- This topic has 47 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Timeform Racehorses rating for Rio De La Plata is
121
.
His Timeform rating for this year’s Queen Anne is (I believe)121
.
His Timeform rating for the Sussex is (I believe)122
.
They’ve rated Frankel’s actual
passing the line
rating
139
and not unjustly
added 3lbs for ease of victory
(over Rio De La Plata).
The arbitrary 2 lbs per length is nonsense.
More nonsensical than guessing what Timeform’s figures might be, or pulling a figure from thin air for what Frankel might have done?
Reet,
It is no "guess". Unlike your good self who attributed them giving a figure of127
for Rio De La Plata "out of thin air".
I have used Timeform Perspective ratings. It is possible they have changed the ratings since going to post, which is why I said "I believe".If you want to go on to the Timeform/betfair site Reet, there is a very good explanation given by Simon Rowlands on how they’ve rated the Sussex.
Value Is EverythingTo andyod in your response to Pinza you state that times have changed and effectively you have to visit everywhere and at every distance before you can become a great. Where do you get that from ?
It is the quality of the performances and the ratings of those performances that means that you are a great.
An extreme example of the folly of your view is that a versatile animal that is capable of scraping home in a few Group 1s in different countries over a few distances would then be regarded as a great, whereas Brigadier Gerard would not fulfil the criteria.
Point proved, in my opinion.Exactly Coggy,
Is Snow Fairy a true Great? Just because she won a couple of races in the far east. Yet she’s not even the best middle-distance filly/mare in Britain.
Value Is EverythingWhat I am saying Coggy is that whoever claims to be great better have the credentials to back it up.You have to beat other good horses and even other great ones.You have to be the best of the best to be great. You have to qualify "great" if you are limited to a certain distance and say great over that distance if you are restricted by distance. You may be great over a mile or great over less than a mile or great over any distance,such as Sea the Stars.That is what I mean.Frankel has still a long way ton go before becoming great,like the velveteen rabbit!!!!!!!!!
I believe we shoud all hold our fire until Frankel does "it" on the world stage;BC or Arc.
You mean, like we did with
Brigadier Gerard
, who never raced outside England? Or with
Zarkava
who never raced outside France? Or with
Secretariat
, who never raced outside … on second thoughts, scrap that last thought which will only trigger another Troll attack!
Sec won in Canada, too, in his final start. And he did far more traveling (the US is a BIG country), and he got around half of it) than the Brigadier or Zarkava. Not quite the same thing.
But he wasn’t the magical wonderhorse that his diehard fans seem to think he is.
- Total Posts 17716
I believe we shoud all hold our fire until Frankel does "it" on the world stage;BC or Arc.
You mean, like we did with
Brigadier Gerard
, who never raced outside England? Or with
Zarkava
who never raced outside France? Or with
Secretariat
, who never raced outside … on second thoughts, scrap that last thought which will only trigger another Troll attack!
Sec won in Canada, too, in his final start. And he did far more traveling (the US is a BIG country), and he got around half of it) than the Brigadier or Zarkava. Not quite the same thing.
That Canadian Job is why I stopped where I did,
Miss Woodford
– I know the folly of bundling Canucks in with Yankees!
On your other point I might respond, not wholly facetiously, that mere distance is not everything. Being driven in a horsebox from Newmarket to Ascot in midsummer is quite possibly a more stressful and long-winded experience than flying from New York to Chicago.
The delusional nay-sayers are just waiting/hoping/praying for anything to defeat Frankel, so they can have their "I told you so moment". One by One we are whittling these people down.
Just a physically advanced 2 year-old, bombed, he’s beat nothing but ordinary 3 year-olds, bombed, he will be found out by the older generation (an exceptional miler, winner of 5 G1’s defeated Goldikova, trans continental miler superstar), bombed.
Why should a horse compete over wildly different distances to prove greatness. Le Moss was not a middle distance horse, was he a great stayer, yes. Sea Bird by universal acclaim was a great middle distance colt, could he beat Frankel over a mile, I doubt it, Frankel is a great miler, could he beat Sea Bird over 12F, I doubt it, Frankel is the most brilliant miler I have seen, could he beat Dayjur over 6F. I’d say maybe not but possible.
Please enjoy the fact we have one of the greatest horses ever, racing here and now in the UK. The QE II has been penciled in as the next objective for Frankel. The world knows it, lets see how many take him on, I suspect less that 6. I just want Goldikova to turn up, somehow I doubt it after the mauling Frankel gave to Rajsaman.
- Total Posts 17716
To me a horse is not a
TRUE Great
unless it has the
very best ability
. In my way of thinking that’s a Timeform rating of
140
or more.
Precisely, Ginger; says it all.
One day, God willing, you might be able to think for yourself – though I won’t be holding my breath.Sec won in Canada, too, in his final start. And he did far more traveling (the US is a BIG country), and he got around half of it) than the Brigadier or Zarkava. Not quite the same thing.
But he wasn’t the magical wonderhorse that his diehard fans seem to think he is.
Thats actually a VERY good point Miss Woodford. Add to it the fact "Big Red" ran 21 times in his shortlived two season career. Compare that to 10 for the Brigadier in his 2/3yo seasons, 8 Sea Bird, 10 Dancing Brave, 9 Sea The Stars and 7 Zarkava.
On the subject of Zarkava what we do not know is whether or not she would have held her form at 4/5 yrs. Many will point to Goldikova and say how good was Zarkava to make Goldikova look average on two occasions. However who is to say Zarkava was not simply far more mature physically and if they had clashed in future seasons Goldikova may have caught and surpassed her. Thereby making Zarkava look average.
Sea The Stars’ unparalleled winning sequence in Group 1 company is "great" as no horse had ever won the races he did before. However it could be argued the relative strength of his form was anything but "great", as holes can be readily be picked in the subseqent performances of horses like Rip Van WInkle, Fame & Glory, Conduit and so on. Ye sthey have accumulated an impressive list of Gp 1s amongst them, but hardly vintage. Counduit’s King George for instance was hardly a vintage renewal.
Personally I am a big STS fan, and hold him up on a pedestal because of ther historical context of his winning sequence. Also, I believe like many that he only did enough and if encountering say a Frankel or a Zarkava, may well have found more to thwart their challenges. However I do think that logcial scientific form figures (applied to a very inexact science) probably should be kept to determining who is going to win a forthcoming race as opposed to comparing generations.
Putting it another way, it is immaterial to me if Sea Bird might be better or worse than lest say Nijinsky. Sea Bird provided us with two of the most visually stunning performances in two of the world’s most prestigious races. Nijnsky is the last colt to win the British Triple Crown. The crying shame is a horse like Sea The Stars was not given the opportunity to match Nijinsky’s achievement because personally I think he would have beaten Mastery without breaking sweat.
Yes, it may have proven nothing at the time, but in 10, 20 or 50 years time he would have been looked upon with more historical interest than his eventual Group 1 haul will warrant.
Sea The Stars wouldn’t have got near Frankel over a mile infact I don’t think he’d have beaten Canford Cliffs though it would’ve been close. Zarkava I think was an exceptional filly and would’ve beaten Sea The Stars at any trip. I think she was one of the all time great fillies. She wouldn’t have beaten Frankel and she I’m sure wouldn’t have beaten Sea Bird or Ribot but don’t forget she is a filly. I struggle to think of a filly in Europe over the last twenty years or so that I think was as good as her. Would she have been as good at 4? We’ll never know but there’s nothing to suggest she wouldn’t’ve.
The likes of Goldikova and Sea The Stars have versatility and longevity and have accumulated extremely impressive CV’s but you have to take into account the brilliance of horses. Would Goldikova have won all those G1’s had Zarkava been around? Would Sea The Stars have won this years Guineas? The answer to both questions is almost certainly no. Whilst both are "legends" in what they actually achieved, in terms of sheer brilliance and greatest horses in history they fall short of the elite. People say Sea The Stars "only did enough to win" I dispute that. Its more likely he was just incredibly consistant and tough and his best was always just good enough to beat what was around at the time. His Arc win was his easiest win for me and it wasn’t a grind like his Guineas win or his Eclipse win he didn’t idle and wasn’t stopping that suggests to me that he could win races comfortably under certain sets of circumstances.
I don’t do US racing so I wouldn’t really know thir greats but from a European point of view (in no particular order) :
Sea Bird
Ribot
Nijinsky
Alleged
Shergar
Dancing Brave
Oh So Sharp
Zarkava
Frankel
Dayjur
Zilzal
Dubai MillenniumThese are what I call all time greats. I’ve probably forgotten one or two. All of them were totally dominant of their peers and ran to levels on figures that underlines their greatness.
All In my opinion of course.
How do you rate Frankel as a tyo against Arazi? That would be some race.The making of greatness.
Basically I like to crumble icons.I have seen three sport super greats in my life.Muhammad Ali,Lester Piggot and Joe Montana.That’s it.Some would add Michael Jordan but not me.For Horses Arazi as a tyo, Frankel as a miler and Secretariate as a great racing machine. And finally Arkle as a jumper.I am not cranky,grumpy ,unhappy or whatever "goes with" having another opinion of the so called greats.Incidentally I consider JohnPaul a phony.Nelson Mandela a saint.Does that help?I include some of the above to quiet the conscience of the reader.
"It is understandable, then, that so many should be prepared to assent to his judgement, after the Sussex Stakes, that Frankel is better than any horse in memory. But the fact is that any such claim is inherently silly. Strictly, even Cecil is only qualified to say that Frankel is superior to his 24 previous Classic winners. For the rest of us, however, it is pointless to pronounce him better than even very recent champions, such as Sea The Stars. Otherwise a broader audience, told yet again that the latest paragon is the best ever, will be entitled to disparage the sport as culpably excitable".From Chris McGrath in The Independent on Saturday .Go read the full article.
How do you rate Frankel as a tyo against Arazi? That would be some race.The making of greatness.
Its such a shame that Arazi never achieved at three what we all hoped he would.
- Total Posts 438
"Otherwise a broader audience, told yet again that the latest paragon is the best ever, will be entitled to disparage the sport as culpably excitable"
Mr McGrath misses the vital point that pretty much everything in the world today is based on hype, from politics to film to science. Hype sells and the vast majority of things nowadays are, sadly, based on money. In the sporting world alone, we have supposedly the greatest football team ever in Barcelona, the best tennis player ever in Rafael Nadal, the greatest sprinter ever in Usain Bolt…
Some would say that the last-named has demonstrated his worth by holding the world record; what they overlook is that his predecessors didn’t have all the benefits of modern training and equipment, least of all running tracks specifically prepared to facilitate fast times.
The media does a lot of the public’s thinking for it, but not all of the "broader audience" are as gullible as McGrath obviously believes. Many are capable of sound, rational, interpretation and logical thought; the majority of those who have expressed an opinion in this thread seem to believe that Frankel is something very special indeed and I’d be more inclined to agree with them than with some argumentative, semi-literate, buffoon or another who is clearly hurt that this magnificent racehorse isn’t in the ownership of his favourite organisation.
To me a horse is not a
TRUE Great
unless it has the
very best ability
. In my way of thinking that’s a Timeform rating of
140
or more.
Precisely, Ginger; says it all.
One day, God willing, you might be able to think for yourself – though I won’t be holding my breath.Oh dear,
When you’re losing the arguement, Reet results to hurling abuse again. I am a Timeform fan, yes, does not make me unable to think for myself. I’ve often given reviews of races before Timeform’s opinion is known. Which are often (but not always) similar to Timeform.To explain what I meant for you (though I think you already know what I mean):
Obviously the 140 Timeform rating is a subjective figure. ie Anyone can disagree with a Timeform rating and believe a horse (any horse) is in their opinion equivalent to a 140 Timeform horse and so (to my way of thinking anyway) a "Great" racehorse.
e.g Generous was rated in Timeform 139. If anyone else rated him just one pound higher than Timeform, then (to my standards of measuring "Greatness") in their opinion Generous would be of 140 standard and be a GREAT racehorse.
To give an example of one I believe Timeform got wrong: Kicking King 182. It seems to me based on one difficult to work out King George chase.
So there you go: Ginger believes Timeform got it wrong about something.
Value Is EverythingPerceived wisdom dictates that when we speak of thoroughbred greats, we are usually referring to horses which have won multiple group 1 races over middle distances. During their illustrious careers, some of those revered stars; horses like Ribot, Nijinsky and Mill Reef, for example, have won over a variety of distances. I think I’m right in thinking that Ribot won his races at 5f right through to 1m 7f.
Now, that is what you call versatility. However, discluding or down grading other brilliant Group 1 winners solely on the basis of having only won races over their favoured distance (as 3 year olds ) is not only unfair, but dare I say, ludicrous.
Take Tudor Minstrel, for example. Commonly regarded by many racing experts as the pre-eminent miler of his era, and of all time: he lost only one race during his two seasons of racing – that was in The Derby, where he failed to stay, finishing fourth.
He returned to his favoured distance of a mile and duly slaughtered the opposition in the St James’ Palace Stakes at Royal Ascot. He was an exceptional miler and is fully worthy of his lofty position as a "turf great" To say otherwise is just mere folly.So, whether or not Frankel contests or wins at distances beyond a mile is irrelevant. He already is a great horse and nothing can alter that fact.
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.