The Legend Of Frankel

Great!

hehe!

It was.
It was first shown last year, but so well worth watching again.

In fact, I'm going to watch it one more time on Ch4+1!

At the end of the programme Henry Cecil says how much he would have liked to have kept him in training for one more year.

Oh, and how people who love horse racing feel the same.

Alas, that was never to be because of the money involved in breeding.

Which gives measure to the fact that National Hunt racing will always be the King of Horse Racing to those with a heart as we are allowed to see such magnificent displays (and resurrections) like we witnessed on Wednesday with Sprinter Sacre because NH horses are worth what we see before us, and not what the accountants 'pencil in'.

Tommy

Alas, that was never to be because of the money involved in breeding.

Cant understand someone of Abdullas wealth and age not wanting to race a horse of a lifetime for another year.

If he needed the dosh im sure he could have flogged a few shares.

Would love to have seen him in the Arc.

Agreed, Geoff M.

Frankel was so magnificent just how good could he have been?

That's what we'll never know - which is a great shame.

Okay, he was unbeaten and we'll always say he was a great but he had so much more in him that he could have gone down in world history as one of the best horses of all time.
Cecil obviously thought so - and who'd doubt his knowledge and experience?

It's such a shame Abdullah wouldn't 'give it a go'.

Henry Cecil's book by Brough Scott is a very good read, although I gather Henry Cecil was not too pleased with the finished book, but it is a good honest account. Maybe can understand why he may not have been too happy with some small parts of it, because Scott did not shy away from the more complex issues.

A lot of pages on Frankel and his brilliant achievements, and a very good book on the man who masterminded him.

Pele, Owens, Bradman, Frankel, Hankey.

I'd say the equine star more than deserves his place in that pantheon of sporting legends.

tbf it was unusual that the Prince kept him in training as a 4YO.

Rather than come back at 5 and win the Sussex Stakes again I'd have preferred him to have run in some better races aged 3 + 4.

If he'd won The Derby and an Arc then I think his reputation would have been enhanced more.

That he could proved himself even greater but didn't was down to overcautious race choices rather than the length of career IMO. That was more down to Cecil than Prince K I expect.

What about taking on Black Caviar?  Was there ever the chance of them splitting the difference between their favourite distances and having a race?  Would have loved to see it.

Tommy Toes • March 17, 2016 10:51 AM GMT
Agreed, Geoff M.

Frankel was so magnificent just how good could he have been?

That's what we'll never know - which is a great shame.

Okay, he was unbeaten and we'll always say he was a great but he had so much more in him that he could have gone down in world history as one of the best horses of all time.
Cecil obviously thought so - and who'd doubt his knowledge and experience?

It's such a shame Abdullah wouldn't 'give it a go'.

I agree as well...I thought at least they could have risked him in the Breeders Cup Mile particularly at 4
If the claim about him was true.....hardly much of a risk

It is difficult to criticize a trainer of the quality of Henry Cecil...but I feel he was a tad over protective...I hope Frankel does well at stud

The rest of the World needed to see him at least once.

I thought he was kept in cotton wool.  He beat the same horses.  Only beat standard time three times in fourteen runs, and never beat standard by a second.  Never raced outside the UK.
The commentator called him 15 lengths clear at the bushes in the 2000 Guineas but he won by 6 length "ridden out".  Fantasy commentating.  No sectional times in the 2000 even though they were supposed to carry timing chips.

.
http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/93140/maternal-influences-make-a-difference

There is a link to the paper itself in the comments section.

Actually, not sure why I posted that. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Frankel.

Interesting though.

That bloodhorse article is interesting.
If I was to be picky (I am) I would say I don't like
1. the small data sample of 675 horses
2. the use of "earnings per start" to rank horses
3. arbitrarily taking the top 30% as Elite and the other 70% as poor.
4. it mentions Elite Sire and Elite Dam but does not state how these were decided.
I know the bloodhorse article is a summary.

1. That small Australia data size split into two groups (elite/poor), and those two groups split further into four groups (based on sire/dam).  That data size is a tiny fraction of the 18,000 foals Australia produces each year.
2. A low rated horse could win big money in a sales race boosting him/her.  The converse is a better horse that finished close up in Group races without winning much money.
3. 675 horses of which 30% are elite = 203.  30% of horses are not imo "elite".  I would put the elite number at much less than 5%, perhaps 1.5%.
4. Categorisation of Elite sires and dams.  Is this also based on prizemoney won (like the runner categorisation).  Apples for runners, and oranges for sires and dams?  How would they class the sire Fairy King (full sibling of Sadler's Wells) who ran once and retired?

The article is a little unclear (to me) but I guess they split that 203 elite runners into four groups (1) Elite sire+Elite dam; (2) Elite sire+Poor dam; (3) Poor sire+Elite dam; (4) Poor sire+Poor dam)
Then they did the same for the 472 poor runners (675-203=472) - split them into four groups ES+ED; ES+Pd; PS+ED; PD+PD.

Elite dams are not mated with poor sires.  Elite sires are seldom mated with poor dams.  These groups are going to have very few horses.  You can not draw conclusions from very small numbers.

A good study would also split the data randomly in two equal data sets, and test each set separately.  Only if the same conclusion come from each data set should ink be applied to a page.

I did a study of 139,000 rated horses, comparing their rating with their dam rating.  The relationship was very strong.
My study of black type: runner black type to black type in sire; black type in dam did not show a relationship.

I am glad Henry Cecil was able to train Frankel. It was a fitting culmination of his training career and sadly life.

I don't Frankel did anything wrong, I think it was the claims that have made for him that is the problem.

He was most certainly one of the best 8-10f European horses I have seen in my life time, perhaps the best?

But to go from there to the best race horse of all time I feel is too much of a jump.

Particularly as we value 12f as the ultimate test of a horse in Europe. So Seabird remains my best ever.