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:
Marcce, in trying to be simply antagonistic and not discussionary you once again miss the whole point. You add absolutely nothing to the debate and crticise everything. Don't you understand the whole thing is hypothetical ffs. Did you think it was real? Did you? It is hypothetical. We cannot dig old racehorses up so we hypothesize. I was using a pefectly credible method widely used on the BBc and RUK to dissect races. Hypothesize.
Times are largely irrelevent because no-one knows what the exact going was and what the racecourses were like. So we hypothesize. If you don't like it go onto another thread and be a nuisance on there. This is a forum ffs. |
|
By:
No Brigust you miss the point.
You say I criticise everything. Quite wrong dear chap, I criticise your completely blinkered viewpoints and your increasingly wild attempts to justify them. Complete boredom prevents me from once again listing the whole raft of arguments and expert views you have summarily dismissed throughout this and other threads on the subject because they didn't meet your opinion. The difference between us you see is that I am quite happy to listen to arguments both for and against Frankel. You on the other hand are desperate for everyone to conform to your view and therefore will only ever be able to see this from one angle. Therefore, debate is not even on the agenda for you. And you have previously said the only thing that interests you is actual form. Then you want to look at things hypothetically. Well I suggest you start by looking at the 1971 2000 Guineas from the perspective of the horses ratings at that particular time rather than what they ultimately ended up being rated as. |
|
By:
Of course you are right Marcce. But I suggest you will again say I miss the point. But to please you, just this once, I will revert back to the ratings of the 1971 2000 Gns.
|
|
By:
And here they are: The Official Rating system was not in place then.
The Free handicap for 1970. My Swallow 9st 7lbs Mill Reef 9st 6lbs Brigadier Gerard 9st 5lbs These horse had run 17 times with one defeat by a neck where My Swallow bt Mill Reef. in the 1971 and 1972 seasons these 3 horses ran 28 times producing 21 wins, 4-2nds and 1-3rd. The wins included 2000Gns, Epsom Derby, Eclipse (twice 71 & 72), King George (twice 71 & 72), Arc, Prix Ganay, Coronation Cup, Sussex Stakes, Lockinge, QE11 (twice 71 & 72), Champion Stakes (twice 71 & 72), St James Palace, Prince of Wales, Greenham, Westbury, Goodwood Mile, Kempton Gns trial. The equivalent of 17 Group 1's. The Free Handicap for 2010. Dream Ahead 126 Frankel 126 Casamento 120 These horses had won 10 races between them with one defeat by Frankel on Dream Ahead. to date these 3 horses have run 14 times winning 10 and unplaced in 4. The wins include 2000Gns, St James Palace, Sussex Stakes, QE11, Lockinge, Queen Anne, July Cup, Betfred, Prix Foret, Greenham. There may be 3 more wins to add to that list including Sussex Stakes, Juddmonte and Champion Stakes. The equivalent of 9 Group 1's with a possible 3 to come. |
|
By:
Of the 4 - 2nds and 1 - 3rd. One 2nd and the 3rd were behind Brigadier Gerard in the 2000 Gns.
One 2nd was My Swallow beaten 6 lengths by Faraway Son. Faraway Son then ran in the Sussex Stakes and was beaten 5 lengths by Brigadier Gerard and wasn't beaten again in his remaining 3 races before going to stud. One 2nd was My Swallow touched off in the July Cup, he then retired to stud. And the final 2nd was Brigadier Gerard beaten by the Derby winner Roberto in receipt of 11lbs. No unplaced. |
|
By:
an interesting thread,
Marcce and duncan idaho appear to be arguing for the sake of arguing, and Brigust1 is doing very nicely but in vain I fear. |
|
By:
 you couldnt make it up |
|
By:
Three furlongs out on the 1971 2000Gns Mill Reef was 2 lengths in front of Brigadier Gerard. At the line Mill Reef was 3 lengths behind him. That means had he and Brigadier Gerard been level 3 furlongs out then Brigadier Gerard would have won by 5 lengths.
Are you with me? In the 2012 Queen Anne 3 furlongs out Frankel was 4 lengths in front of Side Glance and at the line he was 11 lengths in front of him. That means had Frankel and Side Glance been level 3 out then Frankel would have beaten Side Glance by 7 lengths. If Frankel (147) is rated 3lbs better than Brigadier Gerard (144)that would put Brigadier Gerard 1 ½ lengths behind Frankel. As Mill Reef is 5 lengths behind Brigadier Gerard and Side Glance is 7 lengths behind Frankel that would put Mill Reef 6 1/2 lengths behind Frankel and Side Glance ½ behind Mill Reef. Mill Reef is rated 141 and Side Glance 117. And he would beat Side Glance 1/2 a length. Are you fo oking kidding me? Brigust, with all due respect (and I admire your crusade on behalf of BG), the use of the above to judge horses of different era's, on different courses, on different going, possibly using different tactics is flawed, or as Blackadder would say .............. it's Bolloc*s  |
|
By:
Actually it's Bolloc*s without all the 'differences'
|
|
By:
I always hugely respected your views Andrew. Hugely. In fact I had wondered for a while why you had not proffered them before. Succinct, to the point and .....
|
|
By:
I have never seen a better miler than Frankel, but I am going on what I see rather than look at the formbook. I do wonder if Timeform have gone over the top wth this rating and maybe could have waited until the season has finished. It certainly does the sport no harm to say that at the moment we have the the greatest horse ever.
|
|
By:
You guys who simply criticise add nothing at all to the debate. I had hoped by now that someone would have come forward listing all the positive points about Frankel's achievements. It is a bit like playing table tennis on your own. Tiring.
|
|
By:
Brigust, I accept it's all about opinions,
you are on the BG side ...... i'm on the Frankel side, it doesn't need to be WW III |
|
By:
The most idiotic thread I've ever read. Clowns.
|
|
By:
You cannot read many on the politics forum then Johnny
 |
|
By:
That was positive Steamship. Well done. Perhaps now you could tell us the 2nd best miler you have seen so that we can get an idea where you are coming from.
Andrew I was only joking. I didn't copy anything you said and relay it in bold. I was only joking. Had you offered something constructive we could have discussed it. |
|
By:
So Max, according to you I should listen to Timeform, and you of course, and ignore my own views. That just about sums it up does it?
|
|
By:
the people who are citing Frankel as the best ever seem to be saying that he is the best ever because it's them that says so,
seems a pretty solid argument Brigust |
|
By:
I'm not completely downhearted Vol, after all Timeform did rate Brigadier Gerard winning the Queen Anne by 10 lengths and Mill Reef winning it by 9 lengths.
Everyone, including Timeform say Frankel's latest win was the 147 where he beat 117 rated Side Glance into 3rd by 11 lengths. Of course they overlook the fact that Brigadier Gerard beat Joshua rated 129 into 3rd beaten 12.5 lengths. And Redundent rated 118 into 3rd by 11 lengths. And Gold Rod rated 128 by 10.5 lengths into 3rd. They just overlook it like it didn't happen. Yes you do give your view regularly Max, whoevers it is. |
|
By:
No need to be so patronising brigust, that was my first post on this thread. I never saw BG but I have watched him on You Tube, and although the form is brilliant, does it actually grab you like Frankel does? The problem is that none of us are looking at this without a bias and the thought that the era that you raelly got into racing is the best. As for my 2nd best as I say for milers I can maybe go back 28 years so off the top of my head up there are.
Zilzal Miesque Warning |
|
By:
Max I am not saying you should listen to me that is why I am putting down the facts. You may have already known all about BG but some haven't. I was simply trying to enlighten anyone willing to listen that in the early 70's there was a horse the equivalent of Frankel. I genuinely thought you may have been interested. Quite a few people have come on here and agreed there was such an animal. They might think Frankel is better, that is their choice. How one-sided life would be if we were all Max-Reloaded. Eh?
Yes I am sorry Steamship that is exactly how I didn't want it to sound. I should have worded it better. I do try yoy know. I was/am a huge fan of Miesque but Warning cost me a few bob so he isn't one of my favourites. A good tool though. Didn't stay further than a mile, I don't think. |
|
By:
FFS Steamship,
as mentioned before on the thread, ANY horse can look impressive against inferior opposition, it's who you beat and what they achieve afterwards (or have already achieved) that makes the form stand out, Frankel has 'looked' great but in a pretty moderate bunch ! |
|
By:
Steamship it never is the same when you know the result. There isn't the build up over weeks and days and the anticipation of the race. Nothing can replicate that.
This season Brigadier Gerard would have won the Lockinge, the Gordon Richards, Prince of Wales and be running on Saturfday in the Eclipse. Then 2 weeks later running in the King George. I know you cannot go back in time but just imagine for a moment if Frankel had taken that route. Just imagine, eh? In fact it sounds almost too good to believe but it did happen. No-one but no-one would be thinking about anything else. |
|
By:
Of course they overlook the fact that Brigadier Gerard beat Joshua rated 129 into 3rd beaten 12.5 lengths.
And Redundent rated 118 into 3rd by 11 lengths. And Gold Rod rated 128 by 10.5 lengths into 3rd. They just overlook it like it didn't happen. get in touch with them, brigust, and ask about how they rated those races...i'd bet good money they havent just 'overlooked it'. Is it possible for your to reproduce any of those results on here? i havent got formbooks going back that far. my guess would be that those horses you mention didnt run to their rating in those races? (they couldnt have done tbh) |
|
By:
Sorry volontiers keep your knickers on, my original post does say that it is without looking at the formbook. If a horse is never beaten and never looks like being beaten then no matter what it is racing against, he can do no more. In my eyes the 1 outstanding horse that Frankel met was Canford Cliffs and he beat him easily by taking him out of his comfort zone. The 200gs line up looked good before the race but Frankel anihilated them. As for Excellebration peoplet keep knocking him but again if not racing against Frankel then he wins.
brig Warning tried the Eclipse but certainly did not stay. What about Zilzal? |
|
By:
Steamship
I never saw BG but I have watched him on You Tube, and although the form is brilliant, does it actually grab you like Frankel does? I only read as far as that before replying, sorry to have touched a nerve. |
|
By:
That's the problem with Frankel, the fact that they are not taking him out of his comfort zone.
|
|
By:
DI. How is this for you?
In the QE11 1972. Brigadier Gerard beat Sparkler by 6 lengths with Redundent 5 lengths way in third. Sparkler was/is rated 129 and Redundent 118. On the Morning Line the Timeform media chap had a graphic showing how Frankel achieved 147. He beat Side Glance 11 lengths that is the equivalent of 30lbs. Side Glance is rated 117. All of this was on the graphic and I still have it on my Sky box. On tha basis 30lbs = 11 lengths or 2.73lbs per length. Brigadier Gerard beat Sparkler 6 lengths. 6 x 2.73 = 16.38 Brigadier Gerard was giving Sparkler 7lbs. 7 + 16.38 = 23.38. Sparkler was/is rated 129. 129 + 23.38 = 152.38. Brigadier Gerard should be rated 152. And that is only one example. |
|
By:
In the 1972 Lockinge.
|
|
By:
the media chap they had on the Morning Line also said that the same calculations and process have been in use for 60 yrs, which is why they feel confident/competent in comparing the generations....in which case, they would have been in place for that race....when you say Sparkler was/is rated 129 and Redundent 118. , can i confirm that they are Timeform ratings you are quoting?
|
|
By:
In the 1972 Lockinge. Brigadier Gerard's first run of the season.
Brigadier Gerard bt Grey Mirage by 2.5 lengths with Gold Rod 8 lengths away in third. BG was giving Grey Mirage, rated 125, 22lbs incl wfa of 11lbs. In third was Gold Rod rated 128 at the beginning of '72 but dropped to 120 at the end. Bg bt Gold Rod 10.5 lengths. 10.5 x 2.73 per length = 28.66 Gold Rod was rated 128 at the time. Therefore 128 + 28.66 = 157 However Gold Rod ended up 120. Therefore 120 + 28.66 = 149. As a worst case scenario and Timeform overlooked the 2nd horse in the Queen Anne. Yes they are the ratings from their books at the END of the season in question. If Side Glance performs badly from now on and drops below 117 by the end of the season what then? The ratings were not compiled during the season the way they are now. |
|
By:
but Frankel looks great to the eye and therefore ...
|
|
By:
... therefore Timeform need the publicity. Seeing as how they are doing so well?
|
|
By:
Had Arkle not been rated too highly they would have put Kauto Star above him. Imagine superceding both champions in the space of 6 months after 40 odd years. Spooky.
|
|
By:
BG was giving Grey Mirage, rated 125, 22lbs incl wfa of 11lbs.
the wfa wouldnt be included in calculations, so in ratings calculations he would be considered to be giving him 11lb the ratings that appear in their year end books are the best rating each horse has run to that season- it would be wrong to presume that each horse ran to that rating every time they run that season (obviously) |
|
By:
The ratings were not compiled during the season the way they are now.
as far as i know, Timeform have always had daily racecrads and weekly black books, which require ratings for all horses/performances to be compiled within days of each run |
|
By:
I agree DI, That is why I ignored his higher rating and stuck with the lowest.
|
|
By:
In the QE11 1972 Sparkler had just won his last 2 races so was on a high. I always err on the lower side just in case.
|
|
By:
And you must remember Frankel was rated 144 after the Lockinge when he beat Excelebration 5 lengths. They kept Excelebration on 133 but in the Queen Anne it only ran to 118. So in reality Frankel only ran to 129 in the Lockinge. I know that is wromg but Excelebration supposedly ran to 130 so if he doesn't achieve that again this season what then?
|
|
By:
If Side Glance performs badly from now on and drops below 117 by the end of the season what then?
nothing will change...he'll be rated 117 at end of year, poss with a ? suggesting he may not be capable of running to it anymore...but they were confident of the rating going into the race and in the race, so he will have that in annual look, i'm trying to be constructive cos i've used their ratings plenty in the past and know how they work....as you say, the Frankel rating has got plenty of publicity...there is no way they would leave themselves open to accusations of incompetence by casually 'overlooking' things in the manner you have suggested...those Sea-Bird, Brig Gerard etc ratings will have been checked many times i'm sure i'm sure if you contact them, they would explain any particular Brig Gerard rating you want to query |