Pinatubo

I don't think it is stupid looking to see how a tennis player who put up a great performance at Wimbledon then performed in the US Open. Just the same way I don't think it is stupid to see how a top rated horse performs in top class races against lower rated horses. I know full well there is a rush for everyone to rate horses on performances but it is something I have consistently found should be taken with a huge pinch of salt unless there are a number of provisos attached.
By asking S the question I did I just wondered whether or not he listed certain provisos against a performance that he may have felt were applicable to that particular performance for when considering how that particular horse may perform in the future. There is nothing stupid about that F.

I don't think it is stupid looking to see how a tennis player who put up a great performance at Wimbledon then performed in the US Open

Neither do I, but that wasn't the point made. The comparison made was the stupidity of automatically expecting a horse to win a future race just because it recorded the best performance in a past race.

I have followed just about every rating source religiously

Maybe I misunderstood how you made your judgement. So when you say you have followed them all 'religiously', what exactly did that entail?

It entailed every possible way from blindly to direct comparison. Ratings, in my opinion, are just a way someone interpret a certain piece of form. It should short cut the need for someone following form to go through form lines in other words save time. But it doesn't mainly because there are no provisos alongside the rating. The best thing to do is go through the form and then form your own opinion. If that particular horse ticks all of the boxes then you can compare it to the other runners.
I simply asked S if he added provisos to his rating for future reference.

Sandown sounds an intelligent bloke to me, so anything but the kind of fool who would follow ratings blindly.

You have a way of turning any concept into contempt F.
I do not follow anything blindly financially but I do like to research in detail so that a proper overview of the evidence can be determined.
I found from my research that neither following ratings blindly nor religiously was a good thing to do.
I have done the same detailed research on race 'timing', in it's various forms, and soon came to the conclusion that a number of self declared experts are pedalling unproven and distorted opinions about 'timing' mainly because the 'ratings' theory they espoused, which you have confirmed by saying following ratings blindly is for fools, has been blown from the water.
What you completely fail to grasp is that the majority of punters have not the time to study form in detail and loosely rely on the experts to guide them.
They are not fools as you put it. Although, from experience, you probably think they are.

I have done the same detailed research on race 'timing'

Can you give one or two details of this 'research'? I saw your research which showed us that a 5f race was run faster at the finishing post than the 5f mark in a mile race, but frankly I wasn't that impressed.

Absolutely not. You only have to look through this thread to see that I am meticulous in my research but I will save that for another day. If you don't mind. What I will say is if you give me a horse that from 'time' alone, not known form, is underrated then I can judge for myself where you may believe it works where I certainly do not.
Time is such a specific item to use as a judgement but you are dealing with a principle that is almost impossible to provide a direct comparison from, that makes 'time' irrelevant as a stand alone but may, and I only think may, be used as a back up to the major interpretations.

However TIME is against me and I have to work. My publisher called me yesterday to ask how much I had written. I assured her everything was going well. I just omitted to say that the majority of my writing was on a betting forum. Happy days.

Brigust, ok, ought to be a simple question to answer. Entirely in your own opinion, which was the best middle distance (10-12f) performance this season?

I really do have to go Figgis, I am not kidding.


I will not answer your question with reference to the best performance because that is history but I think the likely best future performance will come from Magical, hopefully in the Arc (I have backed her at big prices). And my reasoning is that I do not think to date she has been ridden to her best potential and I think she is closer to Enable that many think. So if she gets a good draw (and Enable isn't so lucky), good to fast ground and is ridden for a chance she could easily turn the tables on Enable.

I must go.

I will not answer your question with reference to the best performance because that is history

But so are all the form ratings and time ratings you're dismissing. Bizarre.

I do not think to date she has been ridden to her best potential

if she gets a good draw (and Enable isn't so lucky), good to fast ground and is ridden for a chance

In all recent starts Magical has tracked the leaders in races where the pace was very good or at least fair. She has had every chance. I would not back her at Sandown but had a few quid on her at York in the hope she was back to her best. I can't see how she had any excuse whatsoever in the way she was ridden. I know you think they should make the running with her but the chance of them doing that at Longchamp is very slim indeed I'd say (completely unnecessary too).

When you do a rating do you put alongside that rating points like distance, going, racecourse etc

Brigust1. All those details are contained within a spreadsheet. It would be foolish, would it not, to ignore them?

Hi S. Of course if you do a spreadsheet then what would be the point. Do you/have you included any question marks? Pinatubo has run enough times to have an opinion formed.
I remember when I saw Cracksman run for the first time on 19th October I immediately knew this was something different and I ran and reran his race several times. Frankie rode Stradivarius in the same race. What impressed me was his stride he took about 24 strides for the final furlong at Newmarket whereas Frankel took about 28 strides (which is normal) in the 2000 Guineas. By then end of the next day I had 5 bets on him with various bookies and by the end of the month that had doubled. Fortunately they interviewed John Gosden and he wasn't particularly excited but said he wouldn't run again until next season in a Group race at Newbury. That told me a whole lot meaning he would be missing the Guineas and with his stride Newbury would be brilliant. Epsom, on the other hand would be a risk but if he ran at Newbury and won I could lay him off or back him to cover my stake. It was all very exciting and as suspected Epsom didn't really suit him but his long stride, especially on the requisite soft ground, was all the difference.

Have you had a similar epiphany and have you yet seen anything that might be this horses downfall?

Stride pattern at the end of a race will obviously be affected by what happened earlier in the race. No surprise that Frankel's stride was shortening at the end of a strongly run (for the conditions) Guineas. Whereas Craksman's maiden was run more slow early/fast late. Not my territory but interesting nonetheless. I know that people who specialise in such matters recorded Frankel with a longer peak stride than his colt, also a faster peak stride frequency.

If I remember correctly Frankel won the Guineas in 223 strides and Sea the Stars in 208 strides. And, lets face it, Frankel was in full stride almost throughout unlike STS.

Not too surprising that Sea The Stars took fewer strides as apparently he had an extraordinarily long stride, it's notable that Frankel's were measured as quicker though.

My Swallow did it in 222, Brigadier Gerard 223 and Dancing Brave 227.
In the Juddmonte STS did the last 2f in 54 and Frankel in 60. BG in 55.

Surprises me about My Swallow. Seen the video of that Guineas many times and take BG out of the race, MS and MR look absolutely shagged even before the final furlong.

In the Queen Anne over a mile Frankel ran the last 2 furlongs in 25 seconds in the 1972 King George over 12 furlongs Brigadier Gerard ran the last 2 furlongs in 25 seconds carrying 7lbs more.

In the 2000 Guineas Frankie Durr on My Swallow never picked his stick up until BG had passed him and then only it him 5 or 6 times. I am pretty sure Geoff Lewis never actually hit Mill Reef BG went past them both so quickly.

only it him 5 or 6 times

You think whipping a slowing horse more than that would make it run any faster?

You recall it differently than what I remember from watching the race a few times. Lewis had to make sure of second and wasn't giving MR an easy. I remember thinking how BG looked fresh at the finish, but then looking over at the other two and thinking they both looked bolloxed well before the finish. They were treading water, Mill Reef even beginning hanging out towards the centre. Even ignoring BG from the race MR didn't finish the race like others of his I watched.

You can easily see that Lewis was just waving his whip. Durr tried to use My Swallow's stride to ensure a good pace and BG just sprinted past them and BG was always about a length behind them throughout. The form book shows that Mill Reef should finish less than a length in front of My Swallow and that is what happened. The fact that My Swallow strode along throughout shows they went a good pace which should have suited Mill Reef. If BG had not run the result would have been exactly as predicted.

You can easily see that Lewis was just waving his whip

Right, if that's what you saw. So it's ok for Lewis to do that but if JOB does similar against a horse that passes him like his horse is running on the spot, it stinks. I see.

If you cannot see the difference Figgis then I am not going to waste any more of my time. Isn't it odd a minute or so ago you said you thought they were out on their feet. You would cause an argument in an empty room Figgis. I wonder how much of what you have learned on this thread shows just what a fantasy life you fave been living. Let us hope Pinatubo is the real deal.

Isn't it odd a minute or so ago you said you thought they were out on their feet.

Not odd at all, I said I thought they were and still do. I said if that's what you saw, you find it acceptable for Lewis to be beaten 3 and do that but not when JOB is beaten 7. Now that's odd

Let us hope Pinatubo is the real deal.

You'll be praying for it. I'll take it or leave it

That position is silly and untenable. Lewis knew Mill Reef would beat My Swallow but JOB knew he was under strict orders not to threaten Frankel. There is a big difference beaten honesty and cheating. But as you know I have always thought Ballydoyle and Coolmore are crooks. But like most good things they just keep on giving.

Pinatubo looks like the 2nd coming (so far). Let's hope he's looked after and get to all the gigs next season. After the many false dawns with Too Darn Hot Flat Racing needs a genuine superstar who could take all before him with aplomb, I believe.

like most good things they just keep on giving

They're not the only ones

JOB knew he was under strict orders not to threaten Frankel

Good morning Figgis. Here is a question for you.

You own St Nicholas Abbey and you have chosen him to be trained by a British trainer of your choice, excluding Ballydoyle. Your horse has not won over anything short of 12 furlongs since he was a 2 year old. You have decided to run against Frankel at York, a flat, fast racecourse, over 10.5 furlongs. This is Frankel's first run over further than a mile and the main opposition comes from a horse who has never won over further than a mile. You are the only one of the main contenders who undoubtedly requires a minimum of 12f and you can run pacemakers if you wish.
What instructions do you give your jockey?

JOB must've also been under strict instructions not to pass Farhh for second, even though he was owned by their arch rivals. The plot thickens . Could it be any more dense?!

You really will do anything but have a sensible conversation Figgis. What is it with you? I asked you a perfectly sensible question and you are totally unable to give a perfectly sensible answer. If I asked you the same question but instead of St Nicholas Abbey and Frankel I included Enable and Magical I am sure you would give a perfectly sensible answer. Why are you trying so hard to defend the indefensible? This is the sport that I love and follow and for some strange reason I thought you were the same.

In fact it is the sort of question any poster on here would want to discuss about any race and in particular top Group 1 races. If you owned a two year old and you were planning to run it in the Dewhurst against Pinatubo. You would know your horses strengths and weaknesses and you know the chief oppositions strengths but there is a question mark about his weakness. Are you saying you wouldn't run your horse to it's strengths?

Of course one would run one's horse to its maximum potential even if it finishes 2nd to Pinatubo; a credible performance to be 2nd to that equine machine. And, the prize money is valuable too if it's The Dewhurst. However, if the 2000G is the main event then I'd consider a race without Pinatubo to avoid bursting the "bubble" prematurely before Newmarket on 30th April.

JOB knew he was under strict orders not to threaten Frankel. There is a big difference beaten honesty and cheating. But as you know I have always thought Ballydoyle and Coolmore are crooks. But like most good things they just keep on giving.

Sensible? Yeah right. Maybe you should contact Greg Wood about your fantastic conspiracy theories regarding everyone from Coolmore to Timeform and the BHA? He's a journalist with integrity, willing to expose the corrupt. Oh no, hang on a minute, he also said he thought Frankel was the best he'd seen. Maybe you could try David Icke?

You will do anything but answer the question Figgis. Cat got your tongue?
It is now abundantly clear in what you are saying that you are quite happy for a horse to be obviously and unquestionably ridden not to its best potential. Shame on you Figgis.

"Frankel tracking St Nicholas Abbey who is under a patient ride from Joseph O'Brien".
Under normal racing circumstances I would accept it as being just another inept ride from JOB but when I know there is an agreement between the owners of the first horse and the owners of the 2nd horse then, no matter how you dress it up, it stinks.!!!

you can run pacemakers if you wish

They did run pacemakers. Frankel had his own pacemaker, as was usually the case. Coolmore had a choice. They could have not run a pacemaker which would mean they either had to have JOB take on Bullet Train for the lead, which would be fine if he wasn't going that fast, but suicidal if he was, or have SNA just track BT in the hope that he would set it up for them. However, instead of leaving any of it to the mercy of what BT did and putting the onus on JOB to judge the pace was just right, they opted to run two pacemakers. This made more sense as their horse needed a good pace but wouldn't be vulnerable to the possibility of having to go too fast and be a sitting duck for Frankel to pick off. Also they could expose any possible stamina weakness in Frankel. Those two pacemakers took on Bullet Train for the lead and ensured the race was run at a true pace.

The fact it was a true pace has been unanimously agreed by everyone I've seen analyse ALL the times that day. The evidence is conclusive (although I'm sure you'll find some perverse way of disputing it). Coolmore had SNA tracking the three pacemakers. The race was set up perfectly for him to show his best. He got first run on Frankel and Farhh but wasn't even able to fend off Farhh inside the final furlong.

How would you have ridden him with three pacemakers in the race? Should be interesting.

I will take it that you believe JOB rode St Nicholas Abbey to his full potential and leave it at that Figgis.
No matter how much evidence is shown to support the facts that Frankel's 2000 Guineas wasn't great. 
That Queen Anne as the fastest performance in Europe over any trip since I've followed racing since 1985.Is completely flawed.
That Frankel's so called TIME figures in the Queen Anne Stakes were highly questionable.
That the evidence clearly shows this was an astonishingly weak era.
That the quality of horses he beat were below general Group One standard.
That there was an agreement between the owner of Frankel and Coolmore.
That the races Ballydoyle always ran in were left alone for Frankel.
That the opposition from Ballydoyle, the most significant stable in Europe, was virtually non existent.
That the horses Baldoyle did run against Frankel ran surprisingly below form.
That the race the BHA rated the best race in their history was irreconcilably flawed.
That the race Timeform signalled as the greatest racecourse performance in their history was a farce.
That Frankel only beat TWO average times and they were on newly laid racecourses where evidence is sparse.
When I said Balldoyle never ran against him you defended them saying "it would be useless to" yet you bet against him twice.

I could go on but I have a life to live. You are living in denial Figgis.

There is nothing more I can do here.

You are living in denial Figgis

No. I just have a different opinion than you. An opinion many share (although it wouldn't matter a jot to me if they did or not), that Frankel was the best I've seen personally. An opinion you can't accept is just different without accusing anyone or any publication who shares it of being in denial, being downright corrupt and refusing to see that only YOUR view is the truth.

There is nothing more I can do here

Thank **** for that

The way Frankel won the Guineas was great .

I humbly accept you opinion of me Figgis that is your right. What I have learned from this exercise is what your opinion is on other,different aspects of horse racing as well. This, after all, is a horse racing forum. The fact that you obviously agree with the BHA and Timeform and the decisions they have made is a decision for you. The fact that you refuse to accept that I do have a case to question these organisations on there actions whether it is the BHA or Timeform then I cannot do anything about that. You are clearly happy with everything then that is fine.
the one thing I have learned is that the TIME merchants think they can fool everyone into thinking they have found a new way of assessing racehorses but it is massively flawed and apart from them just saying it is my opinion it cannot be backed up by fact. 
Also, unlike you I provide copious and extensive evidence to support my opinion whereas you just state your views and cannot back any of them up with evidence or facts.
That is a pity but I do know what to accept from you.

the TIME merchants think they can fool everyone into thinking they have found a new way of assessing racehorses

I think you'll find horse racing time analysis is hardly a new concept, it was even written about over 100 years ago.

unlike you I provide copious and extensive evidence

Yes, copious is a word you could use, I'd use tedious . As for it being evidence, well no, it's all just opinion. Like your opinion that a horse who beats Bering by 1.5 lengths deserves a 140+ rating, despite the fact Bering's best previous form was beating Altayan 1.5 lengths. My opinion is Altayan was a mug.

I've heard many people say a horse wasn't able to challenge another horse because it was poorly ridden. I've said it myself. Sometimes I agree with them, sometimes I don't. I would excuse anyone some irrational pocket talk immediately after a race, been guilty of it myself. However, apart from the odd occasion when a horse is ridden much too fast too early, giving it no chance to last out, I've never heard anyone after careful consideration moan about a ride a horse was given when it did no more than plod on 7 lengths behind the winner. For me, anyone who does so is making a bell-end of themselves. And if they're still wittering on about it 8 years later that makes them look a complete c0ck

Time to agree to disagree guys?

Well said 'Akak', but i think it will be wasted on 'Figgis' - a one dimensional poster who I've on 'ignore' since Anno Domini.

That's such a pity. I would never ignore impossible123, I find his constant observations about two horses being value but only if the other doesn't show up invaluable.

You may find the 'evidence' tedious Figgis but I do hope some on here have found it interesting, if nothing else. This is not, and never has been, a rallying call just a response to other poster's points. I never brought Frankel onto this thread you did, I never defended Bering I just pointed out that your point about ratings obviously getting out of sync was, like everything else. wrong. There is no evidence of that.
You can twist my words any way you wish but I will stick to the facts. That is something you are palpably incapable of doing. 
Continually trying to discredit posters that do not agree with your opinion has no place on a forum. If you want to back up your opinion with facts, like I do, then at least that gives other posters the opportunity to assess the facts and form their opinion then you can. That is what a forum is all about.
I don't know if you follow Andrew from Sweden in the lower house but he puts up his opinion and it is backed up by facts. They can then form their own opinion as to whether they act on it or not. You, on the other hand, post your opinion and it is backed up by your ratings and your speed figures which no-one knows anything about so they cannot form any sort of opinion.

I agree Akak it is time to agree to disagree.

yes lets sweep this under the carpet and get back onto pinatubo

What I do disagree with Akak is when high staking bookmaking owners are forming agreements with other owners about what horses they are going to run against their horse and those they do run run suspiciously. Plus the races concerned are likely to have an ante post element that can be hugely exploited. And the Racing Post know all about it. That cannot be right.

As a mere bystander, I have always enjoyed reading both you guys opinions. Your both correct because thats all it is (your opinions). Figgis, sarcasm is quite acceptable amongst a group of friends, as its just a bit of banter, but on a forum such as this, you do come across as a very argumentative individual. That aside I do respect your opinion as I do brigust1.

backed up by facts

The only facts in racing are the bare results. Everything else is opinion, even the state of the going. All races are open to interpretation, otherwise there would be no betting. If horse A beats horse B one person could think that's the end of the matter, another person can think there is a reason why it might be reversed in future. None of this is facts, whatever you say. Punters don't have to use ratings, they can just think horse A is better than horse B. However it can't just end there. They must have in mind a certain amount in hand that one horse has over another. Putting a number on it just makes it easier to quantify.

Dealing with only this season's form, Crystal Ocean beat Magical, then Enable beats Magical, then Enable beats CO. The obvious conclusion is that they all ran to form each time therefore an in form Enable will always beat Magical. Often I would come to the same conclusion. Luckily I don't always on these occasions, as there would be no point in betting, and in this instance I believe Magical is capable of reversing the form. My reasons are that the POW was a better race than the KG and Magical put up a better performance that day than she did at Sandown or York. There are no facts, just as there are no facts if someone believes Frankel winning at York was a brilliant performance and someone else thinks it wasn't.

My reasoning is based on how I have interpreted the times of the races in question. The times are facts. The interpretation is not. I could go into why I believe the difference between the times CO clocked in the POW and KG equates to him running 7lbs lower in the latter, but there would be absolutely no point. Just as ratings firms have stated why they believe Frankel's performance at Ascot was great. It's never going to be to the satisfaction of everyone. People will be using different standard times for comparison, they will have different interpretations of the exact going allowance. They will have different ideas of which horses ran to form. For most people Waldgeist improved in the KG, whereas I believe he ran almost the same race. They could be right, I could be wrong.

None of this stuff is about 'facts' and I'm surprised any experienced punter would try to pass off interpretations as facts, but then I never see you as much interested in punting matters. More concerned with pointlessly trying to prove to others that your own opinions are some divine truth, or 'facts'.

What tosh. You stated the facts first about previous meetings then added your opinion.

What tosh. You stated the facts first about previous meetings then added your opinion

What facts about previous meetings?

More concerned with pointlessly trying to prove to others that your own opinions are some divine truth, or 'facts'. Any evidence of this please?

Any evidence of this please?

Virtually every post you've made regarding Frankel. One example, if anyone says Frankel's time performance was high (and lots of people have, not just me) you don't just say yo disagree, you say it is absolute twaddle, despite boasting about how you don't concern yourself with time analysis as it's a load of rubbish.

I saw a lot of people saying Visinari put up an exceptional debut time performance. It baffled me as, although it wasn't bad, I really couldn't see it myself. However I didn't start writing to the press that they were "being led by the nose", that they were all wrong and I was right, or that they were involved in some kind of corrupt Mark Johnston scandal. As frankly, that would be a bit weird, if not a lot unhinged. No, I accepted that other people are using different methods and have different interpretations of the results. As it happened, Visinari didn't turn out to be that fast, so I was probably right this time (although it isn't beyond possibility for a 2yo to go well backwards after a debut). I'm hoping to be right about Magical, but this time it could be my interpretation that is up the spout.

Figgis 'time performance' is not a fact it is your opinion. I was in the same mind about Visinari but the reason you disagreed was because there were no facts. Had they said Visinari tan over 7f, or whatever, that is a fact. Or that he won by 6 lengths, or whatever, they are facts. Time performance is opinion.

*ran

I thought JOB rode an injudicious race on St Nicholas Abbey in the Juddmonte, that is opinion.

Figgis 'time performance' is not a fact it is your opinion

I have never said time performance is fact. Time performance is just another form of handicapping, but with some extra pointers and parameters. Handicapping is based on the facts of the race results, but the ratings are only an opinion of the facts. Even if the previous opinion of a horse was correct nobody can say 100% which horses ran to form in the following race. Even if some firms try to pass their computerised handicaps as gospel, somebody had to program it based on what they thought was most relevant. Some are obviously better than others. If more handicappers are in agreement then usually there's more chance that they're right, but certainly not always.

If a horse is estimated to given a fast performance only once then there is of course more margin for error. There is more chance of it being correct if the race is run a strong card, such as Royal Ascot, as the supporting evidence is more reliable. As Frankel was estimated to have run very fast performances numerous times, usually on strong cards and by many different analysts, both public and private, then does that make it a 100% fact? No it doesn't, but there's a strong likelihood that there's some truth in it.

Just to redress the balance of me blowing my own trumpet about Visinari, I thought people who put up Japan after Ascot for the Arc were being extremely optimistic. At Ascot, from time analysis, I had him beating trees and doing nothing he hadn't done before. He couldn't do much more than win how he did though so there was a chance he could be better than that, but given his connections and the prospects of him being overbet I preferred to remain doubtful. His backers were right, he was better than I thought and he has to be included in the mix as a possible Arc winner, although I still think he's not the most likely and the value has gone.

Anyway, back to Pinatubo, whether he goes on next year can only be guessed at, some think he will but I'm more inclined to think he won't, but I've been surprised that so far that I haven't seen any dissenting voices as to how good he is at this moment. Last year a few of us thought TDH was being overrated but this year everyone seems to agree about the showing last Sunday. Maybe I've just not seen the doubters.

I saw Willo extolling the virtues of Visinari from a time point of view, and I saw the interview with Johnson afterwards where he appeared to suggest he was being misled by the 'time' idea and should not have run him in that race where he was beaten.
My opinion is that no-one knows where the fastest part of a racecourse is and many racecourses are over 20 horses wide. The going description is far from being scientific as is the water distribution. The weather can play a part but winds can be variable. You then have pace, position and potential interference to contend with. Rail positions are moved often daily and nowadays the grass is cut during meetings or not at all as opposed to just the day before.
Added to this there is the distinct possibility that a horse can bounce after a particularly fast run. Minefield of the highest order in my opinion.

Figgis I thought you would be shouting the times for Pinatubo from the rooftops. He ran 1m 21.82 in the Gr1 at the Curragh compared with 1m 24.28 by Love in the Fillies Gr1. And at Goodwood he ran 1m 27.03 compared with Sir Dancealot in the Lennox in 1m 28.10.

Minefield of the highest order in my opinion

It is no more of a minefield than any other form of handicapping or forming an opinion on any race, as most of those variables play some part when dissecting the outcome of any race. Sure, on occasions time analysis can lead you up the garden path, but most people who have done it for any length of time should be aware of that. Especially if they're going to back a once raced 2yo on that one piece of evidence. That said, I have seen far more instances where a piece of form has been overrated, or an inferior animal finishing close to a much superior one has been overrated, due to a failure to take into account the time performance of the race.

I think what many detractors fail to realise, which is possibly the fault of the way time analysis has sometimes been presented, is that any going allowance/s (which is the all important factor in arriving at the numbers) has to be calculated through form analysis. The ratings aren't produced by some magic going formula separate from the form. So the time analysis is actually an extension of the form analysis. Despite any occasional erroneous conclusions that inevitably come with the territory, just as they do with other forms of race analysis, it works out often enough to be worth doing.

Figgis I thought you would be shouting the times for Pinatubo from the rooftops

I thought I did when I said on Sunday's effort, transferred to a mile, I'd have him beating every recent 2000 Guineas winner bar Frankel. That's without any improvement whatsoever, as I don't add for wfa. He improves another 5lbs and he'd even beat Frankel as a 3yo. I am not saying I am 100% sure I'm spot on in this case, as I often find the Curragh one of the most tricky courses to rate, due to the varied nature of the track and the fact there are often only 1 or 2 decent races on a card with the rest crap. I'd say this card was easier than most though so I'm pretty confident. I thought his Epsom win would mean O'Brien's would have to be reasonably good to beat him at Ascot but he improved there and I have him improving quite big with every run. So given that profile, Sunday's figure is very believable and I certainly wasn't expecting him to improve again, so it's not like I'm rating him on some preconceived notion.

Whether he will remain in this form next year is another matter though and I have doubts. I think their best shot is going for the Guineas first time out if he's ready as I'm not sure about him going on throughout the season, I could see him going backwards, but we'll see.

Thank goodness, a cease fire for 24 mins (so far). Long may it continue.

Ok well pick the bones from Frankel's Queen Anne. It has had tomes written about it. But not this.

First lets look at how the race was run.
From the stalls the head on shows Bullet train immediately cross over in front of Frankel nearly knocking him off course.
The race was run down the centre of the course. Bullet Train led with Frankel, Side Glance, Windsor Place and Indomito in single file behind. On the near side ran Helmet and Premio Loco. On the far side ran Excelebration, Worthadd, Red Jazz and Strong Suit. That was the position until 3f from home.

They finished in this order
Frankel
Excelebration  (-14)
Side Glance   (-2)
Indomito    level
Windsor Palace   (-9)
Bullet Train     (-14)
Helmet             (-23)
Premio Loco     (-21)
Red Jazz       (-23)
Strong Suit     (-35)
Worthadd.       (-34)

There were only two horses in front and they were Bullet Train and Frankel. The five horses that ran down the centre of the formation of which 4 were the lowest rated in the race the other was Frankel, ran a total of 25lbs over their ratings assuming Frankel ran to his rating. Of the six horses who ran on the flanks, Frankel apart they were the next six highest rated in the race, they ran a total of 164lbs over their ratings.
That would normally be completely inexplicable. However on closer inspection there is a distinct possibility that the spine of the formation led by Bullet Train ran down a track created by the Queens Coaches just before the first race. If you look closely you can see a track going straight through Frankel's stall.

How do you explain that?

Don't forget this was the greatest racecourse performance in the history of BHA and Timeform.

they ran a total of 164lbs over their ratings

I don't understand what this is supposed to mean. You've already acknowledged that, in the handicapper's opinion, everything ran below form bar Frankel and Indomito?

I think it is self explanatory Figgis. This is the figure they ran to in the race compared with their official rating. Using Indomito as the base as they did.

If that's the case, what are the figures you have put in brackets?

You mean they ran 164lbs below then, not above?

Don't forget this was the greatest racecourse performance in the history of BHA and Timeform

Really don't know what you're on about here. So they're saying almost every single runner was below its best and Frankel still comes out very high. Just imagine if they had more of them running to form and Indomito improving, which is almost always the way they usually rate a race, Frankel would've been even further off the scale . I'd say they've been quite conservative. So you're saying they should have rated Indomito below his best and the rest even further below par? On what grounds?

Yes, sorry, that is the figure each horse ran below their official rating, hence the minus sign.

You don't find in unusual that the horses running down the centre of the field ran an average of 5lbs below form and the horses running down the flanks ran an average of 2 stone below form.

And that was almost equally spread.

But the way you're talking about it makes it sound like they were spread right across the track Hunt Cup style. They were racing in a pretty narrow width of each other, everything well off the rail, that was until they all tried to go with Frankel about 3 out, where the race became a procession and the rest started to spread out as they folded.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey37nrOrXac

Head on view there. Anyone claiming track bias is really clutching at straws on this occasion.

Actually, when Frankel started to hit full stride, which came after Queally was being held in by JOB and had to give him a noticeable bump out of the way (just to further dispel any notion that Coolmore were doing their best to aid Frankel), he hangs over to the far side of the course away from the part which you're saying was favourable. I will give the much maligned Nick Mordin a mention here as he was the first person I saw write about how horses that are quickening often stray off a true line at the same time, whereas previously they were only mentioned as hanging when they were presumed tired, which also can happen obviously.

I cannot find it on Youtube now. I haven't watched it for years. It was a production by Attheraces. Fortunately I did save a copy on my computer. Never mind I will leave it for another day. I should have known I was banging my head against a brick wall here.

I should have known I was banging my head against a brick wall here

The point is, why would you even want to continue to attempt to change my opinion? I think Frankel was brilliant, you obviously don't. You know why I do and I know why you don't. You've mentioned the same points for the last 8 years or so. Why can't you just be content with what you believe? Just as I am when I see Mrs Brown's Boys gets big ratings but I think it's a pile of steaming cack. To just give your opinion is fair enough, but you're constantly trying to influence anyone who has a different opinion on Frankel, not just me, I've seen it with others. Very, very strange, in my view of course

frankel is the best ive seen and hes a record breaker at stud, fastest stallion to achieve 30 group winners in the northern hemisphere in the history of the pattern, visinari was acknowledged as horse with great potential by someone i know who follows times, the fact this didnt materialize, wouldnt make me think
hes got that completely wrong, things dont always pan out the way you think they will, hes made a lot of money from gambling, just watched this years derby and
i think japan should of won that race and japan has that all important nick its dams sire is danehill. how good the form is remains to be seen.

Roadrunner forget the name of the horse for a minute. Would you be happy if you knew that the biggest stable/stud in Europe, owned by bookmakers, made an agreement with a top owner not to run their horses against his best horse knowing the horse in question was by their top stallion? Including the potential betting and ante post implications?

Well said 'Akak', but i think it will be wasted on 'Figgis' - a one dimensional poster who I've on 'ignore' since Anno Domini.

Figgis is annoying at times but he brings a lot more here than you do with your regurgitated press releases with ", I understand" tagged on the end. Utter buffoon.

Figgis is annoying at times

Surely not, A_T.

brigust1 i dont have an answer to your question, most people would not be privy to such information, im always sceptical about persons who claim to have
inside knowledge of yards and gallops, i know you are well connected in the racing community, in respect of frankels rating im happy to accept the rating
given by the experts, brigadier gerard was an exceptional horse, before my time. always worth reading what figgis posts, even if you dont agree with his opinion
sometimes, i find the mechanics of how the form works in the group races little bit more nuanced than handicap races.

Don't worry roadrunner, no problem, you will be able to read all about yourselves soon. The book is nearly finished and I know the plan is sometime next year. I hope you will all find it worth the wait.

Lovely day at stables then at the races today celebrating the great horse. The result marginally favourable for Pinatubo, definitely not a negative, though connections of the second do believe, at least they did before today's race, that his last run was not his true form. I'm still out on that one.

Yeh, Pinatubo has been rated higher than Frankel was as a juvenile by the BHA - 128 against 126.

Monoski didn't do much for the Pinatubo form when he ran behind Wichita . Until there is proof to show otherwise it might be wise to rate Pinatubo on his Goodwood win . That form is very good but would not make him a 4/11 shot in The Dewhurst .

Hi all, hope you all happy and healthy, Pinatubo an exceptional 2yrld on ratings(134) but I have some doubts about those behind him, the exception is Armory beaten 9 Lengths then running a good race in the Qatar Prix Jean-Luc Lagardere Sponsorise Par Manateq (Group 1)  beaten just a length, would indeed make you stand up and look hard?, but I figure it could just be that Armory enjoyed the softer ground on the later occasion? but time will tell , obviously hard to knock the  Pinatubo rating, and like all,I look forward to seeing how things turn out next year. A proven champion 2yrld he is, but hard to believe he could better his rating with age 3yrld (who knows?)  I did like Highest Ground debut the other week at leicester, but this one got a long way to go yet!(I do hope he does mind, thinking Derby)

Explode or implode in The Dewhurst? The bookies thinking the former; 4/11 a good price given his last victory, all thing being equal. Wichita - who?

12/1 Pinatubo looking good Guineas

Shade odds-on in a place now

Just hope trains on

If I had 12/1 for the Guineas, I would be looking to lay off at this stage. The Dewhurst win looked to be some way below his National Stakes performance: perhaps the exertions of a long season have taken their toll. He's a strong two-year-old type, not terribly big, not necessarily the type to improve over the winter. But, of course, he may not need to improve at all to win the Guineas!

did people really believe pinatubo was going to win by another 9 lengths on that ground from that draw

roadrunner46 • October 14, 2019 11:49 AM BST
did people really believe pinatubo was going to win by another 9 lengths on that ground from that drawCrazy
No, but I still reckon he ran about half a stone below his Curragh form. The ground was probably a factor (he'd never previously raced on anything slower than 'good' ground) and he's been on the go since the spring (made his debut in early May), so he may have been feeling the effects of a long season. Whether he's still ahead of the bigger scopier colts next May remains to be seen. Like I said, he doesn't need to improve on the Curragh performance to win an average Guineas.

i dont see pinatubo as a 3yo . last 2yo race of the season the guineas and all that . well keep him out of the preps cos slow ground will dent him . i would take him fresh to the guineas , then come with a breeders cup mile agenda

i would go guineas fresh , break sussex stakes with a prep and then travel to france in prep for a bc mile

He's not wintering in Dubai instead doing light work in preparation for 2000G. Let's hope he's still head and shoulders above the others come 2nd May. He's 11/10 fav.