The World's Greatest Steeplechase

Manawatu Times, Volume LVI, Issue 7106, 15 March 1933, Page 10

The World's Greatest Steeplechase

Grand Nationals Of 90 Years Ago Compared With To-Day’s

MODERN HORSES HAVE A MUCH MORE DIFFICULT SET OF OBSTACLES

■ HEN and Now! Ninetyfour years ago began the history of the Grand National Steeplechase. You would not recognise in Hie modern Grand National the slightest re-

on the Lottcrys of days long since. I am thinking of outward appearances and what we know of breeding. Those outward appearances tell us lie is commanding in the matter of size, he is generously endowed with the bone which means strength, and with muscular development which indicates power. He may not, perhaps, hear comparison with those heroes of a more recent past, such as Cloister, Manifesto and Jerry M. Deeds of courage and feats of stamina and jumping must he judged when demonstrated and cannot be appreciated entirely in the stable. It seems to me the history of the Grand National should he divided into two sections. The first must lie concerned with those years, say, up to the ’eighties, when the whole course was not enclosed and the fences or obstacles were of a haphazard and more or less happy-go-lucky kind. Hie second lias to do with the steeplechase as it is fairly well known to the present generation, who have seen the horses never race off grass, with the whole course railed in from start io finish. One is left with the belief that the horses of to-day have an enormously stiffer task to go through than the point-to-point horses in Hie first section. , , . Can you imagine for a moment what the scene must have been like in 183.). No great range of grandstands such as hold the tens of thousands on the big day now. A primitive erection, perhaps, for some of the “Elect and Select, a box for the accommodation ot the judge, and no ostentatious members enclosure. The “sportsmen and gentry” would bring their own grandstands—their coaches and dog-carts.

semblance to its poor undistinguished ancestor of 183!) (wrote “Rapier,” for the London “Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic News”). But then, who can suppose for a moment that those who participated in the first Grand National, and thought it a great and vivid spectacle, could have visualised, say, the scene of four years ago when there were (>f> starters and the gigantic prize of £13,000 was won by a horse named Gregalach, owned by a woman, and quoted at 100 to 1 in the betting? Lottery, who made the first contribution to the history of the race, is understood to have won a prize of £I2OO, which must have been handsome enough in those days, except that all but £IOO of it was subscribed in the form of sweepstakes by those who made nominations. Vv'c are told by the scrappy historians of the day that this hero was not a handsome horse, being long in the hack and short in the quarter. We do know that most of the socalled ’chasers of those early days of steeplechasing were not clean thoroughbred, but Lottery was doubtless an exception, as the records name his sire and darn.

His owner, John Elmore, was also his trainer. Shall one say that his methods were at least peculiar and unusual? For it is written of him that he once jumped Lottery over iron railings, garden chairs, and, I suppose, the garden roller. Yes; there has been a slight change in men and horses who have contributed to the making of Grand National history. To come back for a moment to the horse that won 90 years later. Gregalach, we know, carries the hall-mark of the Stud Book. He is not notably long in the back or short in tlie quarters. He is an example of how in the details of looks and breeding the steeplechaser of to-day must have improved vastly

They tell you Aintree was but a village in those days, and in reconstructing the scene you must wash out from your mind the Aintree of to-day, which is the fringe of a large city. There would be no railway embankment then as there is now to form lhe landmark which runs parallel with the outward line of fences leading right up to Bechcr’s Brook. Would the canal, from which the Canal Turn fence gets its name, be there in Lottery’s day? I

should say no; and, similarly, if there were no canal there would not have been the bridge over it which is called tlie Anchor Bridge. Does not the chronicler of a, modern Grand National toll you the position of the horses as they pass the Anchor Bridge and come on to tackle the last three fences or so? The winner must he thereabouts at. that point.

And then the fences and the course itself. Why, it must have been a jolly old pantomime, a royslcring picnic, in those days when the field went away over grass and plough, jumping first a hurdle, then a hedge or fence, one or two brooks which are no doubt the Becher’s and Valentine’s of to-day, stone walls, a small bank raised on the plough, and, after being out of sight for a while, reappearing to hop over more hurdles before the run home.

I think of the horses as I conjure them up in my imagination, assisted by the written word and the artist of those days. They would be of the hunter type, and most of them bob-tailed. If the artist is to be relied on, and I am not quite sure about that, then the type of early Grand National competitor would have no chance at a decent 20th century point-to-point. Jockeys may have changed, but I hope they have not deteriorated. Do not forget their greater task and their greater strain to-day. Lottery and his successors were ridden by gallant men who bad their stirrup leathers let down to the last boles. They must have been fine horsemen and I have no doubt the length of leather enabled them to steady and balance many a horse that would have “gone” if ridden as they arc to-day. Modern jockeys are the slaves of the evolution, and we know that fashion can tyrannise. I wonder would the jockeys'of 100 or so years ago have been able to stay in the “dish” quite so surely had they been suddenly forced to pull up their leathers so that their knees were nearly level with their horses’ withers, and had the fences been as big. staring and stiff as they are in the 20th century? T think not. There is a moral to all that. I have mentioned the hob-tailed hunters and the halfbred horses that made up the scratch lot of old. Thinking of to-day one reflects on the tall prices paid in recent years for a high-class iiorse likely to win a Grand National.

All is changed beyond recognition between Then and Now, except the sporting character of the steeplechase. If I were a rich man, and the owning of a Derby winner did not mean so much, I would rather lead in a Grand National winner than a Derby winner.