There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 324 comments are related to the topic:
Will Excelebration be raised to 135?
Will Excelebration be raised to 135?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 324
|
By:
no brig. im not sure about style of victory but sts wouldve won everyone frankel did.
i couldnt say the same for frankel tho. |
|
By:
just my opinion.
|
|
By:
That's better Figgis. Ffs cheer up. No-one died. I've been here before with this organisation so it's nothing new. You never know most people may think the figures are right. It's just that I don't.
|
|
By:
Beyond debate now i believe , unbeaten over three seasons , remarkable
|
|
By:
I can't understand how anyone can even want to pick holes in Excelebration after the beatings he's had, and been brave enough to arguably improve!
I didn't rate him as much as I should have, but his last two performance have been quality, and he's gone up in my estimation - I suspect I'm not alone on that score and officially I reckon he'll be raised by the end of the season...he deserves to be. I don't know what Timeform will do with him, but I wouldn't wipe my arse on their ratings! |
|
By:
not THAT remarkable imo when u run over a mile for 90% of your races.
but he is a remarkable horse. i mean look at it from another angle, had they been more ambitious he wouldnt have remained unbeaten. imo. his career was orchestrated to keep him unbeten |
|
By:
ILWAB - STS was an amazing horse with great qualities, but as you're well aware...he didn't have the extravagance of Frankel, or for that matter the engine - nothing has!
It would have been nice to have seen if STS was capable of really stretching out like Frankel did in the Queen Anne - we'll never definitively know will we? BUT...you can keep dreaming about the possibility!   |
|
By:
You never know most people may think the figures are right. It's just that I don't.
But it's not just that you don't agree is it? You believe there is a Frankel conspiracy, you have accused the raters of deliberately manipulating the figures of any horse that runs against Frankel in order to bump up his status. You deride anybody that agrees with his rating as "sheep". You refuse to accept the international ratings have slipped, even though those very same handicappers responsible have stated it themselves. Are you a fan of David Icke, by any chance? |
|
By:
brigust1
I'm just putting the horses up Figgis. I will leave it to you to denegrate and ridicule them. You have such experience at it and you do such a good job. Please do not let me stand in your way. It does make me smile the lengths some people (including you) will go to protect Frankel. The trouble is brigust1 you've done the exact opposite to downgrade Frankel from just short of rubbishing Excelebration, cherry picking isolated form lines with Side Glance and ignoring other form lines with that same horse and even suggesting a new type of grass might have had a bearing on Frankel's run on Saturday! |
|
By:
You may be right Figgis but back to insults is it? I wonder why Lydia asked the Timeform rep whether the Frankel rating was a commercial one? Why would she ask that?
Ima No cherry picking involved. The Side Glance form was the race Timeform chose, not me. And the grass was explained by Ascot racecourse and the difference where the old track meets the new track and the going was completely different was pointed out more than once on the TV. Keep up. |
|
By:
What I'm talking about brigust1 is when you you were doing down Frankel due to Excelebration only beating the 115 (OR) rated Side Glance narrowly in the QA even though previously both horses had beaten that same 115 rated horse 9¼L and 5¼L in last season's QEII.......I hope I've kept up well enough there for you?
|
|
By:
Ima I beg to differ with you. I never once did down Excelebration in the Queen Anne. He obviously never ran to form and Timeform stated that quite categorically he was not included in their 147 calculations. I think they had him down as running to 118 or something close.
|
|
By:
I specifically remember brigust1 that because you rated Brigadier Gerad as better than Frankel you would do down Excelebration and one of the ways to do that was to use Side Glance as yardstick and how close he finished to Excelebration in the QA. I also remember saying (as others did) that was a false way to measure it as Excelebration suffered from trying to go with Frankel.
Yet as mentioned above, Side Glance was well beaten by Frankel and Excelebration in last season's QEII and well beaten again by Excelebration yesterday, hence my use of the term cherry picking. |
|
By:
Absolutely, totally and unequivocally wrong Ima.
I have criticised Excelebration explaining where the horses that finished 2nd to him when he won, third when he was 2nd to Frankel and 2nd when he was third to Frankel have since run 99, yes 99 times and won 4 minor handicaps and a maiden between them. I will say that again in case you missed it. The horses that finished 2nd to Excelebration when he won, finished 3rd when Excelebration was 2nd to Frankel or finished 2nd when Excelebration was 3rd to Frankel have since run 99, ninety nine, times between them and won only 4 minor handicaps and a maiden. For anyone who thinks this is good form I suggest you get another hobby. |
|
By:
Which was basically is a long winded way of saying Frankel isn't better than Brigadier Gerad and there's nothing special about Excelebration because Excelebration only finished ahead of poor horses and Side Glance is just the one I am highlight here. Excelebration has run 15 times and won 9 of them yet you chose (as in cherry pick) a handful or defeat races to go by using your own strict criteria to suit your own argument. I love how form only seems to matter regarding what horses did after those races where they met Frankel or Excelebration, does it not matter what they did before?
It's not really that important to be or else I'd make the effort to dig up where you had said some of the things you have but I just find it amusing that you will try to use any angle possible to do down Frankel and Excelebration and then accuse others of doing the opposite regarding Frankel when they talk him up. The "special" grass at Ascot was a classic as if you were alluding to it taking the shine off of Frankel......did it only apply on the parts that Frankel ran on or was not it the same for all of them? |
|
By:
LOL @ typos, I really should get to bed but biding on something on ebay lol....."or was it not the same for all of them?" that should have said.
|
|
By:
By: This user is offline. brigust1
Date Joined: 07 Dec 01 Add contact When: 21 Oct 12 23:53 Absolutely, totally and unequivocally wrong Ima. I have criticised Excelebration explaining where the horses that finished 2nd to him when he won, third when he was 2nd to Frankel and 2nd when he was third to Frankel have since run 99, yes 99 times and won 4 minor handicaps and a maiden between them. I will say that again in case you missed it. The horses that finished 2nd to Excelebration when he won, finished 3rd when Excelebration was 2nd to Frankel or finished 2nd when Excelebration was 3rd to Frankel have since run 99, ninety nine, times between them and won only 4 minor handicaps and a maiden. For anyone who thinks this is good form I suggest you get another hobby. spot on !!!! |
|
By:
LOL megsy, cheers for that as your appearance just rubber stamped it as being cherry picked nonsense.
What level of race had Grand Prix Boss won before finishing well behind Frankel and Excelebration next time in the SJP? Or how about what 3 races and had what level had Immortal Verse won before being well behind them both in last year's QEII? Or what about Cityscape having been twice well beaten at Gr1 level by Excelebration, didn't that one win some race at Meydan not so long ago? |
|
By:
next you will say excelebration was bred to be a miler
 |
|
By:
brigust1 Joined: 07 Dec 01
Whatever happened to sensible debate? |
|
By:
brigust1
21 Oct 12 19:31 Ah so we are assuming if one horse didn't run then the result would still be the same? Works for me. No response when i posted this twice earlier so maybe i worded it badly....in which races that Excelebration fin 2nd to Frankel would he not have won if Frankel hadnt run and please explain why. Thanks in advance. |
|
By:
megsy
22 Oct 12 04:24 next you will say excelebration was bred to be a miler easily amused.....sire sprinter/dam placed up to 1m3f in France, half-sister to French winners Kembera (10.5f/1m3f) and Kingso (9.7f/10.5f) out of half-sister to Irish Oaks winner Princess Pati, grand-daughter of 1m and 1m4f Gr 1 winner Sarah Siddons.....what was he bred to be then? a miler as likely as anything else imo (half-brother by 7f horse Mull of Kintyre just won Grp 3 @ 9f also) |
|
By:
Exceed and Excel, sire of Excelebration average winning distance for his progeny is 1,184m, or just short of 6f.
1. Only one has won over 1650m 2. 70% have not won beyond 1300m |
|
By:
and how many were out of middle-distance bred mares? roughly will do.
|
|
By:
according to Racing Post site, E&E has a 12% strike rate with runners @ 10f-11f and has even had 2 winners from 25 runners at 12f-13f....misprint?
|
|
By:
Excellebration will destroy them in the breeders cup, which will put to bed this whole debate.
|
|
By:
Excellebration will destroy them in the breeders cup, which will put to bed this whole debate.
You'd think so, but Brigrust continuing the argument with one set of cherry-picked criteria or another is pretty much a nap. |
|
By:
How can you say it is cherry picked Dr Gonzo? The list includes EVERY race Excelebration ran and EVERY horse that finished either just ahead of him or just behind him. That is not cherry picking. If I selected certain races then you may have a point but I have included EVERY race. So don't fall into that trap.
All this proves is that this division is very weak and the whole division is weak overall. And don't listen to me. Phil Smith, BHA handicapper, has already stated this group of horses is not as good as Dancing Brave ran against and you only have to look at the Timeform ratings from before Frankel. In Brigadier Gerard's era the 70's there were 18 horses rated 135 and higher. In Dancing Brve's era the 80's there were 22 horses rated 135 and more yet in the 12 years of this decade there has only been 3 horses rated 135 and more. That is a massive, huge difference and shows what a poor period we are going through. Timeform can claim what they want but they cannot change history. |
|
By:
Exceed and Excel's stats will point to shorter distances because of the forward 2 y/os he produces. The stats also point to g/f and good ground even tho his higher class offspring have showed their best performances with cut. There are plenty of Exceed and Excel sprinters out there but so far his most successful colts are Excelebration and Helmet who's best performances have been over 8f with soft in the going description, and Helmet won a g/s 7f G1 as a 2 y/o.
|
|
By:
In Brigadier Gerard's era the 70's there were 18 horses rated 135 and higher. In Dancing Brve's era the 80's there were 22 horses rated 135 and more yet in the 12 years of this decade there has only been 3 horses rated 135 and more. That is a massive, huge difference and shows what a poor period we are going through.
Whick kind of pisses all over your theory that they're artificially inflating ratings nowadays. |
|
By:
Well Figgis perhaps perhaps you had better have a word with Phil Smith and his recent quote about 'in 2007 no horse in the world was rated at over 130'. It's a crap era excluding Frankel and Sea the Stars. When will that sink in. And the only other horse rated over 135 was Harbinger and that was based on one run. If Timeform had treated Harbinger's run the same way they treated Roberto's win then even he wouldn't have been on the list.
And, as I have already said, why don't you ask Lydia Hislop why she asked the Timeform rep if Frankel had been given 147 for commercial reasons. It's as clear as day if you want to look. But you don't so it isn't. |
|
By:
Brig, why do you quote Phil Smith at me when I regard him as incompetent? You yourself have slated him but you use him to back your cas when it suits you, very hypocritical.
So, in your view, since the millennium there should have only been 2 horses rated 135+, while at the same time you glibly state that there were 18 horses rated that high in the 70s and 22 in the 80s, expecting everybody to blindly accept that all those ratings were accurate and crying foul when any of them are questioned. Using your estimate of the breed's rapid decline in such a short period then the best horses in 50 years will be equivalent to 70s platers, laughable imo. I don't understand the significance of the Hislop remark, perhaps you could explain what it means to you? |
|
By:
I didn't hear the remark, but, looking at what you posted earlier, you said she asked if it was a commercial rating. You now have turned it around to say she asked was it "given for commercial reasons". Well, which did she say? If it was the first then to a normal person that would just suggest she was simply asking was it a provisional rating or a commercial one they were making public. On the other hand, maybe you're right, they're all in on it together, they're all out to get you and The Brig, the breed is going down the toilet faster than you can flush it and we're all doomed!
|
|
By:
When have I slated Phil Smith? What I have done is demand that he doesn't raise Frankel above Dancing Brave on such tenuous form lines. Nothing hypocritical when someone actually recognises the point you are making and agrees with it.
It is not my view about the 135 rated horses it is Timeform's. And Timeform has regularly stated they have used the same method of measurement they always use. However using sectionals to push Frankel is unfair because horses of the past were not allowed that option. Perhaps horses in the fture will prove or disprove their theory. You can twist the words any way you like. Recently, Frankel and Sea the Stars apart, we haven't been flushed with anything to write home about and that is now becoming recognised as it should be. What I do know is the 3 year olds this year are even worse. On a positive note the 2 year olds are putting together some good performances. Unlike some previous seasons when the only decent horse around only won the Racing Post Trophy. There is some depth this season let us hope it materialises into some quality. This time next year if Dawn Approach wins the Gns, Derby and Arc Frankel will be usurped. And it is not as inconcievable as it may sound. He looks like he stays and the Arc may not take a lot of winning. I'm not suggesting he will but that is how the wheel turns. The 2010's could be a great era. |
|
By:
This time next year if Dawn Approach wins the Gns, Derby and Arc Frankel will be usurped.
This line alone suggests you haven't even got the vaguest idea of how handicapping works. |
|
By:
What I have done is demand
Megalomania creeping in with the paranoia |
|
By:
And, as I have already said, why don't you ask Lydia Hislop why she asked the Timeform rep if Frankel had been given 147 for commercial reasons. It's as clear as day if you want to look.
What is clear? I would bet a pound to a penny it was because LH was trying to be balanced and reflect the hundreds of emails they'd received, one of which raised the question....from someone like yourself  What is your alternative theory? |
|
By:
Figgis, we ascertained months ago he hasnt got the vaguest idea how handicapping works
 |
|
By:
Moonlight Cloud and Farrh to be rated 132 then? Will put them in the top 5 horses on the planet. Maybe even in history...
 |
|
By:
what are you smoking BJT?
|