- This topic has 97 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
A top class Group 1 horse yes, but So You Think is not in the same league as Frankel.
Tell me what Frankel has EVER done that is so mindblowing that proves he is clearly above a horse like SYT?
Are you seriosuly asking that? Watch his races again and you will find your answer.
SYT is a very good horse. Frankel is a freak.
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
I try to look only at the most reliable formlines, which are very few because the horses need to be around their best. Fitness, natural improvement, and ground usually ruin things. And even pace & factors like idling affect margins and results.
I don’t like the Rosanara formline because I’m not confident the horses in question ran near their best. Rosanara likely did in the Diane on soft, very questionable if she did on firm in the UK. That’s too much uncertainty, and that’s before considering that I don’t know if Sarafina showed her best (subsequent improvement or what she had in the tank though I don’t remember the race).
I usually trust trainer comments re: big races. I think the public bet Sarafina favorite oblivious of/ignoring the trainer’s pre-race comments on stamina and fitness, which frequently happens. If you believe Sarafina was around her best in the Vermeille, you must believe that Midday and Plumania could have gone close to beating Workforce (in a hypothetical race where the ground and pace were the same as the Vermeille).
On Snow Fairy there are many examples of questionable form results occurring more than once (Canford Cliffs and Dick Turpin for one). I’m not certain she’s better than Midday like I am that Sarafina is.
A top class Group 1 horse yes, but So You Think is not in the same league as Frankel.
Tell me what Frankel has EVER done that is so mindblowing that proves he is clearly above a horse like SYT?
A bunch of restricted class wins and another against a lame horse?
That is not enough I’m afraid, and I think you’d have realised that if you’d applied yourself as much to dissecting who Frankel has been running against as you did to SYT’s rivals.
Another thing, this (predominately UK based?) trend of using winning margins and using them as absolutely literal proof of differences between horses that have never raced against each other is to me quite flawed.
Does not take into account horses that love the fight, or pace in a race, or preferred racing styles and patterns or even the weather conditions on the day (hard track soft track etc).
If this sort of "horseracing maths" existed we’d back the winner in nearly every race on every card. Just doesn’t work that way and you know it.
Complete and utter dominance over EVERY horse he’s come across!
Apart from Zoffany, Where jockey or maybe connections got tactics wrong, Frankel has destroyed everthing in his wake, and yes I include Nathaniel, although only 1/2 length margin Frankel won with great ease.Nathaniel: King Edward VII G2
KG VI & QE II G1
Genius Beast: Sandown Classic Trial G3
Klammer: Horris Hill G3
Treasure Beach: Chester Vase G3
Irish Derby G1
Scretariat Stakes G1
2nd Epsom Derby G1
Roderick O’Connor: Criterium Int. G1
Irish 2000 Guineas G1
Walters Dream: Acomb Stakes G3
Dream Ahead: Prix Morny G1
Middle Park G1
July Cup G1
Sprint Cup G1
Saamidd: Champagne Stakes G2
Excelebration: German 2000 Guineas G2
Hungerford Stakes G2
Prix du Moulin G1
Strong Suit: Coventry Stakes G2
Jersey Stake G3
Lennox Stakes G2
3rd Prix Jean Prat G1
Dubawi Gold: Celebration Mile G2
Native Khan: Solario Stakes G3
Craven Stake G3
Pathfork: Futurity Stakes G2
National Stakes G1
Rerouted: Sommerville Tattersalls G3
Casamento: Beresford Stakes G2
Racing Post Trophy G1
Prince d’Orange G3
Broox: Prix d’Arenburg G3
Zoffany: Tyros Stakes G3
Phoenix Stakes G1
2nd Prix Jean Prat G1
Wootton Bassett: Jean Luc Lagardere G1
Grand Prix Boss: Keio Hai Nisai Stakes G2
Asahi Hai Futurity Stakes G1
NHK Mile Cup G1
Rajsaman: Prix De Fontainebleau G3
Prix Perth G3
Prix Du Muguet G2
Rio De La Plata: Veuve Clicquot Vintage Stakes G2
Prix Jean-Luc Lagardere G1
Sky Bet Strensall Stakes G3
Premio Vittorio Di Capua G1
Premio Roma Gbi Racing G1
Canford Cliffs: Coventry Stakes G2
3rd 2,000 Guineas
Irish 2,000 Guineas G1
St James’s Palace Stakes G1
Sussex Stakes G1
Lockinge Stakes G1
Queen Anne Stakes G1I hope this goes some way to explaining the sheer brilliance of Frankel. I admit I’m not too familiar with the racing scene down under and So You Think has proved himself an absolute tip top performer here in Europe. You must believe me, I’ve followed racing here in the UK and Europe for 40 years. I’m of the opinion that SYT is a very, very high class animal close to horse’s we’ve had here such as Troy and Grundy and more recently the likes of Sinndar and maybe even See The Stars. Frankel, however is truly on a different level. I firmly believe (all being well) he really will usurp Sea Bird and Brigadier Gerard as the greatest ever here in europe.
A top class Group 1 horse yes, but So You Think is not in the same league as Frankel.
Tell me what Frankel has EVER done that is so mindblowing that proves he is clearly above a horse like SYT?
Beating class animals by wide margins.With form franked time after time after time.
A bunch of restricted class wins and another against a lame horse?
Just because a race is restricted to three year olds, does not prevent a horse putting up a truly exceptional performance (eg 2000 Guineas). Shergar’s outstanding Derby victory another of its type.
Even if taking out the "lame horse" Canford Cliffs from the Sussex Stakes, it can be measured by the running of consistent Rio De La Plata. Comparing distances beaten in the Queen Anne at Ascot (behind Canford Cliffs and Goldikova) and behind Frankel at Goodwood. Frankel produced a better performance to beat Rio than did Canford, suggesting strongly that even had the latter ran to form at Goodwood, he’d still have been well beaten. Ratings for Frankel’s Sussex win are NOT based on Canford Cliffs.That is not enough I’m afraid, and I think you’d have realised that if you’d applied yourself as much to dissecting who Frankel has been running against as you did to SYT’s rivals.
Not enough? What do you want, blood?
Once again, form Frank(el)ed by first four home in the Moulin on Sept 11. Sussex third and fourth Rio De La Plata and Rejsaman filling second and third. Beaten by far less a margin than in July. Winner and fourth there, Excelebration well beaten in both Greenham and St James’s Palace and Dubawi Gold in 2000 and St James’s, so Moulin 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th had all been trounced (with a Capital T) by the Wonder Horse. Me thinks it is you AIC who should "apply yourself" better.Another thing, this (predominately UK based?) trend of using winning margins and using them as absolutely literal proof of differences between horses that have never raced against each other is to me quite flawed.
Your dismissal AIC is flawed, as it is not predominately UK based, but Worldwide. Distances as margins of superiority are not fool proof or "literal", sometimes exaggerate or understate margins of superiority. But if you don’t want any collaterol form used as evidence, allows me to the claim of being the best sprinter in the World, having never met Mr. Bolt in a race.
Pace can have a great affect, so too idling or type of win. Of course racehorses are not machines and can run 1, 2 or 22 lbs below form. Even so, distanaces are one of the best ways to judge racehorses, especially when racing against consistent types and/or in tandem with time performance (comared to other races at the meeting and pace). Certainly a better judgement can be made with distances and collaterol form than number of races won or Group 1 races won as you seem to suggest. Just because a horse wins two Group 1’s by a short head, it would be as ridiculous to claim it is better than one that’s won one Group 1 of equal status by six lengths. As it is to suggest winning eight such races is any better than one or two exceptional performances. So You Think is a corageous, genuine, consistent, top class animal; and deserves awards for being so. But his form rating does not yet, and probably never will reach that of Frankel. Under your criteria AIC, Goldikova and Zenyatta are infinitely better than So You Think, I don’t think so.Does not take into account horses that love the fight, or pace in a race, or preferred racing styles and patterns or even the weather conditions on the day (hard track soft track etc).
Softer ground can exaggerate but allowed for in measuring. Pace in the race can have a great affect, so too idling or type of win. One who comes with a late flourish might not show his/her full merit (on form). There is a case to suggest if finding a genuine racehorse he can outbattle one with seemingly "superior" form. But this is another thing to take in to account when assessing chance of winning.
If this sort of "horseracing maths" existed we’d back the winner in nearly every race on every card. Just doesn’t work that way and you know it.
Just because something has the best "form" as in, the best meritted performance so far; does not mean it will win or even have the best chance of winning. There is an almost infinite amount of things to take in to account before betting. Including trainer form, jockeyship, temperament, pace, ground, distance raced over, breeding, headgear, track, likely progression etc. Then there is the "horseracing maths" that really does count… V A L U E (Sorry Reet) when having a bet….
But we are not talking here about what horse will win, or what horse is value to win are we? It is how good each horse is given optimum conditions. ie In this case it IS in fact "FORM" (distances) that matter. Of course an idle or hold up horse might be a little better than his "form rating", but this is not an exact science after all.Value Is EverythingI thought this thread might be the right place: Irish Champion Stakes, Sea The Stars, So You Think, a discussion about how to judge the merits of high achieving horses as against horses with a wow factor.
Today on Chanel 4 racing coverage, Ryan Moore was in the pundits’ box with Jim McGrath and John Francome. He was asked what he thought of Frankel. I did not record or write down exactly what he said, but it sounded like he said that Frankel was the best horse he had ever seen. He mentioned that he had a lot of respect for Sea The Stars and I got the impression that he thought Sea The Stars was the next best, but that Frankel was something different. He mentioned a brief conversation in the race with Frankie Dettori along the lines of "can a horse really do what Frankel is doing". I have heard a few senior jockeys making similar comments about finding it a bit difficult to believe just how good Frankel is.
With Moore having ridden So You Think and many other very classy horses, and ridden against many more, I think you can add the opinions of people who have a great depth of experience in horseracing to things like; relative form, collateral form, Group 1 races won, and other factors in judging how good a horse is.
Absolutely right MV. If you read the Weekender they often do interviews with jockeys and trainers and they always ask "who is the best horse you have ever seen?" 9 times out of 10 they say Frankel. Willie Carson, Peter O Sullevan, Johnny Murtagh – the list is endless.
I think you just need eyes in your head don’t you? We will never see a horse like this again.
One would need to be either blind or Australian not to see it.
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
For a start both So You Think and Frankel are different kinds of horses. It is very naive at this stage to suggest Frankel has the wood on So You Think, 8 group 1 wins to 1; common sense should tell people this.
It is also quite premature and naive for so many to say Frankel is the best horse they have seen. I mean 1 group 1 win against a lame horse! When you consider all the great horses that have been about and won many group 1’s, maybe it is a biased English thing hoping he is. Pure and simple if you put ‘potentially’ in front of ‘best horse’ that is reasonable, but after one G1 against a lame horse, all those saying the ‘best ever’ or similar are very very naive.
For a start both So You Think and Frankel are different kinds of horses. It is very naive at this stage to suggest Frankel has the wood on So You Think, 8 group 1 wins to 1; common sense should tell people this.
It is also quite premature and naive for so many to say Frankel is the best horse they have seen. I mean 1 group 1 win against a lame horse! When you consider all the great horses that have been about and won many group 1’s, maybe it is a biased English thing hoping he is. Pure and simple if you put ‘potentially’ in front of ‘best horse’ that is reasonable, but after one G1 against a lame horse, all those saying the ‘best ever’ or similar are very very naive.
Can you let us know which publications you consulted to find Frankel’s race record. I think we need to encourage them to join the mainstream racing newspapers and websites in striving for accuracy and completeness. Frankel has won four Group 1 races. I have looked through the race reports of several reporters and trainer comments about his Sussex Stakes victory over Canford Cliffs, but I cannot find anyone who said that Canford Cliffs was lame during or after the race. As well as in the Sussex Stakes, Canford Cliffs hung across the course in two other races where he had to make a sustained effort, the Greenham Stakes and the 2000 Guineas. Some days after the Sussex Stakes, Canford Cliff’s connections said he had been retired because he had a leg injury.
Goldikova has won fourteen Group 1 races. Lots of people love her; and think she is wonderful, consistent, and very talented. But the majority of those people, racing experts and fans, will accept that she is not as good as Canford Cliffs who won only 5 Group 1 races. Would you have us think that Goldikova is better than So You Think because she has won nearly double the number of Group1 races that he has?
My mistake, i actually meant one Group 1 win against other than 3 yo’s. Canford Cliffs was retired due to a leg injury out of that race,and running to the outside fence means he was nowhere near his best.Goldikova yes beaten when she met Canford Cliffs last time,but her overall record is superior and he had the sitting shot at her,then again if she was English instead of French she would be rated higher! To be judged fairly we will have to wait and see what Frankel does as a 4yo, he may well be that good,when he can beat sound seasoned genuine G1 performers as easily as he has won his races thats when he deserves such accolades.In any case to be’the best ever seen’ or similar he has to run further otherwise it has to be tempered with the word ‘miler’.Though i suppose that is a grey area, as some will only bestow the mantle of the best on 10-12f horses. For instance if Black Caviar took all before her this prep and then went overseas and did the same would she deserve the tag as ‘the best ever’ or similar? No most likely not being a sprinter,though i think in the distance argument each person has valid reasons as to why.I tend to think most deserved may be the 10-12f horses but then again maybe pound for pound is the way to judge,thats what opinions are all about i suppose.
It is also quite premature and naive for so many to say Frankel is the best horse they have seen. I mean 1 group 1 win against a lame horse! When you consider all the great horses that have been about and won many group 1’s, maybe it is a biased English thing hoping he is. Pure and simple if you put ‘potentially’ in front of ‘best horse’ that is reasonable, but after one G1 against a lame horse, all those saying the ‘best ever’ or similar are very very naive.
Fact is, most form experts believe Frankel’s form superior to So You Think. So you believe a horse who’s won "many Group 1’s against his elders is automatically better than one who’s won just one. How convenient for you Jollyp. It’s not "potential" it’s reality.
You’re also unfairly disqualifying Frankel of being "the best" purely because he’s a three year old. At this time it is impossible for him to have won eight Group 1’s against elders.
If the "best" horse is NOT the horse with best form, ie superior ability… Then the "best horse" could frequently get beaten by "inferior" rivals. How silly is that?
You say our English form ratings are biased. Yet Timeform’s best ever rating was given to a French horse, Sea Bird. The best ever female Allez France also French. Not far behind Sea Bird is Ribot, Italian. Most of the best females have been French, including in recent years Goldikova and Zarkava…. Could it be you are judging our ratings by your own standards ie biased? May be influenced by your press? Or just sour grapes / wishful thinking. Believing So You Think a World beater and unable / unwilling to believe something could be better.
As I said, So You Think is genuine and consistant, deserves to be rated the best 10f horse. But his form is not up to Frankel.
Value Is EverythingI would say it is naive and premature to make any considered judgement of Frankel in the pantheon of racehorses until he has finished his career. At the moment he is on his way to a very esteemed position.
In many ways his career is similar to the Brigadier and while at this juncture he is doing ok, whether he improves physically from 3 to 4 in the same manner as the Brigadier is something we will not know until next year.
Lets hope he gets his chance to prove how great he can be.
Gingertipster,
Firstly 3yo wins are resticted races,then you go on about sour grapes or listening to ‘your press’.If you bothered to read my post, i said he may well be judged the best in future, i never mentioned So You Think was either the best or a world beater.My points are fact based,3yo’s dont always train on or are found out up against the best older horses. A lot said Workforce was the best horse around, So You Think beat him, so i suppose my point is not to look at things in a prematurely biased way through rose coloured glasses. I think Frankel could prove himself one of the best ever,but we will have to wait and see.So You Think has won some of the best group 1 races in 3 countries, Goldikova has won 14 of them, and no a 3yo can never be given the tag as the best.Maybe the best 3yo or ‘may’ have been the best but anything else is naive and premature.
You talk about naivity Jollyp.
Say a three year old beats his fellow three year olds by an extaordinary margin. He then fails or doesn’t need to run to that form to win his next ten races. Beating his elders / older horses by vastly smaller distances. Admittedly, he’s beating better horses, but not by as significant margins. Putting up slightly worse perfomance ratings than the run in a "restricted" race.
It seems you don’t understand ratings Jollyp.
You’d disqualify a three year old of being the best horse, despite putting up the best rating you’ve ever seen; purely because he’s a three year old.
It’s ridiculous.
Form is judged by comparing one horse’s performances against the next. Doesn’t matter if a horse runs against a three, four or ten year old. Disqualifying form of "restricted" races is crazy.
Of course every race is a "restricted race" anyway, as not all the best horses run in one race.
Value Is EverythingAnswer me this Jollyp,
If three three year olds met in two races, finishing 1st, 2nd and 3rd in both races, with distances exactly the same. Yet one is restricted to three year olds and one open aged.
Is the form of the "restricted race" any worse than the open aged race?
Value Is EverythingGingertipster,
My points are
fact based
,3yo’s dont
always
train on or are
found out up against the best older horses
. A lot said Workforce was the best horse around, So You Think beat him, so i suppose my point is not to look at things in a
prematurely biased
way through rose coloured glasses. I think Frankel could
prove himself
one of the best ever,but we will have to wait and see.So You Think has won some of the best group 1 races in 3 countries, Goldikova has won 14 of them, and
no a 3yo can never be given the tag as the best
.Maybe the best 3yo or ‘may’ have been the best but anything else is
naive and premature
.
Workforce and So You Think are similarly rated. Workforce was running at a distance probably marginally short of his best at Sandown. Didn’t run to form at Ascot afterwards either. Excuses on both occasions, but still deserves some credit.
It is true some 3 year olds fail to train on. They obviously need to make a certain amount of physical development just to retain their ability. Some don’t train on, some make greater physical development and improve their form from 3 to 4. Some 2 year olds fail to train on and (admittedly to a lesser extent) 4 year olds do too.
Just because some three year olds fail to train on, doesn’t mean we should disqualify all three year olds from being "the best". It’s not a question of being "prematurely biased", it’s a case of
NOT being biased AGAINST three year olds
.
Most of the times three year olds are
"found out by racing against the best older horses"
it’s because they haven’t put up a good enough rating against their fellow three year olds. It is not a reason (and foolish) to denegrate a superior three year old who has
"proven himself"
.
I can however, understand your bias to a certain degree. Australian racing is not made for three year olds and seldom has a top three year old been capable of beating the best older horse. So in contrast to European and Americans, you are not used to seeing superior three year olds. That is no criticism, I wish our three year olds remained in training so often. We’ve even had a couple of two year olds retire to the paddocks recently. Another thing Aussies can teach our racing is connections far more inclined to race at different distances. But Australian racing is unusual. Australians should not judge our three year olds negatively, just because their three year olds are inferior to their older horses.
Last year, the Timeform top rated Australian three year olds were Anaheeva and Toorak Toff at
123
. Best four year old So You Think
133
and "Older Horse" Whobegotyou
128
. In 2009, even So You Think
125p
behind four year olds Whobegotyou and Heart Of Dreams on
127
and older horse All Silent
127
(Scenic Blast and Takeover Target 128 put up outside Australia). You need to go back to another century,
1999
to find an Australian three year old a pound ahead of his elders, Testa Rossa on
126
. Even then when allowance is made to four year old
filly
Sun Line’s (
125
)’s sex allowance, Testa Rossa not really the "
best horse
".
Value Is EverythingGinger Tipster,
I have a good understanding of ratings, and Frankel’s Guineas win was given a ridiculously high rating considering the horses time was not exceptional,though i know times dont tell the full story all the time. Ratings are relied on too much,whereas you may say there a horse ran 8lbs below their best,what do you say when they get beaten 25 lengths?’He ran 50lbs below his best’? No he put in a shocker or wasnt right on the day. Our 3yo’s turn 4 on August 1,so they can hardly be compared with European 3yo’s.If you want to make them equal with your 3yo’s you will find that there has been plenty of Cox plate winners even some that would have been classed as 2yo’s in your system.In regards to your question,if 3 3yo’s run 1,2,3 in a 3yo race and then in an open race does that make the 3yo race inferior? Firstly a very hypothetical question,secondly when has that happened in a Group 1 race against older horses? On 3yo’s our current crop is probably the best in a long time, you will hear plenty about horses such as Smart Missile, Manawanui,Moment Of Change and Helmet, in most likelihood you may see 1 or 2 of them at Royal Ascot next year. Yes i do enjoy the fact that most 3yo’s race on over here, unfortunately there, big studs seem to control a lot,after all they call it racing not breeding! Though at the same time i know it is a business for the studs.Prizemoney is not great,i think our system is the best, the TAB ; yes you pay about 15% tax,though you really dont miss it. That money is put back into racing as prizemoney and infrastructure,that is why the prizemoney is so good,therefore racing has strong large quality fields.People will say ‘but i want to get better value with this betting shop’,but when they are sucking the lifeblood out of racing and putting nothing back everyone is worse off. Your racing has had some very poor administration and not a lot of business nous, hopefully they soon get someone who will improve things and get prizemoney levels up where they should be.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.