Will Excelebration be raised to 135?

Therein lies the difficulty Brig,interpretation.Todays handicappers have made themselves look complete and utter fools.

They admit the flaws in the past and yet more or less confess to rating a horse on what they would like it to do and what they themselves believe eg Frankel at York and no names.

Im sure you and others can guess he rates the GN,that apart the answer earlier was Arkle.

The way I see it Frankel is judged not only by his successes but Excelebrations successes as well. Quite rightly. However if it is best to judge a horse by what he has beaten then applying the same method to Excelebration is only reasonable. That is why I think Excelbration does not deserve his rating.

I think Excelebration is an outstanding miler, as good as the best(Frankel apart) we have seen since the turn of the century including Canford Cliffs, Goldikova and Rock of Gibraltar. He will probably win his fourth G1 at the weekend, without Frankel around he would most likely have been gunning for his 8th G1. This is a measure of the greatness of Frankel.

I don't think it matters what TF or the Official Handicapper say, I can see that he's a very very good miler and that Frankel put him away with ease shows what an absolute monster Frankel is.

Anothet point is I think people in some quarters may have been a little bit disappointed Frankel didn't blow away Cirrus des Aigles but let's put into perspective what a towering performance it was.

Remember Cirrus won this event last year, the next 4 home were So You Think 10 G1's, Snow Fairy 7 G1's, Midday 6 G1's, Nathaniel 2 G1's. So Frankel was taking on a horse that won this race last year when it was one of the strongest G1's run in Europe in 2011 also Cirrus is renowned for his ability to handle very soft ground. Frankel was taking on the 2nd best horse in the world under his optimum conditions, lost about 4L at the start ran widest all the way around still got to the lead on the bridle a furlong out and was pulling clear close home, an absolutely awesome performance and I'm sure given similar conditions Cirrus des Aigles will show what a monumental task faced Frankel that day.

No tirade brigust1 and it never ceases to amaze me how some people think they can tell somebody's tone from words on a screen. If I has been swearing left right and centre then fair enough but....oh and I did say why ANYONE would ever say that and PEOPLE in regards to the 7f claim so it's aimed at everyone. My main point though was if a 7f horse struggles to get home over a mile then it won't usually win on the bridle going away and on soft ground too as the ground will put even more emphasis on getting home.

A while back if anyone disagreed with AOB you would get the inevitable "how many winners have you trained" line but since this is the same AOB who said Camelot was the best he has ever trained you tend not to hear it so much now. Personally I don't for one minute think that he thought Exceleberation was a 7f horse and was more of a case of banging his head up against a brick wall with Frankel and looking like having to go elsewhere to avoid him, in much the same was as they messed about Rip van Winkle in trip after being regularly beaten by Sea The Stars and since they weren't likely to step up in trip with Excelebration then down was the only other option.

Either way though I still prefer to let my own eyes judge a horse's runs rather than anything the trainer comes out with and there was nothing there to say Excelebration didn't get a mile and in the end they were happy to keep a supposedly 7f horse at a mile once Cecil indirectly made the decision for them by stepping up Frankel to 10f, so if AOB thought Excelebration really was a 7f horse then why has he run him at a mile the last 2 times and both on ground that put an emphasis on getting the mile?

I didn't comment on Moonlight Cloud as I didn't know it was compulsory to, I'm also not necessarily in disagreement with what you previously said and it is actually an Excelebration thread after all. If you want me to do so then I would point out that she's run 14 times but only 3 have been at a mile with 2 of those being her last 2 and has only 1 win from those 3 in a 4 horse race with really only Farhh as her main rival and Farhh's probably better at 10f and MC only won by a head. She's also run 9 times at 7f and won 7 of those and was narrowly beaten over a stiff 6f at Royal Ascot and all of that points to her being more likely a 7f horse than Excelebration considering he has only run at the trip 3 times from 14 and has 4 wins at a mile and has been 2nd or 3rd at a mile 4 more times behind Frankel.

Of course genuine top class Gr1 horses can win races not at their best trip against other horses running at their best trip that aren't quite top class and I would expect any of Frankel, Excelebration and Cityscape to beat Black Caviar at 6f, 7f and a mile but top class horses running at their "wrong" trip don't often beat other top class ones running at their right trip, which again is supported by the fact that Farhh can win a handicap at a mile but not a Gr1.

Cityscape is a very good Gr1 yardstick at a mile and he would win many 10f races against lesser opposition but probably not a Gr1 and on a line through him puts Excelebration and Wise Dan very closely matched.

Oct 31, 2012 -- 1:06AM, Soft-Pawn wrote:

I think Excelebration is an outstanding miler, as good as the best(Frankel apart) we have seen since the turn of the century including Canford Cliffs, Goldikova and Rock of Gibraltar. He will probably win his fourth G1 at the weekend, without Frankel around he would most likely have been gunning for his 8th G1. This is a measure of the greatness of Frankel.I don't think it matters what TF or the Official Handicapper say, I can see that he's a very very good miler and that Frankel put him away with ease shows what an absolute monster Frankel is.Anothet point is I think people in some quarters may have been a little bit disappointed Frankel didn't blow away Cirrus des Aigles but let's put into perspective what a towering performance it was. Remember Cirrus won this event last year, the next 4 home were So You Think 10 G1's, Snow Fairy 7 G1's, Midday 6 G1's, Nathaniel 2 G1's. So Frankel was taking on a horse that won this race last year when it was one of the strongest G1's run in Europe in 2011 also Cirrus is renowned for his ability to handle very soft ground. Frankel was taking on the 2nd best horse in the world under his optimum conditions, lost about 4L at the start ran widest all the way around still got to the lead on the bridle a furlong out and was pulling clear close home, an absolutely awesome performance and I'm sure given similar conditions Cirrus des Aigles will show what a monumental task faced Frankel that day.

Last year is really irrelevant is it not?  Completely different race, ran a completely different way.

For a start, CDA is now 6.5yo and certainly more likely to be less of a horse now than 12 months ago. 
Last year, he stalked the best horse in the race, had cover the whole way, and ran on for a nice win.  A little different than setting the pace.
This was his second run in the campaign.  Last year he was running and being kept fresh over many starts.
ALL horses were running wide.  It was a heavy track, the best going was the widest from the fence.
Any distance lost at the start really isn't very important in a 5 horse race over 10f.  They didn't set a blistering speed, so really counts for very little.

Frankel certainly wasn't pulling away from anything at the end.  Have you seen the race?  Here, watch it here for the first time.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbeTIc-ZfvA
If anything, he was losing ground at the end.  He was certainly spent.


Watching the last 2 years back to back, it is negligent to suggest that by simply adding last years field into this years, that the results would have been the same.  If CDA led last year, he wouldn't have run in the top 2.

But the reality is, last years win, was a much better win than this years.  It was a quality field, whereas this year was really lacking.
Sure, CDA is a good horse, as is Frankel, but be serious.

It doesn't matter how you try and rate a horse because when all the plot lines point to one horse,well then you are only trying in vain to make excuses like "oh it never ran against anything" or "this and that was better anyway because it won these races!

So how do you rate a horse, well you could time the horse but this would depend if the race was run on perfect ground as you wont break a course record of just good ground, it has to be perfect like when Sea the stars won the Juddemonte the average times were a couple of seconds quicker than average and 3 course records were broken that day.When Frankel raced in the Juddemonte he ran on ground 2 seconds slower almost and took the widest possible route and yet still won by over 7 lengths, something sea the stars could never do and yet Frankel did this in nearly all his races like clockwork including the second biggest winning margin of a 2000 Guineas.

The other way you can rate horses is by measuring the amount of lengths that the horse beats the second at certain levels of racing, or how much it is beaten by as tis method removes the deviation caused by relying on timepieces only.

Well If you use this method you will find that Frankel has beaten the best Group one race fields around by a sum of a furlong nearly in 14 races.

To my Knowledge this has never been done before and I doubt it will happen again in our lifetime!

I'm guessing BJT you are an Aussie and still hurting over Black Caviar as only an Aussie with an agenda can get so much wrong in such a short post.

If you are then the claim that last year CDA stalked the best horse in the ace was a bit of a give away......last year CDA was the best horse in the race and was why he won it.

CDA went into the Champion Stakes off the back of 3 wins from 4 and a 2nd over 9f which was probably a bit short and 2 of those wins were by 8L and 9L and the other was by ¼L from St Nicholas Abbey at 12f, which probably suited SNA better....so puts paid to the argument that CDA wasn't the same horse as 12 months ago.

The horse was having its 6th run in 2012 not its 2nd but if you are an Aussie then you are maybe making the mistake of going by when a season starts and finishes over there, which to a degree is fair enough as you might not know when they are elsewhere in the word but prepare to be mocked by other Aussie posters on here because of that and have them suggest you claim to be an expert on European racing.

Did you walk the course to determine the best going was out wider or does it maybe just suit your argument to say that in an attempt to detract from Frankel? And even if it was, these things are offset by running farther when going wider, although once they straightened up they were side by side at the business end anyway and neither horse was kicking up more turf than the other and that kind of ground suits CDA better anyway.

You use the fact CDA was up with the pace and made a good bit of the running once again to detract from Frankel as if CDA lost the race from doing the donkey work and having to set the pace when in fact Bullet Train took over again and led CDA off the turn where CDA didn't take up the running again until they straightened up with about 2½f to go. Yet in the next sentence you state regarding Frankel that "any distance lost at the start really isn't very important in a 5 horse race over 10f as they didn't set a blistering speed, so really counts for very little".......so by the same logic making the running counts for little in a 5 horse race over 10f if they "didn't set a blistering speed."

And LOL @ Frankel wasn't pulling away and was spent. He won by 1¾L and at the 2f pole was on the bridle and about 1L down on a hard ridden CDA and later they are roughly side by side at the 1f mark and with Frankel about 3L up at the same stage as Nathaniel in 3rd. Frankel's around 1L ahead of CDA at the ½f pole and the winning distance as stated earlier was 1¾L clear at the line having only been largely pushed out and with one tap of the whip, as opposed to CDA getting 4 slaps and Frankel was also 4¼L ahead of Nathaniel at the line as opposed to 3L clear at the 1f pole, so how any of that equates as Frankel "losing ground at the end" and "he was certainly spent" is beyond me.

Unless of course as I said above, you have an agenda and just want to knock a true superstar but unfortunately you can't really do that just be making up your own fairy tales when the facts are there for all to see and can't be changed.

This generation of 3yrlds have been very poor on the whole? i just thought maybe this  makes the elders,look just a bit better than what maybe they are? I respect that the collateral form looks more than brilliant on the whole for the Frankel line of form,but do just question,why the Excelebration team,did not avoid Frankel once beaten?There were plenty of group1 races about?(maybe trip?) The other thing that bothers me a little is the success of the older fillies on the whole? So many good fillies in one generation maybe suggest the colts not up to it(the lesser ones?)But the main thing that bothers me is the fact there are more group races than ever before in past years. and so the future generations can and do avoid each other?(The champions of the past were more restricted?).So how much more can you stretch a Handicap( 0-100 now 0-140) will this be changed in the future to 0-150-160?

SP I cannot agree with you about Excelebration. Not a bit. Without Frankel you say he would have won 8 Group 1's and tht may be true but I doubt it. As a single reason perhaps Farhh would have run over a mile sooner and may have given him a real problem. To avoid Frankel Farhh ran in the PoW and the Eclipse instead. Only a small reason why you could be wrong. But of course Farhh may also have been a multiple Group 1 winning miler as well. So many champions in one season. We are blessed.

Ima, back to my point about Excelebration had he won those races you suggest the horses he has beaten (assuming Frankel never ran of course), finished 2nd to him have run 99 times since and not even won a Listed race between them.Do you call that form? Crazy. Absolutely crazy.
(Apply the same principle to Canford Cliffs, rated lower than Excel, and you get 11 Group wins of which 6 are Group 1.)

And your point about CDA is well made but has he benefited from the horse who previously beat him being retired? When he beat SNA in Meydan JOB gave the second a shocker and his last win he beat a horse that on it's previous attempt in a Group 2 on soft going had finished 17 lengths behind Sea Moon. And of course So You Think has won most of his Gr1's in Australia and Snow Fairy in Hong Kong etc. You see, we can all do it.

And I wouldn't go overboard about Frankel losing ground at the start because his pacemaker slowed the pace right down and there is no way it was a true test. That Frankel is a great horse in undeniable but the fact he has met weak opposition and been raced very sparingly is also undeniable.

I do think we have all got excited(it's nice) by the fact that almost for sure we had the best of an whole generation(worldwide) racing in the uk,but if you look at the American Wise Dan ,how good is he? He looks a bit inconsistent? So if Ecelebration wins as expected(he should outstay Wise Dan)is it correct to up his rating?

This is the thing Metro, something has got to win the races. Just because Excelebration has won them so what. Cityscape would have won 3 from his last  4, in fact he probably wouldn't have gone to the states or run in the Eclipse. Suddenly as a 6 year old adter 16 runs he's a multiple Group 1 winner. Just like CDA, never won a Group 1 in 43 starts until last October.   

They interviewed AOB the other and he talked about Excelebration. I no way id he suggest he was the best horse in his yard or the best he has trained as the rating and adverts imply.

^If Excelbration hadn't run in them that is

Very good point brigust1.Cirrus looked on the downgrade a little before the Frankel fixture? and plenty on here keep saying the slow pace did not help frankel in that race ,but he is the proven speed horse,he should have been more impressive in my view.

Oct 31, 2012 -- 7:25AM, ima_mazed66 wrote:

I'm guessing BJT you are an Aussie and still hurting over Black Caviar as only an Aussie with an agenda can get so much wrong in such a short post.If you are then the claim that last year CDA stalked the best horse in the ace was a bit of a give away......last year CDA was the best horse in the race and was why he won it. CDA went into the Champion Stakes off the back of 3 wins from 4 and a 2nd over 9f which was probably a bit short and 2 of those wins were by 8L and 9L and the other was by ¼L from St Nicholas Abbey at 12f, which probably suited SNA better....so puts paid to the argument that CDA wasn't the same horse as 12 months ago. The horse was having its 6th run in 2012 not its 2nd but if you are an Aussie then you are maybe making the mistake of going by when a season starts and finishes over there, which to a degree is fair enough as you might not know when they are elsewhere in the word but prepare to be mocked by other Aussie posters on here because of that and have them suggest you claim to be an expert on European racing. Did you walk the course to determine the best going was out wider or does it maybe just suit your argument to say that in an attempt to detract from Frankel? And even if it was, these things are offset by running farther when going wider, although once they straightened up they were side by side at the business end anyway and neither horse was kicking up more turf than the other and that kind of ground suits CDA better anyway.You use the fact CDA was up with the pace and made a good bit of the running once again to detract from Frankel as if CDA lost the race from doing the donkey work and having to set the pace when in fact Bullet Train took over again and led CDA off the turn where CDA didn't take up the running again until they straightened up with about 2½f to go. Yet in the next sentence you state regarding Frankel that "any distance lost at the start really isn't very important in a 5 horse race over 10f as they didn't set a blistering speed, so really counts for very little".......so by the same logic making the running counts for little in a 5 horse race over 10f if they "didn't set a blistering speed."And LOL @ Frankel wasn't pulling away and was spent. He won by 1¾L and at the 2f pole was on the bridle and about 1L down on a hard ridden CDA and later they are roughly side by side at the 1f mark and with Frankel about 3L up at the same stage as Nathaniel in 3rd. Frankel's around 1L ahead of CDA at the ½f pole and the winning distance as stated earlier was 1¾L clear at the line having only been largely pushed out and with one tap of the whip, as opposed to CDA getting 4 slaps and Frankel was also 4¼L ahead of Nathaniel at the line as opposed to 3L clear at the 1f pole, so how any of that equates as Frankel "losing ground at the end" and "he was certainly spent" is beyond me.Unless of course as I said above, you have an agenda and just want to knock a true superstar but unfortunately you can't really do that just be making up your own fairy tales when the facts are there for all to see and can't be changed.

Black Caviar?  Nothing to do with any conversation here.  Is that all you have?  Really?  Disappointing...

To counter:
CDA was 12/1 last year.  To suggest he was the best horse in the race is negligent at best. 
My comment that he stalked the best horse, was not because of where I come from, it is because the horse I refer to was 7/4F in the race, and by popular opinion, was determined best horse in the race, in a multi million dollar pool.  Yeah?

6th run in 2012 yes, but that is really irrelevant yeah?  He was having his second start in October, since May.  He had a 4 month break, which in racing terms, means he was second start from a spell.  Keeping up?
The previous year, he was raced sparingly since May.  Yeah?  Still with me?


Did you see the race?  Why was it, that no horse in the race ran near the fence?  The whole race was run 3-4 wide, because that is where the better running was.  You can claim whatever you want, but better going makes up for any racing 1-2 off the fence, where Frankel was the whole race.
How do you know soft ground suits CDA better?  Frankel won the race, and you are basing everything on your opinion that he didn't handle the track.  How can you see he cruised up to first at the 2f pole, but didn't like the going?  Looked like he handled it just fine to me.  Maybe he likes it better than CDA?  What is your argument against that?

At the 2f pole was within about half a length from the video I am looking at.  Roll forward.  1f pole he is about .75-1 length ahead and being pushed out.  Roll forward.  About 100 metres to go he is 1.5-1.75 lengths in front.  100 metres? About 6 seconds, so probably more distance.  That is what he wins by.  He doesn't pull ahead at all over that last 100 metres, and he is being ridden out to the fullest and pulling out nothing.  Yes, he was spent, and another 100 metres further, and this horse that travelled so easily on the bridle past a pushed out CDA would have watched that horse stay on to pull ahead once again.  A spent horse.  So how easily exactly did he travel up "on the bridle"?
What you fail to realise, is this is the internet.  I have vision also, so I don't have to believe what I am told, I have my own eyes.

So the reality is, you are not proving me wrong in any sense of the word.  Your "6 starts for 2012" is just ridiculous.  A 4 month spell is a spell in anybodys language. When you haven't run for 4 months, you are first up from a spell.  No?

Please at least try and come up with something worthy of response.  The only way you are making me look in any way foolish is the fact that I have 3 spare minutes to show how seriously you are lacking in the intelligence stakes, and how unable you are to form your own opinion.  Black Caviar?  What the hell does she have to do with the Qipco Champion Stakes of 2012?  Zippity Squat.

CDA was 12/1 last year.  To suggest he was the best horse in the race is negligent at best.
My comment that he stalked the best horse, was not because of where I come from, it is because the horse I refer to was 7/4F in the race, and by popular opinion, was determined best horse in the race, in a multi million dollar pool.  Yeah?



winner often a good guide to best horse in the race. that was CDA. cheers.

And don't forget SP although Snow Fairy and Midday are lovely mares but all bar one of their European wins were against their own sex. Quite a bit of difference. Ouija Board was one of my favourites and she only managed to win one European race against the boys and what a bad race that was so Snow Fairy's latest win could be looked upon as being even more detrimental to the boys in the race.

Yep BJT, definitely as Aussie and funny you should used the words really and disappointing in the same sentence as Black Caviar as those were my exact sentiments after seeing her run.

I'm suggesting CDA was the best horse in the Champion Stakes based on the fact that he won it and not what his price was and if just by backing the shortest priced horse in the race always ensured we were on the best one then the game would be easy. Prices are just bookies and punters opinions and opinions are often wrong, just as a horse's official rating is the opinion of the handicapper and So You Think was rated lower than Nathaniel so it would be more accurate to say that Nathaniel was the best horse in the race. Yeah?

It's irrelevant whether CDA had a break during the 2012 season or not, it was still his 6th run of the year/season and if the suggestion when trying to knock Frankel was that CDA was having only his 2nd run since May and he was lacking fitness or whatever other fantasy excuse you want to come up with, the fact is he ran two weeks before facing Frankel and won by 9L and so had no fitness worries there. Keeping up? Yeah? Still with me?

Did I see the race? Yes of course I did and evidently saw it a look more accurately than you did because the whole races WASN'T run 3-4 wide as only parts of it were and Bullet Train went to the rail with about half a mile to go and CDA was a horse's width off him and the rail, but even using your inaccurate interpretation of things, if they ALL went 3-4 wide then they ALL were in the same boat and ALL benefited from the better ground......Sorry, is this supposed to be an example of your so called superior intelligence you have over me?

How do I know soft ground suits CDA better? That would be to the numerous wins the horse has on heavy and very soft ground and although Frankel has won a few times with a bit of give in the ground, those were at a mile and he had only just shown that he got 10f once before the Champion Stakes but was then having to show he got the 10f on the soft going. I never said Frankel didn't like the going either, I said the going suited CDA BETTER and think that's a fair comment to make based on what both horses had done on a combination of ground and trip? Keeping up?

So let's go by you figures than and you claim:

At the 2f pole was within about half a length from the video I am looking at.  Roll forward.  1f pole he is about .75-1 length ahead and being pushed out.  Roll forward.  About 100 metres to go he is 1.5-1.75 lengths in front.

So Frankel is:

2f = within half (.5) a length of CDA
1f = about .75-1 length ahead
100 metres to go he is 1.5-1.75 lengths in front

and as the winning distance was 1.75 lengths ahead that certainly looks like pulling away to me considering he came from behind to lead and then increase that lead at ever distance mark stated.......are you sure you've got the order right about which of us is supposed to be lacking in intelligence?

And if you have you own eyes then I suggest you get them down to Specsavers as pulling away and increasing the lead the further a horse goes doesn't make it a spent force or are you disputing the official winning distance too?

As for what had Black Caviar got to do with the Qipco Champion Stakes of 2012, well nothing directly but we all know indirectly Aussies have to try their best and attempt to rewrite history and the facts because their so called superstar looked decidedly ordinary at Royal Ascot, whereas Frankel looked the genuine superstar and best horse in the world that he is and Aussies are still clearly hurting over that? Yeah? Are YOU Keeping up now?

The headline was a novel (as in publishing from Brig)...........nowhere any reasoning or personal observation to explain........or is just me being pedantic?

A novel? Was it about a ship named Excelebration GT?

Excellebration has not beaten any top class group 1 horses. Cityscape is a group 2 horse. Moonlight cloud's best trip is 7 furlongs and Elusive Katie is a nice group 1 filly, nothing great.
This is the reality.

FFS when will you lot stop at using bits of string etc?

Fair enough Brig citing the above but Workforce and STS........not to forget Goldikova did more than the whole lot put together on the track between them.

The Classics are not a definitive guide to greatness.

Goldikova was a lovely filly but 3 of her Gr1's were in the US, 4 were against her own sex and 5 were in open company. She ran twice as many times as Frankel and 2.5 times as many as Canford Cliffs who also won 5 Gr1's in open company. Beating her in one.

Add to that she wasn't the classic winner of her age and therefore not the best, imo.

There you go Brig.........won outside her backyard.Freddie said she was the best filly/mare he had the privelege to be involved with.

I spoke with him and a few other sages after STS came in from the Arc,bear in mind he also rode a nice filly you like.

Freddie rode one racing.........trained and rode(on the gallops) Goldi.

Is he so wrong?

Rose tinted specs GT. I love these mares but they have a pretty good programme now. Snow Fairy, Midday, Ouija Board, Peeping Fawn, Goldikova etc they can win quite a few Group 1s among themselves. Now they have the Breeders Cup, Sha Tin, Kranji ffs. Loads of them.

A telling fact I suppose is that there are only 5 fillies in the 107 top Timeform rated hores at 135 and up. Three are from France, Black Caviar and Pebbles. That leaves 102 colts/geldings. And 2 of the French horses were from the early 70's.

brain dead jockeys
Excellebration has not beaten any top class group 1 horses. Cityscape is a group 2 horse. Moonlight cloud's best trip is 7 furlongs and Elusive Katie is a nice group 1 filly, nothing great.
This is the reality

Cityscape won the big Gr1 race at around a mile at the Dubai World Cup meeting, was also there or thereabouts at the mile mark in the Eclipse, was a narrowly 2nd in the Gr1 HK Mile, 3rd to Wise Dan (one of the favs for the Breeders' Cup Mile) in the Grade 1 Woodbine Mile when forced out wide on firm ground he clearly hated, a sh hd 2nd in another Gr1 in Italy to a multiple Gr1 winner and 2000gns 2nd and was 3rd behind Canford Cliffs and Goldikova in their Queen Anne at Royal Ascot, all of which is very strong Gr1 form and but for Excelebration would have won a few more Gr1s at a mile including 2 defeats of Elusive Kate and was 3¼L in front of her last time and without Cityscape then Excelebration would have been a 6¼L winner from EK in the QEII and that is a Frankel type winning distance over Excelebration.

Moonlight Cloud's best trip might be 7f but she has only recently been trying the mile again in her last 2 for the first time since the 1000gns and was an unlucky in running 1¾L behind Excelebration in a Gr1 (although I don't think she would have won anyway) and then won a Gr1 in a narrow win from Farhh (good yardstick) with the 3rd another 6L back. Although Farhh might prefer 10f he's a top class horse as his runs in the Pow (unlucky in running), Eclipse and Juddmonte show and 6L being Frankel in the Sussex Stakes at mile puts him even very closely matched to Excelebration (excluding one defeat of 11L in the QA) probably puts Excelebration a length or so better than Farhh at a mile and we already know he's closely matched with Moonlight Cloud at the trip and she has showed her own class and versatility with her narrow defeat at 6f in the Jubilee Stakes behind Black Caviar.

Sorry taken so long to reply Brig,this donkey piece of carp cost enough but it took a tart in the bar to get it working.

She is now kipping in the King size bed,wasnt too bad tbf.

No Goldikova though............we have to agree to disagree again...........Goldi did what she had to and no mare/filly has or can best her.Ditto STS and Workforce.............Kauto Star.

All three unique and it will be a long time before we see their equals..............as for Frankel.........we probably wont see his like again in our lifetime.

Oct 31, 2012 -- 9:56PM, ima_mazed66 wrote:

Yep BJT, definitely as Aussie and funny you should used the words really and disappointing in the same sentence as Black Caviar as those were my exact sentiments after seeing her run.I'm suggesting CDA was the best horse in the Champion Stakes based on the fact that he won it and not what his price was and if just by backing the shortest priced horse in the race always ensured we were on the best one then the game would be easy. Prices are just bookies and punters opinions and opinions are often wrong, just as a horse's official rating is the opinion of the handicapper and So You Think was rated lower than Nathaniel so it would be more accurate to say that Nathaniel was the best horse in the race. Yeah?It's irrelevant whether CDA had a break during the 2012 season or not, it was still his 6th run of the year/season and if the suggestion when trying to knock Frankel was that CDA was having only his 2nd run since May and he was lacking fitness or whatever other fantasy excuse you want to come up with, the fact is he ran two weeks before facing Frankel and won by 9L and so had no fitness worries there. Keeping up? Yeah? Still with me?Did I see the race? Yes of course I did and evidently saw it a look more accurately than you did because the whole races WASN'T run 3-4 wide as only parts of it were and Bullet Train went to the rail with about half a mile to go and CDA was a horse's width off him and the rail, but even using your inaccurate interpretation of things, if they ALL went 3-4 wide then they ALL were in the same boat and ALL benefited from the better ground......Sorry, is this supposed to be an example of your so called superior intelligence you have over me?How do I know soft ground suits CDA better? That would be to the numerous wins the horse has on heavy and very soft ground and although Frankel has won a few times with a bit of give in the ground, those were at a mile and he had only just shown that he got 10f once before the Champion Stakes but was then having to show he got the 10f on the soft going. I never said Frankel didn't like the going either, I said the going suited CDA BETTER and think that's a fair comment to make based on what both horses had done on a combination of ground and trip? Keeping up?So let's go by you figures than and you claim:At the 2f pole was within about half a length from the video I am looking at.  Roll forward.  1f pole he is about .75-1 length ahead and being pushed out.  Roll forward.  About 100 metres to go he is 1.5-1.75 lengths in front.So Frankel is:2f = within half (.5) a length of CDA1f = about .75-1 length ahead100 metres to go he is 1.5-1.75 lengths in frontand as the winning distance was 1.75 lengths ahead that certainly looks like pulling away to me considering he came from behind to lead and then increase that lead at ever distance mark stated.......are you sure you've got the order right about which of us is supposed to be lacking in intelligence?And if you have you own eyes then I suggest you get them down to Specsavers as pulling away and increasing the lead the further a horse goes doesn't make it a spent force or are you disputing the official winning distance too? As for what had Black Caviar got to do with the Qipco Champion Stakes of 2012, well nothing directly but we all know indirectly Aussies have to try their best and attempt to rewrite history and the facts because their so called superstar looked decidedly ordinary at Royal Ascot, whereas Frankel looked the genuine superstar and best horse in the world that he is and Aussies are still clearly hurting over that? Yeah? Are YOU Keeping up now?

So with 100 metres to go being 1.75 lengths in front, and winning distance was 1.75 lengths, that to you is pulling away?  Ok.  Good arguing.

And the best horse in the race always wins?  So Windsor Palace is a better horse than St Nicholas Abbey?  For 1 example.

I do understand where you are coming from Ima and BJT but these are just the finer points. The facts of the matter are that Frankel and Excelebration have been lucky to be around against a poor opposition. Are CDA and Cityscape improving because they had to wait so late in their careers to win a Group 1? I think that is unlikely personally. I think their main opposition has retired and the younger generation are not up to standard.

It is all very well saying a horse wins this and that but if they are the best around that is what is expected. The question 'what' are they better than?

Look at the classics. The 2000 Gns this year and the year before (excluding Frankel)is horrible form, the Epsom and Irish Derby this year and last year really don't look up to any standard and the St Leger winners, well they look very poor. I know some people say the classics are not the be all and end all of horse racing but it is where the best horses are invariably targetted at.

All of the clues are there. This is a very poor era, excluding Frankel.

Tiznow - Giants Causway how would these rate against Excelebration?

LOL....you said yourself Frankel was behind at the 2f pole, slightly ahead at the 1f pole and had his biggest margin ahead at that winning line so that in my world counts as pulling away. Pulling away doesn't have to go on doing so for ever, you can pull away and then maintain that distance to the line but it doesn't mean you didn't pull away to begin with and what it certainly doesn't mean is the you are a spent force. So OK, good arguing.

I would also argue that Frankel's jockey would never usually sit so still on the horse until the 1f pole in a Gr1 race and would have kicked between 2-3f out and as a result of that would have been quickening for longer and have had more distance to pull away, just as he did in the QA at RA but because of the extra distance on the soft ground last time, he held onto the horse longer which meant by the time he asked him to quicken, the line was practically on top of him anyway but he would have won by a bigger margin if kicking earlier.

But no the best horse doesn't always win, which was my very point and it's you not me claiming SYT was the best horse it's you and mainly due to those 2 well know scientific means of deciding so, those being blinkered Aussie bias and a horse's price in the betting. I've already said Nathaniel was rated higher than SYT so there's an argument there pre-race that he was the best and there's no argument post-race that CDA was the best and much as I would imagine it is the case over there, UK and Irish punters probably over bet their own horses due to having favourite connections as well as many maybe not being as up on overseas form which often allows overseas horses first time racing here to go off at bigger prices than they should.

Cityscape

Nmk 8GF C13yG1 241K    9-0    14/15 (23L Sea The Stars 9-0) yes the arc winner(12f) 
Asc 8Sft C1G1 567K    9-3    2/8 (3L Excelebration 9-3)

Ima I'm amazed you keep on with this. Frankel is unique among top quality racehorses in that he races on the bridle throughout his races. You only have to look at the headgear he is wearing then look at the other great horses. None of them had to wear such demanding headgear. The others, as Henry has tried with Frankel, after the start they drop the bridle until they are picked up for a run. Frankel is always running into his bridle that is why Quealey sits still on him with his hands full. The downside is, like the St James Palace and could have been in the Champion, that he has one run. That is exactly why I was disappointed that St Nicholas Abbey never ever led in the Juddmonte and why CDA's owner now thinks he could have done better. I don't think he was ever properly tested in his races.

St Nicholas Abbey never ever led in the Juddmonte

Taken from the formbook

Tracked leading trio, led briefly well over 2f out, soon headed, kept on same pace over 1f out.

I stand to be corrected Figgis. I can rely on you but having watched the race I think they are wrong. In my defence I am not sure the form stating Moonlight Cloud as being unlucky against Excelebration is correct either. Perhaps I am wrong on both accounts.

Comments say "unlucky", not unlucky not to win, so yes, you are wrong on both counts.

Thank you.

You're always wecome, brig

Nov 1, 2012 -- 10:45AM, ima_mazed66 wrote:

LOL....you said yourself Frankel was behind at the 2f pole, slightly ahead at the 1f pole and had his biggest margin ahead at that winning line so that in my world counts as pulling away. Pulling away doesn't have to go on doing so for ever, you can pull away and then maintain that distance to the line but it doesn't mean you didn't pull away to begin with and what it certainly doesn't mean is the you are a spent force. So OK, good arguing.I would also argue that Frankel's jockey would never usually sit so still on the horse until the 1f pole in a Gr1 race and would have kicked between 2-3f out and as a result of that would have been quickening for longer and have had more distance to pull away, just as he did in the QA at RA but because of the extra distance on the soft ground last time, he held onto the horse longer which meant by the time he asked him to quicken, the line was practically on top of him anyway but he would have won by a bigger margin if kicking earlier.But no the best horse doesn't always win, which was my very point and it's you not me claiming SYT was the best horse it's you and mainly due to those 2 well know scientific means of deciding so, those being blinkered Aussie bias and a horse's price in the betting. I've already said Nathaniel was rated higher than SYT so there's an argument there pre-race that he was the best and there's no argument post-race that CDA was the best and much as I would imagine it is the case over there, UK and Irish punters probably over bet their own horses due to having favourite connections as well as many maybe not being as up on overseas form which often allows overseas horses first time racing here to go off at bigger prices than they should.

No, the comment was he was pulling away, not he did pull away at some point in the race.  Of course to be in front means you have to have "pulled away" at some point, but he certainly wasn't pulling away anything at the line.  To suggest had he been let go earlier he would have won by more is completely wrong.  You are contradicting yourself.  You are saying Frankel is a different horse, but at the same time saying that because he travelled up on the bridle, he must have had plenty left in the tank.  Fact is, he was hard ridden to the line.  He was quickly running out of steam.  CDA was hard ridden a long time out, and as you suggest had already gone through all his gears.  Frankel on the other hand, travels much closer to top gear and has not much left to increase.  His strength is his high cruising speed, not his unbelievable turn of foot, because he simply doesn't have it.  Some horses can't go a yard for the first half of the race, and then blister home at incredible speeds, while others can travel strongly throughout but not have much of a kick.  Frankel is closer to the latter.  He certainly has a good kick, but it isn't his strength.
Your argument states that if he was let go earlier he would have won by more, but the reality is he gained that distance with a short 100-200 metre burst, and then held that distance til the end, under hard riding.  Truth is if he was let go at the same time as CDA, he likely would have been passed again and lost the race.  The reason Queely waits so long, is because he knows the strength of the horse, and that certainly isn't a long finishing burst, it is a high cruising speed which sees him keep up with most horses under hard riding.  Problem for your argument, is he really doesn't have much above that.

Your argument about SYT not being the best horse in the race is yet another contradiction showing your arrogance.  SYT being favourite ADDS to the argument that he was the best horse in the race, because the whole of UK think he was overrated.  How many people in Australia were even betting on him?  I promise you this, very few over here would have even known he was running.  Just because you see UK racing as the be all end all, doesn't mean anybody else is watching.  Sure there would be a few, but to suggest that SYT was so short because all of Australia must have been on him is straight out ridiculous.


Here is a tip for you.  Go through your posts, and take out all the would have and could haves.  You will find that all you are doing is basing your thoughts on hype, not reality. 
And here is something else for you.  Black Caviar is a very good horse.  But she is in the same boat as Frankel, in that her strength is her high cruising speed.  She is a freak because she cruises to the line, but the reality is, the thought of her having much left is all guesswork.  It is assumed due to how easily they travel, that they therefore must have plenty of acceleration left.  That is unproven with her, but with Frankel, it is proven, over and over again, that he has a short 1-200 metre burst, and then needs to be hard ridden to keep some sort of speed up.

Have you ever had a look at his sectionals?  Maybe start there before making yourself look any stupider.

Frankel, it is proven, over and over again, that he has a short 1-200 metre burst, and then needs to be hard ridden to keep some sort of speed up.

Have you ever had a look at his sectionals?

Seems like you haven't heeded your won advice.

*own

I fail to see how sectionals can be compared when there is no direct comparison. Surely there are too many variables to make them worth anything and there are too few to be dogmatic about. Often Frankel is compared with Little Bridge who was winning his one and only Group 1 on that day.

I would love to know how they get there sectionals? Camera angles on videos and streams enough of a blur?

Then throw in the changing ground,moved rails,and the jamie spencer factor?

brigust1 Joined: 07 Dec 01

I fail to see how sectionals can be compared

Compared with what? Other sectionals in the same race? As that is what is being talked about.

No, obviously where the winner is miles better than the opposition then the sectionals will be better but in general how can sectionals be of any use with such limitd availability?

I don't use sectionals at all for my own analysis and betting. The point is, the statement that Frankel "has a short 1-200 metre burst", is quite clearly piffle.

You are probably right there Figgis. My own opinion is that Frankel is a headstrong, free running horse (look at his headgear) that is why Henry never attempted the 12f. He runs into his bridle all of the time whereas most racehorses actually drop the bridle and that allows them to get home. It also means the jockey will have to pick them up to get them back into the bridle, something TQ doesn't have to do because he is always on the bridle. So where a jockey becomes animated to get their horse into the bridle his wins will not look so easy whereas they probably are.

Yes , he does run into the bridle, so it is perfectly understandable why Cecil was reluctant to step him up in trip early. The thing is, though, while he is running into the bridle he is comfortably running at a speed that is not quite so comfortable for most of his opponents, we know he's doing it comfortably because when Queally really lets him go he (usually) quickens up that speed considerably and does it for longer than most horses can, most horses that had been running into the bridle for so long would wilt. As for "most racehorses actually drop the bridle and that allows them to get home", I would say on the vast majority of his runs he's got home easily and his sectionals haven't dipped any more than you'd expect. We could find certain races in any great racehorse's career where the winning margin was being closed at the finish.

Couldn't disagree with most of that Figgis. I do think though, I know some disagree, he was fortunate to be born in a weak era. In fairness his style of racing is for impressive viewing I am firmly of the opinion though that what you see is what you get. Had Lester ridden him he would have been a sight to behold.

Brig, I agree that it's not been a great era, particularly this season's 3yos. Actually, I don't rate Excelebration or Cirrus as highly as some do either (that said, I would also disagree with some high figures from the past). My highest figure for Excelebration would equate to about 130. At first I thought he'd probably improved on that when watching him win last time at Ascot, but on analysing the times I couldn't rate it higher than 129. I believe that the others weren't quite at their best and, as so often happens on soft ground (when the winner handles it well), the win appeared better than it was. However, I can see how some would rate it higher, even though I disagree. I can't weigh up the American form accurately, so I don't know about Wise Dan, but I think Moonlight Cloud can give Excelebration a race. I think the winner of those 2 will be more about whoever retains their form best after a long season, rather than actual ability.

Anyway, back to the point. I accept that it's not been a great era and it would've been great to see Frankel face a couple of 137ish horses to give him a bit more of a test, nevertheless, he has been demolishing some good (130ish), if not great, horses so easily that facing a horse rated 7lbs higher would not have made one jot of difference to the results, except maybe in the St James's Palace and Champion Stakes, but he wasn't seen at his best in those races, which happens at some stage in any great racehorse's career.

I couldn't agree more Figgis. That's about 3 or 4lbs higher for Excelebration than I would give him but who cares what we think. It is difficult to know now the races are almost all level weight. I remember BG had to give 22lbs and 19lbs to the 3 year olds and 14lbs to his own age group. He gave 11lbs to the Derby first and second. So it would have been interesting had similar circumstances prevailed. I'm not saying he wouldn't have stood up to it but we will never know. And the 3 year olds are so poor. None of the horses that finished runner up to Camelot has won any sort of race at all, how bad is that. And Excelebration is only very marginally better. It is alright saying Excel would be an almost unbeaten champion miler without Frankel but when, if that was the case, none of the runner ups would have won even a Group race of any sort anywhere how good would those races be?
Dire.

*subsequently won any Group races

Brig, did you agree with the Reference Point rating?

I'm afraid you have me there Figgis. Obviously I know the horse but whether he deserves his rating I couldn't say. It depends, obviously, upon what he beat and what they have done subsequently.

Nov 2, 2012 -- 12:37PM, Figgis wrote:

Frankel, it is proven, over and over again, that he has a short 1-200 metre burst, and then needs to be hard ridden to keep some sort of speed up.Have you ever had a look at his sectionals?Seems like you haven't heeded your won advice.

On the contrary.  Everybody suggests he is the best because he never hits top gear.  My argument is that top gear for him is travelling on his own steam.  When he is being pushed out is when he is running out of steam.  People keep saying "if he was let go earlier" etc etc, and it is all false.
For example, here are his sectionals for his 147 rated performance from the 4th furlong onwards.
11.89
11.56
10.99

The 2 furlong pole is when the jockey says go and pushes him to run.  Last 2 sectionals
11.93
12.75

So where is this burst, if he is travelling slower when being urged along?
Or the Champion Stakes.  He was let down at the 1 furlong pole.  Yeah?
His previous 2 furlongs were 12.00 and 12.07, yet when he was starting to find top gear, managed a 12.92.  So almost a second slower when being urged along.  All the ifs, buts, coulds, and woulds, aren't backed up with reality.  The reality is he is being pushed along to try and maintain as much speed as possible, certainly isn't providing a big kick.

No I wasn't suggesting comparing times to other horses, or between races, or whatever.  The point, was that quite simple, people make the assumption that when Frankel is asked for effort by the jockey he has plenty left to give and more gears to find. The reality is much different.

Sorry my bad, that first one was the QE2, where he was urged along with 1.5 furlongs left, and you can see the result to the times, getting slower.

The Queen Anne was
12.1
11.26
10.58
Then at around 2f urged
11.04
14.01

Considering he is always pushed out to the line, and his last furlong split is always in his slowest 2-3 furlong splits for the whole race, it is hard for any of you to argue that he would be winning by more if let down earlier because he is still finding top gear when the reality shows he was already in it from the start and when he is urged along he is going down in gears trying to keep the revs up.

LOL....sorry BJT, but unless you give us which particular blade of grass on the course you are using as a reference point then to me and the rest of the word if you are farther ahead at the winning line than you are at the course's own reference points (why do you think they have pole markers on course) then that means you are pulling away at the finish.

Name me one other race where Frankel wasn't let go until the 1f pole and he won those well enough didn't he? I also have no idea where I'm supposed to be contradicting myself or where I've said he is a different horse and can only put that down to a figment of your imagination so I'm afraid I can help you there, but if you honestly think that not being pushed hands and heels inside the final furlong and one or two slaps of the whip before again going back to hands and heels is the definition of a horse hard ridden to the line and running out of steam then give up the game as it's clearly not for you.

Frankel went 3f out in the QA and that allowed for him to build up some momentum and enough to get a 11L win. You can't go from upsides with 1f to go and cruising to an 11L win against any horses let alone Gr1 types and you see clearly that Tom Queally's only going hands and heels when he fist asks for an effort and then draws the reins out wide in an effort to get Frankel to wake up and pick up the bit, all the kind of things jockeys usually do before resorting to the whip, which is used mainly to keep a willing horse in top gear or stop him from slowing again more than actually a first resort to get it to quicken.

As for Frankel being in almost top gear all the way, well like I said give up the game as he's absolutely swinging in the bridle at the 2f pole and had he been the only horse in picture you would think he was on his way down to the start! You obviously need a bit of ground in order to build momentum and get into top gear and when you only have 1f to do that as opposed to 3f then your winning margin isn't likely to be as wide.....I should really give up though once you come out with such funny statements as "his strength is his high cruising speed, not his unbelievable turn of foot" because he has both, which means he can be ridden any way you like and has won from all kinds of rides. Yes it was his high cruising speed that helped him win the 2000 guineas from the front but it was his turn of foot and not his cruising speed that allowed him to run away from a horse like Excelebration at the 3f pole in the QA at RA.....unless of course you are laughably saying he "cruised" away from one of the best milers in years!

As for being told I'm arrogant by an Aussie or that I think UK racing is the be all and end all....pot, kettle and black!

I've already explained to you that being favourite doesn't mean best, no more so than the highest OR does, it's just somebody's opinion and I further explained that home country punters tend to punt home country horses and I include UK and Ireland as "home" and home form seeing as there was plenty of it with SYT and none with CDA. Oh and I meant you by the way when saying Aussie bias in claiming SYT was the best horse in the race, not Aussie betting money.

And have you thought that comparing sprinters with mile and 10f races is totally pointless, as with the shorter distances of sprints they are far closer to top speed throughout the race with not as significant an increase in pace compared to longer trips that are run at a slower pace early?

Frankel was timed at 50.96sec for a leisurely first 4f of the Queen Anne (average 12.74sec per furlong) but then he turned on the speed to clock 11.26s for the fifth furlong before going even faster and bringing it down to to 10.58s for the sixth furlong (so that's 200m for a start) before an overall winning time of 1m 37.85s where the track record stands at 1:37.16s and means he covered the final 4f in 46.20sec at an average of 11.55sec per furlong.

Turftrax credited Frankel with a time of 32.88s cumulatively covered for the sixth, seventh and final furlongs (a total of about 600m) which again equates to an average of 10.96sec per furlong which isn't too shabby for a horse with only a 100m burst of speed and on ground officially described as Good To Soft.

Maybe start (or better still stop) there before making yourself look any stupider.

Thanks for all the explanations, but I have different figures.  I have final 3 furlongs done in 35.63 at an average of 11.88

As for the "Good to Soft", don't make me laugh.  The "good to soft" is what is written, based on the penetrometer reading.  The mean reading for a good track is 8.0, based on ALL meetings since it was bought in.  That track had 8.3, on a dry day, about 6 hours before the race started.  I would base absolutely nothing on the terminology good to soft, considering the track actually was on the fast side of good 6 hours before his race, and much closer to good to firm than anything else. 
You may notice that a couple of minutes after his race the ground rating was raised to "good".  So I think you are reaching calling it anything less than good.
As for Frankels last 3 sectionals in the Queen Anne, yes if he can poll a time of 32.88 over 3 furlongs where his last furlong was >14 seconds, then you maybe right.  But when his last furlong is always one of his slowest, there is NO argument to say that he is building momentum.  He is trying to keep it, plain and simple.
For the record, here are his last 3 furlongs, as documented by your Turftrax.
10.58
11.04
14.01

On no planet is that getting quicker as he is building momentum.  You may in fact suggest that each furlong was getting slower.  And with very good reason too, because it is fact.

And you may notice if you ever get a chance to watch the race, that he is pretty much running under his own steam, in cruise mode until after they go past the 2 furlong pole.  His fastest section of the race was between 600 and 400 metres out at 10.58 coming down the hill.  He was then asked to go, and his next 2 furlongs gave 11.04 and 14.01.  The final 30-40 would account for some of that time, but when asked to "go", he went slower than when he was building.

Funny isn't it how many of the Aussies were blaming the rain and getting their excuses in early just in case Black Caviar flopped as it had continuously rained up to RA this year and good to soft means just that, not good and not soft and so you would expect it to take more getting that just good and for times to be generally slower on good to soft compared to just good.

Also Ascot is a wide course which has some straight races and others around a bend and depending on where the stalls are situated and field sizes can dictate where horses run, so you can have different ground for different parts of the course and although the QA was straight, the field tended to race mid to far side as opposed to where the good description was only changed for the 2YO sprint distance races where the runners raced mainly mid to near side.

As for me mentioning momentum then I'm talking about it from around 3f or so out but all horses run the final furlong slower than the first couple in which they really start to quicken as if you quicken at the 3f pole and put in your fastest 2 furlongs between the 3f to 1f pole then you have been going at an increased speed for 2f as well as already having gone 4f prior to that so you are bound to be slowing, that's something I've never disputed but megsy on here did. If a horse quickens when upsides a rival from 3f out it is likely to build more momentum than doing so if only quickening from 1f out, as at from 1f out and first starting to quicken when upsides a rival the line will come before it has too much time to build up any decent lead and that's taking into account any slowing down and tiring in the final furlong or any race where it begins to quicken and builds that momentum at that 3f pole.

Frankel might well have been slowing time wise in his final furlong in his races compared to the 3f and 2f marks but that will be due to a combination of easing once he has won and the natural effects of racing for a mile or 10f but it's the same effect as the others in behind will be feeling so doesn't actually mean Frankel is at the end of his tether any more than it does the rest of them.

I never said the other horses weren't also going slower, and yes of course slowing down at the end of the race is likely.  But, what has been said all over the forum about Frankel, is that we haven't seen what he is capable of because he wins with so much left in the tank, and because he isn't "let go" until so late in the races, he "would have" or "could have" won by so much more.
My point, is that when he is let go, he isn't being let go for a burst of speed, he is being ridden out to keep up the momentum, that he can build with just a little niggling.  The fastest splits Frankel has, you won't see the rider moving on him.  That is what makes him appear so impressive, and of course it is impressive, but to assume that because he looks so good with no movement from the jockey, is false to assume that he has any acceleration left.  His times certainly do not indicate any quickening at all.

As for Black Caviar and excuses, the trainer came out and said she would run on any track conditions.  Any person with reasonable intelligence would be able to make a list as long as their arm about possible excuses for her, before the race.  Like maybe a wooly horse with her winter coat, racing in the middle of summer? 
The straight track handles the rain much better than the round course.  You may see the readings over the week and notice the straight track hardly changed from around 8-9 whilst the round track ranged between 5.5 and above 8.  But that really is irrelevant to any conversation here.  This has nothing to do with Australians at all.  Simple facts remain that Excelebration is a way overrated horse, and is now rated so high that it is rated one of the best in recent history, based purely on a false rating for Frankel.  So much so, that they pacemaker that has struggled to get within 30 lengths of anything for 2-3 years, has had a boost to its ratings simply for racing in the same races as Frankel.

The simple case of the "official track rating" being listed as "good to soft" shows how little the ratings mean.  They have a set list of rule to follow, with the penetrometer reading basing that official rating.  ~7.7-8.3 is a good track.  The mean reading being 8.0 being a good track.  They got a reading of 8.3, and somehow managed to call it good to soft.  If they can't even get that right with set guidelines, how in hell can anybody take the rating seriously.
And if you can, with a straight face, stick to your good to soft story, suggesting that in the space of 3 minutes after the race changing to "good", then good luck to you.  But it doesn't help with the argument that the course was 8.3 6 hours before the race.  If 3 minutes can see a track rise from good to soft, to good, then imagine how fast the track must have been after 6 hours. 

Will be interesting to see how Excelebration runs tonight.
Although I,m backing Moonlight Cloud e/w

Frankel is very rarely pushed out all the way to the line and was even eased in his 11L win in the QA at RA but you sense they wanted to make a statement with all the debating about whether he or Black Caviar was the best horse in racing but had he been eased earlier then no doubt people like you BJT would have scoffed if I or anyone else had said he could have won by 11L if not eased.

You also seem to be confusing yourself with your own arguments and so maybe I'm surplus to requirements here as you are doing a pretty good job of arguing with yourself. You firstly seem to be having a little dig at Frankel by saying he's spent at the end of his races (which has been the case about once in the SJP) and say that as if it's a weakness or a bad thing and then later say "I never said the other horses weren't also going slower, and yes of course slowing down at the end of the race is likely."

What you did say without doubt though was:

So where is this burst, if he is travelling slower when being urged along?
Or the Champion Stakes.  He was let down at the 1 furlong pole.  Yeah?
His previous 2 furlongs were 12.00 and 12.07, yet when he was starting to find top gear, managed a 12.92.  So almost a second slower when being urged along

Which seems to be at odds with your acceptance that horses tend to run the final furlong in a slower time than say the 1f or 2f prior to that when they first start to quicken.

You also stated that Frankel has relatively little turn of foot due to a high cruising speed and therefore little increase in speed when asked to quicken and only has a "short 100-200 metre burst" which in UK race measurements is a half to one furlong but then later stated:

For example, here are his sectionals for his 147 rated performance from the 4th furlong onwards.
11.89
11.56
10.99

So that's at least 2f or 400m in which he is putting in a burst of speed.......so which is it, 100-200m or 400m+?

Anyway I think I will let Excelebration prove what good horses he and Frankel are.

Frankel raced on galloping tracks with lots of pace,and on the whole against inferior opposition,Cirrus was the best horse he met,but was cirrus going out of form? Black Cavier a great sprinter and no disgrace for a short stop on the wrong ground with just one piece of work after a very long journey.She was competitive and the owners deserve credit for there spotsmanship in giving us here in the uk, the chance to witness a great horse.Those same remarks do not apply to Frankel outside the uk.There are more than just two runners in that mile tonight, punters need to take there blindfolds off!

Not sure you actually said anything there ima.  Perhaps your name refers to your mind and you are yet to find the carrots in the middle?

The only thing I can see is something about proving my point that his fastest sectionals are done without any urging from the jockey. 
Burst of speed?  Going faster than you were going before doesn't make it a burst of speed.  Pretty sure you can sit in a Prius and end up going faster in the second furlong, but not sure I have ever heard anybody describe that as a "burst of speed".

If Excelebration routs tonights field will he be worth a raise Brig?

Wise Dan looks more of a 9-10f horse to me.  Quality animal all the same.  Obviously is only just winning Group 2, so not really tested in G1 company, but then again, either is Excelebration, and Obviously has the formline to match Excelebrations, so I think an EW bet has to go on there.

Doesn't look a real strong race, but Excelebration has to be a lay, but think it will get shorter by race time.  We all know how much UK loves their "value" lol.

I think at current odds my bets will be Moonlight Cloud to win now before it shortens, Obviously EW think can get longer odds, and a lay of Excelebration later think maybe 2.2-2.3 may be on offer but happy with 2.5 if need be.  All based purely on my perception of value.

Worth a drop now, GT?

Brigust - I like reading your posts (even when you irritate me) but that result really must have given you 'the horn' - I know you were PRAYING Excelebration ran exactly that sort of 'rateable' race

Not really Brig,ran ok as far as everything taken into consideration is concerned.

Btw BJT knows all about "value"?

NG I backed him actually. I know I don't rate this generation of horses very highly when compared with previous generaions but they are the only ones that can win the races, the other generations are no longer here. So I have to look at the race pragmatically not whether a horse of the past would win it.

Brig - nevertheless...an ideal outcome for you (despite your bet) as you rate things.

GT I know it's only 2 weeks weeks since he won the QE11 I know but it was only 2 weeks between the Eclipse and King George when BG won them. The Eclipse was on bottomless going and 2 weeks before that he had won the Prince of Wales in course record time beating the subsequent Irish Derby winner by 5 lengths giving him 19lbs. No excuses needed.

NG everything doesn't revolve around one race in the US. Believe me.

I know that squire...I'll always forgive a below-par performance (a la Dancing Brave) but conveniently, a 'Daylami performance' enhances the credentials of a top-class performer in my opinion.

Does anyone lower their 'personal' ratings of quality group one runners when they disappoint abroad?

I certainly don't, but when they deliver the goods like Kalanisi, Fantastic Light, Snow Fairy, Pilsudski & Singspiel (to name but a handful) you can't help but admire them even more, even if they haven't literally improved on the form-book!

NG sadly you used the word quality then started comparing Excel with some very decent horses.

I have continually said he is not a 135 horse not even a 130 so tonights race makes no odds to me. Some people think he is one of the best milers for years, I think he is one of the worst. You see it is the races you win that counts it is what you beat.

*It is not the races you win

Brig - there's ABSOLUTELY no mileage in arguing respective merits with you so I won't try...all I know is that for whatever your 'insurance' on Excelebration you had earlier tonight, your fingers were doubly crossed (we all KNOW that) and you got your wish!

PS - in years to come...Excelebration WILL be recognised in the same class as most of the above performers I quoted, though Daylami (at his best) was a little bit special in my view.

Some people might even judge the likes of Pilsudski on his beatings in two Arcs by Helissio & Peintre Celebre, but I'm confident that 'proximity' hugely flattered the aforementioned pair!

NO

BJT
Not sure you actually said anything there ima.  Perhaps your name refers to your mind and you are yet to find the carrots in the middle?

LOL.....I said plenty there but sorry and I should have appreciated it would have been too much for you to handle.

With regards Excelebration, I can't deny it was a disappointing run but my fears were either bad luck in running or a bad ride and think it's fair to say the first didn't happen but Joseph O'Brien's rides on SNA and Excelebration weren't his finest hours.

The winner is a front runner and he gave him too much rope and using Cityscape as a yardstick there wasn't much between them on form, so it was asking for trouble to give a horse like that a start on a turning track where O'Brien also didn't ride to hold his position when others came on his outer and he could only really start asking his horse once they straightened up and by then the winner had flown.

NG Pilsudski beat Loup Savage into 2nd place in his last run in this country. Loup Savage then won a Group 3 and a Group 1. That one horse achieved more after Pilsudski beat him than all of the horses that finished immediately behind Excelebration in all of his 14 races put together.

Now tell me he isn't benefitting from running behind FRankel.

LOL Brig that is why I put the thread up........to generate debate.

How many BCs did the Brigadier or Mill Reef or their generation contest?

At Santa Anita btw where track records were smashed by US horses winning races the Yanks had struggled with?

Are you saying European form has been devalued on that run?

Lol Brig..........I put the thread up with a Question mark as to whether the knockers would come out in droves.......regardless of the result.

You have declined the thread but elected to give forth about a horse benefiting from running behind Frankel.

Now correct me if I am wrong here but every horse you have cited as great........you have invariably named the horses behind?

Did any of them run at a Breeders Cup on ground where records were being smashed?

GT I said US races mean nothing win or lose. Are you saying had Excel won you wouldn't have claimed it enhanced Frankel? Of course you would and you know it. When BG and Mill Reef were racing there were something like 234 Group races to run in now there are 450+. And I'm not inluding the Breeders Cup, Meydan, Sha Tin or Kranji. And the only US race was the Washington International. No, when making a comparison I don't include them. In the 70's the Sussex wss the only Gr1 mile race ffs. The only Gr1 race at Royal Ascot was the Gold Cup. Wise up GT.

Anyway GT good to see you're in good form. I'm off to bed G'night.

I doubt I need to wise up Brig,I am well aware of what there was and the changing times.I laughed at the outpouring clarion calls for Workforce and STS having to win a BC to prove their worth.

In most cases it means little but still a worthy achievement........if ratings were based on a BC win then Goldikova would be 12lbs higher than she is officially rated.Zenyatta if rated solely on her BC run a few lbs higher.

My point was and is........Excelebration winning against all the odds would have boosted Frankel......how could it not........but being beaten does not detract from him.......the horses in front tonight would struggle to beat Frankel in Europe.

Let's all just rate Dancing Brave's whole career based on his BC run eh?

Oh and while we are at it, Moonlight Cloud's too.

Anyone who saw Wise Dan's run at Woodbine should have realised how hard he was going to beat in his own backyard

Excelebration is a class horse ...but just because Franke is special does not make him special

The track/going were against him..probably not a bad run in the circumstances

It could also be Ascot took more out of him than AOB thought?

As I have said on another thread I thought BC Classic may have been more suitable for him

if he would have taken to surface of course

Might have been a better guess than his trainer managed ebul.

Thank fook he was never in the Armed Forces.

you are right Moley

I am guessing

Lay this FAV for maximum at Charles 0213 win and place.......and yes I know the time.........on the way to post.

Better than the BC...........still running 4.1 and 1.74.

0220 MountP lay Start Sreet........max win lay 50% place.

Half the track...........12l.

There must be a large amount of Champions running this year?

For those that believe that Excelebration was overated before lasts nights race,they will feel much easier with that view today. Frankel Would have been thought capable of a 153(it cannot be done) on his best,it looks like some judges took the view that Excelebration ran about 3.25 -3.50 lenths(6lb) below his best against Frankel. I think he ran to his best last night,with not to many excuses.But the fact remains there were enough infront that ran in different styles,Obviously making the pace(not too quick early on) and then using his pace edge to place ,but the way in which Animal Kingdom passed Excelebration does suggest the ratings looking a little high. The topic will continue i hope,some good insights from all corners of the argument. I have never meant to insult Frankel as a champion,he is fantastic,but i do wish to make point that the high figures in use may be in question?