Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
21 Oct 12
21:24
Joined:
Date Joined:
08 Mar 03
Just out of interest...please keep score as we go along
i'll vote Frankel
Frankel 1-0 BG
i'll vote Frankel
Frankel 1-0 BG
Show More
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.
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.
Re-read what I said. It is the opposite of what you consider to be the implication.
Okay, they're a ratings company, that is what they do. When a horse comes along that they consider tops previous ratings, what would you suggest they do with such information?
Okay, they're a ratings company, that is what they do. When a horse comes along that they consider tops previous ratings, what would you suggest they do with such information?
My point DI was that I am certainly not the only one questioning his position.
Which would be why he felt the need to write the article...rather than being unsure in his position, which you originally claimed would be the only reason to write it.
Which would be why he felt the need to write the article...rather than being unsure in his position, which you originally claimed would be the only reason to write it.
My point DI, I am obviously either not explaining it well or you are prevaricating, is that we do not need Timeform or anyone else to tell us (reasonably informed racing enthusiasts) Frankel is a great horse. If they presumed we needed to be told he was 'great' then there is the likelihood that he isn't.
That is why they haven't told us he is a 'great' horse because we already know, thank you.
Similarly we do not need Timeform or anyone else to tell us Frankel is the 'greatest' racehorse. If he clearly was 'the greatest' then the point is not required. Because SR found it necessary to make his statement then it is clear he is on shaky ground.
That is why they haven't told us he is a 'great' horse because we already know, thank you.
Similarly we do not need Timeform or anyone else to tell us Frankel is the 'greatest' racehorse. If he clearly was 'the greatest' then the point is not required. Because SR found it necessary to make his statement then it is clear he is on shaky ground.
Figgis
Okay, they're a ratings company, that is what they do. When a horse comes along that they consider tops previous ratings, what would you suggest they do with such information?
I think that you are being deliberately provocative for no apparent reason that I can understand, for I have not questioned TF's reasons for producing the 147 rating, rather that the figure puts the horse on a pedestal with which I for one am uncomfortable.
Okay, they're a ratings company, that is what they do. When a horse comes along that they consider tops previous ratings, what would you suggest they do with such information?
I think that you are being deliberately provocative for no apparent reason that I can understand, for I have not questioned TF's reasons for producing the 147 rating, rather that the figure puts the horse on a pedestal with which I for one am uncomfortable.
Sandown, no deliberate provocation, for what it's worth, I actually enjoy most of you contributions. All I can see is that Timeform have said they judge him to be the best, using their own ratings system. They have not said he's beaten the best horses, that he's the most versatile etc. If others want to use that criteria to form their own opinion on who is the best they are entirely free to do so.
Timeform rate ever horse...the worst ever and the best ever and all those in between. That is all.
I think it is very telling that since Timeform started rating horses there have been 12 years where they've failed to rate a 3yo horse 135+ .... those years are 1964 - 1966 - 1967 - 1969 - 1994 - 2001 - 2004 - 2006 - 2007 - 2008 - 2010 - 2012.
From 1945 until 1963 there had been a 135+ rated horse every year, then 4 of the next 6 years there was a drought ... during this time and just after it we had Sea Bird (145), Vaguely Noble (140), Nijinsky (138), Mill Reef (141) and Brigadier Gerard (144). Forward on there was only one year (1994) without a 135+ 3yo until 2001 and then 6 of the last 9 years another drought in between which there has been Sea The Stars (140), Harbinger (140) and Frankel (147).
From this I would deduce that it is all too tempting to overrate horses that rise above a drought period, not just Frankel in this era, but also Sea Bird and Brigadier Gerard. In fact, 7 of the 14 140+ rated horses in history have fallen within these two otherwise droughty periods.
From 1945 until 1963 there had been a 135+ rated horse every year, then 4 of the next 6 years there was a drought ... during this time and just after it we had Sea Bird (145), Vaguely Noble (140), Nijinsky (138), Mill Reef (141) and Brigadier Gerard (144). Forward on there was only one year (1994) without a 135+ 3yo until 2001 and then 6 of the last 9 years another drought in between which there has been Sea The Stars (140), Harbinger (140) and Frankel (147).
From this I would deduce that it is all too tempting to overrate horses that rise above a drought period, not just Frankel in this era, but also Sea Bird and Brigadier Gerard. In fact, 7 of the 14 140+ rated horses in history have fallen within these two otherwise droughty periods.
Oh yes, overated now. Nijinsky last horse to win the triple crown, Brigadier Gerard 17 wins from 18 starts from 5f to 12f and Mill Reef Coventry by 7, Gimcrack by 10, Dewhurst by 4, Derby, Eclipse, King George, Arc, Ganay and Coronation Cup from 14 starts. Move on ffs.
Does seem a bit of a coincidence that 4 of the top 9 rated Timeform horses in history were born between 1962 and 1968
Does seem a bit of a coincidence that 4 of the top 9 rated Timeform horses in history were born between 1962 and 1968
Brigust has decided it is not relevant, so move on.
you would need 10 top judges from all countries involved in horse racing from all
over the world to vote on a correct rating.
I mean I think Orfevre and Danedream could give Frankel a run for his money.
What are they rated? **** and German horses.
The 147 is simply not correct based on the facts imo...
Nor is the 140 BHA rating
over the world to vote on a correct rating.
I mean I think Orfevre and Danedream could give Frankel a run for his money.
What are they rated? **** and German horses.
The 147 is simply not correct based on the facts imo...
Nor is the 140 BHA rating
I have been critical of collateral ratings for many years now, not because I don't believe that they usually get to a figure that is within a few pounds either way of what might or might not be a reasonable estimate of a horses's ability, but they are of little value for betting purposes for that reason of being behind the curve. Those at the top of the ratings are invariably overbet.
For this reason, I am first and foremost an advocate of time ratings, but not just of the final time variety. I am a believer in the use of sectional times in order to assess just how much better the horse might be than the bare final time figure might suggest. This is not a methodology without its false forecasts and disappointments but in the main it is the way which I have found to gain an edge.
For my own satisfaction, I have looked at my figures for Frankel's 14 races and compared them to the OR, RPR and TS. Not TF I might add because I do not need their views and anyway do not know what they were after each run. Perhaps someone might enlighten me.
I will no doubt be accused of aftertiming but that is of no concern to me. After just 2 runs I had Frankel projectiong to 134 on the 0-140 scale and to 139 after his 3 rd run. At these points the best RPR was 125, TS 115 and the OR was 123.I think, therefore, that I was always a fan and a beliver that he was top-class. After his 9th run his RPR was raised to 139 and his OR was raised to 140 on his 12th run.
However,I never have had Frankel running to 139 again. I gave him 136 after both the Lockinge and the Champion. Looking back its possible that I may have under rated him (and bear in mind my view that one figure is insufficient to contain all you need to know) but to rate him much higher would have made several other horses on the day very over-rated.
I have only ever once had a decent win out of him (Dewhurst) so he has hardly been a money-spinner for me, but his record is one of several interesting points. Firstly, he has been very consistent. Secondly, he has put up one of the fatsest ever splits for the last 2f that I've seen on turf (Sussex vs Canford Cliffs). And thirdly, i am prepared to admit that because he shows such speed from further out than virtually any horse I've rated, |I may well be under-rating him, and am prepared to concede that he should be somewhere in the low 140's.Its just that my figures don't actually put him there.
My research shows me that collateral ratings are slow to get the measure of a horse until such time that it is blindingly obvious. Also, that no matter how statistically correct TF's methodology may be, it is considerably behind where the cutting edge is of rating assessment imo. I believe that it a plausible argument that marketing considerations may well have played a part in giving Frankel such an exalted rating.
For this reason, I am first and foremost an advocate of time ratings, but not just of the final time variety. I am a believer in the use of sectional times in order to assess just how much better the horse might be than the bare final time figure might suggest. This is not a methodology without its false forecasts and disappointments but in the main it is the way which I have found to gain an edge.
For my own satisfaction, I have looked at my figures for Frankel's 14 races and compared them to the OR, RPR and TS. Not TF I might add because I do not need their views and anyway do not know what they were after each run. Perhaps someone might enlighten me.
I will no doubt be accused of aftertiming but that is of no concern to me. After just 2 runs I had Frankel projectiong to 134 on the 0-140 scale and to 139 after his 3 rd run. At these points the best RPR was 125, TS 115 and the OR was 123.I think, therefore, that I was always a fan and a beliver that he was top-class. After his 9th run his RPR was raised to 139 and his OR was raised to 140 on his 12th run.
However,I never have had Frankel running to 139 again. I gave him 136 after both the Lockinge and the Champion. Looking back its possible that I may have under rated him (and bear in mind my view that one figure is insufficient to contain all you need to know) but to rate him much higher would have made several other horses on the day very over-rated.
I have only ever once had a decent win out of him (Dewhurst) so he has hardly been a money-spinner for me, but his record is one of several interesting points. Firstly, he has been very consistent. Secondly, he has put up one of the fatsest ever splits for the last 2f that I've seen on turf (Sussex vs Canford Cliffs). And thirdly, i am prepared to admit that because he shows such speed from further out than virtually any horse I've rated, |I may well be under-rating him, and am prepared to concede that he should be somewhere in the low 140's.Its just that my figures don't actually put him there.
My research shows me that collateral ratings are slow to get the measure of a horse until such time that it is blindingly obvious. Also, that no matter how statistically correct TF's methodology may be, it is considerably behind where the cutting edge is of rating assessment imo. I believe that it a plausible argument that marketing considerations may well have played a part in giving Frankel such an exalted rating.
Sandown
But you have shown in the past that you use a lower pounds per second scale, therefore there is bound to be differences.
But you have shown in the past that you use a lower pounds per second scale, therefore there is bound to be differences.
Figgis
My pound/sec scale varies with the state of the ground, finishing sectionals, stiffness of finish, and the overall pace. It is mathematically derived from the actual figures. I would add that for my own use, I prefer to take into account the size and conformation of the horse and will adjust accoding to my own views on a hors's ability to carry weight. I have evidence of some horses putting up the same performance irrespective of the weight and others who may be more than averagelly affected. Imo, the conversion of a time performance to a weight rating is one of the biggest areas for error.
My pound/sec scale varies with the state of the ground, finishing sectionals, stiffness of finish, and the overall pace. It is mathematically derived from the actual figures. I would add that for my own use, I prefer to take into account the size and conformation of the horse and will adjust accoding to my own views on a hors's ability to carry weight. I have evidence of some horses putting up the same performance irrespective of the weight and others who may be more than averagelly affected. Imo, the conversion of a time performance to a weight rating is one of the biggest areas for error.
That was my point about Brigadier Gerards 144 achieved in the 1972 QE2, 7 of that was due to him carrying a Group 1 penalty so if he'd carried 9-0 he'd have only got 137 TF rating .... in my view it's fundamentally wrong to assume he'd have stretched 3 more lengths clear in what was already record time had he only been carrying 9-0. A horse should't receive a better rating just because he's able to carry weight. It may work in theory but it doesn't in reality universally.
I agree about the pound per second scale varying according to the ground, pace of the race etc. However, in my view, as the pound per second scale increases/decreases, so does the lengths per second increase/decrease, therefore the actual differences when accounting for beaten horses does not vary as much as some seem to think, but, like I said, that is just my view and it is debatable.
That aside, you showed in your workings of Harbinger's KG that, variations or not, you use a lower pounds per sec scale than some of us use.
As for horses not being affected exactly the same by different amounts of weight, of course this is a probability, but it is one that can't be measured. A person can have their own views about any individual horse's weight carrying abilities, but I don't see how that could be expected to be taken seriously if it was incorporated into commercial ratings.
That aside, you showed in your workings of Harbinger's KG that, variations or not, you use a lower pounds per sec scale than some of us use.
As for horses not being affected exactly the same by different amounts of weight, of course this is a probability, but it is one that can't be measured. A person can have their own views about any individual horse's weight carrying abilities, but I don't see how that could be expected to be taken seriously if it was incorporated into commercial ratings.
Aim to Prosper springs to mind..
66/1 no one thought he would carry that weight.
66/1 no one thought he would carry that weight.
grendel
The best evidence you can have that weight off doen't give you the same result as weight on is to look at the win% record in handicaps of horses by weight difference from top-weight in handicaps. You will find that the win% drops in a clear pattern from the top-weight down to the bottom weight . This shouldn't happen if handicap ratings accurately reflected merit. It occurs because of the faster pace that lower class horses find when they are raised in class. In other words, weight off doesn't equate with faster pace, as you say.
On a weight related scale, the BG rating is nevertheless correct as that is what is assumed by collateral handicappers to be the case.
The best evidence you can have that weight off doen't give you the same result as weight on is to look at the win% record in handicaps of horses by weight difference from top-weight in handicaps. You will find that the win% drops in a clear pattern from the top-weight down to the bottom weight . This shouldn't happen if handicap ratings accurately reflected merit. It occurs because of the faster pace that lower class horses find when they are raised in class. In other words, weight off doesn't equate with faster pace, as you say.
On a weight related scale, the BG rating is nevertheless correct as that is what is assumed by collateral handicappers to be the case.
Sandown
That is correct, but I would argue that, on the whole (I emphasise not in all cases), that where time ratings are concerned, weight on and off generally has a more linear effect.
That is correct, but I would argue that, on the whole (I emphasise not in all cases), that where time ratings are concerned, weight on and off generally has a more linear effect.
Figgis
As for horses not being affected exactly the same by different amounts of weight, of course this is a probability, but it is one that can't be measured. A person can have their own views about any individual horse's weight carrying abilities, but I don't see how that could be expected to be taken seriously if it was incorporated into commercial ratings.
As you no doubt know, the weight of race horse varies tremendously from maybe around 1000 lbs to perhaps as much as 1400lbs. Balck Caviar is apparentetly heavier than Kauto Star which is mind blowing considering she is a mare.
If you take this into account you will see that the conventional lbs/sec formula ia based on an average of around 1150-1200 lbs. This fact alone can account for a lot of variation. Also, if you have sat on a horse you will know statightaway the effect of someone heavy on a a light framed horse. I agree that it might not be of much use to a commercial ratings service but to thosse owho have studied conformation it is something that comes easily. Most of the time of course, for G1 races, it doesn't really apply except I do like to see very butch fillies/mares with a sex allowance - Black Caviar springs to mind.
As for horses not being affected exactly the same by different amounts of weight, of course this is a probability, but it is one that can't be measured. A person can have their own views about any individual horse's weight carrying abilities, but I don't see how that could be expected to be taken seriously if it was incorporated into commercial ratings.
As you no doubt know, the weight of race horse varies tremendously from maybe around 1000 lbs to perhaps as much as 1400lbs. Balck Caviar is apparentetly heavier than Kauto Star which is mind blowing considering she is a mare.
If you take this into account you will see that the conventional lbs/sec formula ia based on an average of around 1150-1200 lbs. This fact alone can account for a lot of variation. Also, if you have sat on a horse you will know statightaway the effect of someone heavy on a a light framed horse. I agree that it might not be of much use to a commercial ratings service but to thosse owho have studied conformation it is something that comes easily. Most of the time of course, for G1 races, it doesn't really apply except I do like to see very butch fillies/mares with a sex allowance - Black Caviar springs to mind.
Also, that no matter how statistically correct TF's methodology may be, it is considerably behind where the cutting edge is of rating assessment imo
Sandown, the guy from Timeform (where as their name implies they have also discovered the stopwatch) on RUK last week said they realised Frankel was something special after his second start when defeating 2 rivals at Doncaster and recording a timefigure of 115 ...not too far behind the curve then
Sandown, the guy from Timeform (where as their name implies they have also discovered the stopwatch) on RUK last week said they realised Frankel was something special after his second start when defeating 2 rivals at Doncaster and recording a timefigure of 115 ...not too far behind the curve then
Figgis
where time ratings are concerned, weight on and off generally has a more linear effect.
I believe it to be exponential in line with Einsteins formula of E=MC(2)although for most cases linear will do.
where time ratings are concerned, weight on and off generally has a more linear effect.
I believe it to be exponential in line with Einsteins formula of E=MC(2)although for most cases linear will do.
Also White Moonstone that day .... shame she didn't race beyond 2
grendel
You will have to enlighten me re. White Moonstone
You will have to enlighten me re. White Moonstone
Sandown
What did you reckon to Trading Leather's performance last time? Obviously he's a few pounds behind Dawn Approach but I thought it was a pretty good time for a horse who appears more a Derby type.
What did you reckon to Trading Leather's performance last time? Obviously he's a few pounds behind Dawn Approach but I thought it was a pretty good time for a horse who appears more a Derby type.
19lbs behind my curve Duncan
clearly different scales if 115 was making them think out of the ordinary as was suggested
clearly different scales if 115 was making them think out of the ordinary as was suggested
White Moonstone ran on the same day and I had her only 3 lengths/ mile behind Frankel in relation to RP standards.
She then won the Fillies Mile at Ascot, never raced again.
She then won the Fillies Mile at Ascot, never raced again.
Duncan
No, 0-140 scale. Read my earlier posts again to understand why.
No, 0-140 scale. Read my earlier posts again to understand why.
Figgis
Backed him at Newmarket but disappointed. Don't think he improved on Gowran run. Not in same league as Dawn Approach at present but then DA won't stay 12f.
Backed him at Newmarket but disappointed. Don't think he improved on Gowran run. Not in same league as Dawn Approach at present but then DA won't stay 12f.
grendel
Had her on 118 after Doncaster and 120 after Ascot.
Had her on 118 after Doncaster and 120 after Ascot.
Figgis
Ground was given as soft at Newm for TL but not in my book. Was the wind strong behind? RP gave ground as good. Otherwise I would have the grnd g/f
Ground was given as soft at Newm for TL but not in my book. Was the wind strong behind? RP gave ground as good. Otherwise I would have the grnd g/f
I'm surpised at that. Usually, an average Derby winner doesn't hit has high a figure as a Guineas winner and I thought he was well up to standard at this stage. I have him on the same mark as Authorized after his RPT win, with only New Approach higher of recent Derby winners. No idea if he will train on, though, and it was quite a hard race.
Wind was described by Raceform as 'light, half behind'. I agree the ground couldn't have been much worse than good, even allowing for the wind. I have the last 3 races slower than the first 4, though, which I reckon was due to the rain getting into the ground, rather than marking down the performances of those horses involved. I realise I could be wrong and that there is more margin for error by splitting allowances like that, however, I know I get it more right than wrong and my results improved considerably from the early days when I used to stick more rigidly to one allowance in the same circumstances.
I had the whole card as -1.4 secs using races 2,3 and 6 as guidelines with races 1 and 5 about -0.9 and races 4 and 7 run slowly
Figgis
Had NA on 131 after Dewhurst and A on 120 after RPT. Got TL on 112. DA on 132. Allowing for error of course.
Had NA on 131 after Dewhurst and A on 120 after RPT. Got TL on 112. DA on 132. Allowing for error of course.
For me, the trouble with comparing time ratings with collateral ratings is that there are sometimes marked differences. For example, on times, an average Derby winner would not quite match an average Guineas winner, as the Derby trip comes very early in the season for most 3yos. You are aware of this yourself when compiling your figures, but comparing them with collateral ratings is not a perfect match.
Figgis
That's true and explains why the majority of my bets are on lightly raced horses , the time when collateral ratings are most likley to be behind the curve. Although, the distance factor doen't really matter to me. My best winners have on the flat been over 8-12f.
That's true and explains why the majority of my bets are on lightly raced horses , the time when collateral ratings are most likley to be behind the curve. Although, the distance factor doen't really matter to me. My best winners have on the flat been over 8-12f.
Yes, improving sprinters in the 80s/90s used to be a big part of my game, I find them much less so nowadays, and, like you, I steer clear of most races above 12f.
a thread from the past anything with the word frankel in gets my attention 3 years ago on Wednesday since the most incredible day York will ever see.
I was lucky to be around when the Brigadier was racing and I have no doubt that he was better than Frankel.
You can only beat what is put in front of you and BGs generation where lengths better than Frankels.
I would have Mill Reef ahead of Frankel too.
You can only beat what is put in front of you and BGs generation where lengths better than Frankels.
I would have Mill Reef ahead of Frankel too.
Have counted the votes...it's Frankel by a landslide. I think that draws a line under the matter once and for all.
di.....youll find winning the vote doesnt make you right
cardiff, are you suggesting that the Betfair Forum is not a watertight democracy in which we can place our full trust? 
I backed The Brigadier in almost all his races. I loved the horse. Frankel would have beaten him though, IMO. I have never seen one like Frankel.
You had the casting vote there, Roy. I think that clarifies the matter.
We are comparing Brigadier Gerard-winner of all bar one of his races from 5f to 12f on all extremes of going -firm to heavy-to Frankel-unbeaten but never raced beyond 10f and always in perfect ground. Therein lies the answer-run tomorrow BG-run when it suits Henry-Frankel.
late Sir Peter O'Sullevan choose Nijinsky from the 70': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PA_P285l7Mg , "very hard to oppose Nijinsky", I doubt anyone from this century will put anything in front of Frankel. I might put Faugheen personally but his story is still ongoing.
Interesting fact that Brigadier Gerard who wasn't succesful at stud, is found in American's Pharoah bloodline: http://www.pedigreequery.com/american+pharoah
@jamilla14 Frankel last race ground was far from perfect, it was proper soft which gave CDA a great advantage and still beat him.
Interesting fact that Brigadier Gerard who wasn't succesful at stud, is found in American's Pharoah bloodline: http://www.pedigreequery.com/american+pharoah
@jamilla14 Frankel last race ground was far from perfect, it was proper soft which gave CDA a great advantage and still beat him.
All conjecture I believe Mill Reef was the best racehorse ive seen although beaten fair and square by the Brigadier over
a mile. I do not think you can judge a horse on one defeat or performance only on their overall record.A rating is only some
ones opinion at the end of the day and every body is entitled to there own.
a mile. I do not think you can judge a horse on one defeat or performance only on their overall record.A rating is only some
ones opinion at the end of the day and every body is entitled to there own.
Handtorofe, I suppose you could say everyone is entitled to an opinion, but I'd prefer the word 'preference.' You're entitled to prefer Pam Ayres to Shakespeare as a poet, but are you really entitled to the opinion that she is a better poet? Where would you draw the line? I preferred Noble Mission to Frankel. Am I entitled to say that I think Noble Mission might have been better than Frankel?
Howellsy, all I would say, you could poll a thousand racing enthusiasts as to who the best ever racehorse was and maybe
get twenty different names.Distance of a race makes choosing the outstanding individual of all time impossible.I think you
have to be honest with yourself but if you prefer noble mission that is your prerogative.
get twenty different names.Distance of a race makes choosing the outstanding individual of all time impossible.I think you
have to be honest with yourself but if you prefer noble mission that is your prerogative.
I bought the John Hislop book The Brigadier just the other week to read it again,after thinking about this very question.
The Brig was stunning in the 2000gns sweeping 3L clear,and his only weakness was soft ground.Dick Hern said he had enough speed to win a July cup,and still managed to win a King George.I remember being shocked when he lost to Roberto in in Benson and Hedges,the fact it was a coarse record made it even more of a shock.Joe mercer was adamant the hose was not at his best,and his nose was showing mucus the following morning. Frankel's Gns performance though visually stunning ( Tudor Minstrel's run comes to mind) was run in a manner,that had there been another top class horse in the field getting the fractions right,he might have been caught.Having said that once Frankel's learned to settle better,he looked absolutely fantastic.I doubt there would have been much in it on good ground over 8/10F. I usually try to ignore the hype and bias, but when the great man HC was asked around half way through the horses campaign how he rated Frankel -
I think he's the best -The best you've had? - No the best I've seen!! I began to think here might be a horse to challenge The Brigadier after all these years.
Footnote, My sons who contributed to a charity organised by Lord Teddy Grimthorpe were surprised to be contacted some time later,and invited to visit Frankel at Banstead Manor Stud.I would have loved to have gone,but was abroad.They were allowed to get there photos taken standing beside him out in the yard,and spoke about his breeding and mares coming to visit him.When I got back to the UK,the boys gave me a superb glossy Frankel brochure from the stud and a tiny brass box that contained a hair from Frankel's coat.
The Brig was stunning in the 2000gns sweeping 3L clear,and his only weakness was soft ground.Dick Hern said he had enough speed to win a July cup,and still managed to win a King George.I remember being shocked when he lost to Roberto in in Benson and Hedges,the fact it was a coarse record made it even more of a shock.Joe mercer was adamant the hose was not at his best,and his nose was showing mucus the following morning. Frankel's Gns performance though visually stunning ( Tudor Minstrel's run comes to mind) was run in a manner,that had there been another top class horse in the field getting the fractions right,he might have been caught.Having said that once Frankel's learned to settle better,he looked absolutely fantastic.I doubt there would have been much in it on good ground over 8/10F. I usually try to ignore the hype and bias, but when the great man HC was asked around half way through the horses campaign how he rated Frankel -
I think he's the best -The best you've had? - No the best I've seen!! I began to think here might be a horse to challenge The Brigadier after all these years.
Footnote, My sons who contributed to a charity organised by Lord Teddy Grimthorpe were surprised to be contacted some time later,and invited to visit Frankel at Banstead Manor Stud.I would have loved to have gone,but was abroad.They were allowed to get there photos taken standing beside him out in the yard,and spoke about his breeding and mares coming to visit him.When I got back to the UK,the boys gave me a superb glossy Frankel brochure from the stud and a tiny brass box that contained a hair from Frankel's coat.
How nice to read something like that ffs.
Thanks for posting
Hrac was not one to use words lightly . . Yep i think Frankel was the best we have ever seen . . And this is from a huge fan of the brig
Thanks for posting
Hrac was not one to use words lightly . . Yep i think Frankel was the best we have ever seen . . And this is from a huge fan of the brig
frankel wd beat any horse over a mile brig over 1.2
but i honestly am convinced dancing brave wd have beat both
over 1.2m plus
but i honestly am convinced dancing brave wd have beat both
over 1.2m plus
Frankel and anybody that think's otherwise is a mug.
Tinjakko 17 Aug 15 21:11
Frankel, obviously.
Simply the best there's ever been
Whatever it is, it will never be obvious.
Frankel, obviously.
Simply the best there's ever been
Whatever it is, it will never be obvious.
It was Frankels stride . . I dont believe any horse could of lived with him . . He was a freak . . But boy what a freak.
Dancing Brave - Has there been a better horse since?
Well I dont think so, after reading an extract from the racing ahead magazine today it brought back memories of what an incredible horse this was.
His 2000 Guineas demolition job of Green Desert, his so unlucky Derby second, his Eclipse win trouncing a good field, his King George win beating a brilliant field, including the derby winner, dual kg winner, brilliant filly Tryptich, plus Shadari who was also a superb animal. Then he went on to win the Arc De Triomphe beating an even better field includig crack french colt Bering. The class of horse he mixed it with was truly sensational.
Overall his turn of foot was legendary, a horse with speed and stamina.
Anyone who can remember him in 1986 will surely question has there been a better horse.
Well I dont think so, after reading an extract from the racing ahead magazine today it brought back memories of what an incredible horse this was.
His 2000 Guineas demolition job of Green Desert, his so unlucky Derby second, his Eclipse win trouncing a good field, his King George win beating a brilliant field, including the derby winner, dual kg winner, brilliant filly Tryptich, plus Shadari who was also a superb animal. Then he went on to win the Arc De Triomphe beating an even better field includig crack french colt Bering. The class of horse he mixed it with was truly sensational.
Overall his turn of foot was legendary, a horse with speed and stamina.
Anyone who can remember him in 1986 will surely question has there been a better horse.
But could he have used that turn of foot after Frankel had burst his lungs . . . . .Doubt it
frankel had a massive heart and his stride one of the biggest ever recorded on a race track
but no horse has went faster in a last ful than dancing brave , that was prob the best
quality field ave seen in am Arch for many many years ! he cut throw them like a knife throw butter
did u know they schooled dancing brave over hurdles before they new how good he was
but no horse has went faster in a last ful than dancing brave , that was prob the best
quality field ave seen in am Arch for many many years ! he cut throw them like a knife throw butter
did u know they schooled dancing brave over hurdles before they new how good he was
Some very subjective stuff on here stated as if fact. The reference to BG's turn of foot in the Guineas - measure it please. He was almost certainly slowing down at the time, an inconvenient truth about the final furlong of most big races for people who talk about a turn of foot as if it actually means something. And the idea that Dancing Brave ran the fastest final furlong ever in the arc - yes, it was an electrifying visual treat, but was somebody doing sectional times in those days?
D Brave prob went quicker in final furlong of the Derby than he did in the Arc
Dancing Brave on song was the best horse in history.
The Queen Elizabeth in 1972,
Brigadier Gerard beats Sparkler by 6 lengths giving 7 lb, a very good performance this.
Brigadier Gerard beats Sparkler by 6 lengths giving 7 lb, a very good performance this.
I never saw brigadier gerard as I only started racing in 1977 I was a huge fan of troy who like sinndar has been very under rated over the years in fact troys derby is still the best derby performance I have ever seen the form also stood the test of time,when dancing brave came along in 86 he was without doubt brilliant and I honestly thought he would be the best I would ever see but then along came frankel,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQajCQ1_BSA
Put who you want . . Dancing Brave. . . The Brig . . . Pegasus in the other stalls and tell me they could of lived with this on this day??
Cannot and will not ever have it that any horse could of dealt with him this day . . . . He would of bust them all as they came out of the dip.
imo of cause
Put who you want . . Dancing Brave. . . The Brig . . . Pegasus in the other stalls and tell me they could of lived with this on this day??
Cannot and will not ever have it that any horse could of dealt with him this day . . . . He would of bust them all as they came out of the dip.
imo of cause
Sorry wrong link this one . . .https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yg--FSBJ_hQ
hardly his finest hour beating Dubawi Thingy and Native Wotsit by 6 lengths, Ghostie
No horse had a stride like Frankel, his form lines is choked full of Group One winners and Group One winners he annihilated.
He is the best there has been and I doubt any of the afore mentioned would have got him off the bridle over a mile, if the jockey really wanted to show off.
He is the best there has been and I doubt any of the afore mentioned would have got him off the bridle over a mile, if the jockey really wanted to show off.
Good thread guys... Particularly good to see the old chestnut about Dancing Brave being schooled over hurdles being wheeled out again.
Dunc . . . He was easing up for a furlong
We've seen many great horses over the years but none of them come close to Frankel. Loads of group 1 horses were made to look 2nd raters by him usually without Queally having to do much. Dancing Brave, Brigadier Gerard etc were great horses but it's only nostalgia that makes people think they were close to Frankel.
asparagus, I have read some bollox in my time(and wrote some too) but nostalgia is nothing to do with quality of opponent behind, you see some very average horses win very well when dropped in class, The best horse Frankel ever beat was Cirrus(CDA) and no wide margin victory in that race, ok soft ground ,they all have favored ground, but it did suggest Henry was correct not too try over 12 furlong(I think he could have mind).Sea The Stars, Dancing Brave, and the Brigadier Gerard,all had more versatility,and Sea The Stars probably much underrated(even his guineas?), but not only did Brigadier have more Versatility, he beat better horses,in a period when there was less Group1 events,and those behind him were proven before,and more importantly after the events(unlike the Frankel average crew) who could not find races after?why with so much choice?
asparagus 18 Aug 15 14:31
We've seen many great horses over the years but none of them come close to Frankel. Loads of group 1 horses were made to look 2nd raters by him usually without Queally having to do much. Dancing Brave, Brigadier Gerard etc were great horses but it's only nostalgia that makes people think they were close to Frankel.
In 40 or 50 years time you may find some difficulty defending your nostalgia, asparagus.
The youngsters of the future will just look at the form of the beaten horses when making their comparisons.
We've seen many great horses over the years but none of them come close to Frankel. Loads of group 1 horses were made to look 2nd raters by him usually without Queally having to do much. Dancing Brave, Brigadier Gerard etc were great horses but it's only nostalgia that makes people think they were close to Frankel.
In 40 or 50 years time you may find some difficulty defending your nostalgia, asparagus.
The youngsters of the future will just look at the form of the beaten horses when making their comparisons.
"more importantly after the events(unlike the Frankel average crew) who could not find races after?"
Excelebration won the Jaques Le Marois and QEII easily on his next two starts after Frankel beat him 11 lengths
Farhh ran a neck second to Moonlight Cloud then won the Lockinge easily and Champion Stakes in his next 3 starts after being beaten 6L and 7L by Frankel
St Nic was 1 1/2 3rd to Danedream in the King George and went on to win Sheema Classic and Coronation easily after being beaten 7L by Frankel
He destroyed proven international G1 horses in a way that average top horses beat maidens.
Secretariat is the only horse I know of who comes close to Frankel, I doubt he would have needed to come off the bridle against Brigadier Gerard.
Excelebration won the Jaques Le Marois and QEII easily on his next two starts after Frankel beat him 11 lengths
Farhh ran a neck second to Moonlight Cloud then won the Lockinge easily and Champion Stakes in his next 3 starts after being beaten 6L and 7L by Frankel
St Nic was 1 1/2 3rd to Danedream in the King George and went on to win Sheema Classic and Coronation easily after being beaten 7L by Frankel
He destroyed proven international G1 horses in a way that average top horses beat maidens.
Secretariat is the only horse I know of who comes close to Frankel, I doubt he would have needed to come off the bridle against Brigadier Gerard.
All you old people going on about Frankel. He wouldn't see which way American Pharoah went 
Excelebration was a rock solid 125 horse. The one time he really tried to make a race of it with Frankel, he was beaten by 11 lengths. That is what happened when a 125 horse actually tried to beat Frankel, and it is the only race which allows us to get a true rating on Frankel: 147. The proximity of Side Glance (et al) in behind is a complete irrelevance. He was never seriously competing in the race and ran on late under no pressure, almost catching Excelebration. Later in the season, he was beaten by 7.5 lengths by Excelebration when they had a proper race.
I do not think this makes Frankel the greatest of all time in itself, but it has to go down as the greatest single performance of all time on European turf.
Most of the horses in the debate specialised at two distances, two furlongs apart. The fact that some won over 8-10-12 furlongs is irrelevant unless the quality of performance over all trips was of elite quality. I don't see how Dancing Brave's Guineas win can be rated elite class mile form when the horse in 2nd was a palpable non stayer who ended up sprinting. Brigadier Gerard's 12f form was nowhere near the elite class we are talking about here, and proves nothing. If anything, Sea The Stars is the horse who has suffered in the debate. His feat of winning Guineas, Derby and Arc, not to mention three other group 1s in between, will surely not be repeated for a very long time. Although few of his performances could go down as elite ones by rating methods, he was exceptionally robust and always found a way to win. Six group 1s in 6 months including the unique aforementioned treble - if you want consistency and versatility you have to give it to STS. If you want elite brilliance, Frankel.
I do not think this makes Frankel the greatest of all time in itself, but it has to go down as the greatest single performance of all time on European turf.
Most of the horses in the debate specialised at two distances, two furlongs apart. The fact that some won over 8-10-12 furlongs is irrelevant unless the quality of performance over all trips was of elite quality. I don't see how Dancing Brave's Guineas win can be rated elite class mile form when the horse in 2nd was a palpable non stayer who ended up sprinting. Brigadier Gerard's 12f form was nowhere near the elite class we are talking about here, and proves nothing. If anything, Sea The Stars is the horse who has suffered in the debate. His feat of winning Guineas, Derby and Arc, not to mention three other group 1s in between, will surely not be repeated for a very long time. Although few of his performances could go down as elite ones by rating methods, he was exceptionally robust and always found a way to win. Six group 1s in 6 months including the unique aforementioned treble - if you want consistency and versatility you have to give it to STS. If you want elite brilliance, Frankel.
Elite brilliance? wtf, the cotton wool kid, a brilliant miler yes,a very good 10f horse well yes, but it was almost staged for him.
frankel,the ones he beat went on to win 24 group races.brigadier beaten at york, found to have ringworm never the same after that.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539