There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 186 comments are related to the topic:
Was Frankel the best ever horse (so far) in your opinion ?!
Was Frankel the best ever horse (so far) in your opinion ?!
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 186
|
By:
''The performance by Secretariat in winning the Belmont Stakes in 1973 over 12f had to be seen to be believed. Watch the feature film "Secretariat" or watch on youtube.
The horse clocked 69.8 for the first 6f and 74.2 for the second 6f, finishing in 144.0 for 12f for an average 12.0 secs per furlong. And that is without having a horse to race against for the last 6f as he won by 30l. Anyone who knows anything about time will find that barely credible''. Americans must love all this. It's not credible because it's not true if timed according to our standards. The Belmont Stakes race timing apparatus does not appear to start working until approx. 3 seconds after the gates open. If you look again at Secretariat's race, you will notice a pole on each side of the track, 3 seconds after they leave the gate. The timing starts there, therefore all the sectionals that people so rave about, are exaggerated because of this anomaly. It still happens today although the poles are no longer visible. Union Rags time for the 2012 race is officially 2:30.42 yet if you hand time it from gates open, as you would do here, you will get something like 2:33.5. Secretariat's time should really be 2:27 not 2:24. if making comparisons with our own. |
|
By:
It doesn't matter if it is 10 seconds out as long as they are all the same. That is the point. Not the actual time but that the time he put up hasn't been beaten.
|
|
By:
Brigust, I`m sure Phil Smith has a job for you but you might have to stop arguing about Frankel
 |
|
By:
I'm not gonna get caught up in your cherry picking arguing brig but seriously, 'I suggest Longchamp's course improvemant to drainage is having the desired effect on times, don't you?'
erm .... what was the going in 2010 and 2012? |
|
By:
Who is cherry picking now, Grendel?
You may find I haven't even started yet Felt. Now we have a quiet spell. |
|
By:
Brigust, a question for you. Will you or I live long enough to see another Frankel?
|
|
By:
Still puzzled by the previous comment of Frankel never running quicker than standard time.
He did. 3 times. |
|
By:
mention of Old Vic reminds me of how he was rated superior to Generous and I suppose Henry Cecil being the trainer didn't add a bit of sentimentality there either Crazy
Think you mean Nashwan instead of Generous. |
|
By:
Felt I would think you are much more likely than I am in reality but it does depend. Frankel was born in a weak era so you are looking for two probabilities instead of one. Sir Henry nearly pulled it off with Kris, he won 14 from 16 without going further than a mile. Sadly he ran him in the 2000 Gns when he wasn't right and he was the best horse. Then he ran him against finally against top 3 year old miler who beat him. So that was pretty close.
Frankel only met two 3 year olds and they were very, very poor. As I said he was born lucky and had the right trainer. On top of the we had Racing for change, the new Champions series, two television channels trying to beat each other and its no wonder Timeform fell right into the trap. And Kris was also going to be stepped up to 10f once but they changed their minds. Sound familiar? Answering your question though it's over 40 years since the best racehorse ever raced, Brigadier Gerard, so there may be one on the horizon. Who knows. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
Laughable to try and prove STS guineas was faster than Frankels by saying GOOD TO FIRM for both, luckily we have other races to compare the days conditions:-
2009 2010 2011 9f 110.17 110.15 112.27 12f 150.7 152.34 153.7 8f 95.88 96.35 97.3 5f 57.73 58.4 59.7 6f 71.54 73.0 10f 124.91 125.69 127.0 8f 98.0 97.94 100.2 |
|
By:
The relevance of other races on the same day may make sense to you, but the reality is, the 2000G is started on a seperate part of the track, not to mention none of them are worth any real money at all. Hardly going to be horses targetting those races, will get runners that are fit enough at the time. Only real race on the day is the Guineas, and perhaps the G2 race, which of course doesn't even come down the straight, so the relevance of times is really not there.
Penetrometer sitting on 9, dry day likely to lift that above by the time the race started., making the ground fast, racing on ground untouched so far that day getting the best of it. On what planet 1.37.3 is less than 1.35.88 is beyond me. But I hope it is nice there for your sake. |
|
By:
BJT
Topspeed is the Racing Post's adjusted speed ratings. They compare the actual final times of each race on the day, taking into account the relative class of each race, and produce a going adjustment for the day. Whether it can be calculated accurately is a matter of opinion but the TS figure for Frankel is higher than any other 2000G this century. I have not made this up you can look for yourself on the RP website, although I think you need to be a member to access these figures. If you are a member you can click on the time analysis for the day of each Guineas and see what adjustment they use. In 2008, Eagle Mountain set the current Rowley mile record. Earlier that year, Henrythenavigator won the 2000G in a time over 5 seconds slower but was awarded a TS figure 17lbs better than EM. If you don't agree with the way the RP do their figures that's up to you, but personally, I prefer to get a grasp of the conditions on the day by assessing final times rather than the penetrometer. And BJT I was under the impression that the Rowley mile course was the same "straight" for all races. I have never been to Newmarket so I may be wrong. |
|
By:
Sea The stars was a fantastic champion,his 2000 hard to rate highly on ratings but did beat Cityscape 28 lenths,so not a bad result me thinks.
|
|
By:
Sea The Stars winning 2009 2000g
http://youtu.be/54zmyhcgXmA Note cityscape at rear in the Abdulla colours.This went close to wise dan this year(well 4+lenths ish.) |
|
By:
The problem I find with that theory Sawyer, is that if there are a couple of slowly run races, then Frankels performance is boosted over the top. It is all good to look at a race that is run slowly, and suggest the ground is bad, and the next race is quick and do you say the first one was run slowly, or do you say that the second race was an exceptional time on a slow track?
As far as I know, the 2000G is run down the centre of the straight, and the other races are run down the stand side. Obviously horses can run wherever they want from there, but they lose distance travelling across rather than straight, and the more horses run down the same patch, the more cut up the ground becomes. The 2000G in theory, should be on as close to virgin ground as possible, being the first race that runs down that patch. I understand that penetrometer readings aren't neccessarily taking everything into account, but they are used for a reason, and they are the basis for the calls to what the ground actually is. A good ground, is ~8.0. Sure there are other factors, but we are talking about the same track. Obviously different tracks will have different grass, be a bit stickier, whatever, but we are talking about the exact same surface, getting the exact same penetrometer reading. This scientific instrument, is reading the ground as a certain hardness, and that is what is used internationally. GOOD TO FIRM, is accurate for both 2009, and 2011, as the penetrometer, on a dry day, read 8.8 hours before the first race. By the time the race started it would be over 9. The good to firm, is supposed to be based on that number, but you will find on the day he beat Excelebration by 11, it was listed as Good to Soft, suggesting penetrometer reading needed to be under around 7.6 to be that, whereas it was actually 8.2-8.3, on a hot day, and would be have closer to 9 than 8 by the time the race was run. The track was upgraded to only good after his race 1, and people still suggest that it was a big run due to it being a track on the soft side, which clearly it wasn't. Can use times, and whatever all you like, but when you base averages of times on such a small sample size, then they are certainly not 100% accurate. I certainly wouldn't even listen to anybody that claimed to have a betting system based on a 7 race card at Newmarket, I sure won't accept it for this either. Obviously people will choose to blindly accept it, and good luck to them, but if you don't know the formula to work it out and work out the validity of it, then it surely can't be viable to simply believe it. I choose to believe that the penetrometer gives a fairly accurate interpretation of the condition of the ground. I choose to believe also that a race time is an accurate way to see what time the race was run in. I also choose to believe that with an identical reading on the ground surface, it is very hard to make up a 1.5 second deficit to "prove" that it was indeed faster. Each to their own. |
|
By:
Times is of little value in the Uk down to jockey tactics,you could install all the high tech gear you wanted,but the jockeys will make a mess of it,just look at Bullet train in the Quipco(did he fullfill his pacemaking role?) Better concentrate on getting these Horses some Scales ,the information worth a lot more to punters in my view,yes there will be staggering natural weight differences,but you may be able to pick up on trainer patterns and natural growth from 2yrs to 3 -4 etc. so much interest could be generated and cheaper.
|
|
By:
Times become more relevant when races are run fast. You look at Frankels performance, he hit the ground running, extended his lead, pushed the pace, and was driven out to the line. He was slowing down, but hard to judge whether he could have gotten a better time by restricting his speed a little, but the point is, his time was slower than previous years, so can't be argued that it was quicker. A fast run race like that, and it was still slower than STS by nearly 1.5 seconds. We know Frankels was a fast race, and all that we can come up with for STS is that it was either equally as fastly run, or it was slowly run. Slowly run, puts the distance between them either further still, and a fastly run race, doesn't change the ~1.5 second gap at all.
Sure that isn't an exact science, but 1.5 seconds is a hell of a lot to make up when everything is identical. |
|
By:
BJT ... try compiling speed ratings using Penetrometer readings for your going adjustments and see how far you get
|
|
By:
what petronometer readings and going descriptions account for is the surface conditions, what it doesn't take into account is wind which can affect times greatly, raceform interactive have wind descriptions from each meeting and the last 4 years 2000 guineas day were ... 2009 fresh behind, 2010 fresh behind, 2011 fresh half against, 2012 fresh half behind. The 2011 'fresh half against' accounts for the roughly 2 secs per mile slower difference compared to 2009 'fresh behind'
|
|
By:
Only real race on the day is the Guineas, and perhaps the G2 race, which of course doesn't even come down the straight
Wtf are you on about? Presumably you've never been to Newmarket? |
|
By:
There are two problems with BJT's line of argument. Firstly, he doesn't seem to know anything about the effect of pace on speed figures. Frankel's Guineas performance destroyed several horses in behind. He set abnormally fast early fractions which most horses could not have sustained to any extent, but he just kept going. The final time was hurt by his early exertions. To gauge the effects of pace, you only have to look at Dubawi Gold's run in that race, when he came from the rear to finish 6 lengths behind Frankel, having not competed in the race at all, and where he finished in the St James Palace, having tried to compete in the mid race heat. Secondly, you are guilty of advancing an argument that simply defies common sense and instinct. You are basing your position on the idea that there is some great significance in fast literal times and track records. The fact that Eagle Mountain holds the Rowley Mile record says it all. It's to do with conditions and the way the pace of the race unfolds. Do you really believe that the other Guineas winners you cite are better than Frankel? Of course you don't. So stop theorizing - you aren't even getting that right.
|
|
By:
And a third problem that he is making his theories despite apparently having no idea about the layout of the Rowley Mile
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
BJT, are you an Aussie?
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
bitter about Black Caviar being second best?
|
|
By:
? Black Caviar has nothing to do with Frankel.
Not sure of your point. If you have one. |
|
By:
Do they start the Group 2 race on the straight? I am saying no, you are saying yes. Right? You said 'they don't come down the straight' Don't try and project your bollox argument on to me |
|
By:
BJT
Thanks for your replies. I do know how the RP and other speed compilers work out their figures - I do my own and actually believe mine are more accurate than the RP's as I probably spend more time analysing than they do. To add to that I think the RP are a bit lazy in their calcs, particularly where conditions change during the day or when two different courses are used. There is little point in trying to justify any of the RP's topspeed ratings with you as you have your own method for assessing the ground and therefore the respective race times over different seasons: each to their own. However the Eagle Mountain case is the perfect example of where the stick reading can be way off the real "conditions" on the day. The last horse home in Eagle Mountain's race would have won the 2000G that year based on the final time - the comparative stick readings were 9.5 in October and 8.7 in May, not enough for the five second gap in the final time. |
|
By:
BJT • January 19, 2013 11:10 AM GMT
Jan 19, 2013 -- 10:49AM, Howellsy wrote: There are two problems with BJT's line of argument. Firstly, he doesn't seem to know anything about the effect of pace on speed figures. Frankel's Guineas performance destroyed several horses in behind. He set abnormally fast early fractions which most horses could not have sustained to any extent, but he just kept going. The final time was hurt by his early exertions. To gauge the effects of pace, you only have to look at Dubawi Gold's run in that race, when he came from the rear to finish 6 lengths behind Frankel, having not competed in the race at all, and where he finished in the St James Palace, having tried to compete in the mid race heat. Secondly, you are guilty of advancing an argument that simply ****g quote rubbish deleted everything so I will have another go. Firstly. Pace on speed figures is irrelevant. The point had nothing to do with if Frankel ran optimum time. It was simply was it quicker than previous runnings of the event. It obviously was not. You really wasted a full paragraph arguing a point that wasn't questioned, when you could have used that time simply reading what was written so you didn't reply to the wrong point. Secondly, Frankel raced on Good to firm, or better tracks in over 65% of his races, and had a pace maker in probably over 80% of his races, whose job was to set up the speed for Frankel to run optimal time, by both setting the pace, and clearing a path. That was the whole point of his races, to smash times, and win races. He won races, and smashed no times, even though EVERYTHING was in his favour. That argument just doesn't work when we know the pace of the race, and we know the conditions. There was no unfolding of the pace, it was dictated, by his stablemate, in almost every one of his races. The fact that he doesn't have any track records, when he raced on fast ground with a pacemaker for the majority of his races, puts up more than 1 question. And the question certainly isn't is he the best horse to ever race. That thought would never even cross my mind. I know for a fact that he isn't, because I am not gullible and don't simply buy into the hype. I am able to think for myself. Or what exactly is a pacemaker in your eyes? |
|
By:
|
|
By:
Frankel raced on Good to firm, or better tracks in over 65% of his races, and had a pace maker in probably over 80% of his races
Pretty sure neither of those 'stats' is true |
|
By:
It mustn't be true if you have so easily managed to prove it wrong with all your facts and figures.
Well played gonzo. |
|
By:
That Group 2 isn't run down the straight but of course it finishes on it. Simple as that.
 Finishes on it...yeah, for 10f. Still, if you genuinely want to make this part of your case against Frankel, please carry on |
|
By:
It mustn't be true if you have so easily managed to prove it wrong with all your facts and figures.
I don't recall him using a pacemaker for the races in his juvenile season. Nor, obviously, the 2000 Guineas. So that's over a third of the races out. Which races did he run on GF or better? |
|
By:
|
|
By:
Either way, there will be another horse next year that you lot will be claiming is the best ever, and you will compare it once again with all the other European horses that were the greatest in the history of the world. You will continue to do no race timing, cheat other legitimate horses out of winning, and claim that you are the home of racing. rotflmfao.
Wonder which horse will race in its backyard next and beat the next door neighbour up to become the greatest ever. |
|
By:
british horse racing is the best in the world, handicapping system that is so refined its almost perfect.
produces the greatest races horses in the world time and time again. 1ST PLACE FRANKEL (RATINGS) |