If Darryll Holland had never sat on Falbrav, all these boats would be playing second fiddle to the Italian monster.

BG was one of the best and toughest horses of the century. I shook my head in disbelief when I saw his race record in the York pub named after him because he was aimed at the best race every time he ran and that didnt happen then (20+ years ago ) or now. As someone else mentioned Mill Reef was  clearly best at middle distances so it is the case that  inferior horses could have beaten him over a mile. Frankel has been beating milers and good ones too.

What's the matter with you today Uncan, eh trying to upset forumites on different threads.
Behave yourself will you, is it not a little more interesting than requesting
the split times from the foot crossing 1 and half furlongs out at york, eh.
There's an seat for every ar$e.

i made a request, i wasnt trying to be interesting...i have never 'bored' people with any discussion on sectional times

Its always difficult to compare horses of different eras. Also one tends to give extra kudos to horses that were around when you were young. Having said all that I will say two things about Frankel which to my mind place him above all others that I have seen (I am 41 btw). Firstly I do not think any other horse I have seen would have won last years SJP given the almighty mess Queally made in the race regarding the timing and brutality of the move he made to catch the pacemaker. Secondly of all the horses I have seen effective over a mile (and doubtless 1m2f at least) he appears to have the most tactical speed. He is the fastest 'non-sprinter' I have seen if you like. I have little doubt that this horse could have won both the Kings Stand and the Diamond Jubilee if it had been entered. This is only a personal opinion but it means more than ratings / weights and measures to people when they form a strong visual impression. He is the best I have seen and I hope as the season unfolds races will pan out in a way  that will allow him to improve his rating and leave an indelible impression as the greatest of the modern era.

Both myself and Brigust agreed that trying to compare horses of different eras is ultimately futile on another of these threads the other day. However, he seems determined to do so.

Brigust I do wish you'd stop referring to that win over Zoffany as a weakness. Everyone knows what happened in that race. The time before that when he came round a bend he routed the opposition in the Royal Lodge.

And this is ultimately what sets him apart from any other horse I've seen. The fact that race after race he keeps turning up and demolishing his opposition. You can crab the opposition or the fact they haven't stepped him up in trip but the sheer consistency of these efforts is astonishing.

Quite frankly, many horses would have been bottomed by the run in the Guineas let alone the Ascot race on top of it in his next run. It's a pretty special horse that wins the races he has whilst also invariably running to marks in the high 130's at the same time.

I'd say it's pointless to try and compare the creme de la creme purely because it comes down to a couple of pounds either way and it's all subjective.

For example is there more merit in winning races exclusively at a mile whilst running to marks of 140 than it is to win races varying between a mile and a mile and a half whilst only running to marks in the low 130's?

Post race hype can be a great source of later embarresment. I really rate Nick Luck and having met him he is a top bloke. he is a bit prone to getting carried away post race (watch RUK video of Denman's Gold Cup for example). Nothing wrong with a bit of passion.

what are we saying then, the spain side from the past 4 years can't be considered the greatest ever because the opposition are poor.The opposition is poor but any fool can see through their performances that they are/have been something very special,just like with watching frankel, we can all see that there is something very special within the actual performance that sets him apart, before he smashes up the juddmonte field in august can we have it on here before just how good the field is.

It's not frankels fault that the milers aren't up to anything to a level that could threaten him, but to state that you could have a truly great horse in our midst but can't be considered it because through no fault of his own there aren't other great horses around at the same time for him to beat doesn't add up.

you can beat inferior opposition and look great, this is a fact.

if that inferior opposition then win other races, then you can state that the form is solid etc.

if the level of form shown by the opposition does not add up, then by using collateral form, you should be able to ascertain the value of the form and come to a fair rating.

nobody is suggesting that Frankel is not a damn good horse but the greatest (miler) ever on the evidence shown so far ?!

suppose he fires blanks ,what would you rather have as a hack,
frankel or big bucks -


big bucks for me

The same was said after Tudor Minstrel's 8 length Guineas romp , Nijinsky's King George , Dancing Brave's Arc and Arazi's Breeders Cup Juvenile , and a few more besides , most racing pundit's have the memory span of a mollusc.

brigust - on the Willie Carson point just remind me how many winners you have ridden in relation to Carson's 3828?

I agree that it matters not what Carson thinks in terms of one's own opinion but when the bloke that RODE (not watched on YV) Troy and Nashwan says Frankel is the best he has seen I am inclined to not completely disregard it.

Everyone in the industry - trainers , jockeys and a large number of commentators (including Tony Morris who has seen them all) say Frankel is the best they have seen. I agree. You are entitled to your valid opinion however lack of opposition is not a reason to knock the horse. It is theoretically possible for it it demonstrate its position at the head of the list by beating horses rated 60 - as long as they run to their raring  and it beats them far enough at the weights. Lets face it in the Queen Anne if Queally had pressed the button 50 yards earlier it would have won by 15l , 50 yards later by 8. So what? Anyone can see that the horse is value for more than its official winning distance - as funnily enough was Sea the Stars a number of times it  ran.

I am not saying he is right - I am saying his opinion is at the very least as valid as everyone else's

But Brigust you're missing the point here. Hi btw and I referred to the Zoffany thing because it's not the first time you've brought it up.

I don't give a monkeys what Timeform, Wille Carson or anyone else says. Without any possible way of proving it to definitely be the case, I consider Frankel to be the best horse I've seen. Not particularly for the horses he's beaten but as I've said earlier purely because of the way he has consistently turned in performances of that kind.

But on the various threads you've posted on regarding this you've made it clear you totally disagree with Timeform's rating of him. I don't think you're an idiot because you disagree with it no more than I would think someone was an idiot for not believing Frankel wasn't the best they've seen.

But it seems to me you're spending a huge amount of time arguing a case that cannot possibly be proved either way. Though having read your overview of Brigadier Gerard's form I would be interested in what various experts have to say about it.

HipPriest
02 Jul 12 21:34
Joined:
02 Jul 12
| Topic/replies: 14 | Blogger: HipPriest's blog
brigust - on the Willie Carson point just remind me how many winners you have ridden in relation to Carson's 3828?

I agree that it matters not what Carson thinks in terms of one's own opinion but when the bloke that RODE (not watched on YV) Troy and Nashwan says Frankel is the best he has seen I am inclined to not completely disregard it.

Everyone in the industry - trainers , jockeys and a large number of commentators (including Tony Morris who has seen them all) say Frankel is the best they have seen. I agree. You are entitled to your valid opinion however lack of opposition is not a reason to knock the horse. It is theoretically possible for it it demonstrate its position at the head of the list by beating horses rated 60 - as long as they run to their raring  and it beats them far enough at the weights. Lets face it in the Queen Anne if Queally had pressed the button 50 yards earlier it would have won by 15l , 50 yards later by 8. So what? Anyone can see that the horse is value for more than its official winning distance - as funnily enough was Sea the Stars a number of times it  ran.




dont agree with that, it simply doesnt work that way, as seen in his st james palace win where he almost got beat. even if quealy whopped the sh!t out of frankel he wouldnt have won much further, it simply doesnt make that much of a difference imo. if he kicks earlier he burns more energy faster, kicks later , it allows the others to keep tabs on him longer.

the idea is to set EVEN fractions to get the best performance from the horse. if u set UNEVEN fractions, u get performances like the sjp.

Good morning Ilike and Sandown.

I agree in part about great races etc but that would eliminate too many in my opinion. I am quite happy for horses that are very similar to share accolades especially when there is no way of proving things one way or another. But for an organisation to clearly state that Frankel is the best ever is just opportunism on a sinking ship.
And if you get a horse like Frankel, who I don't even think is the greatest miler ever, let alone greatest racehorse, then other calculating factors must be included. 

Had George Foreman not met Mohammed Ali he would have been acclaimed the greatest boxer ever. That is because his wins were mostly based on appearance although he did actually meet some top quality boxers including Joe Frazier. On the otherside of the coin Frankels position is based almost entirely on appearance because none of the horses he has beaten will go down in the history of the sport like Frazier in boxing.

brigust1

Good morning to you too.

I guess the debate about "greatest racehorse ever" would have been easy to answer for the first century or so of horse racing given Eclipse's unbeaten record of 18 races bwinning by a distance mostly and walking 1400 miles in total to reach the racecourse!


In modern times, there have been many claimants to the title and each will still have his or her supporters today.

The Frankel debate is mainly about handicapping, it seems to me, and specifically TF's rating as the best in their time.

There is a rather set-in-stone view that collateral ratings are the be-all and end-all of handicapping and that there is no room for doubt or even debate except at the margins.

I flatly refuse to except that a single figure, be it collateral or time-based, can ever describe accurately enough the level of a single performance or even overall ability, and that this flaw, for that is what it amounts to, has been present ever since ratings were first devised back in the 40's. I am sure that if Phil Bull were alive today he would be the first to admit that such ratings are uni-dimensional when multi-dimensional is the reality.

Nadal was beaten at Wimbledon last week and his successful opponent was thrashed next time. Usain Bolt has lost recently. Were both beaten by better players? Should they be rated as superior?

The inadequacy of a single-figure rating based on collateral form to accurately measure performance is at the root of this debate, imo.

brigust1

A case of "premature ejaculation" I suppose on TF's part.

Brigust

Having looked through Brigadier Gerard's form again I'll refer back to the point I made yesterday. The sheer consistency of Frankel's performances is astonishing.

Looking at Brigadier Gerard's form there's performances in there where he's clearly not run to his best and scraped home against horses he'd beaten much further both before and after. That just hasn't happened so far with Frankel. And regardless of your thoughts on whether the horse has been campaigned aggressively enough, for him to continually run to marks in the high 130's race after race he has to be a remarkable horse in my opinion.

And again, it comes down to another point I made yesterday. Is it versatility over different distances that's the defining factor in best ever? Should a horse winning races from a mile to a mile and a half whilst running to marks in the low 130's be considered as better than a horse running over a mile who consistently runs to marks of 140?

From a form perspective I'd be concerned about the number of very small field races Brigadier Gerard won on extremes of going. For example, beating Sparkler by a head off levels in a 4 runner race on very soft ground in 1971 and then beating him by 6 lengths giving 7 pounds in a 4 runner race on firm ground in 1972. How much of that 130 rating given to Sparkler in 1971 could be attributed to finishing so close to Brigadier Gerard?

And given the extremes of going that seemed to be prevalent throughout 1971 and 1972 how much of the form achieved by the other horses you describe as "greats" was achieved in very small fields on very soft or very firm ground?

Again, I'm not denigrating Brigadier Gerard's achievements. I'm just putting some possible reasons out there as to why Timeform have seen Frankel's form as worthy of a higher rating than Brigadier Gerard's.