Japan Cup

You really do have a problem Figgis. This started as a decent difference of opinion then you obviously felt your points weren't scoring. It isn't a problem but if someone claims something I disagree with I will say so. You will see from my threads that they are very few and far between.

The 'facts' I was talking about were current, where did I say anything about Shardari or any horse running in the 80's? I would expect it to be far more difficult to win a Group 1 in the 70's and 80's.
In 1985 there were only 2 Group 1 races at Royal Ascot alone and they were the Kings Stand Stakes and the Gold Cup. Now compare that with today. Horses then had to have completely different agenda's than they do today.

You do have a problem with the history of this sport. What a shame.

After all Toronado (8), Moonlight Cloud (8), Declaration of War (9) and Wise Dan (12) all took time to achieve their first Group 1. I wonder what that tells you? And there are 25% more Group races this century alone. And we have Hong Kong, USA, Meydan, Singapore, Australia and the Breeder's Cup now available every year.

ROTW: Condescending again. You really shouldn't be you know.

About Timeform thankfully people prepared to be happily led by the nose are few and far between but they are there. Anyone who believes these organisations are above question should reconsider. I bet they send out Christmas cards to them.

I would happily revisit where you have shot me down in flames, burnt to a crisp but I suspect you will say you haven't the time or energy to revisit it. Meaning, in fact, you are probably talking rubbish.

Shame.

This started as a decent difference of opinion

The thread started as a discussion about the Japan Cup, but, as ever, you steered it into an opportunity to find tenuous links in order to downgrade horses that ran against Frankel, and therefore Frankel himself.

You will see from my threads that they are very few and far between.

As above. You rarely start your own threads about the subject, you just constantly hijack other threads and steer them to your own agenda.

The 'facts' I was talking about were current, where did I say anything about Shardari or any horse running in the 80's?

That is the whole point, you scour the form of current runners in an attempt to find any cracks in the form, using points to detract from their achievements, while completely glossing over those same points concerning runners of the past.

You really do have a problem Figgis.

On that you are right.

You do have a problem with the history of this sport.

No, that's not it. Try again

Figgis manipulative as ever.

You were not forced to respond to the point I posted with reference to Sam Walker in the Racing Post.

You were not forced to question why I linked Gentildonna, SNA etc although the clues are there and apparently I do this all of the time so WHY did you respond? 

I don't know if you remember but you brought up Darara in an attempt to belittle Dancing Brave.

You also brought up Shardari in an attempt to belittle Dancing Brave.

You also refused to accept any inconvenience caused to Ruler of the World in an attempt to make Farhh and CDA look impeded by the race conditions.

Why should my views on Timeform be of any problem to you? Why would that make me akin to a JFK theorist?

I have been perfectly polite, accurate and frank in my views, we can't all think the same, but for some reason you found yourself resorting to insult and innuendo.

I have not ben trying to put you down or insulting your views.

So why resort to a condescending and insulting attitude with me?

Shame on you.

I don't know if you remember but you brought up Darara in an attempt to belittle Dancing Brave.

You also brought up Shardari in an attempt to belittle Dancing Brave.

Belittle him? Nothing of the kind, just to point out the stark contrast in your 'analysis' of current form compared to your rose spectacled tinted versions of the past.

Actually you've harped on about it enough you're starting to convince me, my money's on Simon Rowlands behind the grassy knoll. I'm watching the footie, goodnight

Or even rose tinted spectacle

Looks like I've been shot down in flames again. Burn't to a crisp.  I've harped on? I put a response to Gentildonna winning the Japan Cup, on this Japan Cup thread and ever since I have been responding to you. And you think I've harped on? You really have rose tinted spectacles haven't you. Good luck with the football. The grass is green imo.

any news on Ryan Moore's rides for the Hong Kong meeting?

Can't believe you interrupted ELG

Btw, see HK races thread.

As above. You rarely start your own threads about the subject, you just constantly hijack other threads and steer them to your own agenda.

Just for your information Figgis the last 30 threads I posted on were as follows.

The race that helped close The Sporting Life.
Last resort in search of discipline.
Thornton no longer No1 for King.
Britain on the fiddle.
McCririck.
Timeform.
Tweed.
The world's greatest jockey.
Grand Crus.
Declaration of War.
Declaration of War to nail Coolmore's colours to the mast.
Wise Dan.
Side Glance stall 1 Cox Plate.
Mellish.
Breeder's Cup.
Julian Wilson.
In defence of John McCririck.
Wise Dan the greatest miler.
Treve rating.
Dancing Brave eat your heart out.
C4 encouraged McCririck.
Aidan/Joseph keeping very quiet.
Kev not guilty.
Champion Staks Ascot 19th Oct.
Gina Bryce.
Group 1 Irish Champion Stakes
None of the above were hijacked by me as you suggested.

A thread I started.

Julian Muscat you are missing the point.
(A reference to his article about sponsorship).

The threads about Frankel (not started by me) I posted on.

Nice of Side Glance to boost Frankel.
Another race for Frankelling the form.

I hope that gives you a clearer picture Figgis than the one you are trying to paint.

In the above list of threads I offered:

My personal opinions about certain people, nothing outrageous.
Some bets.
How I bet and select my bets.
Some thoughts about form lines and strength of competition.
In fact, just frank views on a racing forum.
My plans to go to the Breeder's Cup and Melbourne Cup.

In the Julian Muscat thread I was critical about his Racing Post column.

In the Frankel threads I just responded to the challenges put forward by others and answered questions and queries.
They were Frankel threads after all and I never started them.

You see, that is what I think a forum is about Figgis.

If I have breached your code of conduct please accept my sincere apologies. I just enjoy debate.

If you would kindly post the Rules and Regulations of the forum I will endeavour to adhere to them.

Forelock touched.

Brigust, you think Frankel was overrated, you think anybody who thinks he's the best horse they've seen is being "led by the nose", you question the ethics of Timeform (whatever that means) and you think they're involved in a conspiracy to rate Frankel the highest and will try to overrate any horse he came into contact with, you also think there should be a cut off point in the handicap so no horse can be rated the highest. We get it! Not too many agree with any of those points.

Some people like Marmite, others hate it, that isn't a debate.

Figgis. I never started this thread. I only posted after Sam Walker had written his article, reference the Japan Cup, pointing out that it concurred with my views posted about SNA, CDA and Farhh. I wonder if you will respond in the future if your comments about Be Ready turn out to be correct? The only difference is that every time I post something that negates your points against mine you move on to something else or change the direction. I have never hidden my views. What is wrong with that? You disagree with my views. I find nothing wrong with that. I post my reasons and my views openly and honestly giving you and everyone else every opportunity to prove them pointless but, as yet, you have palpably failed to do so.
You then resort to condescending remarks because you cannot prove your point.

Similarly I disagreed with Timeform with their rating of Frankel in the Queen Anne Stakes. I still cannot believe anyone really thinks his win in the Queen Anne was the best achievement in the history of horse racing. I don't believe it and I really don't think the majority of people believe it either. So I wrote to them expressing my views and detailing where I thought they had erred including all of the calculations using their own figures. It was absolutely clear in black and white.
They wrote back saying the reason they rated Frankel so highly was because the PROBABILITY of a champion was greater because there were more horses running now ffs. I pointed out that if they had included time in their figures had they allowed for the new racecourse improvements, laser levelling and inclusion of a fesque grass mixture for extra grip? They said nothing else except that we would have to agree to disagree. 

I will not give up on this because I think they are massively wrong and it is an insult to intelligence. And I can assure you I am not alone. I don't know if you believe in anything but if you do I hope you defend your right to believe in it with vigour and, even if I thought you were wrong, I would defend your right to believe in your views.

Also your comments about me high-jacking threads was unnecessary. If you notice the threads I have gone on they are submitted by others and they are about Frankel. I never asked the posters to submit them and I am certain they did so in an attempt to attract a response. If you think it is wrong of me to offer alternative views I cannot help that. This is a forum. 

It's sad that you reduce this thread to a like or dislike Marmite. How shallow is that? Obviously I like Marmite.

I wonder if you will respond in the future if your comments about Be Ready turn out to be correct?

What does this mean? Respond to who exactly about what exactly?

Similarly I disagreed with Timeform with their rating of Frankel in the Queen Anne Stakes.

Nothing wrong with disagreeing.

I still cannot believe anyone really thinks his win in the Queen Anne was the best achievement in the history of horse racing.

There is, however, something very wrong with that. You are saying you simply can't accept an opposing view to your own, which is dogmatic bollocks.

I really don't think the majority of people believe it either

You are taking it upon yourself to know what others think, that they agree with you without even telling you. The word megalomania springs to mind.

I will not give up on this

Yeah I've noticed.

Let's say the way you responded to my post on this thread about Gentildonna.

Hypothetically: You have given your 2 year old ratings. I then write to agree with you about your War Command rating but then continue to say I cannot see how you rate Be Ready so highly. I suggest you would respond to that with your views. I may be wong of course. It happens.


See. There you go again. Selective editing.

It isn't megalomania it is simply a point of view. The vast majority of people I speak to and respect have given me their views. In fact I have not seen a pundit say or write that he believes emphatically that Frankel is the best horse ever. The words probably and possibly are only as far as they go. So they are not convinced either let alone with the one race.

So Figgis tell me, do you believe the Queen Anne Stakes won by Frankel was the best ever achievement by any racehorse in the last 65 years?

Brigust, I can very much see why anybody would disagree with my rating of Be Ready. Pedrobob has a low rating for the horse and I can see why he came to that conclusion, I have not dismissed his opinion and repeatedly rammed my point home about BR. My rating of Be Ready is a bit unorthodox, it may turn out I'm wide of the mark, I often am, however I know on the whole I get it right enough to profit.

I believe Frankel in winning the Queen Anne ran the fastest I've seen any horse run over any distance in Europe in the 28 years I've been following racing. I also think Marmite is sh1te.

I don't agree or disagree with you about Be Ready.

You never answered my question. Do you believe the Queen Anne Stakes won by Frankel was the best achievement by any horse in the last 65 years.

What do you mean by the 'best'? A rating doesn't necessarily mean the best, a rating is a measure of a single performance. As I've already said, the 'best' involves various factors which different people will attach their own opinion of importance to. An argument about the 'best' is a futile one as far as I'm concerned and of no interest to me. As for the 65 years point, I'm glad to say I wasn't even born 65 years ago so I'm not going to start thinking I can rate horses accurately from a bygone era. Some people may believe they've seen better, that is for them to decide.

It's a simple question Figgis and all you have done is proven my point. As you say a rating is a measure of a single performance. It is not a measure of previous or subsequent performances. However if the ratings are to be believed and respected then what they depict should be correct. And if the rating is not correct then the other ratings are not correct and the horses rated as a result of those ratings are not correct either.
On The Morning Line the Timeform rep clearly stated this, the Queen Anne Stakes win, is the best performance by any horse they have rated in their 65 years including Sea Bird 11's Arc and Dancing Brave's Arc among others.

I may be a megalomaniac but as yet I have met no-one, other than Timeform, who thinks that it was.

It's a simple question Figgis and all you have done is proven my point.

Erm, what point would that be then? As far as I'm concerned a horse's single most important attribute is speed, so yes Frankel is the best I've seen. Other people may I insist that a horse must prove itself over all distances, have the Derby in its CV, win on foreign soil, etc, if that's what they require then they will have a different idea of what the best they've seen is, that is up to them, but I have to say I couldn't care less and have no interest in discussing who thinks what was the best.

On The Morning Line the Timeform rep clearly stated this, the Queen Anne Stakes win, is the best performance by any horse they have rated in their 65 years including Sea Bird 11's Arc and Dancing Brave's Arc among others.

That would be their highest rating. That is their opinion. Get over it.

And anybody who rates Dancing Brave's Arc as a 140 performance strictly on the form is perfectly entitled to do so, but it should be acknowledged that handicapping guidelines have been bent in order to fit in with the opinion.

You see. You couldn't bring yourself to say it. I respect that. You could easily have lied and an end to it but you didn't. And I am convinced that if you see the greatest achievement by any horse ever then you would know it and so would everyone else. The ratings have worked in the past when the top horses best races are discussed then they stand out. Obviously som more than others because of the coverage. But I sincerely doubt the Queen Anne Stakes meets that criteria.

Back to knocking Dancing Brave again? He gave the best horses in Europe a 4 length start and ran away from them. I'm not here to defend Dancing Brave. Others can do that. And of course because it suits your beliefs you are quite happy to accept the handicappers view that they over rated DB. Strangely enough they did it when Frankel arrived. When asked on RUK what Frankel would have to do in the Champion Stakes to usurp Dancing Brave Dominic Gardner Hill said he would have to win by 7 lengths.

Timeform's ratings are wrong. The horses rated as a subsequence are therefore also wrong. All the clues are there but simply because people think Frankel is the best they have seen they are happy to let that go. I am not arguing that point I am arguing that their ratings do not add up. And I backed it up with their own ratings.

You see. You couldn't bring yourself to say it. I respect that. You could easily have lied and an end to it but you didn't.

Excuse me, but wtf are you talking about? I said for me it was the best I've seen.

Back to knocking Dancing Brave again?

Knocking him? It's very strange how you put criticism of handicapping into personal terms of 'knocking' the actual horses when it relates to horses you favour. Yet at the same time you constantly strive to pull down Frankel's form but in your own view you are not knocking him, you are just single handedly doing the racing world a favour by fighting a great wrong done by Timeform.

He gave the best horses in Europe a 4 length start and ran away from them

Thanks for that explanation to the weights and measures of handicapping that Arc, I seem to remember (how could I forget, you've repeated it often enough) going into a bit more depth to explain the inaccuracies of Frankel's Queen Anne rating.

Anyway, Brigust, I'm going to have to treat you the way I treat Jehova's Witnesses on my doorstep talking utterly bewildering blinkered bollocks and close my door on you. Life is too short for this nonsense. No doubt you'll still be preaching your message when my door is closed, goodbye

Don't forget the Watchtower magazine. I will post it though the door and pick it up on another day. Of course it may be bollox to you but it isn't to everyone. You may look back realise that one day, when you are older of course.

dont understand why orfevre and kizuna didnt run in **** cup and why gentildonna wont run in arima kinen

I suppose the answer is 'because they can'. With over 20 Group 1 races in Japan, over 30 in GB and over 70 in Australia alone I suggest there are far more Group 1 races now than horses of Group 1 ability to win them. It devalues the breed eventually in my opinion. It is good, I think, to increase the number of black type horses but it must be done gradually otherwise you end up with loads of horses winning Group 1 races when, in fact, they are not Group 1 horses. I think the number of GB's Group races have increased by 25% in the last 13 years alone.

His flares may well flap but his argument is hard to argue against.

Hi Figgis. Do the results in Hong Kong where CDA was beaten for the 4th time in the same race and where Moonlight Cloud was beaten, her 5th defeat from 5 attempts outside France, have any bearing on your ratings for the Champion Stakes?

Not in the slightest, brig. I trust you think that Akeed Mofeed and Tokei Halo would've finished 1 and 2 in the Champion Stakes if they'd been entered? Do you also think that the 5 horses who finished in front of Moonlight Cloud could've finished ahead of her in the Jacques Le Marois? Do you also think that Gordon Lord Byron was below par when he twice met her earlier this season, or that he improved for this race? In my view that would be like judging Dancing Brave on his Santa Anita run. Both horses were below form, which really shouldn't have been entirely unexpected beforehand to anybody who's followed racing for a number of years. Moonlight Cloud has had a busy campaign putting up some very good performances, even winning two Gp1s within a week. CDA is now aged 7, almost an 8yo, and being a gelding he hasn't had the luxury of being packed off to stud before tarnishing his reputation. He had a tough race against Farhh in the Champion Stakes, or is that excuse reserved only for Ruler of the World having run in the Arc, despite him hardly getting involved from start to finish?

You don't find it odd when Moonlight Cloud and CDA run in races they have been specifically trained for where their opponents have not necessarily been trained for yet when they go for races where the opposition has also been specifically trained for they lose. Moonlight Cloud won the two races in a week where none of the main opposition were specifically trained for it. Except for possibly Olympic Glory whose subsequent tuns show the same result.

*they win

Horses will always have an advantage when specifically trained for a race, the same as they always did years ago but it's a point that never gets brought up when discussing achievements from the past. Advantage or not, it makes no difference to the quality of a performance.

So you think Moonlight Cloud never had an advantage over Dawn Approach or Lehal Force because they wee trained for other races not this one? Do you really?

In the past Figg there was not the huge number of Group 1's to target there are today. Horses who did run in them usually had the races as their main target and they were trained for them.

Just a few of the races that were not Group 1 in the early 70's:

Maurice de Gueest
Falmouth
Queen Anne
Coronation
Haydock Sprint
Criterium de St Cloud
Prix de l'Abbeye
Sun Chariot
QE11
Nunthorpe
Nassau
July Cup
Kings Stand
St James Palace
Prince of Wales
Prix Jean Prat
Lockinge
Yorkshire Cup

I have not included Irish, German, Italian, Meydan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Breeders Cup in this.

As a Group 1 winner you had no alternative but to give weight in penalties to your opponents. Nowadays you can select your Gr1's far more easily where the playing field is balanced in your favour.   
A horse like Moonlight Cloud can be laid out for a short career generally meeting horses that were not laid out for those races because they had other races to aim for. Whereas when she went to Ascot, Newmarket, Breeder's Cup and Sha Tin she met horses trained specifically for those races.

I'm off to bed now Fig. Goodnight.

I think she had an advantage over Lethal Force in the Maurice de Gheest but it still doesn't alter that it was a quality performance. As to the Jacques Le Marois, I don't know how anybody could argue that she had an advantage running in a Gp1 only 7 days after winning another Gp1 in a fast time. If that's the case why aren't more trainers targeting races with such a short break in-between? Why did you use it as an excuse that Ruler of the World was running in the Champion Stakes 13 days after he'd appeared in the Arc? I say appeared as it would be stretching things to say he had a race It seems to me that such a short break would normally be called a disadvantage, and rightly so, imo.

Good morning Figgis. I had to go to bed when the cricket finished.

I fail to see how you can compare Moonlight Cloud running twice in a week with ROTW. She was having her second run of the season and was obviously laid out for exactly that in the same way ROTW was laid out for the Arc prep and then the Arc. She was running over a shorter distance (approx half) on her own doorstep whereas he had to travel to France twice, go though the preps etc then run to his best in the Arc. Even NH horses run within a short period of time over much further it depends upon how hard a race they have and, with Moonlight Cloud she din't have a very hard race first time up or, for that matter, second time up.

Had she been running in the 70's she wouldn't have won a Group 1 race until her 14th run and would only have won 3 Gr 1's in 20 starts in all.
In her 2 wins in the Maurice de Gueest she beat sprinters, Whizz Kid and Lethal Force, over 7f which suited her admirably and didn't suit them.

So your point about ROTW running in a prep race prior to the Arc, running in the Arc than the Champion Stakes coupled with the travelling and the fact that he had been trained to win the Derby then the Arc bears absolutely no comparison to Moonlight Cloud's two runs in a week and a total of five runs in the season. The pattern both over fat and NH means that trainers can now be very selective if they limit their runs and target races other trainers are unlikely to target. Henry Cecil was a master of that.

The Hong Kong Cup was run at a steady pace, indeed Military Attack did 21.98 for the last quarter and he was probably the best horse in the race under those conditions, CDA would have found the surface too quick as well as the pace against him. Side Glance finishes close up as well so form lines aren't worth doing. For instance Frankel beat SG 12 lengths, he beats CDA 1.75l but here in a steadily run race over 10f on quick ground there isn't much between CDA and SG.

Moonlight Cloud ran a stinker in the US on similarly quick ground at the end of the season and the same thing has happened here.

There is no way I would be changing any previous ratings for Moonlight Cloud or CDA after that brigust. Did you have any bets there Brigust?

Good morning Steve. Yes I backed The Fugue for a place, I hate backing girls to beat the boys. I backed the Japanese sprinter and had small bets on Moonlight Cloud and CDA because I thought they were the best horses in the race.

My point about Moonlight Cloud is that with so many Group 1's they can be targeted more easily and if you lay your horse out for that race, as Head did, the likelihood others have as well decreases greatly. In the Maurice de Gueest and the J le Marois she was virtually the only horse trained for those races. Similarly in the Champion Stakes only Farhh and CDA were trained specifically for those races. The pattern is so diluted. And you have a case where
Had they been running in the 70's Farhh would have on a single Gr 1 from 10 starts, MC would have won 3 Gr 1's from 20 starts, CDA would have won 2 Gr 1's from 53 starts and So You Think would have won a single Gr 1 from 11 starts. And Olympic Glory would have won a single Group 1 from 10 starts.

When you package the above statistics together and find that all of the above cannot win anywhere else you have to ask if they are weakening the system. Moonlight Cloud, Olympic Glory, CDA and So You Think all went abroad and we well beaten. Outside our closeted world they couldn't achieve. Coincidence?

I think you have to look at each horse individually brigust, some weren't suited by conditions or may have had enough for the season. There have also been a lot of our horses that have been successful abroad indeed you have backed a few of them yourself Magician in the US and Side Glance in AUS. Also I've seen the likes of Red Cadeaux and Dunaden do very well abroad in recent years and they aren't anywhere near our top horses.

As there is far more racing now than in the past it follows that there will be more races at the top than the past, or would you prefer even more dross at the bottom, brig? Of course there are bound to be some top races that aren't as competitive as they could be, but I see no difference whatsoever in the ability required to win an Eclipse, King George, Jacques Le Marois than was needed when I started following racing in the 80s. As far as the Champion Stakes goes the level has gone up compared to some of the glorified Gp2 levels of form that won it in the past.

That is exactly my point Stevie. Side Glance couldn't win a handicap off 102 ffs. Why is it that then because he wins a weak Gr 1 in Aus that he is so much better. And that is the pattern throughout. Lets face it Moonlight Cloud is rated very highly but she has been cherry picking. In competitive races she has been beaten.

Fig I know some of the Champion Stakes throughout the years have been less competitive but this season the first three were the winner who had won a single (uncompetitive Group 1) from 9 starts, the 2nd horse had won 3 Group 1's from 52 starts and the 3rd horse had won a single Group 1 (in an uncompetitive and low grade Derby where only a single Gr 3 and a maiden have been won by the first 11 home including the winner) from 7 starts.
So don't you think this years Champion Stakes, when you look back in years to come will look like another low grade renewal?

Brig, as you think both Sea The Stars and Frankel were overrated, with Brigadier Gerard being before my time then Dancing Brave is the only case up for discussion. You have always agreed with the Dancing Brave rating but I'd be interested in you explaining the inconsistencies in your arguments. You say you always judge a horse on the horse he beats into second, in DB's Guineas he beat a sprinter. In the Derby he was beaten by Shahrastani and I agree with the common view that he should've won. That horse went on to thrash the Irish Derby field but, as you yourself have said, any 3yo generation can be a weak crop and they can't be judged until they've met their elders. Although it should be said that the elders could also be a weak crop.

Triptych is pivotal to the form that DB showed against his elders. He beat her comfortably in the Eclipse, then when narrowly beating Shardari in the King George (on 1lb more favourable terms than 3yos would get today) Triptych was in 3rd. Shardari then went on to confirm the form by beating Triptych at York. Shardari had taken 10 runs to win his first Gp1, which is something you have viewed as a negative when judging current runners. Also, the horse who finished directly behind him in both of those Gp1s was Triptych so once again she is crucial to the form.

In the Arc, DB beat Bering, a horse with a big reputation but who in reality only had one Gp1 to his name, a Gp1 where the form didn't amount to anything exceptional and he was only beating his own age group. Directly behind Bering was the ubiquitous Triptych and Shardari was narrowly behind her. As Shardari had comprehensively beaten Triptych in his previous two runs I'd be interested in your explanation for the turnaround in form. Was Shardari below his best (likely) or do you think that Triptych improved at this late stage? (less likely).

As you have argued that Frankel's form was all linked with the same horses and that they have been overrated along with him, I think it's fair to say that Dancing Brave's form is largely tied up with Triptych. As you have also said that you judge a horse on the horse it beats into second, then leaving Triptych's robustness qualities to one side, I would be interested in your views on the horses she beat into second when winning her Gp1s.

Please don't respond with the vague and trite reply that DB beat the best Arc field ever assembled or that Triptych was a multiple Gp1 winner, instead of applying the same scrutiny you apply to today's form. Remember, these aren't my criteria for judging a great horse, they are yours.

You never change Figgis. It would nice if you would get your facts right to start with. I will say this again for your personal attention so please let it sink in.
The ONLY reason I have questioned Frankel's rating is because Timefom's own figures do not add up. Is that clear?

I have questioned the horses he has beaten and why their rating are so high. Excelebration is obviously rated on his defeats by Frankel. That is blindingly obvious. Farhh is clearly rated on his defeats by Frankel that is blindingly obvious and CDA is over rated. They are all at least 7lbs higher than they should be. Excelebration won 3 Group 1's beating Rio de la Plata and Cityscape. Rio de la Plata is beaten in Group 3's and Cityscape won a single Group 1 in Meydan from 20+ starts. Farhh and CDA I have already discussed and I suggest their form with Ruler of the World (see Derby note) shows how good they really are. Have a look a the horse Farhh beat in the Lockinge.

My point about Dancing Brave is backed up by the Official Handicapper and it took a so called re-check before they managed to put Frankel in font of him because he was unable to achieve it on the track. That still only put him 2lbs in front of DB who Timeform have on 140 so that give him a rating of 142 which actually concur's with their own figures if they did them properly.

I have been through this before. There were far fewer Group races in the 70's and 80's so horses had to go where they could and the racing was more competitive. Of course you waltzed through the mile, 10f and 12f as if it was nothing. And DB won the Arc giving everything start in the home straight.   
For that reason I will not discuss the form of Frankel's finest hour where the 2nd horse never turned up. the 3rd horse couldn't win a handicap off 102. the 4th horse won a Listed race in Dresden 2 years ago, the 4th and 5th horses were the pacemakers.

So, the 2 questions I asked have remained unanswered, 1.01 really wasn't it?
I'll try again. Why do you think Shardari's form with Triptych was reversed in the Arc? What is your opinion on the horses Triptych beat when winning her Gp1s?

Just to jog your (selective) memory, brig. When Triptych won her only Gp1 that year, the Champion Stakes, the horse that finished second, Celestial Storm, was well beaten into second in that year's Leger, a classic generally recognised as on the weak side. Not only that, but only 3 starts earlier Celestial Storm managed to achieve something that Farhh didn't, he was actually beaten in a handicap

Figgis you trot through Derby and Arc winners etc as if that has anything to do with Farhh, Cirrus Des Aigles and Excelebration.  The nearest Farhh and CDA got to an Arc winner was a horse who finished 15th the last time he ran in it ffs.

And your attack on Triptych (8 Group 1 wins including the Irish 2000 Gns against the boys) show only how desperate you have become. That is 8 Group 1 wins won by Triptych (only one of the Group 1 winners in DB's Arc) which adds up to what Farhh, CDA and Exceleration have won put together.

And your attack on Triptych

Attack?? Can you explain why when you're asked to apply the same criteria to racehorses you favour it is bizarrely seen as an attack on the horse? As I said before, these aren't my criteria they are yours, only it seems they are only used when it suits.

Brigust,
I don't think Farhh's rating was raised after his defeats by Frankel, it was raised after his runs against SYT ans in the eclipse against Nathaniel. Don't think he was raised anymore after was he?

If you read what I write you will see that I looked at Farhh's WHOLE career, CDA's WHOLE career and Excelebrations WHOLE career.

Unlike you I never cherry picked the odd placed horse here and the odd down the field horse there. That is just sheer desperation.

So the criteria I set is based upon these horse's whole career. Moonlight Cloud's WHOLE career not just the well placed stuff. 

Anyway I am half way through a set of plans so will return shortly, if required.

Ok, as a 3yo Triptych won one Gp1, which was against the boys and should be commended for that, however, using your own criteria she beat a horse called Celestial Bounty, who only went on to win a listed race later in the year. I've already stated her achievements as a 4yo. As a 5yo she beat Takfa Yahmed whose only win was the Gp2 Prix Dollar later that year. She beat Rakaposhi King, a Gp3 winner. She beat Ascot Knight a Scottish Derby winner. She beat Entitled, a Gp3 winner and she beat Most Welcome, another Gp3 winner. What was it you were saying about Gp1s getting easier?

My point about Dancing Brave is backed up by the Official Handicapper and it took a so called re-check before they managed to put Frankel in font of him because he was unable to achieve it on the track. That still only put him 2lbs in front of DB who Timeform have on 140 so that give him a rating of 142 which actually concur's with their own figures if they did them properly.


Brigust, in this statement once again you are mixing BHA ratings and Timeforms. As 138 for DB on timeform would be around 144 so therefore Frankel's 140 would be around 146. So really it looks like the BHA is agreeing with Timeform on Frankel's rating but on a timeform scale they would be rating DB 144.

Sorry Stevie I currently have the Official Handicapper on 138 and Timeform on 140 for Dancing Brave.  Is that not correct? So if the OH has DB 2lbs behind Frankel (I don't agree by the way)then on that basis Frankel should be 142 on Timeform.

The Official Handicapper had Dancing Brave on 141 and Frankel on 140. They dropped DB by 3lbs putting him on 138. Timeform had Dancing Brave on 140 the same as the OH. Therefore Frankel should be 142. No?

Figgis about Celestial Storm when he was beaten in a handicap he was carrying 9st 10lbs as a 3 year old and was beaten by a 4 year old carrying 8st 8lbs. Next time out he won the March Stakes at Goodwood. Followed by a 2nd in the St Leger and a 2nd to Triptych in the Champion Stakes. As a 4 year old he ran twice winning the Prince of Wales Stakes at Ascot breaking the course record) beating Phardante who had beaten Slip Anchor in the Jockey Club Cup.

And you overlooked that in 3rd place behind Triptych and Celestial Storm in the Champion Stakes was Park Express who had just won The Irish Champion Stakes (Group 1), the Nassau Stakes (Group 1) and the Lancashire Oaks.
In 4th place was Baillmont who had just won the Prix D'Ispahan (Group 1) and the Prix Ganay (Group 1).
In 5th was Damister who had just been beaten a nose in the Breeders Cup Classic.
In 6th was Untold who had just finished 3rd behind Celestial Storm in the St Leger and had just before that won the Yorkshire Oak (Group 1) with Park Express in 2nd place.

Is that that you mean't?

Of course you scurrilously ignored the fact that Triptych was 2nd in the Oaks to Oh So Sharp, 4th in the Irish 1000 Gns, 5th in th Irish Derby and 3rd in the Juddmonte International. Also that Ascot Knight was beaten twice by her and he was rate 130 by Timeform. And she had the Irish Derby winner behind as well. She ran loads of times finishing 3rd in the Eclipse behind Mtoto with Indian Skimmer in 4th. She won the Coronation Cup beating Infamy who won the Sun Chariot and a Grade 1 in the US and Moon Madness who won the St Leger and the Grans Prix de St Cloud among others. After all she ran 41 times and never missed anything. Had there been the number of fillies and mares races there are today she would not have had to compete against the boys all the time.
Anyway it makes her 8 Group 1's including winning a classic and placed in another from 41 starts look better than CDA's 3 Group 1's from 54 starts and no classic success at all.

If you are happy with DB on the timeform scale then yes you could have Frankel on 142 but you would then have to drop DB on the official scale as well as Frankel. So on the official scale you would be looking at 136 Frankel and 134 Dancing Brave. This then puts Sea The Stars in between Frankel and Dancing Brave. You just have to adjust to the different scales. Same with RPRs their ratings are around 3lb lower than timeforms so again Frankel's 143 would have to be dropped.

Ah right, so it's ok for Celestial Storm to be excused his handicap defeat but Farhh gets negatively referred to as a Hunt Cup winner, often followed by 'ffs'. CS set a course record, which proves nothing but the ground was fast.
So it's ok to look back at horses that finished further down the field than second when it suits you? As long as we know moving the goalposts is within your rules, eh brig?
And Ascot Knight was rated 130 was he and you're using that as a basis on which to back up your argument? Fair enough, but if you have so much faith in Timeform's ratings when it suits you it would be extremely hypocritical to slate their ratings when they don't suit you, would it not?
As for Triptych, she was a fine, tough, filly/mare, possibly the toughest I've seen, but in using many instances of her running well, but ultimately being well beaten against the very best, you're hardly do a convincing job of proving the merits of the form.

Sorry, Thirsk Hunt Cup winner, mustn't overstate his achievements

Brigust, how many of those horses were "specifically trained" for those races?

Figgis you are obviously completely lacking about how these horses had to run on handicaps etc, a bit like Arkle, because there were so few Group races compared with today. Plus there was no AW, Meydan etc etc. What you need to address is your hatred of history. It is sad because one day Frankel, Excelebration, CDA and Farhh will be history too when the hype has gone and all that is left is in black and white. I wonder what the new form students will make of that at least the next champions fans will have something to slaughter. And at least Dancing Brave etc have stood the test of time.

What you need to address is your hatred of history

Frankly, that's a hysterical response, made me actually lol so thanks for that, brig.

If you are so misguided in thinking the Queen Anne Stakes, Maurice de Gheest, Jacques le Marois and Pix de la Foret are among the races trainers specifically target and lay horses out for then you have already shown how little you know.

If you are so misguided in thinking the Queen Anne Stakes, Maurice de Gheest, Jacques le Marois and Pix de la Foret are among the races trainers specifically target and lay horses out for then you have already shown how little you know.

That wasn't the question.

I loved the racing in the 80s and I think Figgis did too, can't see any hatred of history. In the same way you question Frankel's rating Brigust, Figgis has always questioned DBs rating. I can't see anything wrong with this as long as you don't get obsessed by it. It passes time between races anyhow. I might look in tomorrow if thread still going.

Stevie, yes I much preferred the racing scene then than how it is now. I do disagree with DB's rating but I don't have any problem at all with anybody thinking he was the best. I also don't have a problem with anybody thinking Frankel was overrated in their opinion. I just dislike horses being compared unfairly when it suits.

yes you've made some very good points Figgis and well remembered. I could not even remember Celestial Storm running in handicaps, I vaguely remember blue and yellow colours and Cumani trained him but that's about it. It's too far back for the RP site.

Stevie, it helps having a few old Raceform annuals at hand

I will treat your last point with the total contempt it deserves Figgis.


I personally think DB was rated correctly and it was only recently for no apparent reason the new guard disagreed. It is suspicious to say the least and I have on tape Dominic Gardner Hill saying before the Champion Stakes that Frankel would have to beat Cirrus des Aigles by 7 lengths to surpass Dancing Brave. This he clearly failed to do and I will always mistrust the way this was carried out.

I have requested repeatedly a copy of any statement prior to Frankel where this period was rated wrongly and I know an ex senior handicapper who is  disgusted about the whole thing. But as he says in his letter, 'I cannot be seen to say anything derogatory about Frankel'. Dancing Brave was fortunately owned by Frankel's owner and I have a personal correspondence from a current senior handicapper as well as the ex senior handicapper that give succour to my own opinion so I will rest happy with that.

for no apparent reason

I think you'll find the reason was that even before Frankel had set foot on a racecourse the handicappers had publicly admitted that their handicap scale had slipped since the 80s, it was even published, as you well know but choose to ignore. This made any attempt at comparisons with today's runners utterly ridiculous.

I have requested repeatedly

Brig, would you class this as normal behaviour over such a matter?

Figgis nearly all of the discussions you have on here, not just with me but with others posters, end up with you making condescending remarks like the one below. You select the most minute point from a whole list of items and concentrate on that then move into another point while totally ignoring the whole gist of the point. I try to deal with these points individually but you then ignore that and move onto something else.

Please don't respond with the vague and trite reply that DB beat the best Arc field ever assembled or that Triptych was a multiple Gp1 winner

You have an attitude problem and I think I will leave you with it.

nearly all of the discussions you have on here, not just with me but with others posters, end up with you making condescending remarks like the one below

No, brig, just you and one other poster with a tendency to preach, try to stop assuming you're speaking for everyone

Stevie Ceestial Storm won a 23 runner Newmarket maiden first time out by 3 lengths. He then ran in the Extel handicap at Goodwood and was favourite finishing 3rd. The race was won by his stable companion Chinoiserie who next time out won a listed race. Dick Hern had the 2nd home. He then ran in a handicap at Newmarket and was beaten by Power Bender who won 4 handicaps on the trot. He was 4/6 and was giving 16lbs to the 4 year old winner. Next time out he won the March Stakes at Goodwood, was 2nd in the St Leger and 2nd in the Champion Stakes.


Sadly, because of people like you Figgis who treat others in such a condescending way this forum is almost dead. There is absolutely and totally no reason why you should talk down to people who are trying to have a sensible debate with you. But you cannot help yourself. Why don't you take a few tips out of Stevie and Pedro's books, to name but two. They can put me right without talking down to me and using your condescending attitude.

Ah yes, the Extel handicap. Always looked forward to that race. The one that stands out in my memory was Paul Cole's Broken Hearted, bolted up and looked a group horse and went on to prove it too. Haven't got a clue what the race is called now or even if they still have it.

people who are trying to have a sensible debate

That's it in a nutshell, I find that Stevie and ped are always up for sensible debate, they don't have closed minds, they don't ignore pertinent issues, they don't have an agenda and they don't offer ludicrous conspiracy theories.

Figgis why don't you wind your neck in?

I asked you quite openly on this thread whether or not you thought the Queen Anne Stakes was the best performance by any racehorse since ratings began. You refused to agree that it was because you couldn't. Why? Because it isn't. Yet the BHA and Timeform both think that is the race that puts Frankel ahead of Dancing Brave. Live with it.

I have always stated quite openly and clearly that I know very little about Dancing Brave or his races and if you read back through this thread you will see quite clearly that it is you who constantly and repeatedly returns to Dancing Brave. It is therefore you who has the agenda here not me. It is you who has the problem. It is you who has the closed mind and a limited supply of old Raceform notebooks. I wasn't even thinking about Dancing Brave or Triptych.

We've been here before about you condescending attitude but you really cannot help yourself. Just don't try to blame anyone else for it.

Stevie I remember there used to be some good touches and I think it was a Listed h'cap if I remember rightly. I can't remember Dickie having many runners in it though.

I asked you quite openly on this thread whether or not you thought the Queen Anne Stakes was the best performance by any racehorse since ratings began. You refused to agree that it was because you couldn't. Why? Because it isn't.

It is precisely this kind of fabricated bollocks that makes you incapable of sensible debate. Since ratings began? For one, I wasn't even born when ratings began, and for another I couldn't give a sh1te what other people rate the best. I said for me it was the best.

I have always stated quite openly and clearly that I know very little about Dancing Brave or his races

Right, so here we have an admittance that you know very little about the horse that was classed as the best from that period until Sea The Stars came along and Frankel after him. What's more important is you don't care. However, you do very much care enough to say that today's horses are overrated. Now what does that say?

Stevie in 1984 Luca won the Extel with Free Guest who then won the Virginia Stakes and the Sun Chariot. As a 4 year old she was beaten in the Queen Anne by Rousillon, won the Nassau by 7 lengths and the Sun Chariot for a 2nd time, then won the Princess Royal Stakes at Ascot before being beaten 15 lengths into 2nd by Shardari in the St Simon Stakes.

So Figgis tell me, do you believe the Queen Anne Stakes won by Frankel was the best ever achievement by any racehorse in the last 65 years?
I believe Frankel in winning the Queen Anne ran the fastest I've seen any horse run over any distance in Europe in the 28 years I've been following racing.

You never answered my question. Do you believe the Queen Anne Stakes won by Frankel was the best achievement by any horse in the last 65 years.

What do you mean by the 'best'? A rating doesn't necessarily mean the best, a rating is a measure of a single performance. As I've already said, the 'best' involves various factors which different people will attach their own opinion of importance to. An argument about the 'best' is a futile one as far as I'm concerned and of no interest to me. As for the 65 years point, I'm glad to say I wasn't even born 65 years ago so I'm not going to start thinking I can rate horses accurately from a bygone era. Some people may believe they've seen better, that is for them to decide.


It's a simple question Figgis and all you have done is proven my point. As you say a rating is a measure of a single performance. It is not a measure of previous or subsequent performances. However if the ratings are to be believed and respected then what they depict should be correct. And if the rating is not correct then the other ratings are not correct and the horses rated as a result of those ratings are not correct either.

Erm, what point would that be then? As far as I'm concerned a horse's single most important attribute is speed, so yes Frankel is the best I've seen. Other people may I insist that a horse must prove itself over all distances, have the Derby in its CV, win on foreign soil, etc, if that's what they require then they will have a different idea of what the best they've seen is, that is up to them, but I have to say I couldn't care less and have no interest in discussing who thinks what was the best.

You see. You couldn't bring yourself to say it. I respect that. You could easily have lied and an end to it but you didn't. And I am convinced that if you see the greatest achievement by any horse ever then you would know it and so would everyone else. The ratings have worked in the past when the top horses best races are discussed then they stand out. Obviously som more than others because of the coverage. But I sincerely doubt the Queen Anne Stakes meets that criteria.

Excuse me, but wtf are you talking about? I said for me it was the best I've seen.

And your point is?

You really don't see it, do you? Check your first post yesterday at 12.23 and the tone from then on became more and more condescending, nasty and aggressive. Talking down to people isn't a life skill. It isn't what debate is all about. If you don't see it then that's your problem.
Even in the last post I highlighted your remarks, something you often do as you get more irritated only you often take points out of context and ignore everything else, you just couldn't see it. As I said, it's your problem not mine. If I see your attitude changing I may come back and debate with you again in the future but there is a tone of nastiness I don't like. Good luck to you Figgis.

Just to clear up a few points.

Your first derogatory remark of yesterday was about the Champion Stakes. In the decade surrounding Brigadier Gerard who won it twice it was won by Reform, Sir Ivor, Rose Bowl and Flying Water with beaten horses in other Champion Stakes including Nijinsky and Allez Fance.  That is not Group 2 form as you suggest scurrilously.

In fact Reform who is rated by Timeform just under Farhh, Excelebration and CDA on 132 won 11 of his 14 starts. He wasn’t entered in the classics but won the St James Palace Stakes, Sussex Stakes, QE11 and Champion Stakes beating Royal Palace who had won the 2000 Gns and the Derby. Personally I rate that higher than any form shown by Farhh, Excelebration or CDA.
Sir Ivor who is rated the same as CDA won the 2000 Gns, Derby, Washington Int, Champion Stakes and was 2nd in the Irish Derby and the Arc.
‘Sir Ivor appeared at Newmarket, where he win the Champion Stakes easily by two and a half lengths from a field which included Taj Dewan. On his final start, Sir Ivor was sent to the United States for the Washington, D.C. International at Laurel Park, Maryland . Piggott held the colt up before producing a "furious stretch drive" to lead in the last twenty yards and beat Czar Alexander, with the American Champion Male Turf Horse, Fort Marcy, in third.’
Because Lester left his challenge so late when asked in the press conference after the race when he thought he would win he famously said ‘about 2 weeks ago’.

In the decade surrounding Dancing Brave the Champion Stakes was won by Time Charter, Pebbles, Triptych (2) and Indian Skimmer. These were all Group 1 horses.

I will not knock the horses who have won in the last decade but they do include Storming Home, David Junior, Pride and Literato.

So lets stop trying to score points by insulting racing’s history!!

Your next derogatory remark came in your next post when it started with ’you think Sea the Stars and Frankel are over rated!’

Can we clear this one up once and for all?

When Sea the Stars was racing and his followers were claiming he was the best there has ever been I did say they were over rating him.  I never said the handicapper or Timeform were over rating him just his fans. As it was the ratings show they were, in fact, over rating him. In fact he is hardly mentioned now and that was only 3 years ago.
Of Frankel I have always said he was a great horse and I have only questioned Timeform’s rating of him because their own figures do not add up. Can you get that into your head? I have repeated and repeated that any number of times.
It is Timeform’s own figures I am saying are over rated because their own figures do not add up. Got it now?


I have said some of the horses he has beaten, notably Farhh, CDA and Excelebration, have appeared to be over rated and suspect it helps them with their own ratings to prop Frankel’s rating up. And I have constantly and repeatedly included my points where I believe they are over rated.

Another of your biggest failings Figgis is that you are totally unable to understand that things were different in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s. The Pattern only started in the 70’s and there were a number of good handicaps classier horses ran in, like the Extel and PTS Laurels etc. They seem to have been replaced with conditions and Group races, I think, to the detriment of racing and the ability to rate horses properly. It was nothing for classic placed horses, even classic winners to run in handicaps, at least it tested their ratings. Today you can get a horse like Cityscape finish 14th of 15 in his classic, run 23 times and not see a handicap. How can his mark be tested? Arkle and even Desert Orchid plied their trade in handicaps. At least we know their ratings are sound.

But when you talk about horses being beaten in handicaps 25 years ago and then have the temerity so say when you compare it with today as ’like for like’ and go on to accuse me of not doing the same as being wrong, you are completely and utterly misguided.

I knew it would be a "table up job" at the end of the day.
Lester was slated by the American journalists for his ride on Sir Ivor I think. They preferred their jockeys to go off like scalded cats like that fellow did on Roberto in the Benson and Hedges.

He certainly as Dun. But Lester had the last laugh. Beat their best horse as well.

*was

When Fort Marcy won in 1970 I rang up Lads to back it at 5/2 if I remember. It was run late at night and I think it was on the radio. The chap told me they had closed my account but he accepted that bet. I don't know why. If I remember I had won quite a few quid backing a top class hurdler of Fred Rimell's at Newbury a few days before. Must have been a mid week Newbury meeting. I still have the bank deposit books. Kept them for posterity.

Do the results in Hong Kong where CDA was beaten for the 4th time in the same race and where Moonlight Cloud was beaten, her 5th defeat from 5 attempts outside France, have any bearing on your ratings for the Champion Stakes?

Let's look back at the question that kicked this off. Now to even contemplate such a question the person asking must believe that the horses in question ran to form in Hong Kong. I mean there would be no reason to downgrade a runner if it had simply run below form would there? I think if anybody who's been following the game longer than 5 minutes can come to that conclusion then they're a terrible judge of form, or could it be they're seeing what they want to see?

So lets stop trying to score points by insulting racing’s history

Racing's history has been a vital part of form study for me, so the past is important. However, I'm glad to say that, unlike some, I don't live there

Figgis, that question about 'would you changing your ratings?' was the jehovah's witness knocking on the door and you still answered and you've gone and listened to all the same stuff all over again

I know, Stevie, I need to get a big dog.

oh thanks for the post on Free Guest btw brigust. I had forgotten  that one. I see in 1985 a horse called Fish n chips won it. Was there not also a horse in the 60s called fish n chips?

You know the sad thing Figgis, you pompous pr ick, you already are history. There is only you and a couple of your 'mates' left on this forum. Switch the lights out when you go.

That's OK Stevie this forum was supposed to be about debate but it has been high-jacked to death by a small number of tw ats who think they know everything and think everyone else is stupid.

Now I have some building plans to finish and a house to build so I will be absent from the forum from now on. Au revoir.

You know the sad thing Figgis, you pompous pr ick, you already are history

A second lol moment in 24 hours. One thing I will say about the past, the comedy was better

Brigust does come up with some very good info about Arkle and horses of the 60s which I enjoy reading as was before my time. Anyway GL with the house brigust. I'm sure if you and Figgis were discussing this in the pub over a pint it would discussed in a very different manner.

Figgs, do you do much betting on the a/w over the winter, good card at southwell today, I see wolves will be getting a new suface in 6 months I hope they change to fibresand like it was before but I suspect not.

Stevie, I have done in some recent seasons but not for the last couple. I find it a very different game than the turf, particularly the polytrack courses. My bigger bets on the turf are on the better horses in the better races, I just don't have the same confidence to stake as large on the low grade all weather stuff. I know on turf that connections' intentions obviously play a part, especially in lower grade races, but form is still the biggest factor, whereas I find that sometimes on the all weather form can be secondary. Also, some days at Lingfield the whole card can be run in a farcical manner, with nobody wanting to make a decent pace. I particularly dislike Kempton, with its generally weak races and weak markets.

I know a profit can still be made and I'm sure the all weather season is perfect for some people's methods, it just doesn't suit mine that's all. I also look forward to the break after what is now a busy turf season with all the extra racing.

Do you prefer the all weather, Stevie?

It's a difficult one figgis, I do prefer a/w particularly southwell for angles but the markets are weak as you say. The thing with the lower grade racing is a lot of the time it will be down to landing gambles. I mean take Prince of Burma the other week, clearly well handicapped on old form but starts slowly over too short a trip with apprentice riding and then back up to 7f with Probert on no stalls and horse gambled and wins comf. Now I saw the 16s the night before but I cant get anything worthwhile on so those races you just leave alone.

Yeah, I remember one afternoon about 3 years ago and it was just "gamble landed", "gamble landed", one after the other, followed by the inevitable bottom licking from the tv pundits. I'm sure a lot of punters do well at spotting such plots and it's all part of the game, it's just that I've always preferred to concentrate on form.

I'd say the difference, for me, is when I'm betting in good turf races I feel I'm competing against other punters and the majority's view of the race, whereas in lower class races with weak markets I'm very much aware that insider knowledge often makes up a large chunk of the market.