Was Frankel the best ever horse (so far) in your opinion ?!

Frankel supreme. Ostriches -many.

Here is one fast ground performance of Note,Harbinger winning the King George against inform horses(except maybe workforce)

http://youtu.be/mo7pEsp2WKc

Note the commentary as jim explains the class in the race,he has raced past the Derby winner ,passed the irish derby winner etc.

If frankel would have beat Harbinger on this day on this going my dicks a bloater.

Frankel and time.

Frankel ran on good or faster going 9 times out of the 14 times he ran and usually had a pacemaker to ensure the pace was good. In the 2000 Guineas on good to firm going he made his own running and ran as fast as he could. Yet still on time he was the 8th fastest in the last 10 years and the 13th fastest in the last 20 years. The closest he ever got was 5th fastest in the last 10 years in the Greenham and the Sussex. This is supposed to be the greatest horse ever ffs.
Compare that with Secretariat who still holds the course records for the Kentucky Derby, Preakness and Belmont Stakes. That is what a champion does. Brigadier Gerard broke 3 course records and Mill Reef broke 3 course records as well. Champions not an illusion backed up with hype to the hilt. Like I said before he was born lucky.

Before Frankel, Sea Bird II was most people's idea of the greatest TURF racehorse they had ever seen and that opinion was primarily based on the way he won and beat- no demolished- a whole bunch of top-class horses in the Arc.

There are three criteria in that statement which are essential, imo, for assessing other horses with claims to greatness- manner of win, race stature and competitiveness.(Note, rating does not come into it.)

I am uneasy with Frankel's position as the "greatest ever" because whilst he undoubtedly was a great horse, and certainly smashed his opposition, I do not consider that the races which he won can be described as "the very best races in the world" or the most "competitive", reasons for which have been thoroughly discussed on various threads.

The collateral rating methodology used by the official handicappers and TF is not without its flaws, some serious, primarily because it is one-dimensional. The compilers almost certainly are not players otherwise they would understand that point. Thankfully, the weight placed on official/TF ratings in the market allows others to exploit the situation to their advantage.

The clock tells the story.This one's form,that one's form,supposedly weak opposition,not enough group 1 performers etc.The list is endless.
Obviously many want to devalue Frankel,and didn't fully enjoy his demolition jobs.That's life!!!
At least I was fortunate to see him in action,leaving me with wonderful memories that no arguments can devalue.

I agree with almost everything there Sandown. TF and the BHA handicappers are OK with ordinary horses but they cannot handicap class, courage or cowardice. It is beyond their sliderules. Some horses have so much courage they refuse to be beaten no matter how much weight they carry like Arkle and Desert Orchid. And some, like Kildimo, no matter what weight they carry they jusy refuse to win. And you cannot handicap 'class'. It is an unkown seen rarely. They try but invariably fail. 

When Arkle ran against Mill House the weight difference grew and grew and so did the winning distances.

metro john

Re Harbinger's K. George

The rating given to Harbinger for his win that day was grossly over the top, imo, and the topic was discussed at great length on the Antepost forum.

From a time perspective, one has to rate Harbinger's performance against that of Yashrid who also won over 12f later in the day.

Yashrid's official rating was 82 and he ran the 12f in 152.19 secs . The RP TS rating given was 91, almost certainly too much.The horse had 4 more runs afterwards, beaten a total of some 134 lengths off ratings of 86 and 80.

This performance must anchor the allowances used to rate the KG run. Assuming the TS rating of 91 for Yashrid then Harbinger final time performance can't be rated higher than 119. If one assumes that Yashrid ran only to his 82 rating then Harbinger's rating must be 9lbs lower at 110. Assessments of over 140 were way too high.

My view of the Harbinger KG is that they went off too fast and the pace collapsed earlier than normal thus flattering his winning distance as his opponents tired worse than he did.  Yashrid's race was closer to even paced for the class so comparisons time-wise of the two races is futile.

brigust

If you compare the RP's topspeed since 2000 (I haven't bothered to go back any further) you will see that their figure for Frankel is 132 and is the highest.

Kings Best is second in 2000 with 129 followed by Cockney Rebel (2007) with 125 and Sea The Stars with 123. Last of these is Footsteps... with 99.

Now Footsteps... also ran with similarly described ground as Frankel but his time is over 1 second faster than Frankel.

Without comparing the overall times of all the races on the day (and even then it is not an exact science) it is not possible to make time comparisons over different years.

surely if frankels the best racehorse of all time theyd have made more use of him wouldnt they? theyd have run him over 12f or taken him to run in a big field group 1 in japan or the breeders cup (taken all the cash on offer). the only thing we know for certain is theyve got a massive stud fee whilst taking minimal risk job done!

or taken him to run in a big field group 1 in japan or the breeders cup (taken all the cash on offer)

Yes, i'm sure Khalid Abdullah is well in need of the money.

Yashrid's race was closer to even paced for the class so comparisons time-wise of the two races is futile.


For that reason my conclusion is the exact opposite to "futile."

Sawyer, I am not a time person. I don't believe times are reliable on their own especially in Group races as opposed to handicaps. However much has been said about Frankel and his speed so you would have thought he would have achieved at least average time once in his 14 starts.

After all I am not saying he should break course records but when comparing him with other winners of the 'same' race you would expect when the going is right, the pace is right and he runs right through the line he should be putting up a good time. He doesn't. That has to be a worry.

We haven't any direct form to go on which is a pity and the horses he beat were obviosly below standard or the left overs after others retired so time is just about all we have left.

Sandown i am not a fan of the clock,pace interests me, but they did not go too quick in Harbingers King george,Harbinger loved it fast and i tell you know there was quality behind, Workforce later won the Arc and  Cape blanco later won three group1s in america.Just watch the video and you can see Cape blanko beat with 3furlong to run ,they all were,it was a well balanced performance and the margin coould have been bigger,on ratings i would settle at 133p below that of Frankel in the queen anne 134- 135 by my ratings (not time) The difference for me is the quality of horse behind,yes most may have prefered softer ground in Harbingers King george,but in Frankels queen Anne they were barely listed class(except Excelebration who wants deep ground) behind so therefor easier to beat.

However much has been said about Frankel and his speed so you would have thought he would have achieved at least average time once in his 14 starts.

He did.

well dr gonzo if mr abdullah doesnt need the money even more reason to take him out of his comfort zone and travel the world proving beyond doubt hes the best with no need to protect tis stud fee.

Bullet train beaten 38 lenths eased behind Workforce on fast ground in the Derby,was beaten  16 lenths in the Queen Anne and just 14.4 lenths  in the quipco at ascot,what was his trip? what was his ground? i dont think he stayed 12f and maybe did not like fast ground. The picture not so clear concerning ratings and distances,so why side on the high side of ratings?

Cant help thinking this rating (and the devalue of past champs) has thrown the Derby and all other 1m 4f+ classics and Grade 1's into second rate races. They have been on the decline in recent years anyway, but this will probably entice the very top breeders to strive for classic product in the 8-10 furlong ONLY bracket. All things evolve, but this rating, indirectly, is highlighting a major shift in redefining what the classic thouroughbreds' optimum race distance should be.

brigust

According to the RP he has run the fastest 2000G this century (and probably since their TS records began) after adjusting for conditions on the day.

I have not looked back through all of the Judmonte figures but his was 136 and Sea The Stars 132. I am willing to guess that nothing has got within 8-10lbs of either in the last 15 years.

I am not sure "time wise" what he was supposed to do.

When discussing the issue of "greatest ever" and "time" the debate must include performances beyond Europe and not just Turf.

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.

Secretariat has a decent claim to being called "the greatest" at least in the modern era.

Frankel cannot be called the greatest ever because he was campaigned too conservatively.

It is pointless putting Secretariat up as the greatest as he would have been on drugs. In the same way as Lance Armstrong will never be spoken of as a great cyclist.

For those who may be interested, Andy Beyer calculated that if his ratings had been applied at the time he would have given Secretariat of 139.

For conversion purposes, the chef-de-race site http://www.chef-de-race.com/pfs/comparative_speed_figs.htm
calculates a Beyer figure of 130 equating to a TF figure of 139. Look at the table and you will see that 139 is off the chart but using the table you would say the TF equivalent for 139 would be c 150. That to emphasise is a rating of 3lbs more than TF have given to Frankel.

you would of raced frankel 147  allover the world to prove what? his racing career was managed to perfection.
will always be the greatest in my mind until another great comes along. henry cecil a great trainer.

It is pointless putting Secretariat up as the greatest as he would have been on drugs.

That is an ASSUMPTION with no evidence to go on.

The owner, Mrs Chenery, was against the use of performance enhancing drugs. Nothing to that effect post-mortem was found to support drugs use. The horse was found to have a super-naturally enlarged heart, however.

as great Secretariat's time is, and I think I'm right in saying it's still an all time 1m 4f world record for a racehorse, I will predict that it will be broken in the arc (ok, it's 14m shorter)within a decade ... Danedream was only 0.49 secs short in her year and the decadal average winning times are dropping consistently

Sentimentality has certainly played a part in the Frankel ratings saga,

I wonder if he'd been idolized in the same way had he have been trained by Aidan O'Brien or Michael Stoute !

He'd have been campaigned better!

grendel

I'm sure that you right about that, but we are looking at this 40 years on. It's not just the about the horse, but training methods and course management as well.

All the same, Danedream was rated at around 128 for that performance, 21 lb behind the possible rating for Secretariat, so some way to go on that basis.

training methods and course management would garner improvements both side of the atlantic if significant but unlike european top races lowering the decadal averages the top USA races have their decadal averages pretty much been stationary for the last 40 years. I think the use of drugs in american thoroughbreds has hindered evolutionary improvements and the standout breeding lines of Northern Dancer, Saddler's Wells and Galileo on turf have improved the european thoroughbred immensely .. so much so that flat breds have crossed over into National Hunt racing now that speed has overcompensated for robustness, but at a cost as we have witnesses in recent years in the National ... and the standout sire for Aintree National fences races is Old Vic.

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

In my time in racing (from a serious point of view) early 1980s.
Frankel is the best horse of my time, Dancing Brave would be next on my list.
In Frankel`s case, he was by a wide margin the best at 2,3 & 4 (yrs old) not 2 many of the best of the best can boast that record.
A SUPERSTAR in my book, and trained by 1 as well (Sir Henry) my racing hero.

Grendel how come the average times for the Kentucky Derby, Preakness and Belmont Stakes for the 70's are faster than for the 2000's? And I've excluded Secretariats 3 records because that would make the average even greater.

And Grendel you often refer to the Arc. Can you tell me then why in the last 10 years the time difference is such that the horses in the last 10 years are winning by an average of 22 lengths more, in time, than the horses in the previous 10 years and yet those horses from the previous 10 years are only 3 lengths on average better than the 10 years before that. I suggest Longchamp's course improvemant to drainage is having the desired effect on times, don't you?

''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.

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.

Brigust, I`m sure Phil Smith has a job for you but you might have to stop arguing about Frankel

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?

Who is cherry picking now, Grendel?

You may find I haven't even started yet Felt. Now we have a quiet spell.

Brigust, a question for you. Will you or I live long enough to see another Frankel?

Still puzzled by the previous comment of Frankel never running quicker than standard time.

He did. 3 times.

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.

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.

Jan 18, 2013 -- 1:19PM, The Sawyer wrote:

brigustAccording to the RP he has run the fastest 2000G this century (and probably since their TS records began) after adjusting for conditions on the day.I have not looked back through all of the Judmonte figures but his was 136 and Sea The Stars 132. I am willing to guess that nothing has got within 8-10lbs of either in the last 15 years.I am not sure "time wise" what he was supposed to do.

Frankel ran that 2000G on a GOOD TO FIRM track, down the centre with only 1 other race for the day. Tracks don't get much better than that.
His time was 1.37.30

The year before in 2010, was also a GOOD TO FIRM track, with a time of 1.36.35.
2009, GOOD TO FIRM, (dry and breezy, exactly the same as Frankel), with a time of 1.35.88 (This would have put him 23.84 metres in front of Frankel, or ~10 lengths if you prefer).

The most recent, (the slowest) was the first time the conditions weren't simply GOOD TO FIRM, as it was GOOD TO SOFT, and 7.0-7.2 penetrometer.

So to compare the conditions with STS and Frankel

GOOD TO FIRM for both
8.8 penetrometer for both
Dry breezy day, for both.
Throw in the one inbetween, and they are all the same, except it wasn't breezy on the day that Makfi ran a race that was 15.87 metres in front of Frankel, or 6.6 lengths if you prefer.

So the only possible thing that differed was wind direction.

For your comment to be accurate about Frankel running the fastest 2000G this century once conditions have been neutralized, then it must be proven that Frankel was 10+ lengths worse off due to wind alone.

Or what conditions are they using?  RP being Racing Post?  Where I got these stats from?


Now no, I am not suggesting that it is as simple as saying Frankel loses those previous races by that distance.  What I am saying though, is that given the conditions were exactly the same, down to the penetrometer reading, there is no way in hell you can suggest that Frankel has run the fastest time this century for that race, when the numbers are clear as day showing him 10 lengths behing STS.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

BJT ... try compiling speed ratings using Penetrometer readings for your going adjustments and see how far you get

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'

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?

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.

And a third problem that he is making his theories despite apparently having no idea about the layout of the Rowley Mile

Jan 19, 2013 -- 10:53AM, Dr Gonzo wrote:

And a third problem that he is making his theories despite apparently having no idea about the layout of the Rowley Mile

Are you suggesting that a 12 furlong race is run down the 10 furlong straight.  What are they doing, running for 100 metres, then running back, and then running the final 10 furlongs down the straight?

Do they start the Group 2 race on the straight?  I am saying no, you are saying yes.  Right?

BJT, are you an Aussie?

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

Jan 19, 2013 -- 11:10AM, grendel wrote:

BJT, are you an Aussie?

Relevance?

bitter about Black Caviar being second best?

?  Black Caviar has nothing to do with Frankel.

Not sure of your point.  If you have one.

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

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.

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?

Jan 19, 2013 -- 11:15AM, Dr Gonzo wrote:

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

Any person with an IQ over 50 would understand that I realise that I have never seen a horse race that doesn't finish on a straight.  That Group 2 isn't run down the straight but of course it finishes on it.  Simple as that. 

Can't see the "Dr" reference, but can understand the rest.

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

It mustn't be true if you have so easily managed to prove it wrong with all your facts and figures. 

Well played gonzo.

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

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?

Jan 19, 2013 -- 11:41AM, Dr Gonzo wrote:

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

What?  I merely suggested using a race where over 2 furlongs is run on a different course, and is all uphill, to boost Frankels performance is negligent.

What races weren't on ground like that?

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. 

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)

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.

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?

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.

Windsor palace beaten 30 lenths  off 95 on first run of season  then running excelebtation to within  4lenths recieving 6 lb

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

what he did in the royal lodge to an irish derby winner was breathtaking

Jan 20, 2013 -- 4:54AM, ima_mazed66 wrote:

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?

If a horse breaks a track record because there are horses competing with it to the line and it is pushing itself harder, does it not make any sense to you that Frankel, way outside the course record, beating horses by 10+ lengths, means what he was racing was so far off the track record that they would be an also ran in any other era in the sport also?

Very rarely did I see Frankel not pushed out to the line.  Not sure what races you were watching.  Frankel was pushed out when he was running out of steam because his cruising speed was so high.  By the time he needed to be pushed out, his sectionals were very rarely better than what he was running just being urged along.  He was pushed out only to keep his speed going as he was out of steam and would otherwise fall in a big hole.


Either way, your arguments seem to be based on a lot of ifs and assumptions.  You are suggesting that because he was so far in front of his competition, then it was hard for him to break track records.  The reality of that statement though, is that his competition is so far beyond being competitive, that it just merely proves that Frankel was racing against dead wood, and how far you beat dead wood by, is really not that important.

Nearly even leave out the obvious point about his pacemaker being used to get his optimal time pushing him to track records without the need for other horses in the race.
Have you ever seen a race before?  With people involved?  The pacemaker runs and sets the speed with the runner following on.  The pacemaker runs out of speed, and proceeds to run the rest of the race out by himself, trying to break the record, after everybody else has dropped off from the pace.  That is the whole point of pacemakers, to set the speed, take the wind, clear a path, and to set the race up for their desired runner to run optimal speed.
These circumstances dictate that track records should be more likely, especially given the claims that this is the best horse in the history of the world.

The reality is, they are unfounded statements, based on false assumptions.

Frankel didn't break any records, only won ~3 million, only 11 G1 races, and the horses he ran against have done nothing.  Just because he beat them easily, does not account for the fact that other horses have done much more in the sport, and have done it faster, against better competition.

Simple as that really.

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.

IMO ROCK OF GIBRALTER WAS EVERY BIT AS GOOD (THINK  A FERGUSON INVOLVMENT  WAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH PRESS NOT OVER HYPING GREAT PERFORMANCES )?

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.

again i am a big fan of frankels, but wasnt the 1000 gns won in similar fashion,  last year

Jan 20, 2013 -- 10:32AM, roadrunner46 wrote:

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.

No, it is my opinion they use pacemakers for Frankel to minimise the tactics around him, and so he can run as close to optimum time as possible.

Course records are simply a by product of the best horse ever to race, running optimal time.

Why are you suggesting they use pacemakers if it isn't to set the pace for Frankel to run optimal time?

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.

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.

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

Go and count them?  What do I do with my other hand?

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.

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.

Jan 20, 2013 -- 11:24AM, Howellsy wrote:

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.

Please, he was made to look second rate at the BC.  Run of the race and didn't give a yelp.  All it says is Frankel was better than Excelebration.

Yes, absolutely the best for my money.

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.