but you can do that in any era. Many of Kingston Towns wins were in very small fields....other horses dodged him because they knew they could'nt win.

Northerly is a champion, he has consistently defeated the best we have around over two racing seasons so far including another champion in Sunline.

To the person that wished to detract from his credentials because of his handicap record...you're kidding aren't you? What about the Caulfield Cup, one of the best and toughest staying handicap races anywhere. Modern day weight carrying record etc. etc.


Lonhro is not a champion (yet). I believe he has been exceptionally well placed by J R Hawkes. He hasn't consistently defeated the best horses we have in Australia. Defier has beaten him 3 times.

As much as I loved Octagonal, he probably doesn't meet my definition. He really only ever consistently beat the best that was on offer in one season 95/96.

Might and Power dominated for 12 months Oct 97 to Nov 98 and if it weren't for injury there is no doubt he would have been one of the best champions of all time. There has not been a horse dominate our best races like him for a long time.

Great debate. Interested in what others think particularly about my personal definition. Are there any other definitions out there? and how does that apply to those handful of horses who hover around champion status.

Would Octagonal fit the champion status?How about Might and Power?Gallilee,Let's Elope,Saintly?You've opened a door here old mate!!
cheers

[osulldj]

g'day Angel,

By my own personal definitions, I can't label Octagonal as a champion, he really only dominated for one season (see above). Might and Power definitely would have been if not for an injury but he only dominated for one year.

Saintly was top liner but I don't think he can be defined a champion. Octagonal had his measure as a 3YO and it was only his final 3 runs Cox, M'Cup and CF Orr where he really started to show his brilliance. I would need to have seen him go on from that to be labelled a champion but unfortunately injury struck. Had it not been for injury he may to have become a champion.

Let's Elope dominated from Oct 91 to Oct 92, her 7 run winning sequence over the Spring and early Autumn was awesome but she was still really only at the top for one year. I might add that this was only because she had such a short racing career (19 starts).

In a harsh way despite her record I don't think she can be called a champion. A champion has to be the best for more than one year in my opinion. Its the longevity of superior performances that sets champions apart from very good horses.

As you can see I personally need a fair bit to label a horse a champion.

[xanadu]

osulldj,

You're right in setting the bar pretty high for horses to be considered a "champion."
I also agree with your definition of a champion. Another point to be considered is the champion's ability to come back after injury and to run against and defeat the best of opposition, like Tulloch did.
I also agree that Sunline is the best mare I have seen, usurping my previous favourite, Emancipation. Great mares like Light Fingers, Leilani and Let's Elope are right up there but we all have our own opinion as to which is the "very best."
Good to speak to you.

Cheers.

[xanadu]

osulldj,

Your opinion of Octaganal is interesting. I still get thrilled by his performance in the Warwick Stakes of 1996 when S. Dye set him alight and caught the others "napping" and he kept on giving, to offset the others, which, included, "Juggler."
The very fact that I remember this race, considering that I view in excess of 150 races per week, shows that , in my opinion, this, may have been, "the performance of the decade."
Let's hope that his son achieves the high
standards set by his dad and we can acclaim Lonhro as a "true champion."

Cheers.

[Chrome Prince]

My definition of "Champion"

Overcome adversity and bad luck and still be able to WIN.
Beat the very best horses racing in the very best races.
Smash track records and run fast sectionals.
When "out of form" or "unfit" still be able to run a gallant race finishing close to the winner.
When asked to rise in class responds.
Able to win over a wide variety of distances.

Now horses such as Lonhro are very handy, but he is yet to win in the very best races against the very best opposition, each time he has been asked to rise to that level has failed for one reason or another.
There's no doubting he is brilliant without earning the "Champion" tag.

Northerly has fulfilled many of the above criteria, yet has a poor record in Handicaps and recent Sydney form has to cast a shadow.

Again he is brilliant, but not yet a "Champion".

There's no point labelling a horse a Champion of the era - what does that mean?
He is the best racing at the moment because we have nothing better?
Could be, but then does he deserve to be up alongside Phar Lap in history?

Don't think I'm trashing the good horses racing today, and both horses are bloody fantastic, but the debate is over Champions, and we have yet to see anything measure up to the true meaning of the word.

[osulldj]

xanadu,

Yes I remember that day well, it was electrifying. I think though without a doubt his best and most memorable moment was when he won the Mercedes classic beating Arkady to break the then prize money record. It was a Big O day with a huge crowd turning up for the moment, people carrying signs, painting their faces cerise, wearing Occy caps etc. The scene was set but Shane Dye got himself in an awkward spot rounding the turn and he looked no hope part way up the straight. He continued to dig deep a got very close but on the line he looked to everyone to have been beaten, even the caller sounded disappointed. When his number went into the frame the crowd just went off, a skywriter drew a massice O in the sky, people were in tears...it was the most emotional moment I have ever seen on a race course. It also helped that I had a fortune on him at 1/1 as well :smile:

I have watched the race replay more than 100 times and I still say he looked beaten on the line but the photo showed his nose in front.

The great billy idol (shane dye) even admitted it wasn't one of his greatest rides....he said "it wasn't me today, it was all the horse".


Just thinking about it gives me goose bumps...Octagonal is one of my favourite ever horses and his framed picture hangs proudly my wall. Despite that he didn't dominate for an extended period of time, it was really only that brilliant season and in the latter stages a couple of weaker G1's including the Mercedes I talk about. For that reason I find it hard to label him a true champion.

My admiration is more of an emotional one for all sorts of reasons...but that's ok....he doesn't need to be a champion for me to admire him in that way.