I suggest you are just an argumentative, sad person hanging onto any way possible to make yourself look superior to everyone else.
Sad, very sad.

And the one thing I refuse to do is stoop to your level.

No, of course not, brig

You may not like him and you may think he is a clown GT that is your opinion. I don't and I don't think I have shot myself in either foot. I simply stated what was blindingly obvious. Though you may disagree with my view at least you didn't call me a moron and that is totally unnecessary in reasoned debate. The whole thing about a forum is that views, often different views can be aired without resort to abuse or insult. I am neither a moron nor am I thick. That some posters can hide behind their anonimity while abusing other posters says more about them and when that position is reached the person abusing or insulting has already lost the argument.

That some posters can hide behind their anonimity while abusing other posters says more about them and when that position is reached the person abusing or insulting has already lost the argument.

I suggest you are just an argumentative, sad person

The lack of self awareness is quite staggering.

Moron v sad person - a show of hands

Six months down the line and this argument will still be going. You will still be looking for any angle to crab Frankel because you believe the Brigadier was better. FACT.

"You can't deny that Frankel must be pretty well the best we've ever seen."

Ian Balding, no less.

The bottom line is "No-one will ever know" Good night.

Where Frankel usually takes ages to pull up CDA was begining to run past him again.

He was not labouring.

I saw the horse up close afterwards, and my view echos GT's.

im sorry lads but i seen from a long way out frankel wasnt traveling like it normaly does , and at the end he got past but didnt go away

Its pure conjecture if it was the ground or something else , but nonethe less , a great horse could have been beaten last saturday , tho frankel isnt great he is the best ever which got him home

What does this even matter?

Frankel cannot read - Prince Khalid won't give a t.o55 - Sir Henry has other things on his mind and the Brigadier is dead.

Go for a walk or sit in the garden, enjoy the memories of both and move on - all of ya !!

the race was 10f long...what would have happened after another furlong is a complete red herring (tho the idea that Frankel would have been 5, maybe 10 lengths clear- from someone who purports to have watched the finish closely and to be a skilled racereader- is ridiculous)

There is no 'proof' of any rating Brig as it's all worked out on the back of nothing more than probability.

What's the proof that Sea-Bird II earns his 145 rating, or Brigadier Gerard earning his 144 rating.

You know my opinions on the quality of racehorse today compared to 1972 but either way it's highly improbable that the two sets of timeform ratings of the two seasons 40 years apart compare in 'real' terms, in reality we are simply arguing over the 147 rating of Frankel compared to his contemporaries against the 144 rating of Brigadier Gerard to his contemporaries which is a moot point in trying to come up with a definitive comparison of Frankel and Brigadier Gerard.

One thing is for sure though, if we had 10 racehorses of Frankels quality born in 2008 they wouldn't all be rated 147. All that would happen is that those top 11-30 of the remainder would be rated a lot lower than they are currently rated.  The timeform pattern race ratings is like a lump of plasticine, it is shaped every year dependant on the comparitive performances but the amount of plasticine only changes in proportion to the pattern race population from year to year.

If you took Brigadier Gerard from being born in 1968 to being born in 2008 as he was and trained him on todays methods and raced him on todays tracks who knows what his skeletal and muscular and heart/ lungs etc.. make-up could have withstood.  He might have ended up at this point at the end of his career being rated anything from 80 to 150.

Probably the first time I've seen someone criticize a horse for being overtaken after the race was finished

Lots of words saying absolutely nothing, as usual. Everyone agrees comparison is what makes the world go around but fraudulent comparison stinks. It would then and it does now. Why shouldn't he defend his position, or rather, his employer's position. What makes me wonder most is WHY he had to make this statement in the first place. If he was secure in his position there would be absolutely no need. He isn't that's why it's there.

fraudulent comparison stinks.

They are only fraudulent in your head. Everybody else either agrees totally, agrees in a roundabout way (that's me), or disagrees entirely, gives their opinion, then gets on with it.

that a 147-rated horse in 2012 can be considered superior in terms of ability to a 140-rated horse in 1986. Simon Rowlands


This is the crux of the matter; the 147 rating from TF, the respected authority, which underpins the claim that Frankel is "the best ever." Without this rating being given to Frankel, there would still be disagreement, but TF's endorsement somehow adds the intellectual rigour, the air of authority, that brooks no argument.

We should all be aware of the"recency bias" which loads the interpretation in favour of recent form compared to distant form. Any poll of the best ever in any field throws up such ridculous opinions in favour of the current well known contenders that cause one to ignore such polls altogether.

However, TF's ratings are not polls. Rowlands informs us that "we (TF)can at least claim to have taken considerable care to make those ratings comparable, through statistical and and standardisation procedures, so that a 70-rated horse in one context is comparable with a 70-rated horse in another" implying that the methodology is so sound as to be unquestionable.

Well, I beg to differ. The fact of the matter is that collateral ratings have never improved beyond providing a performance record of 30% winners for the top-rated, a standard which has hardly changed since ratings were first invented 70 odd years ago.Put another way, the top-rated horse loses 70% of the time. If that is not cause for a tiny bit of humility, a sense that ratings do not provide the complete answer to assessing differentials in merit, then what does?

I have watched racing for over 35 years and in that time have read about many of the great horses from previous generations prior to the 70's as well as viewed much of the footage available since film was used. Like many on here and other threads, I have a strong sense of disbelief that we have just seen the greatest race horse of all time. I would like to believe it, I really would. But the memories of many equally magnificent animals just keep returning to cast doubt over the claim. A great horse, yes. But the greatest? When Ali was fighting there was no disagreement at the time, nor since, that we were seeing the greatest boxer, perhaps the greatest athlete, of all time. I do not have that certainty with Frankel because he has not won the greatest of races nor beaten the greatest of rivals. And therein lies my reply to Simon Rowlands and all those who will brook no argument.We have doubt not certainty. And ratings alone are insufficeint evidence, imo of course.

ratings do not provide the complete answer

Has anybody ever claimed that they do? I, like others, including you from memory, compile my own time ratings. They're not exactly "The truth and the light", or whatever it was that Beyer said all those years ago, but they obviously have some merits or we wouldn't persist with them. Timeform are a commercial ratings company, when they consider a horse has surpassed all their previous high ratings they are going to say so, just like any of us would. As to which horse is regarded as the greatest, that is obviously up to each individual.

Put another way, the top-rated horse loses 70% of the time. If that is not cause for a tiny bit of humility

This somehow implies that you believe the best horse always wins each race? Not that the best horse on the day wins the race, or that form is fluid. As Dylan said, "The slow one now will later be fast....and the first one now will later be last".

Figgis

Put another way, the top-rated horse loses 70% of the time. If that is not cause for a tiny bit of humility

This somehow implies that you believe the best horse always wins each race? Not that the best horse on the day wins the race, or that form is fluid. As Dylan said, "The slow one now will later be fast....and the first one now will later be last".

Re-read what I said. It is the opposite of what you consider to be the implication.

TF assessment UNDERPINS the claim to Frankel being described as the greatest

Underpins the claim to who, though? I don't think any real punters still call Timeform the Bible do they? They have a reputation so they must've been doing something right in the past, but that doesn't mean everyone has to agree with everything they do. I'm still baffled how a 1.5 length beating of Most Welcome and a 3 length defeat of Celestial Storm equates to a 139 rating. I disagree with it, but there would be something wrong if I didn't disagree with some official or commercial ratings. However, I don't regard it as a conspiracy, like some do.