Look when brigust want's your opinion on matters relating to the brigadier, he will give them to you. OK












Just a gag brig.

If we are going to judge horses on limited distance wins, then BG won .....

SJP stakes by a head from Sparkler
Champion stakes by a short head from Rarity
Westbury stakes by 0.5L from Ballyhot

Sparkler was rated 130, it was heavy ground that day and he met him again gave him 7lbs and beat him 6 len gths in course record time.
Again in the Champion Stakes it was heavy ground and Rarity had just beaten the Derby 4th and Irish Derby 2nd on soft ground by 4 lengths.
In the Westbury BG was giving Ballyhot 14lbs, it was a course and distance prep run for the Eclipse he won easily, and he had easily won the Lockinge only 9, yes 9 days before. Ballyhot next ran in the Prix D'Isaphan (Group 1) and was only beaten by the French 2000 Gns winner and the horse who was previously unbeaten that season. 

How does that compare with Frankels heavy ground and 10 furlong successes? In fact how many 130 rated horses has Frankel beaten at level weights?

I am a Nijinsky fan also Blackrock. They should have limited his first season and run him as a 4 year old. What fun we would have had with BG rated 144, Mill Reef an unacceptable 141 and Nijinsky 139.

He has just beaten Farhh a 130 TF rated animal by 6L with unbelievable ease.

This Farhh it must be remembered was coming in off the back of 1/2L defeat in the Eclipse to Nathaniel, Nathaniel then runs the 5L Arc winner to a nose in the KG, a length and a half ahead of the Coronation Cup winner, behind in 4th was last years Prix du Jockey Club winner, behind him was the Hardwicke winner, behind him was the Melbourne Cup winner, also behind was the St Leger winner and the Japanese Derby winner.

In the Eclipse Farhh was 2 1/2L ahead of Twice Over a 4 time G1 winner with numerous G1 placings, a further 5L behind was Cityscape who had already won the Dubai Duty Free G1 by 5L.

In his previous race Farhh was what is generally considered an unlucky 3rd in the POW at Ascot nearly 3L behind So You Think a dual Cox Plate winner and 5 time G1 winner since coming to Europe, although it is unlikely Farhh would have beaten SYT I think it's beyond question he'd have been much closer.

Without doubt Farhh was a credible opponent, a horse who on the evidence of previous starts is still progressing. Farhh simply couldn't cope and went the way of everything else.

Nothing can compete with this horse, he makes very good horses appear very ordinary. Perhaps its churlish to be dogmatic either way whether Frankel or Brigadier Gerard are the better. You would blind not to accept that Frankel is a truly truly outstanding colt and genuinely deserves the epithet Great.

If Timeform think he's the greatest(and they wouldn't be alone in that), then that's fair enough Frankel has put enough exceptional performances to merit their opinion of him.

Andrew I think BG and Ballhot were the same age.

Soft Pawn I have never said Frankel wasn't a great racehorse, I have never said Frankel wasn't a great racehorse. I simply don't think, at this stage, he is the greatest ever racehorse. That honour, in my humble opinion belongs to Sea Bird 11 and nothing Frankel can do will change that because there is not the quality of horse about for him to beat. It is not his fault I know but that is the fact.

And Timeform rachet up everything that runs against Frankel. Before the Sussex Stakes Farrh was Officially rated 122 but Timeform I think have completely lost the plot. How can Farhh on known form be 2lbs behind So You Think?
According to thier own calculations he should be rated nearly 8lbs behind him. I'm not knocking Farhh because I think he has a future but, as you keep coming back at me, what I think doesn't amount to much. After the Queen Anne Timeform raised Side Glance's rating to 118 and according to their own ratings he is an average Group 2 winner yet he has never won a Group 2 and only been 3rd of 5 in the one Group 2 he did run in.

And now rating Farhh on 130, according to their own calculations, that means he is an above average Group 1 winner yet he has never won a Group 1. They have lost the plot completely but because they have Frankel on 147 everything he runs against is raised in weight because that is the only way they can justify it.

And the same applies to Strong Suit how can he on known form be 1lb behind So You Think? Again Strong Suit according to Timeform is an above average Group 1 winner yet he has never won a Group 1 and the Group 1's he has been placed in cannot be considered above average. 

I am not knocking Frankel I am knocking Timeform.

Brigust, apologies, they were the same age !

SP Nathaniel was having his 1st run of the year and SYT really won as he liked the 2nd horse Carlton House was well beaten and could be questionable. Being beaten in a Group 1 is not the same as winning one let alone being an above average Group 1 winner. Now that stretches the imagination a bit I can tell you. I know things can change throughout the season but this is based on now, today.

You brought ratings up Hip, I didn't but answer me this:

According to Timeform’s own calculations as shown on The Morning Line on 23rd June and their Racehorses of ’71 and ’72, the ratings are as follows:
Frankel 147, Brigadier Gerard 144, Sparkler 130 and Side Glance 117.

Queen Anne Stakes. Royal Ascot. 2012
In the Queen Anne Stakes Frankel beat Side Glance by 11 lengths.
Frankel’s 11 lengths success was rated by Timeform as being 30lb superior to Side Glance.
Divide 30 by 11 provides 2.73lbs per length.

Queen Elizabeth 11 Stakes. Ascot. 1972
In the 1972 Queen Elizabeth 11 Stakes Brigadier Gerard beat Sparkler 6 lengths giving him 7lbs. 
Sparkler is rated 130 whereas Side Glance is rated 117 that is a difference of 13lbs.
Using Timeform calculations 13lbs is equal to 4.8 lengths.
Brigadier Gerard beat Sparkler by 6 lengths.
Add to the 4.8 lengths to the 6 lengths and that equals 10.8 lengths.
Brigadier Gerard also gave Sparkler 7lbs.
The 7lbs at 2.73lbs per length is equal to 2.5 lengths.
Add 2.5 lengths to 10.8 lengths and that equals 13.3 lengths.
Brigadier Gerard therefore would have beaten Side Glance by 13.3 lengths.
Take 11 lengths away from 13.3 lengths equals 2.3 lengths.
Using 2.73lbs per lengths that equals 6.28lbs.

Therefore using Timeform’s own ratings either Frankel should be rated 138 or, if Frankel retains the 147, then Brigadier Gerard should be rated 153. 

It's only ratings Hip.

Don't whatever the fcuk you do, call him clueless.

From what I've read they also have Side Glance running below its best rating too.

Are you sure? I saw on TRF that they have him on 119 but he ran to 115 in the Queen Anne. Those figures may not be exactly right as they're from memory but it was something like that.

I'm off to bed now Figgis. Thanks for being courteous and not just insulting me out of hand. These things just grate a little sometimes but they are only ratings as Hip said.

You may say you don't want to denegrate a champion but every time you come on here you try to pull him apart. Actions speak far louder than words Soft Pawn.

Sparkler won the Moulin the year after the QE11. Redundent is a 120 rated horse and so far Farhh has only won handicaps. And I wouldn't say the Thirsk Hunt Cup is the equivalent of the Brittania. I also think Gabrial and Indomito have only won handicaps. And when Gabrial ran in the St James Palace he was well beaten. But, unlike you I am not looking for obscure ways to dengrate a wonderful racehorse, I am just trying to compare like with like.

Plus if you use the same Timeform calculation on Sparkler and Redundent then either Sparkler ran to 134 or Redundent ran to 116 and that isn't taking wfa into consideration where last year the 4 year olds only gave 3lbs to the 3 year olds. Then Sparkler the 4 year old had to give 7lbs to the 3 year old, a difference of 4lbs.

If you read the race details from Timeform they never suggested for one moment Sparkler ran below form let alone 10lbs below form.
And when you compare with another race on the same day try to remember the Wokingham was run in a faster time than the Jubilee one was a handicap and the other is a Group 1.

Plus I'm sure if Tf had an opportunity to re-rate Adios they would rate him 120+. He only ran twice and the horse who finished 3rd in the Royal Lodge was a top 2 year old, unbeaten in 3 races before the RL, then finished 3rd in the 2000 Gns, won the Irish Guineas and finished 3rd in the Champion Stakes.

And when you compare the times of the Royal Lodge and the QE11 1 min 42.62 and 1m 39.96 there is a difference of 2.66 secs or 16 lengths. Using that a a guide and the Tf ratings then if Adios is a 120 horse BG must be a 164 horse.

As I said earlier SP you say you do not want to denegrate BG but I think every time you come on here that is exactly what you try to do looking at every obscure fact you can.

it is a self centred modern phenomenon,all about the now and me me me.The past is so redundant and so yesterday Darling. Many don't realise without understanding history they will have no grasp of the future. Actually I'm not sure if the future matters to many nowadays as everything revolves around only the here and now.Different eras different champions,enjoy the memories and compare but any argument over superiority will only ever be subjective and not factual as ratings are revised and changed periodically.

Farrier - there is more than 'visual' evidence.

There is a bullet proof official rating of 140 FFS

I thought the whole point of the thread was "the best performance ever seen", not the greatest racehorse.

You are partly right Figgis, the point of the thread was the Steve Mellish comment that 'we must blind if we didn't think that was the best performance ever seen'.

Me personally the best performance I have ever seen in person based on the strength of the opposition, degree of difficulty and ease of success, and also importantly ante post price taken of 12/1 has to be Brigadier Gerard's 2000 Guineas win. Closely followed by Mill Reef's Arc win where he beat the brilliant French filly, just majestic.
For ease of win and style was Nijinsky's King George, Lester at his finest and for sheer guts was Grundy's King George where at today's revised weight for age Bustino would have won.
For best performance when not seen in person I think Sea Bird's and Dancing Brave's Arc wins were both outstanding. Just a pity the camera angle screwed up DB's Arc win.

Too many great performances to pick one.

From Sea Bird,Mill Reef,Noblesse,Ribot to Dancing Brave's Arc win which is hard to get away from.

I can only suggest that Mellish and Hislop didn't see any of them.

Another point is that when rating a 3yo as the best performance ever there is an element of supposition. Due to the wfa allowance being factored in it is taken for granted that the 3yo would automatically improve at a specific rate and the rating is what it would supposedly be able to achieve when fully mature. However, this is not always the case. Workforce, for example, was an above average Derby winner, but he wasn't an above average Gp1 performer as a 4yo.

Goodness me Figgis you said the thread was about best performance seen. You are now back tracking to what we were talking about originally.  What do you want me to do? They are the best performances I have seen. They may not be the best performances ever on this earth but I would much rather see Dancing Brave taking on a strong field in the Arc de Triomphe and sweeping round from the rear to success than watching Frankel taking on a very weak field in the Queen Anne and simply following his pacemaker.

And I suggest almost all horse racing fans would agree with that. Although, inlike Mr Mellish, I am not going to say they are blind if they disagree.