|
By:
So many of you guys are being blinded by the hype.
When Brigadier Gerard ran many of the horses he ran against had to run in handicaps because there just wasn't the Group races to run in. They had to carry their rating and prove whether it was right or not so the ratings they ended up with were correct. Today the 2 of the horses Frankel has run against with handicap form are Side Glance and Gabrial. Side Glance was given a rating of 117 before Frankel beat him at Ascot yet before that he ran in a handicap over course and distance and was beaten off 102. How is he worth 117? Similarly you have Gabrial now rated 108 since being beaten by Frankel yet was beaten in handicap off 89. Where does the 108 come from? He couldn't carry that in a handicap and win so is not worthy of it. The other horse is Farhh. He won the Thirsk Hunt Cup ffs off 100 yet is now rated 128 could he win a handicap off that? That is where the ratings are going wrong. |
|
By:
Yes Brigust i agree,Group1 horses struggle to give a 5lb penalty to other group1 placed horses,how on earth would Frankel give Cirrus Des Aigles 9 lb over 10f?
|
|
By:
Side Glance finished 2nd off 102 in a 28 runner handicap. That race was 21 months before the Queen Anne and he was a 3 year old taking on older, experienced handicappers. He won his previous race off 96 and was clearly still improving. Following that he won a couple of listed races and finished 3 lengths behind Dick Turpin in a Group 2 to emphasise he had improved further. That's where his higher mark came from.
You do understand the handicapping system don't you Brig? You do understand that it's designed to bring horses closer together? You do understand that 117 is the peak of Side Glance's ability and in any handicap he would be coming up against horses better handicapped than him? I find it quite ironic that you say so many are blinded by the hype. Plenty of people on here have watched racing for 20, 30 or 40 years and know a top class horse when they see one. The difference with most of those compared to you is that they don't have a deep emotional attachment to a horse like you do with BG. |
|
By:
Windsor palace beaten 30 lenths off 95 on first run of season then running excelebtation to within 4lenths recieving 6 lb
|
|
By:
You obviously believe Side Glance could win off 117 Marcce so we will have to agree to disagree. And now you are saying the handicap system is wrong. Knows no bounds. Arkle used to carry his weight in handicaps and I believe Denman did as well that is why questioning their rating is difficult.
|
|
By:
Side Glance did beat Dance and Dance (rated 110) by 3/4 l at Salisbury in a group 3. So that would be around a 112 on official ratings and a bit higher on timeform as their scale is higher. I think timeform gave him a 119 when winning a listed race by 6l at ascot apr 2011 so for timeform to give him 117 for finishing 3rd to Frankel doesn't seem too far off the mark to me.
|
|
By:
Firstly, as handicaps are out of the equation for a horse with his rating it's a moot point.
Secondly, where did I say the handicapping system is wrong? What I was alluding to is that in any handicap you will have horses better handicapped than others. The fact that a horse may be beaten off a mark doesn't necessarily mean it isn't worth that mark. Thirdly, jumps is very different to the flat as you well know. There was a possibility of Big Bucks making his seasonal reappearance in a handicap this season. It isn't possible for a multiple Group/Grade 1 winner like him to do that on the flat. And fourthly, given your allegiance to BG do you truthfully believe you can ever really look at other horses performances without sentiment taking over? |
|
By:
Stevie the third horse at Ascot that day is a clear example of what I mean. He never ran in a handicap just went through the maiden, listed, group route. He was rated 108 when beaten by Side Glance. He is now racing in handicaps and getting stuffed off 87.
|
|
By:
teddy grimthorpe or whoever has just stated that a big contributory factor to frankels greatness was that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th always came out and franked the form. My 2 major questions on this are :
1) in his last 9 races ie 2000 guineas onwards, excelebration, neebras (listed race), dubawi gold (one group 2 from 10 subsequent races) were the only winners from those positions teddy mentioned. hardly an unbelievable haul. 2) and my main point - why didn't the 'expert' interviewing him challenge him on this clearly very misleading statement. something along the lines of "dubawi gold beaten 9 times subsequently, are you sure you want to hang your reputation on that statement" or "farrh, never won subsequently?" etc etc as mentioned earlier on the thread its not frankels fault he was racing in a non-vintage period but looks like he might have been. best horse ever for me : old hubert - won 2000 guineas, derby, st leger, oaks, chester cup, scottish derby, cheltenham gold cup, grand national, kentucky derby all as a 2 yr old, all breaking track records - or so the racing manager for his owner told me. |
|
By:
I think 117 is accurate enough for side glance myself. Whether that makes Frankel the best I don't know as you will get big distances when a 140+ horse takes on 110+ horses and they didn't even look to be in the same race. It's hard to compare that to Sea Bird's arc performance with top class horse filling the places.
|
|
By:
I can't believe some of the rubbish some people type on here (well actually I can) but have to laugh at such ludicrous claims that Frankel only beat his local rivals.....so that would be locals rivals from (ex-)Australia, France, Germany, Ireland and Japan would it?
As for him not breaking any course records and his time when winning the 2000gns, first of all how often was he whipped and pushed out all the way to the line as opposed to putting his races to bed a good way out and then being eased down crossing the line? Or how many of those horses that won the 2000gns in a faster time recently did so making all and not seeing another opponent, so ran what was essentially a solo trial over a mile as opposed to being pushed and all out to win? If time alone was the only factor then Cockney Rebel's was the fastest in the past 10 years when winning by 1½L as opposed to Frankel's 6L win so does that make CR an all time great and a better horse than winners of the race in a slower time like Rock of Gibraltar, George Washington and Sea the Stars? |
|
By:
what he did in the royal lodge to an irish derby winner was breathtaking
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
A pacemaker or pace-setter (sometimes colloquially called a rabbit[1]) is a runner who leads a middle- or long distance running event for the first section to ensure a fast time and avoid excessive tactical racing. Pacemakers are frequently employed by race organisers for world record attempts with specific instructions for lap times.
A pacemakers goal, is therefore to create the best chance to break records, by setting the speed, and removing the tactics of your opponents. This for the fastest horse in history, should ensure many records, but the reality is he has zippity squat. |
|
By:
IMO ROCK OF GIBRALTER WAS EVERY BIT AS GOOD (THINK A FERGUSON INVOLVMENT WAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH PRESS NOT OVER HYPING GREAT PERFORMANCES )?
|
|
By:
that's (your) assumption they are using a pacemaker to break a course record that's rubbish,
frankel was awesome and the 2000 guineas was an amazing race. tiny minority hold your views. |
|
By:
again i am a big fan of frankels, but wasnt the 1000 gns won in similar fashion, last year
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
now your changing your story, you claimed the pacemaker is there to break records.
frankel has beaten some very good horses and slammed them, to you what he done will never be good enough, true racing fans know the truth, its all there in the formbook. |
|
By:
Where in the formbook? Through which horses? There are plenty of horses that have won plenty more races, unbeaten, than Frankel.
A 1 next to your name doesn't make you a superstar. And what I posted, was the definition of a pacemaker. Of course it is open for debate whether you are doing it to set records or not. The people that generally do it know they have a chance of breaking it due to their ability. Frankel obviously, tried it, and wasn't good enough. |
|
By:
the horses frankel beat have racked up multiple group wins in their racing careers, go and count them.
nothing more to say on the subject, your views will never be changed about frankel. hes NO 1 FRANKEL |
|
By:
Go and count them? What do I do with my other hand?
|
|
By:
Excelebration was beaten senseless by Frankel in the Queen Anne; he then went on to beat every other European miler on the radar comfortably on his next two starts. That fact alone answers the collateral form argument. The frightening thing is that Excelebration probably was at his peak in the Queen Anne, and in trying to beat Frankel, he gave a one-off chance to see just how good Frankel really was. Of course, it makes much more sense to assume that Excelebration wasn't at his best that day, but I simply can't see any logic in that assumption. And don't give me Side Glance et al. They weren't competing in the same race. See my Dubawi Gold comment earlier. If Side Glance tried to race a length behind Frankel from the start, he'd end up tailed off.
|
|
By:
The main problem with all of this, is most of you are so blinded by your patriotism, that you really can't see the forest for the trees.
You have so many horses that have big winning streaks, and you think that means you have better quality horses than anywhere else in the world where racing is competitive due to the nature of racing. The reality however, is much different. Horse racing in the UK is based around 1 thing, and 1 thing only. Stallion fees. You think that a big winning streak means a fantastic horse. None of you seem to question why racing is so uncompetitive that nothing else is winning. The whole goal, is to get a good horse, and put it in races and win at all costs, using teams of horses to unsettle the competition, set the race up, and if all goes well, win the race. You have 2-3 stables controlling the whole racing industry, and there are enough races around for them all to dodge each other, and team up against the little guys. I guarantee you, it won't be long until you get another horse go on a big winning streak, because that is the nature of your industry and that is the exact reason that pacemakers are even allowed in the first place, even if they are fraudulent, and dangerous to all the jockeys having to dodge them down the straight. They are allowed because the industry is about studs, and studs only. A winning streak, in such conditions, really isn't that special, and certainly doesn't dictate a strong racing industry, in fact quite the opposite. When horses are allowed to dodge and pick and choose to the point of creating such a streak, all it really says is that the stocks around the country are pretty low, and the races are too plentiful. The reality is Frankel dodged plenty of races, that in any other country with other trainers he would have been aimed at, because it is about winning the big races, not just the old races. It is about winning the prize money, and beating the best horses around, and not just winning a race. While you have so many G1 races, and 3 stables controlling everything, and dodging racing against each other, sending teams to set races up, and pull out if need be to let a certain horse win, you will find more and more winning streaks. It is simple mathematics. But the real thing that is being overlooked, is horses all around the world are being bred against each other, with the same bloodlines. There is no mathematical reason or breeding reason at all, that would state that UK should be above average to the point where it is above and beyond all other racing countries, as they all come from the same place. The simple reason as to why you have so many horses with such good records in the win column, is simply because you have the conditions to allow it to happen. You have 3 stables controlling the sport. You have rules that allow teaming up, pacemaking, blocking. You have minimal prizemoney to keep the interest of the outside world down. Or is there another reason why there are so many "freak" horses that just so happen to race in England, even though horses all around the world are bred with each other anyway? How are England so able to produce freak horses who can win 14 in a row, when a different country will use the exact same bloodlines to create a horse that only wins 50% of his races in his own country? It is admirable that you are so patriotic, but come on. Open your eyes. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
Yes, absolutely the best for my money.
|
|
By:
Excelebration got beaten by 2 horses from the USA. Moonlight Cloud, a 1.5 length worse horse over 8f beaten over 6.25 lengths to the US horse, where Frankel is a 4-5L better horse than Excelebration.
Hard to make too much of an argument for Frankel winning that race. Wasn't down a 50 metre wide straight, so wouldn't have had the room for his pacemaker to clear a path for him, and pacemaking most likely not even in the rules. If you can't make an argument for Frankel to win the race, then you can't even confirm he is the best horse in the world right now, let alone the best ever. The race against CDA, he won down to tactics alone, and was well spent on the line losing ground to the horse beaten off a furlong and a half earlier. Absolutely comical. |