There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 760 comments are related to the topic:
Mellish & Hislop. I am not blind, thank you.
Mellish & Hislop. I am not blind, thank you.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 760
|
By:
Out of curiosity, I checked times of all the races that BG and Frankel ran in as 3 and 4 year olds (I don't think they ran in the same 2 yr old races). Whilst times are never conclusive for several reasons, the following table makes interesting reading in that of all the races they both ran in, Frankel comes out best in ALL of them,
Get a grip guys  |
|
By:
Andrew I think you will find there are only TWO races from your list where times could be comparable the 2000 gns and the Lockinge.
The other races were either on vastly different going or on a different course. Both of the races above were first time out for the season for Brigadier Gerard and it is public knowledge Frankel is a free running horse. In the 2000 Gns it was Brigadier Gerard's first run of the season and Frankel had already had a race in th Greenham. In the Lockinge it was also Brigadier Gerard's first run of the season and Frankel had a public racecourse gallop. If you think that is in any way conclusive then I suggest to look at the ratings I have posted above. |
|
By:
If you think that is in any way conclusive
Brigust, this is the 3rd time I have stated Whilst times are never conclusive for several reasons, I would say vastly different going only applies to the SJP (as I have already stated). Yes, Frankel had a public gallop prior to the Lockinge, not surprising considering he had been carrying an injury ! Do you seriously think that BG would not be fully wound up for a classic race and also later for the Lockinge with an unbeaten record to protect ? We will have another chance to compare times of the same race in less than 2 weeks |
|
By:
Yes I do think he wasn't fully wound up in the Lockinge as stated at the time. And he ran again 9 days later. His whole schedule and demeanor is different to Frankel. And when you consider times at York of course you will know they have carried out extensive drainage works and re-cambering of th bend into the home straight. Lets just see how Frankels times compare with others horses this decade, so far he is well behind I think.
Frankel's times in the last decade: 2000 Gns 7 have been faster. SJP Stakes 5 have been faster. Sussex Stakes 4 have been faster. Queen Anne Stakes 3 have been faster. Lockinge 5 have been faster. As I said earlier going by time is an inexact science and cannot prove anything. |
|
By:
SP do you think Frankel would win over 6f, 10f and possibly 12f? The rest of your statement is total nonsense you are better than that. You suggest Mill Reef would be low 130's over a mile that is too ridiculous to even discuss when you consider Mill Reef ran 8 times over a mile and less and only 6 times over further. Two of which were over 10f. If you want to be pedantic why don't we take Brigadier Gerard out of the 2000Gns and make Mill Reef the winner by tree quarters of a length. That alone, with My Swallow rated 135 makes him a 137 rated horse. And if you look at the 4th horse who was 6 lengths behind mill Reef was rated 123. So Mill Reef beat a 123 rated horse by 6 lengths in the 1971 2000 Gns. Frankel beat a 113 rated horse 6 lengths in the 2011 20000 Gns. You work it out. The 1971 2000 Guineas WITHOUT Brigadier Gerard. 1st. Mill Reef 2nd. My Swallow rated 135. 3rd. Minsky rated 123. Distances 3/4 length and 5 lengths. 2011 2000 Gns. 1st. Frankel. 2nd. Dubawi Gold rated 113. 3rd. Native Khan rated 115. Distances 6 lengths and 1/2 length. If you calculate using My Swallow: My Swallow rated 22lb higher than Dubawi Gold using Timeform ratings/calculations of 2.73 per length means: Mill Reef would have beaten Frankel by 2+ lengths. If you calculate using Minsky: Misnky rated 10lb higher than Dubawi Gold means Mill Reef would have beaten Frankel by 3 lengths. And of course Brigadier Gerard finished 3 lengths in front of Mill Reef. You work it out. Again Brigust you analysis is erroneous and skewed to suit what argument you want to make. The point I've highlighted was in your opinion Mill Reef was as good a miler as he was at 10/12F. I think your methodology of taking a horses highest ever rating and then applying it to the needs of your arguments no matter what the race is wrong. For the purpose of consistency though I'll use your methodology to support my theory that Mill Reef was a significantly better horse over the longer trips. I'll use the 1971 2000 Guineas to prove my point. First of all at the end of the 1971 season Timeform had Brigadier Gerard 141 and Mill Reef 141 and My Swallow 132. So looking on that bare evidence if we assume that the winner put up his beat or equal best performance on his first start of the season against two race fit opponents, which would be questionable, then using your lbs per length metric My Swallow comes out at 132 his end of season TF rating. Looking at My Swallow's following two runs you would have to have some element of doubt whether he was in fact capable running up to 132. He was drubbed by Faraway Son in Prix la Port Maillot (maybe excuse after hard Guineas run), then ran much better when narrowly beaten in July Cup by Realm (not find his TF figure, from memory think it was high 120's). On the evidence of the 1971 2000 Guineas we can surely at best attribute a TF figure for Mill reef over a mile of 134. If you think he was 141 over a mile then you think Brigadier Gerard ran to 149 which while I wouldn't put that beyond the realms of possibility it would seem unlikely at that stage of his career. If however you believe that to be the case, then you go into the realms of Fantasy Island to think of My Swallow at 139.  Therefore Mill Reef's 141 was attributed because of his performances in races like the Eclipse, King George and Arc. On the available evidence Mill Reef was not as good over a mile as at 10/12F. As I stated on a earlier post probably an above average G1 miler of the Excelebration ilk, certainly not in the Brigadier Gerard and Frankel class and would almost certainly have got outgunned over a mile by the likes of Kris, Irish River, Miesque etc. Using ratings of horses further back like Minsky becomes a bit dodgy. Applying the Minsky principle to Frankel's Guineas. I haven't got access to their TF figures, I'll use official ratings instead which are generally 6/7lb lower than TF and apply your 2.73lb per length. Frankel beat 4th placed Slim Shadey OR 101 by 17.5L, which coverts to a whopping 149 for Frankel using the higher TF scale this would be somwhere in the mid 150's. |
|
By:
brigust1
Date Joined: 07 Dec 01 Add contact | Send message When: 08 Aug 12 20:06 Joined: Date Joined: 07 Dec 01 | Topic/replies: 4,145 | Blogger: brigust1's blog Andrew times can be deceptive because courses have changed over the years and possibly timing has as well. When the distances of a couple of BG's races were checked officially they showed that in the Goodwood Mile BG actually won by 14 lengths and not 10, the QE11 of 1971 was won by 10 lengths not the 8 he was given and in the B&H at York when BG was beaten the 3rd and 4th horses were beaten 17 lengths not the 10 given. But they are just points in a puzzle. About racecourses though things have changed with drainage etc, and even at Newmarket the now cut the grass during the meetings that is something they never used to do. It is all so much more scientific now. The new course at Ascot has been graded and the grasses sown are designed to intertwine, progress they call it. I think you should read his post again Hip and try to have an open mind will you. None of the facts I posted are anything other than facts if you have something material to add please do so but you keep criticising me and this thread yet for some reason you keep coming onto it adding nothing at all. Brigust I am not criticising you and it it comes across that way i apologise. I fundamentally disagree with your approach - churning out the same form lines in different ways does not overcome my fundamental point - that there is no conclusive answer and if there is one the way to find it is not through the beaten horses. One horse is better than the other or they are/were exactly the same in ability. Our opinions differ but I am trying to explain to you that I accept my view is an opinion. You do not accept that your view is an opinion - you are trying to create an argument based on emprical fact - a fallacy if you will. Nothing personal but your method sucks because it fails to recognise that this is an intractible problem. I happen to think I have added a little bit to this thread its just that none of it is what you want to read. Can you address my point that a horse can be the best ever if it only races against platers or will you ignore that for the 4th time? |
|
By:
ttt
|
|
By:
Soft Pawn will you please stop saying I am making an erroneous and skewed arguments because I am not. I am simply responding to the skewed and sad interpretation you apply to Brigadier Gerard's races. Every time you come on here you find some wierd and exagerated excuse to criticise this great horse and every time I produce facts to disprove your sad theories you say my argument is erroneous and skewed. Why don't you just come out and say Brigadier Gerard wasn't deserving of his rating. Or that the horses he beat were overated? At least you would be being honest with yourself and everyone else instead of hiding behind your wierd views. All of which I have answered honestly and openly. And then when I answer your silly riposte you have a go at me ffs.
You down grade Steel Pulse and I refer your to Treasure Beach. You downgrade Mill Reef ffs. Now it's My Swallow. And you are including horses like Slim Shady yet completely overlooking the fact that the 113 rated (108 OR)Dubawi Gold beat slim Shady by 12 lengths. And you think Slim Shady ran to form meaning Dubawi Gold ran to 140. Get a life please. Anyone who does that is obviously unable to read the form book. Why don't you try to be positive ffs. And then you have the timerity to say Excelebration and Canford Cliffs are not only the equal of one another but the equal of Mill Reef. Pull yourself together man. Your interpretaion of form is far too wierd to start with let alone answer. Why don't you just look at the positives in life instead of knocking every great horse who ran? And Hip I am not churning out form lines. Why don't you have a go at the people who are knocking every little thing they can just to try to prove the unknown about Frankel? And your comment about horses beating platers being rated the best horse ever then I don't agree. They can be rated highly I suppose but until they beat something of note then 'no' they cannot. It's a bit like saying Frank Bruno could be rated the best boxer ever because he easily beat all of his opponens until he met Mike Tyson and therfore depriving him of being rated the best ever. No I don't agree with that? But again it's far too hypothetical a question and will not happen. |
|
By:
I suppose the only possible answer to Priest question would be yes...a horse that beats platers could be the greatest ever.
Although it could never be considered the greatest..........this is Frankel's problem. |
|
By:
Soft Pawn I have pointed out several occasions where, according to Timeform's own rating system, Brigadier Gerard performed to a higher rating than Frankel. I am not saying he deserves to be rated higher but neither am I saying Frankel should be rated higher.
In the 2000 Gns, you keep rubbishing it, it is not inconcievable Mill Reef, My Swallow and Minsky ran to their ratings with the 122 rated Good Bond 12 lengths adrift. With Minsky on 123 beaten 5 lengths by My Swallow it would give My Swallow a rating of 136. Considering after two more races where he finished 2nd and was then retired and eventually rated 132 is not beyond the bounds of reality that they dropped him 4lbs. Similarly Mill Reef beat My Swallow by three quarters of length he therefore ran to a mark of 138. Considering he ended his 3 year old career on 141, running to 138 in the 2000 Guineas is certainly not outside the bounds of reality. I have always and consistently contested the rating Timeform has given to Brigadier Gerard and have produced several races showing they have, in fact, not rated BG the same way as they have rated Frankel. And the reason for this, I believe, is because they did not want to rate a horse higher than Sea Bird 11 and by giving Sea Bird 11 a rating of only 145, it should have been much higher and in the low 150's, they had tied their hand behind their backs. In fact I have sent my calculations to Timeform for them to explain to me why they have done this and here they get their calculations from. Sea Bird 11 The reason I think Sea Bird 11 was rated wrongly by Timeform from the very beginning was because in his Arc de Triomphe he beat 137 rated, hitherto unbeaten, Reliance by 6 lengths in a canter with the 130 rated Diatome a further 5 lengths in third. Reliance was confirming form with Diatome. Through Reliance he should be rated 151 and through Diatome he should have been rated 154. When you consider Sea Bird 11 beat a 130 rated horse 11 lengths into third and compare it with supposedly Frankel's greatest success where, in the Queen Anne he beat 115 rated Side Glance the same 11 lengths into third shows quite clearly how Timeform have completely lost the plot. |
|
By:
Brigust, you really have no conception of how to apply rating, your misguided and utterly blinkered view is bewildering beyond belief.
First of all I haven't said that Canford Cliffs or Excelebration are superior to Mill Reef, rather I've submitted evidence that on all available imformation that he could only be considered on a par with those colts over a mile. As for the 1971 2000 Guineas, yes it is beyond the possiblity that they all ran to their TF ratings as explained previously. You are now going beyond rediculous including Good Bond in your calculataions. To prove how rediculous going further back to beaten horses is, Pathfork a dual G1 winner(and incidently the 1st horse home that was not held up off the pace according the the RP) had an official rating of 120 going into the Guineas, he was beaten 26L, that would mean Frankel ran to an OR of 191 or in TF terms nearly 200!! You're interpretations seem to take that every horse runs to their highest ever rating every time and you take that as matter of fact, therefore do you take as matter of fact that Frankel should rated as near 200 on a line through a dual G1 winner. No, I thought not, but thats the nonsense you constantly regurgitate. Admit defeat Brigust, Answer this question. On all know evidence was Mill Reef as good over a mile as over 10/12F. I don't want any spiel what he did or didn't do, on the evidence presented before you was Mill Reef a 141 TF rated miler? Your credidibility depends on your answer. |
|
By:
I think your latest post Soft Pawn shows just what kind of argumentative and deluded individual you are. You bring up horses like Slim Shadey as a guide and I respond with Good Bond simply to show how ridiculous you are becoming and you attack me for bringing up Good Bond. Get a life you silly man.
The above utterance, and that is giving it more credit than it deserves, shows particularly just how you have no concept of horse racing or ratings. You dive about here and there to find any diverse reason you can to belittle Brigadier Gerard while at the very same time you what a good horse he was. Every post I make is a response to one or other ridiculous claim you make so I will not continue with this one sided silly attack by you. If you cannot accept that Brigadier Gerard deserves to be rated at least the same as Frankel that is your problem, you live with it. |
|
By:
Soft pawn you don't seem like a bad lad but you keep coming up with some absolute beauties.....
 To suggest that Canford or Excelebration were on a par with Mill Reef over any trip is lunacy.....i don't think you realise just how quick he was as a two year old.....to win a coventry by six lengths and a grimcrack by ten!.........what has Excelebration done to be mentioned in the same sentence?........Canford at least could be considered an above average miler but thats all. Forget about TF ratings,they are just meaningless ramblings from an outdated tipping service, there is just no way to compare Frankel to the Brigadier and that is no fault of Frankels btw. |
|
By:
Brigust, you are shying away from my question. You said that Mill Reef was as good over a mile than over 10/12F. I have provided evidence that this is not so. Both horses were rated 141 by TF at the end of their 3 year-old careers, yet Brigadier Gerard beat him 3L easily over a mile. It was Brigadier Gerard's seasonal debut, so although possible he showed his best that day it was probable that he improved later.
My Swallow was rated 132 at the end of 1971, this is by virtue of how close he was to BG on Guineas day, his other form through 1971 was way below 132. So we have on all available evidence that at best Mill Reef was somewhere in the mid TF 130's probably lower, and the likely thing is that BG improved later so probably didn't run to 141 on that occasion and My Swallow never ran close to 132 in his other starts in 1971. Please Brigust, accept you're wrong, I've provided the evidence based on all available information that 141 rated Mill Reef coudn't be the same horse as 141 rated Brigadier Gerard over a mile. As for you topfarrier, I don't think as TF as empirical evidence, but they are a very well respected organization that have been rating horses for over 60yrs and it is Brigust that keeps quoting their ratings. Topfarrier you say that Canford Cliffs and Excelebration aren't fit to be mentioned in the same breath as Mill Reef, you are falling into the same mistake as Brigust. I'm not saying that they are better that Mill Reef, just that at best over a mile Mill Reef was on all available avidence about on a par with those two colts. Again Brigust, I ask you to justify your statement Mill Reef was as good a miler than at 10/12F. Brigust, I implore you to deal with the available evidence, please do not ignore my question, was Mill Reef as good over a mile as over 10/12F. |
|
By:
mill reefs gimcrack was outrageous, nothing canford excelbration or any other 2 yr old since has come close too! arazi's bc is close bit mill reefs was better imo
bg v frankel...... i just dont know but on performances on the track that we can all judge them by and not the 'supposed' ability that they have apparently in the locker bg has to be the winner. in actual race ? who knows but bg proved more, not frankels fault i suppose but still....! |
|
By:
SP why do you keep coming on here talking rubbish. I don't have to prove anything to you. It is what I believe that matters to me not what you think. You have proved absolutely and conclusively nothing because you don't know.
And stop imploring me and begging me to listen to the utter rubbish you come out with night after night. I have tried, goodness knows I have tried but you obviously spend all day dreaming up some wierd and onderful schemes based on absolutely nothing and all it is is utter rubbish and I really haven't the time available to educate you. If you think Canford Cliffs and Excelebration are/were as good at a mile as Mill Reef that is your problem not mine, live with it. This is supposed to be a forum where ideas and thoughts are discussed it is not a platform for you to disabuse great horses and though I have sent a lot of time answering your strange thoughts I have to accept you are beyond me. |
|
By:
Brigust, Don't try to patronise me, I'll ask once again "On all available evidence, was Mill Reef as good over a mile as over 10/12F"?
This was your statement, I've provided evidence to back up my argument, you keep telling me I'm talking rubbish and I'm weird, if so back up your statement with facts. Winning the Gimcrack at 2 by 10L on heavy ground from a fast ground horse is not empirical fact that he was as good over a mile as at 10/12F. Please tell me how on all avaible evidence that Mill Reef was as good over a mile at 3 than Brigadier Gerard, thats the S#ite you're coming up with. |
|
By:
Soft Pawn ffs give it a rest. Mill Reef only ran once over a mile, twice over 10 furlongs and 4 times over 12 furlongs. I don't know but what I have shown you is how Mill Reef, through the 1971 2000Gns without Brigadier Gerard, would have beaten Frankel on Timeform ratings. With Mill Reef beating My Swallow (135) and Minsky (123)compared with Frankel beating Dubawi Gold (113)and Native Khan (115). So logically I have already proved beyond doubt that Mill Reef was better than Canford Cliffs and Excelebration. You just only read what you want to read. You add it up ffs.
That is proof. That is an empirical fact. If you don't like it, whatever you do, don't confuse me with someone who cares what you think because you completely avoid the points I have made and are just argumentative and destructive just for the sake of it. I have also shown you through the Timeform rating system how Brigadier Gerard should be rated higher than Frankel in both the 2000 Gns and the QE11 '72. I have shown you through the Timeform rating system how Sea Bird 11 should be rated much higher than Frankel where, in the Arc de Triomhe he beat Reliance rated 137 and Diatome rated 130 by 11 lengths compared with the Queen Anne of 2012 where Frankel beat Side Glance rated 115 by 11 lengths. I have nothing against Frankel but I have a huge question mark against the Timeform rating system. That is my gripe. |
|
By:
Brigust, If yout gripe is against Timeform why do continually use them as a reference for the ability of BG, Mill Reef, Sea Bird etc. I'm only replying to you using your reference material.
I feel I must correct you, My Swallow was rated 132 by Timeform at 3, this by virtue of how close he was to BG in the Guineas, none of his others starts at 3 were close to 132, therefore there is an element of doubt whether he could could have been at that level in the Guineas. BG ended 1971 at 141, again there must be an element of doubt whether he put up his best performance of 1971 in his first start of the season. If we are to believe BG and My Swallow did run up to their best that day then the best we attribute to Mill Reef over the mile is 134, do you not agree with that empirical fact. If that is true then I'd be correct in my assessment that over a mile Mill Reef was about the same level as Canford Cliffs. Do you accept my analysis? |
|
By:
Sorry but I have just now joined in this thread and couldn't be bothered to plough through all the posts so apologies if anyone has posted this already.
Surely it's impossible to decide who is best from generation to generation, so why not simply refer to each of the champs from the different generations as "all time greats". Nobody can possibly doubt that the Brigadier was an all time great just as nobody can dispute that Frankel is an all time great, despite somebody joking that he dodged So You Think, as were Sea The Stars and Dancing Brave in their time. There have been lots of all time greats through the years and to lessen their greatness by trying to demean them to prove that your favourite is better than the rest is wrong imo. Everbody is entitled to have their all time favourite and to believe he/she was the greatest ever, but their argument is ruined by denegrating other favourites. Having said all that, although I'm a massive Frankel fan, I tend to agree with Brigust's reasons for starting this thread. |
|
By:
Soft Pawn you don't know what My Swallow was rated for the 2000 Gns so be quiet. My Swallow ran 12 times in just over a year winning 4 Group 1's and being placed in 2 Group 1's and Frankel has run 12 times in three seasons. It is completely feasable he was on a high rating after the 2000 Guineas then dropped after his two subsequent defeats. When you look at the ratings of Excelebration and Farhh it is very concievable. So please don't correct me as if you somehow have some superior knowledge beause you don't. I am not in the least interested in your opinon and if you think I am going to agree with your ridiculous hypothesis you are mad as well.
You in yor little world can believe if you wish that Mill Reef was as good as Canford Cliffs and Excelebration but the facts on the ground speak otherwise. I don't know who is the best between Frankel and Brigadier Gerard but I certainly don't agree with the Timeform rating Frankel has because the facts do not support his rating. So NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO I do not accept your assessment because it is just plain stupid. |
|
By:
Excelebration has just beaten 8 previous G1 winners at Deauville, does that not underline the absolute brilliance of Frankel!
|
|
By:
Imagine what Frankel would have done to the field.
The best miler ever |
|
By:
Yes, but I'm already in your camp.
|
|
By:
It has and always will be down to the individual to decide for themselves who they believe to be the greatest, no debate however long will ever be resolved between two or more people when it is a topic of this kind, at least not to everyone's satisfaction and that's the way it should be when horse's from different era's are involved.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and no other has the right or authority to argue that the other is wrong and that their own view is superior, it is meaningless and insulting. I'm sure all who have posted believe themselves to be right and all others should have the courtesy to respect that fact whether they are in agreement or not. This thread has lasted well with some very interesting and well written views but is in danger of descending into farce now because the same points are being raised and discussed repeatedly because the relevant individuals are blinkered by their own beliefs and are now just going round in circles. |
|
By:
Well said Cork. I hope the Frankel fans had their money down. I know I did.
|
|
By:
Impossible to compare previous generations so i for one will not say Frankel is better than the Brig or vice versa.
However todays result shows Frankel to be light years ahead of the other current crop of milers. |
|
By:
Glad to hear that Brigust, I had a bob or two on him as well, he had the best form in the race. My only concern was the drubbings by Frankel could have bottomed him, but a great result.
|
|
By:
He was the best horse and highest rated in the race. I couldn't beleve some of the comments on here or that Laddies went 5/2 and then SJ went 11/4. Feet up time.
|
|
By:
Just being mischievous here Brigust but you can't believe the price about a horse that, according to you, doesn't truly stay a mile taking on 8 Group 1 winners over a mile?
|
|
By:
Marcce no I can't I had 1k on him at various and 300 (at 3.6, 3.8 and 4) of it on here. Thanks all the same, I hope all the Frankel fans who give me grief followed suit.
He was the highest rated and, as I've said before the number of Group 1's nowadays only devalues the breed. For betting it is fine but for quality I would rather have 2 horses who have won 4 Group 1's each. |
|
By:
Not waving but drowning eh Brigust.
|
|
By:
Give us a clue Tree?
|
|
By:
Take a look at the 'If Exelebration gets beat tomorrow' thread.
|
|
By:
Just joking Brigust.Great thread by the way.
|
|
By:
That's OK Tree, I hope you had a few quid on.
And I couldn't have written a much better script. I backed the winner because I couldn't see him getting beaten but he was desperately, desperately, desperately lucky because Moonlight Cloud was the moral winner. At least that's what some are saying. |
|
By:
However todays result shows Frankel to be light years ahead of the other current crop of milers.
Who knew?!  |
|
By:
brigust1 12 Aug 12 16:50 Marcce no I can't I had 1k on him at various and 300 (at 3.6, 3.8 and 4) of it on here. Thanks all the same, I hope all the Frankel fans who give me grief followed suit. He was the highest rated and, as I've said before the number of Group 1's nowadays only devalues the breed. For betting it is fine but for quality I would rather have 2 horses who have won 4 Group 1's each. He did beat four opponents with more than 1 G1 victory, Golden Lilac is a triple G1 scorer, not quite up to scratch for you but pretty good all the same.  |
|
By:
Stop nit-picking SP. I was speaking hypothetically. A winner of four Gr1's just has more substance than the winner a single Group1, that's all. You know very well what I mean. Have the night off.
|
|
By:
Pull yourself a Carlsberg Brigadier Gerard or, if you are on the wagon a Frankel 'light'.
|