In 2012, Frankel's year, 27 course records were held on good ground around the country

Specifically which course records?

Harbinger achieved his highest rating and supposedly best performance at Ascot in the King George on 'good' ground

So Harbinger achieved his highest rating on supposedly good ground. Has this suddenly turned into an argument for Frankel's ratings?

I think the fact that Harbinger achieved his highest rating and best performance whilst breaking the Ascot course record onGOOG ground is very relevant, thank you. Nothing at all to do with his or Frankel's rating. That is a completely different issue.

With reference to Mister Bailey's being the best 2000 Guineas winner because of the time he achieved completely blows your assertions about the relevance of Frankel's times out of the water.

With reference to Mister Bailey's being the best 2000 Guineas winner because of the time he achieved completely blows your assertions about the relevance of Frankel's times out of the water. Laugh

Baffling. I would've thought it obviously showed that using record times is bollocks.

Actually when I rated Frankel at Doncaster on his second start the figure seemed so high that I assumed I'd gone too big with the allowance. I also wondered if Cecil would've started a horse with such speed over 1m on softish ground, and at that stage thought he must be more of a Derby type. I downgraded every other race on the card just to give Frankel a still high but more believable rating. After his 2yo career I didn't make a penny on him so have no interest in hyping him. I'd backed him at decent prices for the Derby.

I still thought it was possible he might not train on but then in the Guineas he not only confirmed the original Doncaster figure but improved on it. Even then I wondered if a horse this fast and with apparent headstrong tendencies might burn himself out but there was none of it. When he began as a 4yo I still had preconceived ideas that he was very unlikely to improve with age, admittedly he didn't need to, but then had to revise view that after the Lockinge. Then he showed he'd improved the full wfa in the Queen Anne and confirmed that we were witnessing a racing phenomenon (not a term I would use lightly).

He might not be everybody's favourite racehorse and some people prefer horses that go for the Derby or Arc, but as far as speed goes he was unsurpassed.

commentator at the end of frankel's second start "and he might just have a touch of quality about him"

must count as one of the biggest understatements of all time.

*gave

Brigust you argumentative old sod. Surprised you haven`t mentioned the Brigadier yet.

Don`t have too much on Cracksman Saturday.

Brigust, I didn't say Excel ran to 125 in the QA. I said that's what happened to a 125 horse when trying to match strides with Frankel 3 out. What I'm saying is that if you can do that to a 125 horse, you've surely got to be a 140+ horse. Otherwise it's not fair to compare Frankel with horses like Secretariat who did manage to crush rivals in a very attritional Belmont by setting an unmatchable gallop early on. I think detractors are using horses like Side Glance to hold the form down because of where they finished, but those horses simply weren't close enough to the pace to be properly evaluated in relation to Frankel. Excel was. The Guineas demonstrated what happens when a top class horse runs an 'American' style race. Casamento, a group 2/3 horse, was off the bridle after 3 furlongs and beaten after 4.`

Add to that the 22lbs for the 11 lengths

The BHA may use 2lbs per length but I certainly don't, never have, and I don't think Timeform do either. We can say it's all about opinions, but a study of times, results and distances can quickly prove that 2lbs per length greatly overestimates the effect of weight. There was a group of opinion not so long ago that weight doesn't matter at all, or hardly matters. This is obviously nonsense but it stems from the fact that the BHA overestimates the effect of weight. 3lbs per length over 1m is nearer the mark, which might not sound a big difference but is a great deal when we're talking about a matter of 11 lengths.

That is a very good point GeoffM. The facts are less easy even considering now that racecourses have made alterations to their surfaces, fresh ground is retained top the top races and there are movable rails. When BG was running there were concrete rails so you had what you had. To provide better ground the grass cover was maintained whereas nowadays they cut the grass even during meetings. But the facts are there are very few possible comparisons. The only possibilities are the 2000 Guineas, St James Palace Stakes, Sussex Stakes, QE11 Stakes, Lockinge and Juddmonte International (Benson & Hedges Gold Cup).

In the 2000 Guineas Frankel ran faster but he did tear off whereas BG sat behind the pace and finished. In the St James Palace BG ran on heavy ground. In the Sussex Stakes BG ran on soft ground. In the QE11 the races were run around the bend not on the straight course Frankel ran on. In the Lockinge BG was carrying 5lbs more than Frankel.

The only race I can get any sort of handle on is the Juddmonte. Frankel ran the 1 mile 2 furlongs and 56 yards in 2 min 6.59 secs. Roberto who won the Juddmonte (Benson & Hedges) ran the further distance of 1 mile 2 furlongs and 110 yards (54 yards or quarter of a furlong) further than Frankel in 2 minutes 7.1 seconds. Given that Frankel ran the last furlong in 12.13 secs, a quarter of that is 3.04 secs meaning Roberto ran the Frankel Juddmonte in 2 minutes 4.06 secs. Brigadier Gerard carrying 2lbs more than Frankel was 3 lengths in 2nd. Three lengths is equivalent to 0.5 secs so BG ran Frankel's Juddmonte in 2 minute 4.56 secs carrying 2lbs more. That would put BG 12 lengths in front of Frankel.
Still believe in times yeah?

I do think he should win Figgis but he is very short now. His last 2 runs were not great and JG is reaching for cheekpieces plus I am still concerned he didn't run in the Arc. That doesn't add up for me. I have backed him at a lot bigger than he is now and will settle for that.

His last 2 runs were not great and JG is reaching for cheekpieces

I don't think he's a great by any means, and the ground at Ascot last year surely flattered him, but his last run was a lot better than it might've looked and worthy of comfortably winning a typical Gp1 over this trip. As for Gosden, I can only think that he genuinely believes that the horse needs soft ground. He was going on about the ground being fast for TDH though and it didn't matter a jot. If TDH had been beaten on Saturday I'm sure he'd have blamed the ground, whatever the real reason.

I'm hardly a great time expert by any means (or any kind of expert for that matter) but from my limited knowledge of track records, it nearly always seems to be when the ground is rattling fast. if frankel didn't have those extreme conditions then perhaps he couldn't break those records.

if you are talking about breaking track records, then surely you have to directly compare frankel with the holders of those records. is he a worse horse than them? if not then the track records bit is surely irrelevant.

I like that brigust is being contrary, and I think there's too much fanboy stuff on some of these forums, for example the nauseating thread on another forum "why frankel will rule the world" about how he's supposedly going to become the dominant sire as well. which certainly hasn't transpired.

however I've always felt since his doncaster win that he's something extraordinary on the track at least. I was watching that race live down the betting shop and when he came there on the bridle the hairs on my neck stood up. that doesn't happen very often.

even a mate of mine, who doesn't watch or follow racing, he saw a replay of frankel's sussex stakes win when he beat canford cliffs and was shocked. a horse that can do that isn't an ordinary horse.

Well that is a blinkered point of view Figgis. They couldn't measure in the olden days. In fact all the courses were measured again 26 years ago mainly because of the introduction of plastic rails. And the statement you highlighted about times being out of line with standard times was made in 2017 ffs.

Even if the Racing Post is wrong about the 88yds the times still would put Roberto and BG ahead of Frankel Geoff M. But I have said often enough I do not go by times.

LW I am not being contrary. There is so much hype nowadays and no interest in substance it is annoying.

They couldn't measure in the olden days

Wtf has that got to do with it? The point is the distance was the same as it is now and not a longer distance that you were using to unfavourably compare Frankel's effort with.

I have said often enough I do not go by times

Yeah, so you keep saying. Yet here you are again on this thread with a post about the subject.

Are you not concerned with his run in the Coronation Cup where the ground and the distance were right up his street?

I wasn't at all impressed with him in the CC, but even though he looked good in the Ganay I wasn't impressed with that either as he hadn't done anything more than last year to win that race. I mean he hadn't showed he'd improved along with wfa. After the CC I took the view he hadn't really trained on and laid him in the POW. The thing is when you're laying a 4yo because you believe it hasn't trained on there's still always a risk the horse will suddenly come to hand. Found didn't come to hand as a 4yo until the Irish Champion Stakes. Anyway I got lucky at Ascot because in my view Cracksman did exactly that but Poet's Word ran the race of his life. There's no reason for me to hype up the POW run as I could just say I was right all along instead.

The way Enable dismissed Crystal Ocean at Kempton could be what Gosden sees with Cracksman and the reason why he never went for the Arc. If he really thinks that Enable would be able to dismiss Cracksman that easily it probably makes sense not to run him, maybe?

What about Crystal Ocean

I don't think Poet's Word ran quite as well in the KG as he did in the POW. Not on the clock anyway. Firstly because the POW must've taken a bit out of him and secondly because I've found that the fastest 12f performances are never quite as good as the best efforts over 10f. As horses start to race over further than 10f the highest benchmark gets slightly lower.

That said, yes Crystal Ocean would still be Cracksman's main danger on the KG run. However, for me he was definitely below that at Kempton so needs to prove he can return to his earlier form. I reckon not only would he need to return to form but he'd need to improve a bit again to match Cracksman's effort in the POW, which is possible but I'd say not too likely. Also we saw last year how Cracksman can handle soft Ascot ground better than most.

If he really thinks that Enable would be able to dismiss Cracksman that easily it probably makes sense not to run him, maybe?

I still don't understand why he didn't run Cracksman in the Arc. On the day Enable was good enough (due to SOC having a poor draw) but it seems obvious to me she was exactly the same filly as last year and hasn't improved from 3 to 4 in line with wfa. As it turned out she didn't need to, as the race was as poor as it looked beforehand, with nothing else stepping up apart from SOC.

Surely Gosden would've fancied Cracksman to beat Cloth Of Stars by more than a length on what was good ground on the day? I know the market would have. After the POW he seems to have convinced himself that Cracksman really needs soft ground, instead of going with his earlier view that the POW might not have been as poor an effort as it seemed at the time.

Twonky, I've only watched the race once but he travelled really well then didn't find as much as I expected. I have the bare form a long way (13lbs) below TDH and Quorto. He looks well behind the likes of Fabre's Pennekamp, but that's just my opinion.

I have always been of the belief Gosden thought Cracksman was a Western Hymn. WH won his maiden first time out at two then, with the Derby in mind, he won a conditions race at Newbury (Cracksman's supposed first target at three according to JG after Newmarket) then a Derby trial then 6th in Australia's Derby. And that is probably where Cracksman would have finished. I just bet JG couldn't believe how average the three year old colt races were. That is why he never considered him for the Arc last year or this year. He has won a couple of possibly dodgy Group 1's with him, races trainers never really train their horses for, and he may get away with it. Western Hymn won at Gr2 level and was placed at Gr 1 level, 3rd in the Prince of Wales twice and 3rd in the Eclipse to Golden Horn. Probably what Cracksman would have achieved had he been born then. History may be JG's guide.