Yes I have already.

Actually I should be working on the higher figure not the lowest. I remember on TML when they were talking about Sea the Stars they said they had him on 136 but would round it upor down depending on how his opponents performed. So it is basically the figure at the end of the season they should refer to.

Frankel has only got Excelebration, Dubawi Gold and Side Glance running for him.

And I have just watched Dancing Brave winning the Eclipse. Great performance beating Triptych and co. How can beating Side Glance be better?

Great performance beating Triptych and co. How can beating Side Glance be better?


DBrave won by 4 (FOUR) lengths, Frankel won by 11 (ELEVEN) lengths....

...which i think was where we were at about 10 days ago on another thread, so i'm calling it a day while i've still got my sanity!

FFS

Felt- that is perfectly valid in the context this debate. I reckon the day Warning won the Sussex Stakes it would have given them all a race.

DI, Harbinger bt Cape Blanco 11 (ELEVEN) lengths and Cape Blanco has since won 4 (FOUR) Group 1's. Side Glance would never win a Group 1.
In Harbinger's race there were less runners but still bewteen them the opposition had won 10 Group 1's. In Frankel's race the opposition had only won 1 Group 1.

Side Glance was placed, if you can call it that, because the race was Soooo bad.

Dancing Brave beat Triptych, rated 133 and multiple Group 1 winner, by 4 lengths. According to Tf's calculations that puts Dancing Brave on 144.

This clearly shows the problems Timeform have when including lower rated horses in their calculations. Especially when all of the horses they are using to reach their figures only achieved their lofty rating against Frankel.

I just love debating about quality horses. The majority of current races are shoite to say the least so talking, debating, arguing about champions, on a horse racing forum, is good fun.

I could talk about the banking crisis, or the Conservative government or the price of fish but this is a horse racing forum. And until the mighty Frankel definitely, in my opinion, reaches the standard I believe should be reached to be acclaimed the 'greatest ever' then I will continue to debate with anyone who wants to respond.

When you reach my age DI I hope you will look back at the champions you will see in your lifetime and see that I am talking sense. It may not be today, it may not be tomorrow, but it will be soon and for the rest of your life.

Brigust you are just going round in circles. Ultimately you do not believe Frankel is the greatest you have seen. Others do. As this thread amply demonstrates no one can conclusively prove he is or is not the best ever.In all probability he is high up on the list of candidates. Thats the end of it. Now go and have nice cup of tea.

Brigust you are just going round in circles. Ultimately you do not believe Frankel is the greatest you have seen. Others do. As this thread amply demonstrates no one can conclusively prove he is or is not the best ever.In all probability he is high up on the list of candidates. Thats the end of it. Now go and have nice cup of tea.

Brigust you are just going round in circles. Ultimately you do not believe Frankel is the greatest you have seen. Others do. As this thread amply demonstrates no one can conclusively prove he is or is not the best ever.In all probability he is high up on the list of candidates. Thats the end of it. Now go and have nice cup of tea.

Enjoy your 6 cups of tea Brig!

Oops Playbook on train nightmare sorry.

A fortnight debating handicapping? If you consider whether or not Frankel should be acclaimed the 'greatest ever' then I suppose loosely I am debating handicapping. But if DI, if you read the title of the thread it is based upon Mellish and Hislop telling those silly enough to watch and, even worse, silly enough to listen that we must be blind not thinking Frankel is the 'greatest ever'.

I suggest they were talking to you too, DI, and you may agree or not but I didn't and posted accordingly. I think I have been pretty succinct and put a fair case for those who may disagree. I do wish more people had put a case for Dancing Brave etc. but at least,thankfully, some put forward cases for those who agree and pushed the debate into quite a bit of detail.

If you prefer a horse racing forum to be about 'crashing in Serena William's back doors' then this forum is the place for you. Many of the old forumites have disappeared, discouraged by the ridiculously low level this forum has fallen to and the number of posters has probably never been lower.

I would like a horse racing forum to be a place where anyone with a view about horse racing in general can express their views. You do not have to read the thread. You do not have to contribute but I suggest that, seeing as you are clearly not stupid, there are probably few sensible threads for you to go on.

When you can learn to read Hip, I will respond to your statement. But not until.

You are the one who cannot read Brigust. Nor do you understand the basics of handicapping. I have made the point several times on this thread (you have chosen to ignore me in your Brigadier Gerard driven mania) that it is perfectly possible for the greatest horse of all time to gain that accolade by racing only against horses rated 45. Its a purely rational point but it is true. Do you dispute that?

Looking forward to Frankel smashing up Nathaniel - I mean really beating it pointless- so the BHA can elevate his ranking to the level it deserves.

Yep.

Yes, it cannot be done.

Do they try for second, after all a close 2nd to Frankel would, when you think about it, would be almost as good (in stud advertising terms be a good as winning the KG).

Is it not uncanny the number of high class horses that mysteriously under perform when taking on Frankel especially those that are given "positive" rides to actually try to cover Queally's moves.

Excelebration, I think has got unfair treatment on this forum. He's unlucky to be around the same time as Frankel and would surely have won at least another couple of G1's. Let's look at what he has achieved when Frankel was absent last year.
Won - G2 German 2000 Guineas by 7L, bare form may not amount to much, but did what you might expect a genuine top class horse to do.
Won - G2 Hungerford Stakes by 6L, Beacon Lodge who was 2nd was in the best form of his career in 2011 being placed in Group company behind the like of Byword, Libranno, Strong Suit and Dubawi Gold not beaten more than a 2L by those horses who are all at least G2 class, so Excelebration's 6L drubbing was that of a top class colt, Musir a multiple Group race winner was 3rd to give that form solidity.
Won - G1 Prix du Moulin by 1.5L, Rio de la Plata and Rajsaman were the placed horses both has disappointed in Dubai since but last season both were in peak form, they went on to fight the finish of a G2 next time out, RDLP went on to be beaten in a photo in a G1 in Italy, Rajsaman had already won a G2 from Byword and has been a 1L 2nd to Goldikova. In 4th was Dubawi Gold twice classic placed, also well behind was French 2000 winner Tin Horse, who in other G1's last season had got a lot closer to Reliable Man, Golden Lilac, Cirrus des Aigles, Goldikova, Immortal Verse, Bubble Chic and Saphresa that he got to Excelebration.

This level of form alone even ignoring how close he got to Frankel, suggests that Excelebration is a top quality miler easily justifying a TF of around the low 130's. He would be among the very best milers of the last 10 years or so, similar in class to the likes of Canford Cliffs, Goldikova and Rock of Gibraltar, that fact he hasn't got their record is that he keeps running into Frankel. Does anyone seriously think that CC, Goldi or RoG would have won any race that Frankel turned up for, for that matter does anyone seriously think any of those esteem milers would have got an awful lot closer to Frankel than Excelebration.

No, I don't think so either.