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:
You didn't answer my question Figgis. And on RUK the other night DGH vigorously refuted that claim. I will rewind when I have time and give you his reasoning but I know it will fall on deaf ears so I might not bother.
|
|
By:
out of interest Brigust,how far would you have BG in front of Frankel on your ratings?
I am (like some on here) old enough to remember BG and that era and ( its only an old mans view) cannot have the great BG within 2L of Frankel,but thats what so great about the debate,its all about opinions and no-one can be proved right or wrong,exxcept i know i am right.lol |
|
By:
So he goes to print with one claim, then verbally claims the complete opposite? Yet, you still have confidence in this man? Or is that just in his latter statement because it suits your purpose?
|
|
By:
I would love to speed rate the 1971 & 1972 seasons but I can't find the full season form books with race times ... even the 1986 and 1987 Haig/ Superform manuals don't include race times
|
|
By:
Grendel, I saw some on ebay a few weeks ago, but they were a bit pricier than what you'd pay for most old form books.
|
|
By:
If you read the blog Figgis he doesn't state anything he refers to a statement made. That is quite different.
SJ I wouldn't know who would win and neither does anyone else. I think when these horses reach a certain level, providing they haven't regularly met on the racecourse and there is a clear winner, they should not be rated. They should join an elite group, Hall of Fame if you wish, so that there is only personal debate one against the other. Frankel has won easily against what I believe to be lesser opposition but all he could do was to win easily. A 10f race on good ground between Frankel, Nijinsky, Brigadier Gerard, Mill Reef, Dancing Brave and Sea the Stars would bring the crowds out. |
|
By:
I'd have thought the old sporting life results pages would be available on t'internet by now .... i'd like to know what times the other races were run in on 1972 QE2 card. I definitely don't agree with crediting Brigadier Gerard as running to 145 just because he carried 9-7 and ran to what a horse carrying 9-0 running to 138 would have done, ludicrous to call that the second best performance ever.
|
|
By:
cheers brig
now that would be a race to watch |
|
By:
How is the number of group race relevant to a horse's ability and I've already answered your cherry picked strict criteria question before brigust1, that strict criteria being does it only matter about what horses have done after they have faced Excelebration and does what they did before count for nothing?
Just to show what a moot point you are making, Cityscape won a Gr1 at Meydan during the Dubai World Cup meeting and amongst his other form since has been 2 seconds in another 2 Gr1s, yet which horse beat him in those races? It was Excelebration, so are you going to use Excelebration to knock the form of Cityscape in order to by association knock the form of er, Excelebration? When Excelebration finished 2nd to Frankel in the QEII last season, Immortal Verse went into that race off the back of a hat trick, 2 being Gr1s and one being a 1L defeat of Goldikova, a horse as I understand it being the only European horse to win more than 10 Gr1s and a 3 times Breeders' Cup winner. Amongst IV's form since the QEII is a 7¾L beating by Elusive Kate, a horse well beaten more than once now by Excelebration and once again IV was also beaten 9¾L by Excelebration too, so I'm not quite sure what you are asking here, did you want Cityscape and IV to reverse the form with Excelebration and if so would that be more or less likely to make you think that was good from then? |
|
By:
brigust1 Joined: 07 Dec 01
If you read the blog Figgis he doesn't state anything he refers to a statement made. That is quite different. Ffs, he is working to those guidelines. |
|
By:
They should join an elite group, Hall of Fame if you wish, so that there is only personal debate one against the other
Which would go against the whole purpose of handicapping, deary me  |
|
By:
they should not be rated. They should join an elite group, Hall of Fame if you wish, so that there is only personal debate one against the other.
Which would go against the whole purpose of handicapping, deary me |
|
By:
I never thought about Meydan, Ima. Include the Meydan Group races in the list I posted. Can't remember how many there were in 1972. Never mind. You understand my point Ima, full well.
Figgis they are not going to run in handicaps. Deary, deary me. |
|
By:
One of the fundamental flaws of handicapping in my opinion is the supposition that horses are affected by weight universally, it may well be that there is an average amount of affect but in my opinion there is way too much noise for it to be accepted the way it is.
|
|
By:
Ah right, so what is your cut off point where horses stop being rated?
|
|
By:
brigust1
23 Oct 12 12:47 How do you explain the fact that there are now up to 100 more Group races to win in the UK, Ireland and Europe than there were when Brigadier Gerard was racing and when the pattern started in 1972 yet none, that is NONE, of the horses that finished directly behind Excelebration when he won his races, or when he finished 2nd to Frankel, or were 2nd when he was 3rd to Frankel, have failed, I repeat FAILED, to win even one Group race let alone a Group 1 race. Let me hear your answers to that if you will it's fairly obvious...Frankel has been dishing out beatings in excess of a stone, well in excess in many cases, to these horses you refer to, clearly suggesting they are not up to winning Grp1 races and would struggle to win lesser Grp races...when he has taken on proven Grp 1 horses like CDA, Nathaniel, Excelebration, Canford Cliffs etc he whupped them too...so what's yr point?...are you really trying to knock an 11-length destruction of Excelebration etc because Indomito stayed on past some beaten horses?! ps twice as many horses in training now than 40 yrs ago hence need for more Group races...you'll probably find there's more sellers too |
|
By:
bha handicappers blog is posted today..ur question will be answered no doubt
http://www.britishhorseracing.com/goracing/blogs/handicappers.asp |
|
By:
I'm not sure what the level should be set at to ensure the group is elite. When the International board meet they should only be deciding whether or not the horse in question is of a suitable ability to enter the Hall of Fame. Giving him or her a figure when it is virtually impossible to prove it is an exercise in futulity. Some will agree and some will disagree. Whether or not a horse has reached a level to enter the Hall of Fame should attract few if any disagreements so the whole sport gains.
|
|
By:
I have to disagree with the more Group races bit. I would rather see fewer but more competitive Group races. Nowadays there are lots of horses winning just one Group 1 race when in reality they are not Group 1 horses. The Moyglare Stud Stakes this year was a glaring example. Even Richard Hughes in his column said it wasn't up to Group 1 standards.
|
|
By:
As you can't answer the most fundamental point of your own idea, let's assume the cut off is 140. Now, I'm sure certain people will get their knickers in a twist whether a horse has hit the magical 140 or not, but we'll leave that aside. Let's say that a horse appears to smash the 140 barrier comfortably, using your logic you can't rate it any higher, so how can you correctly rate the beaten horses?
|
|
By:
You cannot accurately rate horses that win easily. How accurately can you rate the horses Frankel beat? He won easily in all bar one of his races. When the Dancing Brave and Frankel debate reaches it's conclusion if Dancing Brave remains above Frankel you will not be happy, I assume. So to prove your point you will, as you do, denegrate DB to prove your point whereas we should all be celebrating great horses. They don't know, you don't know and I don't know. Ridiculous exercise that divides the sport we support.
|
|
By:
So to prove your point you will, as you do, denegrate DB
Where exactly have I done this? Don't fudge it. |
|
By:
I'm not fudging anything I have very clearly detailed my views.
|
|
By:
You accused me of denegrating DB, so explain it.
|
|
By:
brigust1 • October 23, 2012 1:47 PM BST
I have to disagree with the more Group races bit. I would rather see fewer but more competitive Group races. 1971 2000 guineas ... 6 ran 1971 Sussex Stakes ... 6 ran 1971 Goodwood Mile ... 3 ran 1971 Qe2 .... 3 ran 1972 Prince of Wales ... 7 ran 1972 Qe2 .... 3 ran  |
|
By:
sorry 1972 Qe2 ... 4!
|
|
By:
You only prove my point Grendel but only 2 of the races on your list were Group 1 and one of those was a classic. Of course where a Champion is involved the fields are likely to be smaller but some of the Group 1 races really aren't up to Group 1 standard.
|
|
By:
The races themselves alone are not what make the standard good, it's the quality of horses that run in those races from year to year that counts and the 1986 Arc and this year's Arc were both obviously Arcs but the quality of runners quite different.
The Greenham Stakes is only a Gr3 and this year's winner Caspar Netscher is fairly decent if not outstanding horse. Last year's 1-2 were Frankel and Excelebration, same race though different quality of horses. |
|
By:
There are certain races where the best around target them. The Derby and Arc are prime examples.Sometimes circumstances decide they cannot run etc but these races are their connections main targets. (I have to say I've never heard a trainer ever say the Queen Anne was their main target). In fact, in my opinion,there are too many Group 1 races allowing horses to win their Group 1 against weak opposition. It also weakens the better races because these horses are diverted elswhere.
My point about the number of Group races overall was to highlight the fact that certain horses that finished next to Excelebration failed to even win a Listed race let alone a Group race. Irrespective of the number available and how weak some indesputably were. |
|
By:
But the point I'm trying to make is that yes there are big races and yes trainers will target those races but the quality of any race in any given year can only be judged by the runners that run in it. Which horse was the best, Dancing Brave having never won a Derby or Shaamit or Benny The Dip because they did, even though neither of the latter ever won another race after the Derby? DB was 2nd in a Derby, as were Dushyantor to Shaamit and Silver Patriarch but again DB was by far the better horse.
For the third time now I'll ask you does it only count what horses do after they were beaten by Excelebration as a way to measure their ability of that level of form and I've also already said Cityscape and Immortal Verse have been beaten again by Excelebration after first being beaten by him previously so it's a bit of a meaningless argument really. Not splitting hairs here but I'd also say trainers do target the Queen Anne if it's the type of race they think fits their horse's profile, just as Hannon and Head targeted it with Canford Cliffs and Goldikova. It's also for 4YOs and older so trainers have usually done all of their experimenting with them as 3YOs too. |
|
By:
Of course the Dancing Brave and Benny the Dip point is valid but they were representatives of the best of their generation. Whether it be the Arc or the Derby. That is then potentially a reflection of the quality of the horses of that generation.
The winners of the Derby and the Arc last year were not a reflection and possibly neither was the Arc but through Danedream and the King George an assessment can be made. Similarly Brigadier Gerard never won either of these races but through Mill Reef, who did, an assessment oof the quality of that generation can be formed. And to answer your question of course it matters. Franking the form obviously matters. Dubawi Gold was an outsider in the 2000Gns so any race he ran afterwards would confirm or not that running. And that therefore goes for Native Khan, Slim Shadey and Fury. |
|
By:
Highlighting what horses have done after running against Frankel/ Excelebration etc could work the other way. What if they have been bottomed for their ability in the races in defeat... what if Frankel ruined a lot of horses that ran in the guineas? A hard race can knock a horse off form that they don't come back from.
|
|
By:
this is the happy house...it's happy here...in the happy house
|
|
By:
we'll all have fun, fun ..... FUN!!!! .........whoaaaaaaagh
|
|
By:
We're all quite sane, sane, sane
Not all, I fear |
|
By:
Anyone who thinks the Timeform ratings decisions are not made with commercial reasons in mind should look at Page 5 of the RP today.
|
|
By:
clutching @ straws
|
|
By:
must be hard to beat in the mile.
|
|
By:
You can fool some of the people DI.
|
|
By:
they've been quoting Timeform ratings in stallion ads since Lester Piggot was a lad...so what? Timeform inflate all ratings just in case horse becomes a stallion and they get their name in print....makes sense
|