Why was Frankel rated so much higher than Sea The Stars?

A head bobber over a mile?

Tell me, which of Sea The Stars performances over 7 furlongs or a mile would have got him within 5 lengths of Frankel over that distance let alone a head bobber?

Ironically Sea The Stars was by a miler but won the 2000gns against mostly average milers or stayers and so they gambled on trying once to see if he got 12f. Frankel on the other hand was by a stayer but won his 2000gns so impressively showing good early speed and sectional times and by a ridiculous distance that you can understand them thinking they only had a miler.

fozwald 22 Oct 14 12:25 

His non-Derby appearance also proved to be spot on. It might well have been detrimental to his future like it was to a horse like Dawn Approach.

Dawn Approach got spooked when another horse ran into the back of him and then pulled too hard and wouldn't settle but I think it's a bit of a stretch to say the Derby was detrimental to his future when he then came out and won the SJP next time and was only narrowly beaten in the Sussex the time after. I personally didn't think the horse was ever a miler but just good enough to win the 2000gns due to how early in the 3YO season that race comes and the further the season went on, the more it looked like a mile was too short and he would get done for speed.

They maybe should have tried the Irish Derby as it's hard to say going by a one off when a horse pulls so hard and doesn't settle that he doesn't get more than a mile.

grendel 22 Oct 14 14:03 
Frankel had a sh!t jock, shame he came too early for James Doyle

How exactly can you improve being unbeaten on the horse?

That "sh1t jock" must have also somehow fluked the 60 or so group races he has won so far during his career too.

As a 3 year old, Frankel was a 135-138 horse IMO. Could you make the argument STS was better at that age? Possibly. Certainly over 10 furlongs

But as a 4 year old, Frankel was a 145 horse easily - possibly a 150 animal. Not possible to argue that STS was that good.

Would STS have got better with age? Again, probably, but I would doubt he could have improved to that level.

A head bobber over a mile?

Marcce did you see the original question?

In receipt of 7lb? Sea The Stars v Frankel over 8-10f? yes, it should be a head bobber over 10f. Sea The Stars would have needed a stone over a mile.

Wasn't responding to your much earlier post AG. It was mrtopnotch above I was referring to and I don't think he was bringing 7 pounds into the equation there either.

What I saw and form lines tell me Sea the Stars excelled in an average year. Canford Cliffs and Goldikova where better milers using Rip Van Wankle as a guide. Sea the Stars was a great horse over 1mile 2f+ but would not have beaten the greatest over either trip IMO

CDA v Youmzain imo

after what fozwold just posted what a pair of racehorses not that we really needed reminding but given all those facts you realise just how good they both were and how lucky we have been to have seen them.

Ok Marcce i thought my head bobber remark was in question.

Yes Foxy well said,.

Frankel all the way for me. STS only had 1 good season, whilst Frankel was a champion at 2, 3 and 4.

Yes, Frankel nevel raced at 1 1/2 miles, but then again he was never to be a Derby Horse. Kind was a sprinter, his 3/4's brother Bullet Train failed to stay the Derby trip. His full brother, Noble Mission, who I believe has more stamina than Frankel, only just stays the trip.

Frankel would beat STS at 8f and 10f, however 12f I would say STS would win purely because of Frankels stamina doubts.

Just wondering also, how do you compare athletes in the past tense? By their wins in say the European championships, AAA's or commonwealth games, or by winning at the world championships and Olympics?

For me, Frankel only ever won the 2nd tier events, whereas STS won at the major events.

STS

Beresford Stakes (Worlds)
2,000 Guineas  (Worlds)
Epsom Derby  (Olympics)
Eclipse Stakes (Worlds)
International Stakes (Worlds)
Irish Champion Stakes (Worlds)
Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe (Olympics)

Frankel

Royal Lodge Stakes
Dewhurst Stakes (Worlds)
Greenham Stakes (Worlds)
2,000 Guineas Stakes (Worlds)
St. James's Palace Stakes (Worlds)
Sussex Stakes (Worlds)
Queen Elizabeth II Stakes (Worlds)
Lockinge Stakes (Worlds)
Queen Anne Stakes (Worlds)
International Stakes (Worlds)
Champion Stakes (Worlds)

It appears from your list that the only events capable of being 'Olympic standard' are over 1m4f...

Very good debate lads and lassies. I don't know who is the best so I will leave it to others. On the tv the other day a company called racemodlr were advertising their computerised form showing how races would have finished according to them. It included the virtual QE11 involving all of the top rated milers and they had Frankel a nose in front of Brigadier Gerard. I'm happy with that because they wouldn't know everything about BG whereas they would know everything about Frankel including the hype and no new company trying to sell its product would have it the other way around.
Do I think Frankel would win over 12f? I have no idea but Tudor Minstrel won the 2000 Guineas by much further, was long odds on for the Derby and finished 4th. No-one knows until they do it.

why on Earth would you put any faith in some cartoon race from a mob you had no experience of?

Good post mirisoo,

STS

Beresford Stakes (Worlds)
2,000 Guineas  (Worlds)
Epsom Derby  (Olympics)
Eclipse Stakes (Worlds)
International Stakes (Worlds)
Irish Champion Stakes (Worlds)
Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe (Olympics)


That is a very impressive CV,and worthy  of greatness.

Well DI the chap has been doing this since he left University many years ago and was prepared to put his time and money where his mouth is.You cannot spend your life knocking everyone who doesn't agree with you.
The besthng willbe when all  of he hype has died down and the acievement is looked at in the cold light of day. It may not be until the next champion arrives but it surely will hapen just as you guys are pulling horsesof the past apart.

Sorry about the spelling I'm using my wife's ipad. Just cannot get on with it.

sir henry was a genius,frankel never gave weight for age away.still the best racehorse u will ever see.

Frankel was a monster - unbeatable over a mile by anything we've ever seen.

STS had the almost perfect 3yo season - only winning the King George instead of York could have bettered it.

2 of the all-time greats.

No doubting Sir Henry was a top class trainer but he needed to have the ammunition. One thing he said in an interview was that he was offered and sent the cream of the top private studs to train  whereas Richard Hannon had to buy his horses from what was left over. Sir Henry never bought a single horse in his life. His words not mine.

Whatever the Cotton Wool Kid achieved, Sea The Stars rocking up for every major gig as a 3YO and passing every test thrown at him, far surpasses it imo.

The sight in the Derby, Eclipse, Juddmonte and Irish Champion of the Ballydoyle massive trying to beat him and failing miserably will live long and pleasurably in the memory.

Then in the Arc, to see him pulling like a mustang and thinking oh f'cking hell, but yet he still majestically came through for an authoritative victory.

A magnificent looking horse (I was lucky enough to see him at York) who only did what he had to do, and the best since Dancing Brave imo.

I read this week a piece in the RP by Alan Sweetman about the decline in John Oxx's fortunes (albeit he's had a better season than last), but if he had never trained another winner it wouldn't matter imo, his handling of Sea The Stars to be peak form from the Guineas through to the Arc, was as good a training performance as you will ever see imo.

Epsom Derby  (Olympics)

On exactly what basis could the Derby be looked at as a top calibre race? The field's invariably mostly made up of horses who barely reach listed class with most of the field not staying and/or not acting on the track. The fact is a horse very rarely has to win the Derby by beating other top class horses running somewhere near their best.

Undoubtedly it's a prestigious race but in terms of real quality it's rarely little more than Commonwealth games standard. A lot of people (mostly the oap generation) go all soppy about it but in real terms the Derby isn't a top class race and hasn't been for quite some time.

The Thoroughbred exists not because its selection has depended experts, technicians or zoologists but one piece of wood: the winning post of the Epsom Derby. Frederico Tesio, Italian breeder.

One of Sea the Star's greatest attributes was his constitution, as a 3yr old, to win six Group 1's six months in a row, Mick Kinane has commented on this many times, and Oxx's handling of him was superb. Kinane never bottomed him out and never asked him for 100%, this makes him a real freak and marks him down as one of the greats! His constitution and what he did should be factored in to his rating ....

Gerry McCann who looked after Nashwan (a fantastic horse) gives a great example of how great Sea the Stars achievement was

'We had a stretch of gallop, about a mile and a quarter,' McCann continues. 'It was like the very best carpet -
beautiful turf. We all called the stretch "the trial gallop". We'd use it only three or four times a year. It was close to the
Guineas, and the Major told me to lead off. We had no sticks. The first one who passed me would be the winner.
Nashwan and I went fifteen lengths clear even without a whip. The Major said, "The Brigadier [Gerard, who won the 2,000
Guineas in 1971] wouldn't have done that." At 8.30 in the morning he was 33-1 for Newmarket; by midday he was
down to 8-1; and by mid-afternoon he was the 3-1 favourite.

After the Guineas we left him alone a bit. The Derby was academic. He was spot on that day. At West llsley when we won a Classic there was always a party at the village hall.
With Nashwan, the hall was booked a week before the Guineas. 50 was the disco. We knew. Then, after the Guineas, we booked the hall again straight away for after
the Derby. It wasn't like booking a room in Newmarket. Everyone would know then. West Ilsley was more of a farming community. The yard was part of everyone's life.
Our horses were their horses. 'After the Derby the Major gave Nashwan every chance for the rest of the 1989 season, right up to his last run, in the Prix Niel.
For that he arranged for him to go to Stansted airport in a horsebox for a trial run before the race, which was his prep for the Arc. It meant that when it was for real
Nashwan wouldn't be spooked at all by the road trip.

The thing was that we all knew Nashwan was finished after the Eclipse and King George. He grew a little bit during the
summer. He was still a bit weak. Those two races against the older horses, that was the end of him. His work wasn't ever
as good as it had been. You don't have easy races at his level. The Eclipse meant he had to take on older horses in early July.
To my mind, he was given a lot to do on dead ground. They went nearly ten lengths clear of him so he had to pick up
Opening Verse - Indian Skimmer's lead horse and a pretty good one in his own right - and was then ridden all the way
to the line to win. He had also got a bit worked up in the days leading up to the Eclipse.

After the Eclipse, the first time he cantered, things were different. The Major asked me how he was. I told him I thought he was knackered.
He couldn't care if he walked, cantered or galloped. He was just very tired. For the King George, he needed a lead horse. Not to make the pace,
but actually to hold them up. Look at the tapes of the race - Nashwan's pulling. At the time, the Major was quite surprised.
"It took them a while to work out that the pacemaker was in there to slow the field down," he said.
Greville Starkey, who rode Cacoethes,  realised too late. At least not too late for us.'

In the end, it was just the unique sequence of Guineas,Derby, Eclipse and King George. 'The thing about Nashwan
was that he had a really competitive spirit,' McCann says.'He loved passing horses. He'd be on the gallops and you
would just have to edge him out. He was gone.'

So Usain bolt is not great because he's a sprinter

Why do people keep mentioning human beings when talking about horses?

a·nal·o·gy 
n. pl. a·nal·o·gies
1.
a. Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.
b. A comparison based on such similarity.

I am aware of the definition of the word analogy, duncan. But am not sure that athletic enthusiasts would use examples of horse races in comparing certain individuals.

was just a short-hand way of making the point, sparrow...was in no way suggesting you wouldnt know the definition...obviously, in some respects you wouldnt make comparisons between humans and animals but i think the Usain Bolt comment is fair enough in that human athletes tend to be split into disciplines of sprinter, middle-distance & long- distance in the same way horses are and you wouldnt dream of knocking an athlete for excelling only at one particular distance

Mrtopnotch I don't where you got your information from but McCann never looked after Nashwan I'm pretty sure AlanThimbleby did. And he never said BG wouldn't do that he said it was the best since BG. Plus Dickie has often said he kept Nashwan's work horses to a lower grade to give him confidence so when the press saw him work on the trial ground that morning he looked good against poor animals. The press did the rest. Nashwan was clearly the best 3 year old at that time during an 11 week spell but they caught up with him and the form is not great. Add to that Dickie wasn't even thinking about the  Gns for Nashwan it was only after his owner Sheikh Hamdan suggested running him because his main hope Al Hareb had been disappointing that he decided to run.
The main thing about Nashwan, as with Frankel, was that Dickie was  going through a real bad time medically, he was in a wheelchair and the rumours were that the Queen was about to end his tenure at Hodcott. The press did the rest and the public got behind him and sympathised with him.

It just goes to show that if you say something often enough that people start to believe as because the claim Kinane never went all out on the Sea The Stars and it only just did enough in every race is nonsense and there were a good few times when he was put under plenty of pressure to win.

Credit to the horse for doing so too and pulling out all the stops but was it a case of just doing enough to win or only just having enough to win?

brigust= parallel universe

Actually I was around at the time DI. That probably does mean a parallel universe to you. Never let the facts get in theway of a good tale.
I think STS was a very good horse but not as good as Dancing Brave imo. Potentially the best horse he beat was Fame and Glory who was a Gold Cup horse who finished racing off 115. I have a problem with AOB and his horses so judging anything againsthis horses is often a minefield.

The reason for the comparison between humans and horses is pretty valid to my eyes. No-one cares too much about the lesser events, the Commonwealths, Europeans etc, but they all get geared up for the Olympics. In horse racing, breeders and buyers alike all would prefer a Derby winner or Arc winner as opposed to QE2 winner. Many would sidestep the QE2 but not many would turn their nose up at a Derby winner! This should be factored in to the greatness/rating of a horse. If a horse omits to race in THE VERY BIGGEST RACES, how can you say they were the best of the best ever?

So back to Dr Gonzos point yer saying you cant be the best racehorse unless you have run over 1m 4?

The reason for the comparison between humans and horses is pretty valid to my eyes. No-one cares too much about the lesser events, the Commonwealths, Europeans etc, but they all get geared up for the Olympics. In horse racing, breeders and buyers alike all would prefer a Derby winner or Arc winner as opposed to QE2 winner. Many would sidestep the QE2 but not many would turn their nose up at a Derby winner! This should be factored in to the greatness/rating of a horse. If a horse omits to race in THE VERY BIGGEST RACES, how can you say they were the best of the best ever?

I'm afraid that's a rather simplistic analysis. It would clearly depend on what type of horse they were looking to breed.

Whilst I accept that many would clearly be keen on a Derby/Arc winner, you cannot ignore the worldwide context where many of the biggest races are not over 1m4f. Take the USA for example; of the top 25 North American sires this year there's only about 4 who ever ran, let alone won a big race, over further than 10f.

Hi Brigust1
I took the McCann quotes out of the book Dawn till Dusk
Maybe it went over some peoples' heads, I want just trying use it as an example of the "constitution" of a horse especially a 3yr old

Anyway two of the greatest imo Frankel and Sea the Stars

STS acceleration between horses as mick pulled of the rail up the home straight at Longchamp is as good as the sport gets.

both horses are incredibly special.

He had no right to win the arc and still won doing handstands, few horses couldve done that, Frankel couldnt have over 12f imo but sts couldnt have won the guineas like frankel did so both exceptional in diff ways.

The difference is how they were campaigned, if Frankel won the races STS did we would have never seen him at 4.

Having said that i commend Henry and connections for keeping him in training at  4. dodged big races early in the season tho keeping him over a mile instead of going straight to 10f, horse shouldve run once over 12f imo.

dodged big races early in the season tho keeping him over a mile instead of going straight to 10f

I'd say the only race you can legitimately make that claim regarding is the Eclipse (and i'd be inclined to agree). Did it really make much different that he went for the QA instead of the SJP?

Not trying to be a d1ck here but isn't the QA for 4YO+ horses and the SJP for 3YOs?

When a horse tries 12f for the first time it's usually as a 3YO and against other 3YOs so once Frankel didn't run in the Derby they were unlikely to try 12f for the first time in either top class races like the KG or Arc or against older horses.

Connections also thought they had their Derby horse that flopped in the Dante that season and the owner had also kept his previous season's Derby and Arc winner in training as a 4YO, so wasn't really going to damage either of his own horses' reputations and potential stud value with another of his own horses by clashing Frankel with Workforce in races like the Eclipse, KG or Arc.

Apologies, I meant the POW, of course.

I was privileged to see Frankel on 4 occasions, but I wish it could have been 14. In my opinion the best miler ever (i've seen a good few) and he would probably have beaten the greats BG and Mill Reef over 10f. As for 12f, we will never know if he stayed it, although I feel he would have, specially as a 4 yr old. The day he won the QA will remain in my memory forever and I doubt I will get as emotional over a racehorse again as I did when I watched his last race. A truly remarkable champion; without equal.

The comparison between Sea The Stars and Frankel is unfair. Frankel went on to run as a 4 year old, Sea the Stars was retired as a 3 year old.

At the end of their 3 year old careers both had an Official Rating of 135. Both rated the same.

Lets compare the human element again.  Both were rated the same as 18/19 year olds.
Only Frankel went on to race as a 20/21 year old and improve is rating by 5lb. Lets imagine STS ha been trained for a 4 year old campaign, i would expect him to improve further as he matures with age.

No problem Dr Gonzo and I wasn't trying to catch you out or anything, I just wasn't sure about some of the races regarding distances of when Frankel was due to be moving up in trip having mentioned the Eclipse and then those couple of  mile races at Royal Ascot.

No worries Ima. As I say, I don't think there was a great deal between him going for either of the Royal Ascot races in his 4yo year (up against either Excelebration/Strong Suit, or So You Think/Planteur) but I would've liked to have seen him in the Eclipse. It doesn't have a significant bearing on his record for me though.

Hi Andrew.
Well I saw Brigadier Gerard, Mill Reef and Frankel race and in my opinion there is nothing Frankel could do to beat Brigadier Gerard.BG was a Group 1 sprinter so he couldn't out sprint him. BG was a Group 1 mile and a half horse so he couldn't out stay him. BG broke three course records so he wasn't faster than him. BG won 15 times unbeaten whereas Frankel only went 14 times unbeaten. Added to all of that BG beat better horses than Frankel.
Nothing in Frankel's portfolio whether it is distance, going or quality of opposition would put Frankel in front of Brigadier Gerard.

Hi Brigust, hope life is good with you.

I'm fully aware of your support for BG (and rightly so), without doubt he's one of the best ever and whilst I never saw him live, i'm old enough to have been around during his racing career, even to back him. I'm not convinced Frankel would be outstayed, BG only raced at 12f once and was all out to win (hung badly) albeit by 1.5L. Frankel was never given the chance over 12f, but he certainly wasn't stopping in the Juddmonte (probably his best performance) and whilst there are those that say he was flagging in his last race, I don't support that, and if the race had been over 12f, he would have still beaten CDA on very soft ground he didn't like. I think that if HRC had not been ill, he may have gone for the Arc. Yes BG won 15 on the spin; Frankel didn't have 15 races, but I have no doubt if he had raced as a 5 yr old, he would have finished unbeaten in 18. I think the thing that sets the 2 apart is Frankel had the ability to retain that incredible turn of foot and pace in the final couple of furlongs that simply 'broke' the hearts of others. Don't get me wrong, i'm not knocking BG, Mill Reef, even Sea Bird and Ribot, I simply believe that Frankel was a 'one off' and probably the best ever.

HRC stated 'He's the best i've ever had, the best i've ever seen. i'd be very surprised if there's ever been a better'.

With respect to the original title of this thread, STS wouldn't have beaten Frankel (or BG) at any distance.

Angel Gabrial
24 Oct 14 19:59

Lets imagine STS has been trained for a 4 year old campaign, i would expect him to improve further as he matures with age.


But maturing with age is already accounted for by weight-for-age ie you have to mature with age to stand still in terms of ratings...a horse's rating would only improve if it progresses over and above natural improvement (maturing)

Good morning Andrew. It's great we all have our opinions. That's what racing is all about about. I won't go back over ground I have already covered in the past because, as I said, we are talking about our favourite horses. With reference to the King George though this was BG's fifth run in nine weeks having already won the Lockinge giving 22lbs to the second, the Westbury Stakes giving a stone to Ballyhot, the Prince of Wales by 5 lengths in course record time giving 19lbs and a beating to the horse who then won the Irish Derby next time out beating the Eclipse winner. Then he won the Eclipse in bottomless ground just 2 weeks before the King George. In the King George there were five classic winners who filled the first five places. The second horse was Parnell voted Champion stayer by Timeform that year and the third horse was Riverman the French champion and classic winner who was never beaten by a French horse and was only beaten by two horses in his life, fourth was the Irish Derby winner and fifth was the Italian champion who was unbeaten in nine races and this was his only ever defeat. In the King George he was drawn one and raced throughout on the wide outside before seeing Carson try to nick it on Parnell he quickened in behind him entering the home straight and then quickened again to go past. I thought it ranked among his best wins when you consider the circumstances. There was a stewards enquiry but as the head on showed there was always room for Parnell to challeng on the rails but he had a quirk and when BG had passed him he ducked out into the centre of thecourse. Something he did again in France the followng year and lost the race in the stewards room. There were two French stewards in the weighing room at Ascot tha day and both agreed BG would not have lost the race. Great days.
So in actual fact he met horses of a full range over their best distances.

Don't intend to get embroiled in the BG V Frankel debate again. There's not a single thing anybody can say that hasn't been said before in the numerous arguments on that subject. However, I do wish people would stop pointing at course records as any type of meaningful way of proving greatness. Look at course records at any course in the country and the majority of them are held by a mixture of good and average horses.

In terms of proving greatness course records have about as much relevance as saying one horse is better than another because his jockey wore nicer colours.

great point, marcce

You may say that DIbut I'm sure it is something you would bring up if the boot was on the other foot. And you are right I don't want to go over it again either. I was only responding to an earlier post.

I know you have exaggerated for effect Marcee with the jockey colours thing but course records do at the very least prove the horse than ran it was capable of doing so and therefore is a positive when trying to list them, although that still doesn't mean others couldn't have set course records if need be and so take your general point that they aren't everything.

Frankel was rarely stretched in order to have set a course record but if you were to highlight certain sectionals times for particular furlongs in his races then they were outstanding.

Ima aren't sectionals merely comparisons with other horses running on the same day in other races etc? They cannot be compared with other horses running on different days?

horses from years ago also ran on mainly quicker going than horses have to run on now.

there wasn't the same obsession with watering every day and good to firm back then usually meant good to firm and not the slippy sloppy  pretend good to firm we get now.

Also isn't it likely that a horse breaking the course record carrying 9st 7lbs by 6 lengths and 9s 8lbs by 5 lengths would also have pretty good sectionals?
If you saw the recent article on RUK the likelihood of course records on ground with give in it is far more likely because horses won't let themselves down properly on really firm ground. Plus with the advent of plastic rails horses are racing on fresh ground in the big races as they were at Ascot on Saturday.  Before they had to race on what was there however many races they had on it.Add to that nowadays races are shortened often by rail movements not always registered or measured.

ima course records mean horses were capable of running fast when the conditions allowed them to.

Look at Newbury's course records. The 6 furlong and straight mile records for 3 year olds and upwards were set on consecutive days. The mile and a quarter and 2 mile records were set on consecutive days. The 6 furlong and 7 furlong record times at Doncaster were set on the same day. The 6 furlong course record for 2 year olds at Newbury is held by a filly making her debut who never won another race.

As I said they mean nothing. I also have a suspicion that in the days of handheld timing, the times were influenced by a belief that great horses should run great times. It would only need something as small as 3 tenths of a second to turn a decent time into a course record and that kind of variation would have been common fold with handheld timing.

Dancing Brave was a truly remarkable horse. He REALLY could have won a July Cup. Frankel was trained with an eye to retiring unbeaten and was taken along gradually, whereas Dancing Brave proved that he was truly great at any distance up to 1 1/2 miles. His acceleration in the last two furlongs was absolutely blistering.

Some American horses need to be factored into "GOAT" debates, especially Spectacular Bid and Secretariat. There is an elite group of great horses, and there's no point in saying Frankel stands above them : he doesn't...he didn't do enough on the track to justify the greatest ever tag...no Derby, no Arc - these are glaring omissions imo. Ribot, Frankel, Sea Bird, Nijinsky, etc...there's no point in these artificial ratings, really...

BTW - what Timeform rating should Secretariat get for his Belmont? End of season rating at 150+ ?

But maturing with age is already accounted for by weight-for-age ie you have to mature with age to stand still in terms of ratings...a horse's rating would only improve if it progresses over and above natural improvement (maturing)

Yes Andrew and if they were to race against each in the Champion Stakes for example a 3 year old Sea The Stars would have a been given an identical chance(according to the OR figs) as Frankel with the 5lb weight for age allowance as a maturity leveler.

The point I was getting at brigust1 was that during some of his races Frankel ran certain furlongs in exceptionally fast speeds/times that would compare well with sprinters and was usually at a time when he was first asked to quicken, maybe between the 3f-2f or 2f-1f poles and would have the race won via that quickening, so didn't have to be ridden all the way to the line, which horses usually have to be if breaking the track record.

I was suggesting that because a certain horse didn't do something, it doesn't mean it couldn't and Frankel didn't win by a double figures winning margin until asked to in the QA when no doubt connections wanted to make a point what with Black Caviar racing the following day and arguments about which horse was the best in the world.

I don't think it's right to say course records mean nothing Marcee and that's my point, they might not be everything and I've said as much but if you are trying to argue the merits of one horse over another (as is the case here) then you are going to list the things that certain horse has achieved and I can't really see how breaking the course record can be seen as a negative.

Before coming back though and saying basically the same thing you already have but with the words shuffled around, I'm not essentially disagreeing with you that it shouldn't be seen as a negative or held against another horse if it hasn't broken a course record, as maybe it was never required to when winning but I still don't see why it can't be used as a positive for those that did.

Where would El Gran Senor fit in against Frankel then?

ima it's as simple as this.

The argument here is of a "which was the greatest" type. We know that most course records are broken by horses who cannot claim to be anywhere near great. Therefore, attempting to use the breaking of course records as proof of greatness is completely pointless. There is no reason it should be brandished as a positive because it says a lot more about the conditions on that particular day than it does about how brilliant the horse breaking the record was. It does actually mean nothing in terms of this argument and would only mean something if all course records were held by various champions across the ages. Then it would be legitimate to claim that only great horses break course records.

Are you understanding now?

Marcce it is not an argument. Andrew listed his reasons why he thought Frankel was the greatest racehorse in his opinion and I simply followed suit. The fact that course record were broken, on their own, is, as you say, fairly pontess but wen added to the whole picture theydo become part of the jigsaw. Albeit a small part. With Frankel sectinals are regularly trtted out as a proof of ability but they are even less meaningful because races are not one or two furlong races. Nicholas Godfrey in an article explained that Frankel's sectionals could not be compared to Black Caviar or Secretariat yet they are regularly trotted out as soe sort of evidence. If the use of time is unimportant why bring it up?

Sorry about the spelling I can't get on with this ipad.

Andrew listed his reasons why he thought Frankel was the greatest

Brigust, I stated probably

You were pretty uneqivocal in the post before that which I responded to A but there is nothing wrong with that. The world would be a pretty boring place if everyone agreed. I know you saw Frankel run a few times and at least twice more than me but I did walk the course with Lord G the morning before the Dewhurst. He stopped at the 7 furlong marker while I walked down to the Champion Stakes start. I wanted to go back to where it all began and it was brilliant. I took loads of photos.
Anyway I 've written a 100 plus page book about your favourite racehorse so if you would like a copy message me an address I can send it to.

Getting back to the original post did you know the World Thoroughbred Rankings rated Sea the Stars ninth on their all time list? And Andre Fabre stated STS wasn't in the same league as Pientre Celebre.

If it's as "simple as this" Marcee then why are you still struggling to get what I've said so that I'm not doing so for the third time?

Even if a non-great horse breaks a track record it can hardly reflect negatively or be to that horse's detriment to do so can it? As I've already said, it's not the be all and end all but if you were trying to argue the merits of any horse to portray it positively (whether it be a great or not) if had it broken the course record in any run then I fail to see how that can be deemed as a negative thing and can only be positive factor.

If it is actually an all time great and breaks the course record then that makes it an even more positive factor and nobody and certainly not me ever said only great horses break course records.......er, are you understanding now?

Brigust the sectionals are trotted out with Frankel purely because they give us an idea of how he won his races the way he did. If we were back in the 70's people would be looking singularly at his final time and thinking that wasn't that quick so how was it other horses in his races couldn't get near him? Now there's far more understanding of how final times are reached people can see what Frankel was able to do from 3 furlongs out in his races. It would have been fascinating if sectionals had been around in the 70's to see how top class horses were winning their races. In years to come sectionals may give people the opportunity of seeing how future champions ran their races in comparison to the likes of Frankel.

ima please just leave it. I can see you're trying hard to put across an opinion whilst still not really grasping the point. You haven't even been able to see that stating something shouldn't be viewed as a positive doesn't mean that it becomes a negative by default. At no point have I said it's a negative or that it's somehow detrimental as you've stated there. The fact is it's neither negative or positive, it simply has no relevance.

Why exactly does an all time great breaking a course record make it an "even more positive factor"? Does a run of the mill 7 furlong handicapper breaking a course record get viewed in more positive terms by doing so? Does it get rated higher by the handicapper because it broke a course record? Would it have to be viewed as having more ability than a Group 1 winner running a slower time whilst carrying the same weight over the same distance on the same day? Of course not, quite simply because breaking a course record does not equate to having a higher level of ability than horses who don't.

I didnt find Frankels Champion stakes particularly impressive, Tom wasnt exactly motionless for the final furlong and a half and when asked to go win he could only manage 1 3/4 L lengths at the line. Im not saying it wasnt a good performance, CDA is a fine challenge for anyone but it was his toughest test and he could only win by  2 lenghts? a horse that likes to pulverise his opposition, so based on this fact, that he always tries his best, this was him working at  his maximum capacity. Again im actually trying to be very critical here, i think he is defo an all time great, without question, v special horse but i dont think hes invincible by  any  stretch.

Rating a silly , i mean its good that  we have them but theyre only there to gauge the ability, nothing can ever be set  in stone unless a horse always beats its opponents by the distance their rating says they  should. CDA was rate 130 in the champion yet  frankel beats him by less than 2 lengths? likewise Nathaniel, as good as Frankel is if we are taking other horses in to the mix, STS for example, i dont think either of those two horses could ever beat  sts over 10, he would slaughter them every time. I mean Vision d'tat beat  CDA on V soft  ground in 2010 and he was 10th in sts arc win and sts won that  race in a canter.

STS will always be an under rated champion even tho its probably  safe to say that  no horse in the next  100 years will win the guineas derby  arc treble in one season, people will say he beat dross, which is entirely unjustified imo but if they wanna use that argument fine but I say in all the years of horse racing, of all the great horses that  has passed thru our hands, surely ONE of these so called greats could have achieved what STS did yet it has alluded them. Sure u might blame jockeys and rides etc (Dancing Brave), but thats the point, theres always an excuse, its practically impossible to always get it right yet STS managed to. He was supposed to lose his ARC imo, there wasnt anything to wrong with the ride but he pulled, it was a hard season, a grp 1 each month, caught on inside, and only for he had so much ability he never wouldve went around and between those horses at the rail, few horses that have ever existed couldve made that gap yet he went thru it went from 7L down to the lead in seconds and then streaks clear to cruise over the line, that is up there with Frankels guineas for me in terms of visual performance because only he couldve made that move, otherwise his record wouldve been lost for ever.

I grasped your point well enough Marcee, which is exactly why I disagreed with it.

Much has been made of the comparisons between Frankel and STS in their respective guineas. Frankel was very, very visually impressive but it has to be said a very poor guineas. Not one future Group 1 winner behind him which is unusual, whereas STS guineas had quite a few Group 1 winners in it namely RVW, Mastercraftsman and Cityscape. A number of others ran regularly in Group races. They were both great horses but in my view Frankel was the subject of the modern day scourge - over hyped. As I stated earlier Frankel had no great adversary ie Brigadier Gerrard v Mill Reef or Arkle v Mill House. There is also one horse that never now gets a mention. Sea Bird winner of one of the best Arcs ever seen with a multitude of Group 1 winners behind it.

Anyway I've written a 100 plus page book about your favourite racehorse so if you would like a copy message me an address I can send it to.

Many thanks Brigust, a nice gesture and much appreciated. Address sent via message.

Much has been made of the comparisons between Frankel and STS in their respective guineas. Frankel was very, very visually impressive but it has to be said a very poor guineas. Not one future Group 1 winner behind him which is unusual, whereas STS guineas had quite a few Group 1 winners in it namely RVW, Mastercraftsman and Cityscape

Timmy, Excelebration beat Cityscape by an easy 3L in the 2012 QE II.

I guess I don't need to remind you how far Frankel beat Excelebration in the 2012 QA (same track a few months apart), but if I do, it was 11L

Cityscape was also beaten easily by Canford Cliffs ..... need i go on

The comparisons between generations are always very difficult for example the 2000 Gns was always going to be Frankel's main target whereas STS never even had a prep run for his so it is difficult making form comparisons. In the Queen Anne Excelebration never ran anywhere near his form that is why the rating guys excluded him from their ratings.
Frankel was outstanding but beat nothing of note and anyone who knows anything about class will know a class horse will do that. On the other hand STS beat better class horses over a wider range of distances and he beat milers over a mile and12f horses over 12f. Whereas Frankel beat milers but over 10f he beat CDA who wasn't anything until Goldikova retired and St Nicholas Abbey who was a 12f horse.
You see there are always explanations and arguments to be had and we will never know so let us just enjoy the fact we have different points of view. What we must try to avoid is the incessant hype from the press trying to big up British racing. I prefer to et the horses do the talking.
Done A. Hope you enjoy it.

Putting Frankel et all aside, i'm surprised that Ribot doesn't get more attention in the 'greatest ever argument'. A perfect 16/16 record, 2 Arcs and a KG, all by significant distances !

I think Ribot actually proves the point if the opposition isn't strong you can win anything. He was clearly the best horse in Italy but the strength of his Arc and King George wins is questionable. In 1972 the Italians thought they had the next Ribot in Gay Lussac. He was unbeaten in nine races including the Italian Derby where he beat Tierceron who was also unbeaten. Lester chose to ride him in the King George saying he would beat BG but he was beaten around 10 lengths and retired. If you are lucky enough to meet the same or weaker opposition then staying unbeaten isn't that difficult if you have a good trainer and stay within your comfort zone. Henry knew all about that running Kris 16 times winning14 without going further than a mile even though he entered him in the Eclipse. Similarly Twice Over ran dozens of times at 10 furlongs without once trying 12 furlongs.

A little info (courtesy of Wikipedia)

1955 three-year-old season

Ribot had been unusually small as a yearling, being nicknamed "il piccolo" (little one). As a result he was never entered in races such as the Premio Parioli and the Derby Italiano.

In 1955 Ribot won the Premio Pisa at Pisa Racecourse by six lengths and then took the Premio Emanuelle Filiberto at San Siro by 10 lengths. After a break to allow the colt to recover from a respiratory illness he won the Premio Brembo by one length from Derain, and the Premio Besana over 2,400m by 10 lengths, again beating Derain, who won the St Leger Italiano two weeks later.

In October he raced outside Italy for the first time when he contested the Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe over 2400 metres at Longchamp Racecourse. Starting at odds of 9/1 took the lead early in the straight and won by three lengths from Beau Prince. According to press reports, he won very easily, with Camici never resorting to the whip and restraining the colt rather than driving him out in the closing stages. After the race he was surrounded by photographers and given the attention normally reserved for Hollywood film-stars. In his final start of the year he returned to Italy, where he won the Gran Premio del Jockey Club by 15 lengths from the previous year's winner Norman on heavy going.

1956 four-year-old season

Ribot began his four-yer-old season with three easy wins at San Siro. He won the Premio Giulio Venino over 2000 metres by four lengths, the Premio Vittuone over 2400 metres by twelve lengths and the Premio Garbagnate over 2000 metres by eight lengths from Grand Rapids. He then contested Italy's Premier weight-for-age race, the Gran Premio di Milano over 3000 metres at San Siro. He led from the start and won by eight lengths from Tissot.

In July, Ribot raced outside Italy for the second time when he was sent to England for the sixth running of the King George VI and Queen Elizabeth Stakes over one and a half miles at Ascot Racecourse. Racing on soft ground, he started the 2/5 favourite and won by five lengths from High Veldt and Todrai. His fourteenth consecutive victory saw him equal the record of the pre-War Italian champion Nearco. Ribot then returned to Milan, where he won the Premio del Piazzale over 1800 metres, winning by eight lengths from a field which included the Premio Parioli winner Magabait.

In October, Ribot returned to Paris for his second Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe. He faced a stronger field than in 1955, with the field including Talgo (Irish Derby), Tanerko, Fisherman, Career Boy, Master Boing (Washington, D.C. International) and Oroso. Ribot took the lead on the turn into the straight and drew away from the field to win by an official margin of six lengths from Talgo.[9] Photographs suggest that the winning margin was more like eight and a half lengths.

Honours

Timeform awarded Ribot a rating of 133 in 1955, six pounds behind the British-trained sprinter Pappa Fourway. In 1956 he was given a rating of 142, making him the highest-rated horse in Europe.

A Century of Champions, written by John Randall and Tony Morris and published by Portway Press Limited, says that photographs show Sea-Bird winning the Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe by only four and a half lengths (and not by an official six lengths). Thus, Ribot's triumph (correctly by eight and half lengths and not by an official six lengths) in the race is de facto the largest winning distance. His Timeform rating is also based on the wrong official winning distance of his Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe victory. Hence, there is reason to think that he should have been rated higher. In the same book, Randall and Morris rated Ribot the third best racehorse of the 20th century, behind Sea Bird and Secretariat. As both Sea Bird and Secretariat never raced beyond the age of three, Ribot was the highest-rated horse in absolute terms.

In La Gazzetta dello Sport's poll, Ribot was named the 4th greatest Italian athlete of the 20th century. The Premio Ribot at Capannelle Racecourse is named in his honour, and he has been named Horse of the Century in Italy.

timmy1 26 Oct 14 09:44 
Much has been made of the comparisons between Frankel and STS in their respective guineas. Frankel was very, very visually impressive but it has to be said a very poor guineas. Not one future Group 1 winner behind him which is unusual.......

Whilst I get that your main point was that Frankel's 2000gns might have been a poor one, if he barely beat the field that would add strength to your argument but he actually annihilated them and had the race well and truly sewn up a long way out.

Also just for the record Roderic O'Connor was one of the few horses in the race that tried to go the early pace with Frankel and paid the price by ending up finishing nearer last than first when beaten 38L with Dubawi Gold coming from off to get 2nd. yet next time out in the Gr1 Irish 2000 RO'C could set his own pace without Frankel to worry about and made all to win from DG, yet had Frankel contested that Gr1 then even that future Gr1 from Newmarket wouldn't have happened. DG also tried to go with Frankel in the SJP and he also paid the price too.

Add to that some of the others in behind at Newmarket re-opposed and were beaten by Frankel again and bar a dead-heat they both can't win so it was Frankel himself winning future Gr1s coming out of his own Newmarket win.

Foz neither isa who's who of racing list. The best horse F beat was the German 2000 Guineas winner or a horse who ran 40 times before winning a Group 1. So lets not look at the opposition. The fact is they were both clearly best of their eras.
Andrew the fact they selected the Irish Derby winner and Washngton International winner as potentially the best of his, Ribot's,opposition says everything. He, like STS and Frankel were largely unexposed I just think at least STS won the Epsom Derby beating the Irish Derby winner who was a multiple Gr1 winner reads better for me.
I used to think the Aussies were pretty smart with So You Think and Black Caviar but now we are sending more horses over to take them on then perhaps the Aussies are not as good as I first thought. And BCshowed that if you are the best around then being unbeaten isn't that difficult. It is when horses step out oftheir comfort zone they are tested properly. Would BC have won over a mile? Would F have won over 12f? We don't know.

Frankel would never have won the Epsom Derby because he would not have stayed 12 furlongs. Henry knew that.
Sea The Stars did stay 12 furlongs and was dominant at that trip in his era.
At a mile Frankel would have crucified Sea The Stars.
At 10 furlongs the contest would have been much closer.

So basically Foz you are saying at the same time in their careers Frankel beat the winners of 26 Group 1 races and STS beat the winners of 39 Group 1 races. Seems to me STS achieved more at the time of retirement.

jamilla14    26 Oct 14 13:37 
Frankel would never have won the Epsom Derby because he would not have stayed 12 furlongs. Henry knew that.

Frankel didn't contest the Derby as he was a keen and headstrong 3 year old (Dawn Approach springs to mind). HRC made the correct decision.

There's absolutely no evidence to say he didn't stay 12f and he certainly wasn't stopping after 10.5f at York.

STS (good that he was) wouldn't have got within 4L of Frankel over 10f.

Foz I have always said Frankel was a great horse and neither I nor you know who would have been the best had any of them met. Just because I pointed out the flaw in your agument you blame me. I think Frankel would have beaten STS at a mile and 10 furlongs. I don't know that he would have beaten him at 12 furlongs. Sheikh Mo thought some very good horses would stay 12f and win the Derby but they didn't so unless they do all of the guessing will not mean a thing. So because STS did get the trip well at the highest level  I think he would beat Frankel at 12f. The York race wasn't a real test in my opinion because JOB needed further and was never in the race and at Ascot stamina did not look Frankel's strong point.

*St Nicholas Abbey not JOB.

Nobody can really say with any authority that either Frankel wouldn't have stayed 12f or that STS would have beaten him at 12f. Clearly if Frankel ran in the Derby the way he did in the 2000gns then he wouldn't have stayed but who actually think the would have set out to make all in the Derby anyway? They had never raced that way prior to the 2000gns and it wasn't even the plan on the day to do that anyway.

It's equally meaningless to say STS would have beaten Frankel at 12f when all we have to go on on that score is that STS at the very least proved he got 12f and Frankel never did, yet had Frankel always stayed at a mile then we probably would have had a list of horses like CDA, Farhh, Nathaniel and SNA that some would argue would have beaten him at 10f because Frankel showed so much speed at a mile during his races.

I also don't really think much should be made of SNA needing further in the Juddmonte either as whilst that might well be true generally, they set out to make it such a test of stamina with Ballydoyle running 2 pacemakers to the extent that Bullet Train was even able to run his own race, beat a Gr1 winner and even picked up £10k prize money for finishing 6th only a neck behind connections' multiple Gr1 winner Twice Over, which only ran presumably in case Frankel didn't stay.

Add to that it was Frankel's first ever try at the trip so could have been vulnerable yet it was run at a time of  0.41s faster than average despite the whole field coming across the track rather than go tight up the opposite rail, with Frankel going widest of all and despite winning by 7L Tom Queally still had time to look up at the big screen and then start to ease he was so clear and also took forever to pull the horse up after the line, all that suggests to me that 12f wouldn't have been a problem.

Seems odd too to highlight SNA as a way of portraying a negative towards Frankel when Farhh was actually 2nd, the same horse that went close in the Eclipse the run before and later on won the Champion Stakes from CDA. Frankel certainly wasn't stopping in his Champion Stakes win either as apart from the ground been bad enough to make it a real stamina test and a 10f that really needed getting, he was still swinging on the bridle at the 1f pole whereas CDA had been ridden from around the 3f pole and had the momentum, so although when Queally asked Frankel to go at 1f remaining, horses doing it easy still don't put in instant acceleration and also need to get momentum going to pull away.

It also only left that final furlong to create any gap between Frankel and CDA from being upsides at the 1f pole and had the winning line not come then the gap would have stretch to even more. Jockeys in races let alone Gr1s also don't usually start to ride their finish as late at the 1f pole, yet understandably due to it being only the horse's second try at the trip and on such bad ground, Queally held on to Frankel for much longer than he usually would have.

Ima nobody can really say Frankel would have stayed 12f or that STS wouldn't have beaten him at 12f. Because when these top class horses do not stay they usually flop.
And your point about Bullet Train do you really think Bullet Train was going to make it a strong gallop? They never went a strong gallop that s why all horseswere in line across the course 3 out and why St Nicholas Abbey never evenreached the lead.
In my opinion Henry didn't think he would win at 12f that is why he never even entered him in the Arc. His style of rnning andnatural exuberance plus cross nose band proved he would have been difficult to get to stay 12f. I think Frankel wastoo cautiously trained so I see no reason wy I should give him creditfor something he never achieved and I don't think he could have achieved.

Foz I was giving Frankel the benefit of the doubt because on the same ground he ran 10 lengths slower than Sea the Stars had in a 4 runner race on potentially the slowest part of the track. I prefer to think it was because the pace wasn't strong whereas in STS's race they went a good clip.

No brigust1 I don't think considering it was Frankel's first try at 10f in the Juddmonte that Bullet Train would have set a fast pace and I have no problem agreeing with you there but the point is, BT could never get to the front to set that pace even if they wanted to get there and slow it down for the very fact that Ballydoyle ran the 2 pacemakers to ensure it was a stamina test.

That's why it's also a moot point when some of the Aussies on here claim Frankel had an unfair advantage and had to have a pacemaker to win (ignoring several races where he didn't and his 2000gns and first Juddmonte where he set his own pace) and the pace is set for everyone and not only can they run their own pacemakers anyway like Ballydoyle did, but they can also sit back if the think the pace it too fast or go on themselves to either set their own pace or encourage BT to go faster as CDA did in the Champion Stakes. I've always maintained towards the end of Frankel's career anyway that BT was more of a travelling companion than anything else and the biggest waste of money ever was his entrance fee for the Juddmonte.

The whole field in Frankel's Juddmonte were still in contention at 3f because at that stage you would expect both pacemakers to be anyway and the rest of the field were all decent horses with plenty of past and future Gr1 winners in it and Windsor Palace was even once able to maintain its gallop all the way to the line once when winning as SNA's pacemaker.

As for the times, Frankel's was 2m 6.59s (fast by 0.41s) and the Racing Post get that fast or slow based on the average times for the race during the past 10 years and that's with the horse coming off the final bend and travelling across the width of the track to the opposite rail, winning in a canter and not coming off the bridle, its jockey looking up at the big screen to see how clear he was and then beginning to ease before the line.

STS's time was 2m 5.29s (fast by 1.71s) when all out to win its Juddmonte on the opposite rail to Frankel and I don't really see the significance of it being a 4 runner race if the implication is they went slow early considering Ballydoyle ran a pacemaker, Mastercraftsman kicked on 3f and STS took an age to get on top and only really did so late on. I'm not sure either STS ran in the slowest part of the track either and they only usually come over if the ground is bad.

208 replies and tens of thousands of words( most of em by Ima admittedly) over an imaginary race/argument between two horses who never and could never meet on the track.
I think you need to get out more boys and girls

The day STS won the Juddmonte every race was faster than the comparative times for Frankels Juddmonte day.
I was there the day Frankel won the Juddmonte and there was a strong breeze blowing across the Knavesmire.

I was there too, absolutely great day Geoff.

Yep fantastic had the pleasure of taking my grand daughter who was only 8 months old, doubt she will remember it but I wont forget it!

Ima thank goodness you put forward a good reasoned argument. I will deal with each point seperately.

We may have to disagree about the pace in the Juddmonte because I think all of the evidence shows it was a slow pace. If you look at most races where the pace is fast then they are strung out in indian fashion but when it is a slow pace most are still in contention three out. Thats my view and that is how it appeared.
Your point about Windsor Place beating St Nicholas Abbey over 10f is a very valid one because he, St Nicholas Abbey ran three times over 10 furlongs and was stuffed every time. On two occasions by not very  good animals highlighting the defeat of 7 lengths by Frankel as being and was far from exceptional.
The point about STS is pretty meaningless because everyone knows they try to avoid the far rail at York and race up the centre or near side. The reason is the ground is always faster there. That adds further credence to STS's time.
The point you raised about crossing the course is less than negligable and would have amonted to inches only if you know your maths.
So from the points you raised the winning distance over St Nicholas Abbey, St Nicholas Abbey's record over 10 furlongs, the overall time of the race and the proximity of Bullet Train at the finish shows quite clearly this race was far, far from exceptional. Except for one relevent point, Frankel won easily.

brigust this is another argument that's been done over and over but none of the evidence says the Juddmonte was run at a slow pace. This is Simon Rowlands on the sectionals at the time.

The beauty of Frankel's sectionals are more subtle. He did not even break 11.0 sec for an individual furlong this time, but that's because he was in a race run at a true pace from the off, one which tested stamina more than speed and resulted in the best Timeform timefigure of the 21st Century. His closing sectionals of 11.05 sec, 11.45 sec and 12.10 sec were most impressive in this context and imply he was better still than his nearest rivals by as much as three lengths more. It was not that they were slowing by much, but that he was powering away. Fifth-placed Bullet Train ran the race very close to par.

The pacemakers were setting sub 12 second furlongs in the early part of the Juddmonte. They are not slow fractions. Anyone with the slightest bit of knowledge about times knows that's not a slow pace. Instead of making sweeping statements like "all the evidence shows it was a slow pace" why not try to get a basic understanding of times. Contrary to your statement the only piece of evidence you need shows the pace was decent.

Foz you bring something up. I question it because it is silly and you criticise me ffs. Until St Nicholas Abbey met Frankel he ran twice over 10 furlongs and showed a clear requirement for further. Even in the race you brought up in Ireland won by Snow Fairy they went a good clip and the fpace was then taken up by King George winner Nathaniel and even then St Nicholas Abbey though running on never threatened the leaders. And you ask me if I watch racing ffs. St Nicholas Abbey was a 12 furlong horse who, as his owners said afterwards, should have been made more use of because he stayed so well. But don't let the facts get in the way will you? And youmay believe the 'half cooked' quote but St Nic had run 5 weeks before and frankly I don't belive it. I think JOB rode an ill judged race on a horse who obviously needed further and as in the Juddmonte was ridden for speed he never had. A tactic often used to the dismay of punters.

Foz I have always said I thought there was nothing between St Nic and Farhh over 10f. Similary I rate St Nic about the same horse as Cirrus des Aigles over 12f and Farhh and CDA the same horse over 10f. It seems to work out when you look through their form. The ratings disagree but  they are wrong in my opinion. If you look at St Nic against CDA and Farhh there is nothing between them and in the Coronation Cup before St Nics injury he was favourite to beat CDA though rated around 7lbs lower. That's why I don't do ratings I go on form.
Also if you look at Flintshire, Ruler of the World and CDA you will find that with the exception of the Arc they are closely related on form. And so it worked in the Coronation Cup, Prix Foy and Champion Stakes. That makes all five horses about the same. In my opinion.