Goodness me Figgis I am not judging these performances. That is what I was doing BEFORE you said the thread title wasn't about that. So I then gave you my list of what I THOUGHT were the best performances I have SEEN. No judgements, no ratings, no calculations were involved in my selections. The only inconsistency is in what you think this thread should about. Is it about ratings or is it about best performances we have seen?

thank you brigust, Figgis that Arc race if memory served had more G1 winners racing against each other than any other that had been staged. The race was visually stimulating to my eye and obviously others. I think Frankel ran against a higher ratio of trees than DB did. Only my opinion but people also forget DB was a machine over a mile and IMO would have kicked Excelebration into the rough grass as easily as Frankel did. The Brave won top class events at a range of trips and I still think he was the best I have seen as a flat racehorse.

Ok so in that case the best race I have ever seen was the 1971 2000 Guineas.

1111-111111-1111121 Brigadier Gerard  winner of 12 Group 1 and one Group 2 race when he beat by 3 lengths

112111-121111-11  Mill Reef  winner of 8 Group 1 races and two Group 2 races with

11111111-1232     My Swallow winner of 4 Group 1 races three quarters of a length away in third.   

2112- 114       Minsky the best horse in Ireland was 9 lengths 4th.


I guess that is the best race I have seen Figgis.


And yes Duffy, they had 2 days solid rain before the Suusex putting the meeting in doubt. The going was soft.

mellish and hislop immortalised forever on the ante-post forum

verbotene

That's fine mate but we would need another 10000 post thread to decide which one we put first in the title....brigadier or frankel

duffy     04 Aug 12 15:12 
verbotene

That's fine mate but we would need another 10000 post thread to decide which one we put first in the title....frankel or brigadier

Thankyou brigust!!

I can't seem to find excelebration listed in the bha ratings table

I've spoken to a few people about this and I won't name drop but my interpretation is this.

The mare was La Paiva. She was a maiden and blind in one eye. She was often barren in alternate years so Hislop sent her to the stallion literally next door because he was cheap, local and fitted the bill. Being right next door Hislop often wondered what a match would produce but he had connections with the Egerton Stud so used their stallions most of the time. On this occasion to avoid all of the travelling etc to Newmarket he used Queen's Hussar. Queen's Hussar was up until then for sale and before the mating with La Paiva an enquiry from Australia about buying Queen's Hussar was missed by his owner because he thought it was a wind-up. So clearly a lot of luck was involved. But there were loads of stallions around his area so he did do some work into which to use.

BG's defeat in the B&H was discussed at the time and,because it never really mattered then, unlike now with Frankel being compared with him, it never received much press. In the 70's horses had to race in various distances because there just wasn't the Group 1's there are now so unbeaten runs were rare. The facts of the matter are that Hern had a virus in the yard all that year and kept the details from Hislop until some time later. As Joe Mercer explained in his interview recently by the Racing Post BG was a sick horse at York. After the race back in the stables he put his head down and mucus just poured out of him. They never had blood test and trachea washes then otherwise he certainly wouldn't have run. But Hislop, in his defence, never made much of an issue about it because he never feared defeat. That is why he ran him everywhere and anywhere even on going he hated and over trips he was unproven over.
To give you an idea what Hislop was like after BG beat Mill Reef and My Swallow in the Guineas he offered their owners a rematch. Paul Mellon (Mill Reef) agreed a rematch in the '72 Eclipse but never turned up and David Robinson (My Swallow) agreed a rematch in the July Cup but he was declared a doubtful runner so BG ran in the Sussex instead. After Roberto beat BG in the B&H he asked Galbraith for a rematch in the Champion Stakes knowing if VOB won it he would be Champion trainer but they declined and got beaten in the Arc instead. 

Not long after BG had gone to stud and Hislop had finished his book Hislop discovered Hern had been less than honest with him. He removed his horses from the yard and they became bitter enemies. Again in Hislops defence he never slagged off Hern ever but Hern slagged both Hislop and his wife off after they had both died. In Hern's unofficial autobiography while the Hislops were still alive he agreed that BG was a sick horse then after they had died he back tracked somewhat. Everyone in the yard knew the facts but the press coverage then etc. wasn't what is today.

Sorry to be so long winded.

I was just thinking that the staff in the yards who were privy to the causes of factual happenings, and not just the consequences ( Jesus, the finished bottle of that cheap award winning Aldi red is showing !)were quite mature in years at the time - whether its due to more of the young stable staff nowadays coming from the BHB training school and less so from being unemployable at anything else, there seemed more of a tendendcy then for the better quality sorts to find themselves with greying employees. This means that 40 years on, many involved close at hand with BG would have passed on, and perhaps some relevant anecdotes taken to the grave.

Did read the Hern book ( and the P T Walwyn book that was out around the same time) but felt as seems common with these sort of books, that it was a rushed job with the proofreaders being asleep on a few occasions.

Anyway, hope someone makes the move and starts a thread on this subject on the AP forum. Would surely live long and contributors could dip in and out when desired, no matter how long they'd gone for - and you never know someone with something to reveal might just appear on the thread on a dark December evening and start a frenzy of debate !

The facts are Soft pawn that Excelebration has won a gr1 a couple of group 2s and a shocking gr3.

What official rating do you think those four performances would merit?

Without any if's and but's please.

Excelebration earned an official rating of 116 for his German guineas win before being awarded 126 for winning the Moulin victory.
Interestingly that rating remained for his next three runs until being dropped a pound to 125 for his last run a second to Frankel.

That's OK Ged. I won't bring up the placed horses in Frankel's 2000 Gns. What were they Dubawi Gold, Native Knan and Slim Shadey?

All I can say is that Mill Reef won at 5 furlongs by 4 lengths, 6 furlongs (Coventry by 7 lengths & Gimcrack by 10 lengths) and 7 furlongs (Dewhurst by 4 lengths) & the Greenham over 7 furlongs by 4 lengths. When you look at the races Frankel has run in (7 & 8 furlongs) would you think he is considered more or less speedy than Mill Reef?
Mill Reef was always destined to go for the Derby plus what would be the point of staying at mile (like Frankel).

My Swallow, it is fair to say probably never trained on. After his Guineas trial canter he ran in 3 Group 1's and finished 3rd, 2nd and 2nd. Third in the Gunieas, 2nd in the Prix de la Porte Malliot beaten 6 lengths by Faraway Son who, next time out, was beaten 5 lengths in the Sussex Stakes by Brigadier Gerard. In his last race My Swallow was beaten half a length in the July Cup. The best move financially was surely to retire him. After all there were no Group 1 races at a mile or less left for him to run in.

Minsky was a bit of a monkey but he was the best horse in Ireland. He finished 2nd first time out the wom the Railway Stakes and Beresford Stakes before finishing second beaten a short head in the Observer Gold Cup (Racing Post Trophy) by Linden Tree who finished 2nd in the Derby to Mill Reef. He was unbeaten in '71 winning the Gladness Stakes and the Tetrarch Stakes where he beat the Irish 2000 Gns winner King's Company. Kings Company survived an objection and beat Sparkler a sh hd in the Irish 2000 Gns. Kings Company ran in the Sussex Stakes against BG and finished last beaten 17 lengths.
Minsky finished 9 lengths behind BG in the 2000 Gns and BG was going away at the line.

About Sparkler he ran a lot in France mainly for the prize money and to avoid BG. His win record on going was as follows: he won 13 races in all 1 on firm, 1 on good/firm, 9 on good and 2 on soft. The going at Ascot was good to firm. Nine of Sparkler's wins were over a mile.

And personally Ged, I think Sparkler did show his form that day. Lester was hoping to out sprint him in the home straight knowing how fast Sparkler was. He had just broken the course record in Deauville but BG had too much speed and class for him. If anything BG who had just won the King George & Queen Elizabeth11 Stakes over 12 furlongs and been beaten by Roberto at York over 10 and a half furlongs could have been excused for not showing his true form.

It's fairly obvious we could debate all day, brigust. But what you conveniently ignore is the distance (and manner) Frankel beat his Guineas (and other) opposition. Of course his victims were (and are) inferior to BG's. That's the heart of the discussion, and is irresolvable. What is better - beating genuine G1/G2 opposition by 3 to 6 lengths, or beating G2/G3 opposition by 10 or more? There's no one answer. The debate is interesting - until it gets repetitive. I do think you keep one eye closed with your ratings gymnastics, because it's obvious how much you want to keep BG on his pinnacle. (Fundamentally, horses do not run to their TF rating every time they run. Steel Pulse, for instance, won 1 of is 10 races as a 3yo. And yet you use him as a 132(?) benchmark in your BG calcs. You say yourself that BG stayed stayed 10 and 12f, but surely you wouldn't put Parnell, Rarity, Roberto, and indeed Sparkler up in the 140s too? I respect your knowledge and your loyalty, but I do think you argue in a lop-sided way, and it does invite opposition, and your own scorn invites more of it in reply - hence the sometimes insulting tone of some of the posts here - though obviously some Frankel-fawners are at least as bad.

But I'm genuinely curious - where do you think Frankel would have finished in the '71 Guineas, if he 'reproduced' his run in the 2011 Guineas?

Ged I don't know. And that is the problem. Timeform have stated in their calculations Frankel would win by over a length. Well I doubt that and therein lies the problem. I think they should be rated the same until at least some time as they can be definitavely seperated. That's all. In fact I think Bg's wins were against better opposition and I also think that there are things BG did Frankel won't.

And Ged you too coveniently ignore down the field runs. Take Vanguard Dream for example. He finished 11 lengths behind Frankel in the Greenham and next time finished 11 lengths behind Winter's Dream in a handicap. That is what racehorse do. That is not representative of Frankel's form so we judge them by their best performances not their worst. Goodness it would be a nightmare if all we did is judge them by their worst.

And the only reason I brought up BG's successes is because a lot of people on here were probably not around when he was racing I only wish there were a few more oldies like me to balance the debate. So I point out his good points so that may help when comparing him with Frankel or the other way round.

You know once someone brought up the St James Palace Stakes where BG was nearly beaten by Sparkler so I reiterated about Frankel's SJP Stakes and I got slaughtered.

brigust - just to comeback on one specific question you aimed at me - re Redundant. I'd raise 2 questions - 1. how do you justify using Redundant performance in that race to rate Sparkler's performance. (I realise if one HAS to rate a race, one has to make SOME kind of assumption as to which horse ran to form, but my position is that I don't have to rate races, so I tend to stick to questioning other people's assumptions), and 2. I haven't returned to the viewing of that QE2, though I looked at it a few weeks ago, but my memory is that (a) Redundant made the pace (which means he must surely have been going a fair gallop as both Sparkler and Brigadier Gerard frequently made the running), and (b) Redundant was eased down when beaten, so distances are likely to exaggerate the relative merits of the horses (not of course uncommon in a small field race).

Soft Pawn I never said Excelbration wasn't a Group 1 horse. So why don't you leave him to do the talking for you, I am?

And Ged, I don't know and nor do you. I never used Redundant to justify anything other than the fact you suggested Sparkler may have run below form. For goodness sake it was your query not mine. You are making assumptions while I am going on the facts available. If you think Sparkler ran below form and therefore Redundant also ran below form even considering Sparkler had won his last 2 races and Redundant had won 3 of his last 4 races then that is up to you. In the QE11 BG had a pacemaker who made the running. BG led about furlong out and sprinted clear so can you tell me, while we are making assumptions, if he had led 2 furlongs out and sprinted even clearer how would you rate him then? After all he stays 12 furlongs so the trip wouldn't be a problem. Of course you can't and neither can I but one thing I am certain of the distances would have been much greater. At the time all Joe wanted to do was win easily and that is what he did. There is no way he was doing anything other than running away from the other two.

I'd fear for Frankel if either The Brigadier or Mill Reef were within 5 or 6 lengths of him two out personally Ged.

Certainly if either of those two were in Frankel's St James Palace......well.

You woundn't want to be 5/6L adrift of Frankel 2F out, the odds are staked against you even if you're on BG, Mill Reef, Nijinsky, Sea Bird whoever.

Having said that the visual impression in the Guineas was that he looked to be tiring close home, but again we must respect the man on his back view that he was idling, you also have to consider the effort Brigadier Gerard or Mill Reef would need to put in to close that gap, they would surely be tiring close home too.

As for the St.James's Palace Stakes, that was a suicidal tactic Queally adopted and only the horse's immence ability and stamina got him home. If he would have adopted those tactics against another great miler such as Brigadier Gerard or Kris I think he would have been in big trouble. That is if BG or Kris were ridden in the manner Zoffany and Neebras were if they chased Frankel it's debatable if they could have hung on.

for me, as impressive as frankels guineas looked, it was a terrible ride that worked out perfectly for tom given the tactics the jocks behind employed, this combined with the distinct lack of ability the competition possessed also combined with the fact that frankel IS an exceptional racehorse but for me overall the ride was a mistake.

had Tom ridden this race against even a horse like excelebration (who isnt by any means exceptional) and excelebration was ridden to run his own race, even furlongs and not trying to chace down frankel from 5 out then it wouldve been the sjp all over again. frankel wouldve still won but by a diminishing margin with the 2nd closing fast.  if that was BG chasing him he'd have been easily beaten ...THAT DAY anyway imo. im n ot saying BG is a better miler that frankel, im just giving my interpretation of frankels guineas win.