- This topic has 231 replies, 37 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 12 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I actually thought that this race was more impressive than many of the others.The second is a world class horse in his own right.Frankel beat him without embarrassing him.Proper race riding by Queally. I was a little disquieted by the antics of the pacemaker.He was no help and Frankel did not need him.
I don’t expect my views to meet with much agreement, considering that almost the whole racing community seems to have been brainwashed into believing the Frankel hype. but I thank God this nonsense is now over.
To my way of thinking, he is simply a very good horse at his distance who has beaten everything put in front of him, but I doubt very much the quality of the opposition he has faced (when compared with the great Brigadier Gerard, for example), and I think that connections have been totally unadventurous with him.
No doubt he will go down as "the horse of the century" or "the greatest horse of all time", but to me, that is pure hype designed to boost his stud value.He has never raced beyond 10 furlongs, never raced against a truly international field and never really ever been tested outside his comfort zone, to see what he really would have been capable of.
Good horse yes – greatest horse of all time ? – not in my book.
Brainwashed? I hardly think so…I’ve been all over Timeofrm at times with some would be superstars they give ratings to and so have many others on here.
Do the BHA and Timeform get anything out of it if Frankel,s stud value goes through the roof? They have rated him the best of all time (Which I don’t 100% agree with)It was them who pushed Frankel to the Top not Sir Henry Cecil or the media.
If anything Sir Henry was slow to admit Frankel was the best he has ever seen when the subject first came up all he would say was he was his best horse since Wollow.
You say he never raced against a truly International field like who what where?
I saw every race the Brigadier ran I’d like to know which performance you think he put up that even comes close to Frankel’s demolition job of Excelebration or Farhh . His King George was not a great race by any stretch of the imagination. His main rival Mill Reef not a miler went on to bigger and better things leaving him to win some pretty poor mile races.
You obviously have forgotten how Sparkler ran him to a head and when he scraped home against Rarity or when he won the Eclipse by a diminishing length topped by Roberto beating him fair and square at York. He did win some races by fair distances but way too often did other finish close behind him. He was tough as nails a powerhouse of a horse but I doubt if he’d have coped with Frankel’s instant acceleration.
I was crying in my sleep two years ago when Timeform & Official Handicappers rated Dream Ahead level with Frankel as a two year old, it made my stomach turn that such a professional organization could be so dismissive and lack the validity in their approach.
Now we have the same people two years on debating whether to put Frankel ahead of Dancing Brave? De Ja Vu, what’s the betting they do the same.
Particularly enjoyed Hammy and Joni’s contributions… But if only non-racing people would read this thread. They’d realise most of us love racing because of the "racing". Betting is only a small part of it, sometimes only a minute part of it.
Great stuff.
Totally agree Ginger
I saw every race the Brigadier ran I’d like to know which performance you think he put up that even comes close to Frankel’s demolition job of Excelebration or Farhh . His King George was not a great race by any stretch of the imagination. His main rival Mill Reef not a miler went on to bigger and better things leaving him to win some pretty poor mile races.
You obviously have forgotten how Sparkler ran him to a head and when he scraped home against Rarity or when he won the Eclipse by a diminishing length topped by Roberto beating him fair and square at York. He did win some races by fair distances but way too often did other finish close behind him. He was tough as nails a powerhouse of a horse but I doubt if he’d have coped with Frankel’s instant acceleration.
The King George he won wasn’t the greatest field but it certainly wasn’t a poor one and his winning time was only 0.37 seconds slower than Mill Reef’s on similar gorund the year before and a mile and a half was not his best trip. As for the Guineas Ian Balding was dumbfounded after it as he didn’t believe there was a horse in training who could beat Mill Reef over a mile let alone easily by 3 lengths with the previous year’s European top rated 2yo colt My Swallow a further 3/4 of a length back in third.
The Brigadier was a stone worse on very soft and heavy ground. It was very soft when he won the Sussex ahead of Sparkler and was heavy ground in the Eclipse and for his first win in the Champion Stakes ahead of Rarity. His defeat by Roberto in the International was totally inexplicable as Roberto had never put up a performance of that quality in smashing the course record before the race and never did subsequently. Piggot actually got off Roberto after a training gallop on him ahead of the race to ride Rheingold who finished 11 lengths behing the Brigadier. Mercer eased him down well before the finish when he knew he wouldn’t win and believed he wasn’t right that day which may have been the case as mucous was found in his nostrils after the race. His owners felt they had run him too soon after the King George in which he had a hard race and lost by far the most weight he ever did after a race. His connections however accepted that on the day he was beaten by a horse that put up a truly exceptional performance.
I find it bizarre you can describe the Brigadier as winning minor mile races as his victories as a 3yo were the 2,000 Guineas, the St James Palace, the Sussex, the Celebration Mile and the QEII and as a 4yo the Lockinge and the QEII which he won by 6 lengths and smashed the old course record by over a second and was imo his best performance over a mile.
Whether you rate Frankel ahead of him is up to you but please don’t do so by denegrating Brigadier Gerard who is one of the greatest racehorses to have ever graced the turf.
I saw every race the Brigadier ran I’d like to know which performance you think he put up that even comes close to Frankel’s demolition job of Excelebration or Farhh . His King George was not a great race by any stretch of the imagination. His main rival Mill Reef not a miler went on to bigger and better things leaving him to win some pretty poor mile races.
You obviously have forgotten how Sparkler ran him to a head and when he scraped home against Rarity or when he won the Eclipse by a diminishing length topped by Roberto beating him fair and square at York. He did win some races by fair distances but way too often did other finish close behind him. He was tough as nails a powerhouse of a horse but I doubt if he’d have coped with Frankel’s instant acceleration.
The King George he won wasn’t the greatest field but it certainly wasn’t a poor one and his winning time was only 0.37 seconds slower than Mill Reef’s on similar gorund the year before and a mile and a half was not his best trip. As for the Guineas Ian Balding was dumbfounded after it as he didn’t believe there was a horse in training who could beat Mill Reef over a mile let alone easily by 3 lengths with the previous year’s European top rated 2yo colt My Swallow a further 3/4 of a length back in third.
The Brigadier was a stone worse on very soft and heavy ground. It was very soft when he won the Sussex ahead of Sparkler and was heavy ground in the Eclipse and for his first win in the Champion Stakes ahead of Rarity. His defeat by Roberto in the International was totally inexplicable as Roberto had never put up a performance of that quality in smashing the course record before the race and never did subsequently. Piggot actually got off Roberto after a training gallop on him ahead of the race to ride Rheingold who finished 11 lengths behing the Brigadier. Mercer eased him down well before the finish when he knew he wouldn’t win and believed he wasn’t right that day which may have been the case as mucous was found in his nostrils after the race. His owners felt they had run him too soon after the King George in which he had a hard race and lost by far the most weight he ever did after a race. His connections however accepted that on the day he was beaten by a horse that put up a truly exceptional performance.
I find it bizarre you can describe the Brigadier as winning minor mile races as his victories as a 3yo were the 2,000 Guineas, the St James Palace, the Sussex, the Celebration Mile and the QEII and as a 4yo the Lockinge and the QEII which he won by 6 lengths and smashed the old course record by over a second and was imo his best performance over a mile.
Whether you rate Frankel ahead of him is up to you but please don’t do so by denegrating Brigadier Gerard who is one of the greatest racehorses to have ever graced the turf.
Very well said The Brigadier !!!!
I knew someone was bound to rise to the bait when I freely admitted to not worshipping at the court of King Frankel.
All the points which you made were 100% accurate – the Brigadier hated soft ground and his efforts against Sparkler and Rarity were way below his normal outstanding form. Not only that, connections had the guts to try him out at 10 furlongs on very soft ground at the end of his 3 year old career (they didn’t wait till the summer of his 4 year old career), and also had the guts to try him out at 12 furlongs ( a trip he was not really bred for) in a top class race against very decent opposition, in which he extended his unbeaten streak to 15 consecutive races.
His defeat, I think, can be excused on the grounds of his not being well after the race and as The Brigadier has said, Roberto never ever showed comparitive form. What is more, he had Arc winner Rheingold officially 11 lengths behind him but unofficially according to Timeform, it was more like 17 lengths, despite being eased down when it was clear he would not win.
In my opinion, the opposition that Brigadier Gerard faced was far stronger than anything that Frankel has raced against (I wouldn’t put Excalebration in the same league as Mill Reef !)and I am still waiting to see another horse who I could rate anywhere close to the Brigadier.
The Frankel hype is totally consistent with today’s culture of "celebrity" – racing is desperate to have some kind of superstar who is hyped to the skies, despite his racecourse performances not, in my opinion, warranting anything like the adulation that has been showered on him. I am not saying that Frankel is not a good horse – he clearly is – I just do not think he is nearly as good as many people are trying to make out.
There……I’ve said it !!!
It’s just churlishness trying to suggest that Frankel isn’t one of the best racehorses ever.
Joe Mercer himself said that he couldn’t say with any certainty whether or not Brigadier Gerard could have beaten the Henry Cecil colt. That in itself must tell you something, as Mercer would normally have laughed off the idea at any horse beating The Brigadier over a mile.
The main reason for Brigadier Gerard tackling a mile and a quarter at the end of his three year old career was John Hislop’s love of The Champion Stakes – a race he placed before all others, and moreover, his obsession with emulating his favourite boyhood horse, Fairway, who had won the celebrated race at Newmarket two years running in 1928 and 1929.
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
It’s just churlishness trying to suggest that Frankel isn’t one of the best racehorses ever.
Racing is all about opinion – there is no absolute right or wrong – and I am entitled to mine, in just the same way that others are entitled to theirs.
I don’t doubt that many people sincerely do believe that Frankel is "the greatest horse of all time" (whatever that is supposed to mean). I just don’t happen to share that view.
POSTED ON OCTOBER 21, 2012
FRANKEL’S FINAL WIN RAISES SERIOUS QUESTIONS FOR FUTURE
I thought Cirrus des Aigles had a major chance of beating FRANKEL (44) in the Champion Stakes. He ran a great race but initially looked to be outclassed when Frankel just blew on by him in the closing stages.
However the French champion rallied and forced Frankel to be ridden vigorously and even hit with the whip to hold him off. Cirrus des Aigles’ jockey eventually accepted defeat in the last half furlong and put his own whip down to lose by a length and three quarters. If he’d beaten him up perhaps he’d have finished a half length closer.
Rather than adding to the celebrations of Frankel’s career, and because nobody else seems prepared to do it, I think it’s appropriate to question just how good he truly was.
There now seems to be near unanimous agreement that Frankel was the best horse of all time.
That’s quite some claim.
As I see it extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And the truth is, brilliant as he was, the evidence is skimpy for Frankel. This is primarily because he never raced outside Britain. His connections exploited the fact that there are so many Group 1’s in Britain, and Europe generally, that the best horses are often able to avoid each other. Yes he won fourteen times in fourteen starts, but in seven of those wins he faced five or fewer opponents – one of which was often his pacemaker.
Frankel never broke a course record. He never came close to breaking the European earnings record. He scared away the opposition to the point where he beat the same outclassed opponent into second place in four of his last ten starts. It wasn’t until his final outing that he faced a genuinely top class rival trained outside Britain and Ireland. That rival of course was Cirrus Des Aigles who he had to be hard ridden to beat by a length and three quarters.
I am very wary of saying that the earlier huge ratings awarded to Frankel by everyone, including me, resulted from anything more than the amplification in winning margins caused when a top class horse meets outclassed rivals. Ratings are not facts. They are simply a numerical expression of someone’s opinion. And opinions can be wrong.
In other sports competitors actually have to set some new objective standard in height, speed, time, trophies or earnings to be hailed as a champion. It is only in horse racing that reputation and opinion seem to be enough.
The question I’m left with at the end of his career is ‘would Frankel have remained unbeaten if his owners had been as adventurous as those who owned Falbrav?’
Falbrav came within two photo finishes of winning Group 1’s in seven different countries. In doing so he tackled a far greater variety of distances, surfaces, tracks and pace scenarios than Frankel ever has. He won much more prize money too.
The reason Frankel’s connections were so unadventurous was clearly to protect his stud value. He’s now worth somewhere between 100 to 150 million pounds as a stallion. When Falbrav retired to stud many were surprised he fetched as much as US$30 million.
It is the over-supply and resulting weakness of Group 1 races in Europe that makes it possible for the connections of a top class horse to carefully stage manage their career so that they stay unbeaten as Frankel did.
In Japan, where there are on average 17 runners in Group 1 races this kind of thing is simply not possible. The connections of even all time great horses don’t even think of trying to protect an unbeaten record to preserve their charge’s stud value. The sport benefits greatly from this. Not just in Japan but internationally too. The owners of Japanese champions such as El Condor Pasa, Deep Impact and Orfevre have shown that they’re prepared to run them overseas in conditions they haven’t faced before. If field sizes in Japanese Group 1’s were small enough for Japanese champions to stay unbeaten I doubt that their owners would be so sporting.
Back when the pattern system was introduced in 1971 the Group 1 designation was restricted to Classics, really prestigious WFA races and the very best 2yo races. Only 42 races held Group 1 status in Britain, Ireland and France in 1971. But by 1996 the number of Group 1 races run in Europe’s top three racing nations was allowed to grow to 59. And by last year it had mushroomed to 72. This rate of growth far exceeds that of the racehorse population.
A Group 1 should surely be a genuine championship event where all the best horses line up – as is the case in Japan. But the massive increase in European Group 1’s has devalued the original idea of what a Group 1 should be. All too often nowadays European Group 1’s feature a handful of runners with one horse so dominant it starts at long odds on.
The best way to stop so many of our top races being uncompetitive would be to scrap the pattern race system altogether. This would allow each race to be judged on its merits rather than having its class judged in advance by some faceless committee. The alternative would be to curtail the number of Group 1’s, just like they do in Japan. If we allow the number of European Group 1’s to keep on rising year after year we’re going to see ever more uncompetitive ‘championship’ events and more ‘champions’ that retire unbeaten but untested.
Having gotten that off my chest let me return to my proper task of seeing if their are any future winners likely to come out of the race.
Most obvious in this regard is our old friend CIRRUS DES AIGLES (43) who took his earnings over the four million pound mark by finishing second. He already holds the European earnings record and might just have a shot at the world earnings record of around seven million if he holds his form for another season.
The next engagement Cirrus Des Aigles holds is in the Japan Cup. The concern there is that the race comes five weeks after the Champion Stakes.
Cirrus Des Aigles is a stuffy horse that normally needs a recent run to be race fit. He did win the Prix Dollar off a long break two runs back despite losing the previous dozen times he’d come into a race off a break longer than a month. So I’m hoping his trainer has now found a way to keep him fully fit at home. That would be great because in the Japan Cup Cirrus Des Aigles faces off against the Japanese champion Orfevre. So the race could well decide just who is the best horse on the planet now that Frankel has retired.
If it turns out Cirrus Des Aigles needs the run in the Japan Cup there’s always the Hong Kong Cup a couple of weeks later. He was forced to race wide from post thirteen in the race in 2010 and didn’t get a clear run last year. He might well have won both times but for these problems.
This time around I imagine the plan will be to send Cirrus des Aigles to the front or close to it, to avoid traffic problems in Hong Kong. That means his chance may well depend on not getting an extreme outside draw.
that was from the nick mordin website btw.
In many ways I agree with mordin. As brilliant as frankel clearly was, how much does it prove, the fact that he kept beating the same horses, generally speaking in small fields, and never once raced outside of england?
after all, the idea that he was the best of all time is clearly a lofty claim, that would be difficult to prove in any case. and can anyone give a reason why he never broke a track record?
it almost seems like sacriledge now to suggest that frankel wasn’t the greatest of all time, an almost ludicrous situation. whatever happened to objectivity?
I do think that to have even be considered to be the greatest of all time, frankel needed to run over a greater range of distances, and take part in some of the big international races. Not because the bbc and the racing media in general told us so.
It’s just churlishness trying to suggest that Frankel isn’t one of the best racehorses ever.
It most certainly is as he undoubtedly is but I do wish people wouldn’t do that by belittling the performances of other great racehorses. The reception Frankel got on Saturday especially the spontaneous three cheers reminded me of the one given to the Brigardier 40 years early when he won the race like Frankel on his final start.
Joe Mercer himself said that he couldn’t say with any certainty whether or not Brigadier Gerard could have beaten the Henry Cecil colt. That in itself must tell you something, as Mercer would normally have laughed off the idea at any horse beating The Brigadier over a mile.
Frankel is without any doubt the best miler I’ve ever seen on a racecourse along with the Brigadier though I have read Tudor Minstrel was also a truly brilliant miler. Although The Brigadier remains my favourite ever racehorse I would not disagree with what Mercer said to the extent of having an argument about it.
The main reason for Brigadier Gerard tackling a mile and a quarter at the end of his three year old career was John Hislop’s love of The Champion Stakes – a race he placed before all others, and moreover, his obsession with emulating his favourite boyhood horse, Fairway, who had won the celebrated race at Newmarket two years running in 1928 and 1929.
It was one of Hislop’s favourite races and Fairway appears on both sides of the pedigree of The Brigadier’s sire Queen’s Hussar and Fairway’s sire Phalaris appears once in the pedigree of The Brigadier’s dam La Paiva. It was this sir line that mainly decided Hislop to mate La Paiva with Queen’s Hussar to re-introduce it plus he could afford the stud fee.
However the great love and almost the obsession of Hislop’s life was Pretty Polly and he always wanted to breed from a mare with Pretty Polly in her female tail line. The Champion Stakes of 1905 was one of Pretty Polly’s 22 victories out of 24 races which included the fillies triple crown so this was another reason he loved the race.
People talk of the greatest racehorse ever but in truth nobody knows the answer to that and never will. Racing from the time of Pretty Polly was totally different to what it was in 1972 when her however many greats grandson The Brigadier was racing and is totally different now to what it was then. An obvious example is the number of group 1 races these days which is a fair bit more more than the past. For instance The Bridagier didn’t win 12 group 1 races in his career but he won 12 races which are now classed as group 1 such as the Prince of Wales and the Lockinge.
I may be a comparative rookie when it comes to the flat, but my view is this.
Best British Horse Ever=Frankel
Best Irish Horse Ever=Sea The Stars
Best French Horse Ever=Sea-Bird
Best American Horse Ever=Secretariat.
When I was young(er), I thought I’d be an old man in a betting shop telling everyone that no horse would ever be as good as Sea The Stars. Then Frankel happened.
So, by my calculations…
Frankel>Sea The Stars>Everything Else On The Flat, Ever.
Twitter=@PGHenn
So don't run, just like the others always do
POSTED ON OCTOBER 21, 2012
FRANKEL’S FINAL WIN RAISES SERIOUS QUESTIONS FOR FUTURE
I thought Cirrus des Aigles had a major chance of beating FRANKEL (44) in the Champion Stakes. He ran a great race but initially looked to be outclassed when Frankel just blew on by him in the closing stages.
However the French champion rallied and forced Frankel to be ridden vigorously and even hit with the whip to hold him off. Cirrus des Aigles’ jockey eventually accepted defeat in the last half furlong and put his own whip down to lose by a length and three quarters. If he’d beaten him up perhaps he’d have finished a half length closer.
Conjecture.
Rather than adding to the celebrations of Frankel’s career, and because nobody else seems prepared to do it, I think it’s appropriate to question just how good he truly was.
There now seems to be near unanimous agreement that Frankel was the best horse of all time.
That’s quite some claim.
Indeed it is. A claim that is probably not accurate or respectful of those who raced prior.
As I see it extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And the truth is, brilliant as he was, the evidence is skimpy for Frankel. This is primarily because he never raced outside Britain. His connections exploited the fact that there are so many Group 1’s in Britain, and Europe generally, that the best horses are often able to avoid each other. Yes he won fourteen times in fourteen starts, but in seven of those wins he faced five or fewer opponents – one of which was often his pacemaker.
The evidence is not skimpy however. Ratings aren’t based on the number of horses in a race. Many Group 1’s? Ok, great. He won the most prestigious races at 10F/8F.
Frankel never broke a course record. He never came close to breaking the European earnings record. He scared away the opposition to the point where he beat the same outclassed opponent into second place in four of his last ten starts. It wasn’t until his final outing that he faced a genuinely top class rival trained outside Britain and Ireland. That rival of course was Cirrus Des Aigles who he had to be hard ridden to beat by a length and three quarters.
Races are not time trials and are dependant on many variables ; tactics, ground etc. His sectionals were exceptional.
I am very wary of saying that the earlier huge ratings awarded to Frankel by everyone, including me, resulted from anything more than the amplification in winning margins caused when a top class horse meets outclassed rivals. Ratings are not facts. They are simply a numerical expression of someone’s opinion. And opinions can be wrong.
I agree with this.
In other sports competitors actually have to set some new objective standard in height, speed, time, trophies or earnings to be hailed as a champion. It is only in horse racing that reputation and opinion seem to be enough.
This is all illogical. Horse racing cannot really do this. Earnings? Go win the Dubai world cuo then. Trophies? Stupidity. Unless you hail Goldikova as …. Height? ok. Speed? Variables, and cross comparisons are difficult ; obviously.
Think Mordin before you spout drivel.
The question I’m left with at the end of his career is ‘would Frankel have remained unbeaten if his owners had been as adventurous as those who owned Falbrav?’
He raced in 9 group 1 races in a row. What more do you want?
Falbrav came within two photo finishes of winning Group 1’s in seven different countries. In doing so he tackled a far greater variety of distances, surfaces, tracks and pace scenarios than Frankel ever has. He won much more prize money too.
Doesn’t make Falbrav a better horse, because we don’t rate horses on air miles and earnings.
The reason Frankel’s connections were so unadventurous was clearly to protect his stud value. He’s now worth somewhere between 100 to 150 million pounds as a stallion. When Falbrav retired to stud many were surprised he fetched as much as US$30 million.
This is relevant to greatness how?
It is the over-supply and resulting weakness of Group 1 races in Europe that makes it possible for the connections of a top class horse to carefully stage manage their career so that they stay unbeaten as Frankel did.
You would need to go into greater detail and statistical analysis to prove this. Otherwise it remains conjecture.
In Japan, where there are on average 17 runners in Group 1 races this kind of thing is simply not possible. The connections of even all time great horses don’t even think of trying to protect an unbeaten record to preserve their charge’s stud value. The sport benefits greatly from this. Not just in Japan but internationally too. The owners of Japanese champions such as El Condor Pasa, Deep Impact and Orfevre have shown that they’re prepared to run them overseas in conditions they haven’t faced before. If field sizes in Japanese Group 1’s were small enough for Japanese champions to stay unbeaten I doubt that their owners would be so sporting.
But we are not comparing Frankel with horses from Japan.
Back when the pattern system was introduced in 1971 the Group 1 designation was restricted to Classics, really prestigious WFA races and the very best 2yo races. Only 42 races held Group 1 status in Britain, Ireland and France in 1971. But by 1996 the number of Group 1 races run in Europe’s top three racing nations was allowed to grow to 59. And by last year it had mushroomed to 72. This rate of growth far exceeds that of the racehorse population.
You would need to take this data further. A) look at how many Group 1’s exist within the distance Frankel races of now, and in the past B) Those races which were not Group 1 level races then but are now ; look at the average rating, C) Look at the average rating of the Group 1’s that existed then and compare what they produce now.
It is all well and good producing a hypothesis, but you need evidence to support it. This "idea" won’t resonate with anybody unless you provide thorough evidence to show what the influences are/were.
A Group 1 should surely be a genuine championship event where all the best horses line up – as is the case in Japan. But the massive increase in European Group 1’s has devalued the original idea of what a Group 1 should be. All too often nowadays European Group 1’s feature a handful of runners with one horse so dominant it starts at long odds on.
Devalued some. There are practically no all aged all sex Group 1 races from the summer onwards in the UK that are not top class. Yes, some weak races exist early in the season ; The Lockinge, Irish tattershals gold cup, Coronation Cup. Frankel dominated Group 1 races that are historically strong, and remain strong today. His races appeared more one sided because A) some decided to avoid the race knowing they couldn’t win B) Frankel is so much better than current competition.
Mordin seems to overlook this fact.
The best way to stop so many of our top races being uncompetitive would be to scrap the pattern race system altogether. This would allow each race to be judged on its merits rather than having its class judged in advance by some faceless committee. The alternative would be to curtail the number of Group 1’s, just like they do in Japan. If we allow the number of European Group 1’s to keep on rising year after year we’re going to see ever more uncompetitive ‘championship’ events and more ‘champions’ that retire unbeaten but untested.
If this were true, we’d have more retired unbeaten champions. We’ve had "three" (I count Sea the stats even though he was beaten as a 2 yr old. One patently exceptional. Sea the stars ran in nearly everything. Zarkava … well hardly tested, but within her conditions and environment, she proved to be exceptional.
Where are the other unbeaten "fake" champions. Again Mordin doesn’t seem to want to use facts and evidence to back up an apparently baseless hypothesis.
Elgransenor ; i know this your not your text
that was from the nick mordin website btw.
In many ways I agree with mordin. As brilliant as frankel clearly was, how much does it prove, the fact that he kept beating the same horses, generally speaking in small fields, and never once raced outside of england?
after all, the idea that he was the best of all time is clearly a lofty claim, that would be difficult to prove in any case. and can anyone give a reason why he never broke a track record?
it almost seems like sacriledge now to suggest that frankel wasn’t the greatest of all time, an almost ludicrous situation. whatever happened to objectivity?
I do think that to have even be considered to be the greatest of all time, frankel needed to run over a greater range of distances, and take part in some of the big international races. Not because the bbc and the racing media in general told us so.
Nick Mordin is hilarious. He has been telling us for months that all great horses get beaten evenually. It was actually the headline in the Weekender and, to what must be his continuing embarrassment, is still used by the RP to advertise the publication. He came up with a half cocked argument that Frankel would be vulnerable on the round course at Ascot. He stated that the short straight would negate Frankel’s huge stride and said that he is better on more galloping tracks where he gets to use that stride most effectively. The problem is he stupidly used the St James Palace as his "proof" COMPLETELY ignoring the way the SJP was run and the fact that Frankel was flat out long before he got to the straight. In addition he "forgot" to mention the fact that Frankel had shown incredible excelleration on that very track in the Royal Lodge when he went from canetering to full out on the crown of the bend and put the race to bed in strides.
Mordin has been trying to get Frankel beat throughout his career. Look back through his archives and you will see it going back to his 2 year old days. Now that the horse has finished unbeaten Mordin gutlessly sticks the knife in knowing that there is no chance of Frankel proving him wrong YET AGAIN.
Mordin also is a bundle of contradictions. Again look at the archives and see the speed figures he himself was forced to give Frankel. He had to invent a new ceiling just to get them in!!!
Asking questions like "why didn’t he break a track record?" quite frankly betrays a lack of undertanding and common sense. Look down the list of track record holders at any course and you will see names that you hardly recognise. Horses that were not even group horses. We all know that it takes a special set of circumstances to break an actual course record. Circumstances like ground, wind, pace in a race, position of rail (as at York). Frankel has set the fastest speed times this century. Look and read what Topspeed say about him.
Mordin talks about earnings being a measure of greatness!! Are you serious?! That is plain pathetic. Frankel DID continually set new standards and beat records. Longest winning sequence of Group 1’s in Britain, followed by longest sequence in Europe. Longest aggregate winning distances. But who cares about the stats anyway?
He didn’t run outside the UK. So what? What horses were waiting for him outside the UK that he didn’t face? Would Mordin be happier if he had beaten Monterrosso? He beat the world’s highest rated horses including the number 2 in conditions that CDA was ABSOLUTLEY AWESOME under. He did that despite conceding 3 lengths at the start and only being unleashed inside the furlong pole. Don’t forget he was ridden completely differently over 10f as he was over 8f. Over the mile they let him play to his main strength – galloping flat out from 3 furlongs out. Over 10f and especially in the conditions at Ascot, they held on to him for much longer. Of course his winning margin was going to be shorter.
Listen we can and will debate over whether he was the absolute greatest. If you haven’t made your minds up about that after 14 races you never would anyway. I can tell you one thing though – he has made a pretty strong case for himself. 14 out of 14. 10 Group 1’s. So many wide margin wins. So many consistently high ratings. His main rival being unbeaten (since maiden) except when he has faces Frankel. The evidence is not "flimsy" it is solid as a rock.
Frankel was unbeaten and unbeatable. Even when the conditions were massively AGAINST him and massively IN FAVOUR of the 2nd best horse in the world. Even when he missed the break. Even when his jockey went two furlongs too early. Even when he pulled like a train. Even when he was bumped and set alight. HE ALWAYS WON. Death, taxes, Frankel.
Never any need for excuses. He always did what you knew he would do. Frankel runs, Frankel wins. Simple.
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
…
Listen we can and will debate over whether he was the absolute greatest.
…
Frankel was unbeaten and unbeatable. Even when the conditions were massively AGAINST him and massively IN FAVOUR of the 2nd best horse in the world. Even when he missed the break. Even when his jockey went two furlongs too early. Even when he pulled like a train. Even when he was bumped and set alight. HE ALWAYS WON.
…
Never any need for excuses. He always did what you knew he would do. Frankel runs, Frankel wins. Simple.
That’s the reason why I’m so sad, he didn’t compete and win the Arc.
After that, there would be no debate concerning his greatness ever.I don’t know why you’re bothering Joni. Anyone who watched that race and takes the view that CDA was a threat to Frankel is beyond reasoning with. They’ve decided to take a stance against the great Cecil horse and nothing the horse did on a track was ever going to change that.
In this life there are always a handful of people who are going to take the contrary view to everybody else about a subject. Think that ginger half-wit Durham on Talksport. He makes a living out of adopting the opposite view to the majority. It’s pointless contesting the view. It isn’t an honest one but an entrenched mindset, disingenuous and completely unworthy of engaging in sensible debate.
Enjoy your memories of the great horse and don’t let anybody cloud that enjoyment with their groundless nonsense.
If this were true, we’d have more retired unbeaten champions. We’ve had "three" (I count Sea the stats even though he was beaten as a 2 yr old. One patently exceptional. Sea the stars ran in nearly everything. Zarkava … well hardly tested, but within her conditions and environment, she proved to be exceptional.
Where are the other unbeaten "fake" champions. Again Mordin doesn’t seem to want to use facts and evidence to back up an apparently baseless hypothesis.
Lammtarra was an undefeated champion (with just four starts, no less), how great was he?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.