Consistent Winning is Everything

General / Jack Houghton / 09 August 2008 / 5 Comments

Jack Houghton explores the elements of racing greatness.

In his day two round-up of Glorious Goodwood, Simon Rowlands put Henrythenavigator in the context of miling greats: "Discussions about "greatness" involve more than just the ratings that the horse in question can run to - versatility, durability and consistency also count for something - but it has to be said that Henrythenavigator has not yet posted a "great" rating. I have this effort at 125, a pound below his best at the Curragh and Ascot and at least five below the best milers of recent years."

Rowlands' point - that winning races is not enough to secure a place in the pantheon of greats; the manor of winning is also a factor - is fair to a degree, but few pause to consider the antithesis: that simply putting up one stellar performance isn't a hallmark of greatness either. And yet the emphasis of some racing commentators suggests it is.

Take Hawk Wing. His 11-length demolition of Where Or When in the Lockinge Stakes earned him a Timeform rating of 136; placing him among the best horses of the last ten years. But could anyone realistically argue he was a better than his peers and stable-mates, High Chaparral (132) and Rock Of Gibraltar (133)? After all, both beat Hawk Wing on the occasions they raced; and both had a more impressive overall career record.

The solidity of Hawk Wing's Lockinge rating has been widely debated. On my own figures it was eight pounds higher than anything else he achieved; which suggests one of three things: either the rating was artificially inflated, or this was the only occasion Hawk Wing ran anywhere near his full potential, or a combination of the two. Given that Where Or When - used by most as the benchmark to assess the performance - failed to run within nine pounds of his rating entering the Lockinge in any subsequent race, I would err towards viewing the rating as on the high side.

This conviction was strengthened at the time by how difficult it was to settle on an acceptable speed figure for the performance. I did my speed ratings in a different way in those days, and agonised over how to arrive at an accurate going allowance for the day's card. Compared to five of the races, Hawk Wing looked incredibly quick, but compared to Gamut's listed win in the preceding race, it looked fairly ordinary for a Group One.

Whatever the truth, it seems unfair to me that Hawk Wing gets a disproportionate amount of coverage when, as a horse, it was his lack of consistency and inability to win the significant races that were his hallmarks.

The need for a horse to achieve a "great" rating to be considered great can be overemphasised. Support for this statement is led by the exploits of Giant's Causeway. Winning nine of his 13 starts, never finishing outside the front two, he competed equally on all surfaces and ran up a sequence of races arduous in the extreme: as a three year old he ran ten times, in nine Group Ones, starting in April and finishing in November. And yet Timeform never rated him higher than 132. Comparing the careers of the two, could anyone seriously suggest Hawk Wing was Giant's Causeway's superior?

Herein lies the weakness in using ratings to decipher greatness. And this I where I would change the emphasis of Rowlands' statement. I don't just think that versatility, durability and consistency "count for something"; I think they count for everything. Horses are ridden to win races, and if they win the big ones consistently, over a long career, over varying distances and on varying ground; then, in my eyes, they deserve the "great" tag.

Comments (5)

1. AJH | 13 August 2008

   Interesting thoughts. Giants Causeway was a great horse, in my opinion. Given that these are animals rather than human, I think that any animal who consistently battles to the line and beats the best on a regular basis is a rare and special creature, worthy of the adjective, 'great'

2. Simon Rowlands | 14 August 2008

   "I don't just think that versatility, durability and consistency "count for something"; I think they count for everything."

   Presumably you think that a horse like - oh, I don't know - Granston is a "great". He has run 56 times, seldom running a bad race, and is effective at 1m to 1¼m.

   Giant's Causeway, by comparison, ran only 13 times, admittedly consistently, and was effective at a similar range of distances.

   Problem is, one of them is rated 91 and the other was rated 132.

   The point I was making about Henrythenavigator was that his best rating might not be "great" (it isn't) but that that does not necessarily mean that he is not great himself. That is probably the point you are trying to make yourself.

   Master ratings tell you how good ("great" if you like) a horse is at its best. Performance ratings tell you a lot more about how consistent, versatile and durable a horse is.

   Giant's Causeway ran to a Timeform performance figure of 125 or higher on all of his last six starts, Hawk Wing managed that just three times in his career.

   This is not an inherent weakness in "using ratings to decipher greatness", it is an inherent weakness of concentrating on master ratings rather than performance ratings to come to such conclusions.

   Simon

3. Jack Houghton | 16 August 2008

   Now now Simon, that's unfair..! I purposely used the qualifier "if they win the big ones consistently" to avoid the exact comment you have made about Granston!

   I think on the other points we agree with other. And I take your point about the use of master ratings and performance ratings.

   I would still say however that you need to be careful with the the use of master ratings to decide how good a horse is at best. Reviewing the career of a horse, one rating can often stand out, but this often tells you more about the weakness of that one rating than the actual potential best of the horse. I would make this argument with regards to Hawk Wing.

   But then, I doubt many would argue that a one-off big number needs to be treated carefully. It's only racehorse connections that tend to trumpet them willy-nilly...

4. Simon Rowlands | 16 August 2008

   Oh come on now! The sentence I objected to is not "qualified" in any respect by the subsequent and entirely separate remark about winning big races consistently. You could have (and seemingly should have) written it in a fashion so that it was, but you chose not to.

   I am also puzzled by your remark: "Rowlands' point - that winning races is not enough to secure a place in the pantheon of greats; the manor [sic] of winning is also a factor" as that is not a point I recall having made.

   Anyway, it seems as if we are in agreement that a master rating is a master rating - a person or computer's expression of what a horse is capable of at its best - and only one element of "greatness".

   "Greatness" quickly becomes very much in the eye of the beholder. I still prefer to use ratings to measure it, but that is ratings (plural) not rating (singular).

   Simon

5. Jack Houghton | 17 August 2008

   Give me a break - I qualified it in the next sentence! But point taken - to make it clear, I should have written it as you suggest.

   And I'm so embarrassed by the "manor" spelling error I dare not go on. Hang on, no I'm not... I was referring to the place a win occurs - as in: "this is my manor". Convinced? No, me neither.

   Point taken on "ratings" versus "rating". I agree.