There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Am writing this in response to a few threads that have been arguing how highly Frankel (and others) should be rated based on the times he (and they) ran in certain races.
I am by no means a leading authority on speed figures but I think a few things need to be said.
Firstly, as in any scientific comparison, you need to compare like with like if you are to come to a reliable conclusion. So, comparing the time run by Frankel with that run by Sea The Stars a few years back is meaningless. The ground was different, and the distance might have been different too. This is a problem many speed figures gurus will back me up on. Relatively regularly course clerks change the distance of races by half a furlong or more by moving the running rails here and there, and that makes a massive difference to times. That said, the ground and pace in a race is always the key.
I'm not sure whether people that compare times without going beyond the printed digits in the form book actually ask themselves how illogical it is to simply compare times from different days and/or different years. On any given day you can find horses rated in the 90s or higher on the Flat running slower times (and often at the same course) as those rated 20-30lbs lower. That does not mean the lower-rated horse could live with the higher-class ones if they went head to head!
Also, ask yourselves this: When a long-standing track record is broken, have you just seen the best horse ever to have run over this course and distance? Most of the time the answer is a resounding 'No', unless the three or four that chased it home were also within spitting distance of superstars that won in similar or slower times in years gone by. Odd that one run of the mill race showcases more than one champion when this happens, no?
All these pitfalls of using time as a marker (and there are plenty more) outline why it is more useful to compare how far the greats beat other very good horses (taking into account the weight carried of course). This is what makes Frankel such a monster. His form, chastised though it is by many misery bears, stands up to the very closest scrutiny. He has beaten many different multiple Group One winners by daylight without breaking sweat. There do not appear to be any weaknesses in his armour.
For that reason, I don't think anyone should care about the times he has run. Care more about the fact that the times he has run have been achieved under conditions that saw other top-notchers (Canford Cliffs, Excelebration, St Nicholas Abbey) broken to smithereens.
I would never deride the achievements of Sea The Stars, who was a brilliant racehorse and a champion for sure. But realistically how would you price them up in a mythical Juddmonte?
If Frankel was bigger than 2/5 I would bite your hand off.
I am by no means a leading authority on speed figures but I think a few things need to be said.
Firstly, as in any scientific comparison, you need to compare like with like if you are to come to a reliable conclusion. So, comparing the time run by Frankel with that run by Sea The Stars a few years back is meaningless. The ground was different, and the distance might have been different too. This is a problem many speed figures gurus will back me up on. Relatively regularly course clerks change the distance of races by half a furlong or more by moving the running rails here and there, and that makes a massive difference to times. That said, the ground and pace in a race is always the key.
I'm not sure whether people that compare times without going beyond the printed digits in the form book actually ask themselves how illogical it is to simply compare times from different days and/or different years. On any given day you can find horses rated in the 90s or higher on the Flat running slower times (and often at the same course) as those rated 20-30lbs lower. That does not mean the lower-rated horse could live with the higher-class ones if they went head to head!
Also, ask yourselves this: When a long-standing track record is broken, have you just seen the best horse ever to have run over this course and distance? Most of the time the answer is a resounding 'No', unless the three or four that chased it home were also within spitting distance of superstars that won in similar or slower times in years gone by. Odd that one run of the mill race showcases more than one champion when this happens, no?
All these pitfalls of using time as a marker (and there are plenty more) outline why it is more useful to compare how far the greats beat other very good horses (taking into account the weight carried of course). This is what makes Frankel such a monster. His form, chastised though it is by many misery bears, stands up to the very closest scrutiny. He has beaten many different multiple Group One winners by daylight without breaking sweat. There do not appear to be any weaknesses in his armour.
For that reason, I don't think anyone should care about the times he has run. Care more about the fact that the times he has run have been achieved under conditions that saw other top-notchers (Canford Cliffs, Excelebration, St Nicholas Abbey) broken to smithereens.
I would never deride the achievements of Sea The Stars, who was a brilliant racehorse and a champion for sure. But realistically how would you price them up in a mythical Juddmonte?
If Frankel was bigger than 2/5 I would bite your hand off.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 19
|
By:
The truth is compared to real champions most of Frankel's time are slower, this just adds to the questions still to be asked of his quality.
|
|
By:
Well said,Misery bears..i like that
 |
|
By:
Are you still here bullsh1t man?
|
|
By:
Keep making a fool of yourself,highly amusing.
|
|
By:
Tomdeane, it depends on whether you're comparing Frankel's 4yo form against STS' 3yo form, or with what you think STS would be capable of as a 4yo? Comparing their 3yo ability I would have very little between them, with Frankel 1lb above STS, but with STS' style of running he could possibly have been better than the bare rating. Obviously STS showed more versatility as a 3yo too.
|
|
By:
Tom - agree times have to be taken in context. Workforce holds the record time for the derby - enough said.
|
|
By:
Workforce is also a good example of the folly of assuming that all horses improve at a set rate from 3 to 4. He was an above average Derby winner and I read a lot about how he would be awesome kept in training as a 4yo, it turned out he wasn't an above average Gp 1 4yo though.
|
|
By:
Correct measurement of distances would be a good thing but that does not take into account the undulations of any given track?Sectional timing on the allweather tracks would be of interest to me ,but the real weight of the racehorse of much greater interest than any of the above and real science,so why am i in a minority?
|
|
By:
Ok some will say what use is that? Lets start at the begining 2yrld races, you could look at the horses weight withought having seen them and make your own judgement on Growth?" How he's a big boy,very well forward". Then you could see the real natural development from 2-3-4yrlds or lack of it? How do certain trainers work with there horses? what was there natural winning weight? Surely more information there than any sectional run at varied paces with hold up tactics killing any accurate figures?
|
|
By:
So, comparing the time run by Frankel with that run by Sea The Stars a few years back is meaningless.
It is *not* meaningless. Yes, judging horses solely on timings would be stupid, but flat out stating the opposite and saying the timings are valueless is completely wrong and short-sighted. In particular, the comparative times of STS/Frankel for a couple of their races are compelling because they ran over the same courses, distances and (superficially at least, according to going reports) the same ground too. While it's true that the fencing/distances are regularly altered by the CoC, in general the big races are pretty consistent because the clerks tend to move the rails and save the same best ground for the big race days. What would definitely be better than race timings is full sectional timings, so we could tell if the race was slow because all the runners idled for the first half of it. But we have to make do with what we have got. If you are so against race times, just what do you use when trying to compare horses of different years? They won't have run against the same opposition so without race times you have *nothing* but superficial, unmeasurable finger-in-the-air speculation and the well-worn cliches of 'class' and 'greatness' that fill the racing pages. |
|
By:
^ nonesense
|
|
By:
Your average times? where do ya start?
|
|
By:
I think times can be interesting, particularly sectionals, to assess races, and horses. But the concept of 'same ground' is the problem. The ground is never the same from one day to another, and probably not even one race to the next (moisture will dry out, or increase if it has rained; horses gallop on it which compacts it/roughs it up). Frankel came down the near rail at York. Sea The Stars raced up the far rail - so they didn't even race on the same turf up the straight. Why do jockeys at York now avoid the far rail? - something has obviously changed, even if no-one can put their finger on what it is. Then there's the wind factor - it varies in direction/strength, and can vary during a race. Sectionals can help judge a performance using pace analysis, but what data is there to measure wind and turf? - almost none.
|
|
By:
Spot on Ged
 These people continue to steer people into years of fruitless study(been there done that) |
|
By:
metro - I don't think the study is fruitless - it just has major limitations, which are usually glossed over by many time devotees.
|
|
By:
Found my eyes a better gude than any sectional(which is measured from pointa to point b) what about inbetween your measuring instruments? and what good would it be in French racing
 |
|
By:
The name of the game is win. Whatever method you use is irrelevant.
|
|
By:
Sometimes lose Roger?
|
|
By:
I have never had much regard for any study in horse racing, but each to their own enjoyment and if it adds to their success, then why not?
Sectional times may mean something in other countries but even then tactics change from race to race so again their worth is questionable. English racing is probably the most unreliable because each track is so different and there are no hard and concrete conclusions and the make up of each race is also ever changing. My own experience goes back to 63/64 when I got hooked along with my brother who I have to admit is more academic than myself, who from the very beginning got into breeding, times and axact form, who spent hours and hours every night pouring over the evidence and what it should mean. Me? I spent my time at the dog tracks and in general having a good time and I have to say it was me that seemed to foot his bar bill each friday and saturday night and it gave me a rather dubious opinion of form and its real worth. In the last 40 odd years nothing seems to have changed that much, he still pours over form and breeding and tells me why a certain horse is a good thing and in between that advice I make my way to the bar. Jockey and stable form is my saviour and it does not interfere too much with my lazy disposition. Good luck to all unless you are opposing my selected. |