TURF TOPICS

Otago Witness, Issue 2604, 10 February 1904, Page 48

TURF TOPICS

In some quarters it has become an almost weekly occurrence to disparage the modern racoborse, while lauding the doings of pasttime heroes, that doubtless were first-rate iborses in their day; but between them and rths best horses of the present day it is really impossible to make a comparison. In one- place we are regularly told that the •British thoroughbred is going to the dogs, and, as regards steepleeha&ingr, ' it is distinctly suggested that the present class of cross-country horse ran not possibly be com.pared with what wo may call the. celebrities of the early and raid- Victorian periods. The date Mr W. H. Langley ('Tavo") has stated ■that the wall opposite the stands at Liverpool was done away with in the interests of the "tag, rag, and bobtail" of steeplechasing, and that the course generally has ihceni cut down and mutilated and the distance shortened. Broadly, he fays that the ■course and the horses which ram on it in. its earlier days were greatly superior to those of the present day. Now, it is absoHiitely impossible to gauge the merits of ihcrses running at different periods, but we think (says the Field) that in the steeplechaser improvement has been consutenit and well maintained, whilst one may be sceptical as to the course having been much more difficult than it ie at the present day. At all events, many arguments can be brought {forward im support of this view. At Liverpool, the removal of the wall will, no dmibt, aceaiunt in some degree for the vast difference in the times between the early Grand '^Nationals and those of the present day, ihorses having no doubt been pulled into a slow pace at some of the obstacles; but lev-em this in no way makes up the great discrepancy, for, if the old times are correctly reported, we have the fact that JLottery, the first winner of the race, in 2839, took 14min 53sec to get the course of four miles, while Cloister, in 1893, completed the course of four miles 856 yards in 9min 42 2-ssec. Lottery carried 12st, and Cloister 12st 71b, and yet the last named ran the distance in just about two-thirds of Lhe time that Lottery took. This is evideaice of the strongest nature that Lottery and •Cloister w©re horses of a totally different iclass, and in all probability no amount of •weight would have brought them together. •Moreover, Cloister made, practically all his own. runming, and won in a canter by 40 lengths. Even this was not his greatest performance, for in the autumn of the followdng year he won the Sefton Steeplechase •undei 13it 31b, just in the same remarkable style, the judge's verdict this- time being 20 lengths. Again, if the Grand National ■times are critici=ed, we find that from 1839 to 1844- about 13min was the average time, and that 25 years later this average had been reduced to about llmin, while between th© years 1872 and 1890 it was always a little over lOmin, but that since 1890 only Wild Man from 'Borneo and The Soarer (certainly ithe worst modern Grand National winners) fcave taken more than lOmin to do the distance. All this shows steady and comsietent improvement on the part of the crosscountry horse, and the late Mr Langley's contentions will not hold 1 water for a moment. It is probable, however, that in. early Gramd Nationals many of the horses were not clean thoroughbred, whereas all the modern steeplecha=ers are in the Stud Book, and those that have not run on the flat in their earlier days are mostly Irishbred horses that have been, put aside for cross-country work probably from, foalhood. The decision of the leading racing authority in West Australia in a recent appeal case is interesting, because the decision (a correct ewe, I think, says "Terlinga" in i,he Australasian) is directly opposed to the one given by the Canterbury stewards, when they disqualified Canteen's rider for two years, and did not take the race away from the torse. 'Tegasus" writes:— "The W.A.T.C. Committee has upheld 1 the appeal of Holmes against the decision of the stewards at Stelenavale in awarding the stakes in the Hurdle Race to Denbies. I think I mentioned in my notes recently that in the race referred to High and Mighty and Reminder ran round the final obstacle, and Denbies, who got over and finished in front of Amiral, the fourth horse, was awarded the stakes. Holmes, the trainer of Amiral, appealed, oa

the groiuid tKat Denbies had interfered with — had, in fact, run off — High and Mighty and Reminder, and, therefore, was not ontitled -to the stakes. The W.A.T.C., aftertaking evidemce, upheld the appeal, and gave the stakes to Amiral. The bookmaker 1 ;, however, have paid over Denbies, so has the totalieator, and backers of Amiral, therefore, cannot get their money." Amiral, it will be gathered, could not have won the race, but Denbies, who won, having run two othera horses off the last hurdle, had committed a breach of racing rules (just as Tim Sniveller did), amd was no more entitled! to the stake than two players at whist are entitled to score game- when one of them has revoked. Canteen, it will be remembered, fouled Wairiki and Achilles in., the New Zealand Cup, but the stewards gave him the race, because, in their opinion, he would have worn, foul or no foul.