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.

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.

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. 

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.

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?

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

Worth a drop now, GT?

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

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.

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.

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!

*It is not the races you win

NO

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

you are right Moley

I am guessing