- This topic has 65 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Everybody has the right to have an opinion, but not every opinion is equally valid.
CO is rated superior to the likes of farhh nathanial and cirrus des aigles.
ulysses and highland reel are two others who were in the upper echelon of the ratings that she mopped the floor withOfficially, Crystal Ocean is rated superior to Farhh and Nathanial but Enable has yet to outperform Crystal Ocean at the weights. Crystal Ocean is the only horse Enable has faced with an official rating over 125 going into the race. Frankel met Cirrus des Aigles (130 – 131 on French ratings), Dream Ahead (128/126), Canford Cliffs (127), Nathaniel (126) and Excelebration (126) and “mopped the floor” with all of them. To be fair, she reads like a good horse against Ulysses but if you’re going to use Highland Reel as a yardstick then you need to ignore that fact that in the same race, he was also beaten by the 118 rated and subsequently regressive Idaho by four lengths. Furthermore, if you’re going to mention the dual Group One winning Farhh whose efforts were seventeen and nineteen pounds inferior to Frankel, you should also mention six time Group One winning St Nicholas Abbey who was seventeen pounds inferior at York.
the problem is recently she seems to have wisened to the game and just does enough
I think she was all out to win yesterday. Frankie saying it was his hardest group one and that she was very brave suggests more that she was all out rather than keeping a bit to herself. Also, I’m watching videos of yesterday’s race and Frankel’s Queen Anne. In the former, you can see that Enable is definitely blowing after the race and has visible veins along her neck whereas Frankel (who obviously won with much more authority) definitely looks more full of himself and is mostly breathing through his nose while trotting in front of the stands. It is also noticeable during the slow motion replays that Enable is throwing herself into every stride whereas Frankel is going much easier. Although all being said, I am not a visual expert when it comes to physiology and using Frankie’s comments is largely conjecture. However, if you think that Enable wasn’t holding on for dear life in last year’s Arc and wouldn’t have been gubbed after another 50/100 meters then you are being disingenuous.
won on more tracks
Irrelevant. There are platers who have won on more tracks than Enable or Frankel.
won on more continents
Irrelevant. St Nicholas Abbey won on more continents than Enable yet Frankel annihilated him.
won more money
California Chrome, Gold Ship, T M Opera O, Buena Vista, Kitasan Black, Gun Runner, Orfevre, Gentildonna, Thunder Snow, Arrogate and Winx have all won more money than Enable.
won the FAR more prestigious races
A race’s prestige is the sum of its competitors.
1m4 shed win and over 1m2 Hed win, on all known overwhelming evidence that is (as you put it), frankel would not have won the arc in his 3yo year lr his 4yo year
As Jack has said, the distance issue is a bit off. I’m glad you agree that Frankel would win over ten furlongs which is very handy given that it’s the only distance both horses have put up top class performances. Nevertheless, Frankel was trained to run over a mile and then over ten furlongs. It can not be categorically stated one way or another whether he would have stayed the twelve if he was given the opportunity. Indeed, Frankel has already produced two classic winners over the trip, Cracksman (out of a Pivotal mare) won a Coronation Cup and even got a winner of the two mile four furlong Prix Cadran out of an Inchinor mare. Looking at his own pedigree, Frankel’s grand-dam won a Lancashire Oaks before herself producing Voltigeur winner Powerscourt, Ribblesdale winner Riposte and Last Train who won a Group Three in France over a mile and seven. So while I can provide evidence to support the notion that Frankel had every chance of staying twelve furlongs, can you give reasons why he wouldn’t? As an aside, even if Frankel struggled at twelve it would follow that he would then be effective over six which some of his sectionals suggested would be well within his capacity. With that in mind, his ability to win Group Ones from six to ten furlongs would make him greater than Enable who can only do it between ten and twelve.
I like to think I’m engaging with respect and if you feel I am doing otherwise then I can only apologise for any misunderstanding. I am far from certain on many issues in the world but on the matter Enable v Frankel, it’s academic. If I had to grade an essay on which horse of the two was greater, I would not be persuaded by any of your arguments as they have all been repeatedly dismantled in this thread by myself and others.
Ratings are similar to distances
Would you rather boast CO rating
or Enable’s trophy cabinetBlackbeard to conquer the World
Crystal Ocean now has under 50% win ratio
Crystal Ocean has won 1 group 1
Crystal Ocean excuse for losing today, had a hard race in the KGEnable has well over a 90% win ratio
Enable has won 9 group 1’s
Enable won hard held in KGCrystal Ocean higher rated
How Embarrassing…
Blackbeard to conquer the World
If you’re only going to judge horses on the number of races won then you’re asking for horses to be kept in the worst Group 1 company.
Ratings are done by looking at:
Race Distance: 1 length can be rated as 4 lbs at 5f going down to 1 length rated as 1 lb at 2m.
Did the horse/s run to their best? Frankel did not run anywhere near his best in the SJP – Tom went far to fast and finished legless. Therefore Zoffany is not rated anywhere near Frankel, Nathan.
Did Enable run to her best in the King George? Or rather, did Enable run to the best she is currently capable of? When a horse is thought no longer capable of its career high its rating comes down. Enable’s first Arc looked her career best; but that looks more and more a stand out figure. In all races since has many times performed very consistently, but at a level slightly short of that 2018 performance. So considering that number of runs since Chantilly it’s difficult to rate Enable any higher than Ascot right now. (If Enable puts up a performance/s in future that look – on the form book – just as good as that 2018 Arc then she’d be back rated the same as she was then).
Did Crystal Ocean run to his best in finishing second to Enable? Yes.
Is there any evidence of Enable having more in hand than the neck winning distance? Possibly, but not by much. Considering distances back to the third, fourth and fifth, were they beaten by the distances you’d expect from previous form? Further? Less? If the gaps back to the others are what you’d expect then it’s likely the winner/second ran to form. If further, then is it more likely because those third/fourth/fifth were below form or the winner/second improved? If less, then is it more likely the winner/second were below their best or did others improve?Aswell as previous form, the above can sometimes be answered by times, both overall and sectionals.
It does look to me as though Enable and Crystal Ocean beat the others by about the same distances as you’d expect from previous form. So the form looks reliable.
Enable beat Crystal Ocean a neck, ie by 1 lb, but Crystal Ocean was giving 3 lbs. That means on the basic form Crystal Ocean is a 2 lbs better racehorse than Enable. However, I can see the arguement that Enable won – in the end, after a battle – a shade more easily than the neck winning distamce (but only a shade). Enable may be worth rating as winning by 1/2 or 3/4 length. Stretching it a lot to say any more than that.
Half length is still only a pound at 1m4f on a reasonable surface. 3/4 length could just about be 2 lbs, but even that puts Crystal Ocean a pound better racehorse.
However, it’s important to remember that if the two met again Enable would still receive the 3 lbs sex allowance. So under race conditions Enable is the one that is top rated.
In the International the horses finished far too bunched to believe Crystal Ocean quite ran to his best. Not that it was a bad run.
If horse A meets horse B five times at level weights and on each of those occasions horse A beats horse B all out by a short head… Then horse A has won 5 races and horse B zero… And yet the handicapper can only rate horse A a short head superior; because if they meet a 6th time with B receiving weight then horse B is rightly rated higher than A. Yes, we as punters can (if wanting to) come to a conclusion horse A is only doing enough, but is only a personal opinion not backed up by what’s happened on the track. Consistency can also not be accounted for in ratings. Otherwise, if a handicapper beats another handicapper by a length at level weights but the winner is consistent and second inconsistent… How much should the winner give the second next time out? Are you going to give the winner another stone for his consistency?
Ratings are not the be all and end all. Consistency and all other aspects of form needs to be taken in to account when judging horses. We can even say Enable is a better racehorse because of her consistency, “better” in our mind’s view! But ratings is ratings.
Value Is EverythingWhat can you do with a rating.?
I’d rather have the double Arc trophy’s in the cabinet and prize money in the bank
really is laughableBlackbeard to conquer the World
I would rate it as
The best horse won because she toyed with the runner up from a long way back and the jockey was very easy on her or at least could have got a lot more stuck into her, maybe he thought CO wasn’t going to keep going like he did but he was ultra confident Enable wasn’t going to be headed. Had he gone full tilt your looking at over a length minimum possibly more when the runner up gives up the ghost and drops his hands.
The runner up was very game and ran his heart out but because he ran to his so called top rating that softened him up for today and he wasn’t at his best today because the lesser rated horse broke him in the KG.
Also worth noting that the 1 and only group 1 that Crystal Ocean won was on soft going and also when well beaten by Cracksman by over 6 lengths over 10f was also on soft and we all know that Gosden rates Enable better than Cracksman.Blackbeard to conquer the World
you’re looking at over a length minimum
A length victory of Enable over Crystal Ocean would still put Enable as rated 1 lb behind Crystal Ocean, Nathan…and you’re using words like “laughable” and “embarrasing” about a difference of opinion between you and the handicapper of a pound or two.
Value Is EverythingIf you’re only going to judge horses on the number of races won then you’re asking for horses to be kept in the worst Group 1 company.
No, not many horses win two Arcs, if the worst group 1 company are turning up in those, its not Enable’s fault
plus Enable has twice beaten the highest rated horse, surely winning the races counts more than a rating given out.Blackbeard to conquer the World
No Nathan, Enable ran in the Arc because it’s recognised right now as a fantastic race, even finishing second or third is worth a lot in prestige and stud value. But if every horse is judged – how you seem to – by how many Group 1’s it wins rather than actual level of ability achieved… Then you’re risking fillies being kept to fillies races and colts kept to the easier Group 1’s.
Value Is EverythingDistances are important; mile and a half is the most prestigious, and the most lucrative.
I’m not saying that at all Ginger.
Enable has won 2 Arcs and 2 KG’s I wouldn’t swap that for an extra pound or two or 15 in ratings, surely you can understand that or do you think ratings is the Holy Grail.?Blackbeard to conquer the World
As I said, Nathan; ratings are a totally different thing to consistency and/or how many races are won. Not about swapping anything.
When a horse is particularly consistent it is a positive regarding the price I am willing to take (consistent horses have a greater chance of running to their ratings). Just as I also allow for the rating I think each horse is capable of given conditions if they do run to those ratings.
If two horses are thought right now to be separated by just 2 lbs at their bests, then they have to be rated that way because (no matter if one has won several Group 1’s and one has only won one) if meeting again under the same conditions they’d be thought capable of running to those ratings/distances.
Value Is EverythingWe will never know the answer given that Winx is now retired.
John Gosden was asked the same question at the end of 2018 – who would win if they raced against one another .
Gosden replied that he thought Winx would win over a mile and a quarter on good to firm as ” she has more speed “, but said he would fancy his chances of Enable winning if they were to meet over a mile and a half on soft ground .
Before I came across this post I thought the same. That as a speed test Winx may have edged it.
We will never know.would fancy his chances of Enable winning if they were to meet over a mile and a half on soft ground.
…Winx never won over a mile and a half, let alone the stamina test that a mile and a half on soft ground brings. Winx had bags of speed, in all probability a Group 2 horse could’ve beaten Winx at 12f on soft going.
Enable’s only run at 10f since debut was in the Eclipse. Beating Magical 3/4 length with just 2 back to Regal Reality. Winx would’ve beaten Magical and Regal Reality by further, so fairly obvious (on racecourse evidence) at 10f the Aussie is the better racehorse and Enable the better horse at 1m4f.
Question really is: Is Winx better at a mile/10f than Enable is at 12f?
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.