Ouch!!Struck a nerve somewhere.

A nerve? Not at all, I just dislike preaching of any kind and the constant derailing of threads into one man's crusade to convince the majority they're wrong about Frankel and that he's right gets tiresome in the extreme.

A tremendously condescending dismissal of people.......

After the fact that, as you well know, I have continually and openly questioned the Timeform hierarchy being you then compare me to a JFK conspiracy theorist ffs. How condescending is that??? And, may I add, I am not the only one openly questioning their position, I can assure you of that.

If you read my threads I have never, ever stated whether or not Frankel is the fastest horse or the best horse to ever have existed I will leave that to others who think they know. 

All I put forward are the facts as I see them. They are not opinions only facts.

These horses did run that number of times before winning a Group 1. Sorry about that one.
These horses did run against one another as detailed. Sorry about that.
ROTW was the only horse likely to be inconvenienced by a steady pace. Sorry about that.
ROTW was drawn wide and did have the worst passage. Sorry about that.
ROTW did finish close to Farhh and CDA. Sorry about that.
The horses I listed are all linked together on similar ratings. Sorry about that.
There have only been 3 horses rated 135 and higher in the last decade. Sorry about that.
I have had correspondence with Timeform and have continually criticised there ratings around Frankel. Sorry about that.
Darara did win the Vermeille by further than Treve. Sorry about that.
I have checked the US race times over the last 40+ years. Sorry about that.

None of the facts above are based upon my opinion. They are simply facts.

What do you expect me to do? 

In fact to become so rude and condescending with me because I disagree with you and put forward completely valid reasons shows it does, in fact, bother you.

ROTW was the only horse likely to be inconvenienced by a steady pace. Sorry about that.

Sorry, brig, once again you're confusing your own opinions with 'facts'. Plus there's a huge difference in a horse being inconvenienced by a steady pace and one that isn't even travelling very well off a steady pace.

I have had correspondence with Timeform and have continually criticised there ratings around Frankel. Sorry about that.

Enough said.

If my points are so blinkered and ridiculous I would have been totally shot down in flames ages ago.

Oh you have, burned to an absolute crisp, only you're too blinkered to see it

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

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

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.

Can't believe you interrupted ELG

Btw, see HK races thread.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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?

*they win

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.