100 Greatest Races (Racing Post) [Hardcover]

N (ed) Godfery (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: October 24, 2005 | Series: Racing Post

Horseracing is blessed with the richest of histories, but exactly what is it that makes a horserace great? Every racing fan has their own view - and in 2005, the Racing Post decided to find out what its readers thought about the matter by asking them to vote for what they considered the greatest race of all time. The response was overwhelming: over a period of two months, thousands of votes were collected. These were added to the nominations of a specially convened panel of experts to compile the definitive list of the 100 greatest races of all time involving at least one horse trained in Britain or Ireland. Now, in one lavishly illustrated book, you can read about them all - with essays by the Post's top writers and the thoughts of trainers and jockeys most closely involved with such momentous occasions. You can also read about the top races of 2005, plus find out about the most unforgettable races from elsewhere around the globe.

Editorial Reviews

About the Author

Nicholas Godfrey is Deputy Editor of the Racing Post.

Product Details

• Hardcover: 208 pages
• Publisher: Highdown (October 24, 2005)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1905156146
• ISBN-13: 978-1905156146
• Product Dimensions: 9.8 x 7.3 x 0.8 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.8 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 5.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (1 customer review)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #4,221,098 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Completing the nostalgic trilogy, November 28, 2011

By 

Peter Durward Harris "Pete the music fan" (Leicester England) - See all my reviews
(TOP 100 REVIEWER)    (HALL OF FAME REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)   

This review is from: 100 Greatest Races (Racing Post) (Hardcover)

Following 100 racing greats (about racing people, and in which Vincent O'Brien topped the poll) and 100 favourite racehorses (in which Arkle topped the poll), the Racing Post completed the trilogy with this book. I didn't buy the first book, but I bought and reviewed the second. I didn't buy this book at the time, but eventually found it offered at an irresistible bargain price.

Unlike its predecessors, this book is no longer a straight popularity poll among readers. I wonder if the Racing Post were influenced in any way by my earlier review, in which I noted that the results inevitably limited themselves mainly to horses within living memory, the one exception being Golden Miller, though some of the other horses may have attracted votes from people who weren`t born when the horses raced. For this poll, popular votes were supplemented by an expert panel, and there are a few races featured that are part of racing history, but nobody alive in 2005 would have seen for themselves. I'm certainly not complaining about that, although of course very few such races secured votes and even fewer made the top 100. Those races featured that pre-date my own birth are Ard Patrick vs. Sceptre vs. Rock Sand (1903 Eclipse. #23), Tudor Minstrel (1947 2,000 Guineas), The Flying Dutchman vs. Voltiguer (1851 match, #46), Alycidon vs. Black Tarquin (1949 Ascot Gold Cup, #70), Hermit (1867 Derby, #81), Ormonde vs. Minting (1886 Derby, #84), Quashed vs. Omaha (1936 Ascot Gold Cup, #94 and Eclipse (1769 Plate at Epsom, #99). It is a pity that Sceptre and Rock Sand, who between them won seven classics between them (and Sceptre may have been stopped from winning the Derby, also won by Ard Patrick) are represented by a race they lost, but this book is about greatest races, not greatest horses. Sceptre would certainly be high in any objective list of 100 all-time greatest racehorses, being the only horse ever to win four British classics. Other ancient races nominated that finished outside the top 100 include the 1913 Derby but not the 1844 Derby. With two books having now been written about the latter, it might get into the top 100 if a new poll were conducted now.

Another interesting rule, and one that also had an impact on the top 100, stated that any race, anywhere in the world, was eligible for consideration as long as it involved a horse trained in Britain or Ireland. There was no stipulation that the horse in question had to play a prominent role in the race, just that it had to be there. In that context, it would have been interesting to see where one of Secretariat's victories would have figured in the top 100 had such a race qualified. As it is, America relies on the Breeders Cup for its inclusion in the top 100, with Royal Academy (1990 Mile, #9), High Chaparral vs. Johar vs. Falbrav (2003 Turf , #12), ( Arazi (1991 Juvenile, #15), Tiznow vs. Sakhee (2001 Classic, #29), Tiznow vs. Gian't's Causeway (2000 Classic, #31). Despite the book's assertion that Arazi's failure to even come close to his juvenile performances subsequently didn't take away from his performance on the day, I suspect that it adversely affected polling on his race. His race would surely have been in the top 10 had he been remembered as a true champion. For me, he is just another brilliant juvenile who failed to train on, even though injury was the likely cause.

The top six are to some extent predictable, given that the poll was conducted in 2005. A new poll would surely feature Frankel (2011 Guineas) at or near the top (I would make it #1, even though I'm not wildly impressed by his subsequent three-year-old races) and might also feature a race won by Sea the Stars. In Frankel's absence, I can't say I am surprised that Desert Orchid (1989 Gold Cup) topped the poll and that Red Rum vs. Crisp (1973 Grand National) came second. Indeed, while I have my own favourite races, I don't see too many surprises anywhere in the list, given the rules, even though I`d forgotten some of the featured races.

While some races made the top 100 because of spectacular performances or exciting finishes, others made it because they were career landmarks and yet others because of their controversy. The 1992 Gold Cup made #77 precisely for that reason, but because the description is brief, as it is for all races outside the top 20, it merely describes what happened during the race. There is so much more to the race than the bare facts, though it's not the kind of race to occupy a book to itself - more like a chapter. Given that career landmarks also contribute to the top 100, it is interesting to note that Frankie Dettori's Ascot clean sweep only makes #95. This is probably because the individual races in themselves weren't exceptional, but I assume that Frankie gained due recognition in the first book of the trilogy.

Among my favorite races that I didn't regard as automatic choices for the top 100, I was particularly pleased to find the 1971 Grand National get in at #90, It was the first Grand National I watched (on TV) and one of the most exciting. I was also pleased to see two races featuring Oh So Sharp. I still find it difficult to believe that this triple crown winner didn't make the top 100 racehorses, so her 1,000 Guineas win (#27) partly makes up for that.

As for the horse whose impressive 1970 Gimcrack win is mostly to blame (along with the bad weather that caused me to watch York races on TV that week in the first place) for my interest in the sport, he gets in at #13 via his defeat in the 1971 2,000 Guineas, and at #39 via his 1971 Arc win. His Derby win was also among the 273 nominated races.

The book also features races of 2005 that came too late for polling but not for publication, as well as top tens by some experts with comments, together with a selection of letters sent in by Racing Post readers in support of their votes. Books like this are inevitably based on opinion and this opinion is inevitably skewed by which races we've seen (or not seen) and by what publicity was given by the Racing Post to various races during polling.

I don't think there has been a follow-up, but I note that most of the horses and races focus on middle distance horses. I suggest the following for consideration, though framing the rules might present a few headaches.

Favourite handicappers - limited to horses who made their name in handicaps and not at group level, so although L' Escargot, Arkle and Desert Orchid all won big handicaps, they would not qualify.

Favourite sprinters (for this purpose, 7 furlong horse could be eligible) - even the champions usually go unheralded. Again, horses who won sprints but also won major races at a mile or more would be excluded, unless it is clear that their reputation was earned by their sprinting alone.

Favourite juveniles - limited to horses whose reputation rests on their performances at two. Arazi is one example, but I have a much longer memory, going back to The Go-Between, Mt Swallow, Crowned Prince and others in the early seventies.

This was a great follow-up to 100 favourite racehorses, completing a great trilogy (assuming the first book was up to the standard of the two I own. Maybe one or more of the above suggestions could be the basis of a book. Despite Sea the Stars, Frankel, Kauto Star, Denman and others, I think it is too soon to repeat the earlier polls.