Frankel to Champion Stakes

[Humph]

Originally Posted by cj

A few years from now, nobody will care. Unless, of course, he had won the Arc. That is a difference maker.

so winning in the arc is what defines a euro champion ?

absolute nonsense.

champions of their year have tried and failed to win the race ( nijinsky and generous were just two ) and some haven't contested the race at all ( perhaps the greatest of them all ,brigadier gerard , was one such horse ) yet they have been remembered for what they were , great racehorses and champions.

and as for frankel , this fellow is miles ahead of some very talented euro horses . no question . and no matter what his final race/s are , and no matter what the outcome may be , he is one of the modern day greats and a true champion . not even an arc run , win or lose ,would change matters .

[J17star]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

JStar............. big yawn........

That's my reaction to both Frankel's last race choice and your posts.

Sure.

Atleast im not logically retarded.

[J17star]

Originally Posted by cj

A few years from now, nobody will care. Unless, of course, he had won the Arc. That is a difference maker.

Dylan Thomas. Rail Link. Workforce. Hurricane Run.

Recent winners of the Arc that nobody will really remember.

The Arc is the best race in Europe per year, however, it doesn't mean the best horses in Europe always win it.

Frankel will be remembered in 40+ years. I live in the market we are discussing and the hype is beyond ridiculous.

We have a triple crown candidate for the first time since Njiisnky, and yet still, the only horse anyone wants to discuss is Frankel.

[J17star]

Originally Posted by andtheyreoff

One might be tempted to lump me in with the "Frankel Haters" based on my opinions about him, but if he won the Arc, I would definitely consider him undoubtedly the best European ever, and potentially the best ever.

Impossible. Frankel can never definitively be proven to be best horse ever. Inane and ridiculous claim to make. All we can say is he's in the highest tier we've ever seen.

Originally Posted by andtheyreoff

When you've got a horse who is considered by many to be not just an all time great, but the BEST EVER, the standards are higher.

The standards are the same, given we are assessing horses against horses. Unless you don't understand how ratings work.

Originally Posted by andtheyreoff

If the connections don't think he's capable of 12F (and it's apparent that they don't), I have a hard time calling him one of the best ever, considering those ranked at that level (Sea Bird, Ribot, Mill Reef, Dancing Brave, Sea the Stars, etc) all proved their worth at that distance. Brigadier Gerard, another one considered among the immortals, did not win at 12F, but won 4 races at 10F. Frankel will only have won 2 at most.

A horse doesn't have to win over a variety of trips to show it's peak ability is among the greatest ever seen. Sea the stars was a vastly inferior Miler to Frankel, and won a weak Guineas. You're simply confusing peak ability and versatility. Versatility is not essential when assessing peak abilities.

Brigadier Gerard did win at 12F. He won a King George.

Horse racing is different now. Different motives and options. Horses are rarely tried over a wider range of distances in Europe relative to the past.

Originally Posted by andtheyreoff

On the other side of the Atlantic, Secretariat, Kelso, and Citation were all multiple winners at 12F or beyond.

Who cares? We aren't comparing Frankel with these horses. It's an impossible cross comparison to make.

Originally Posted by andtheyreoff

Get tested? Not exactly.

This year, only the Juddmonte International really broke new ground, and that came after 3 starts at 8F, which we all knew he could do.

His victory in the Queen Anne is his highest rated performance to date, and is considered one of the best performances ever seen on a UK race course.

Frankel hasn't been adventurously campaigned, however, at 8 and 10F we know he's utterly exceptional and very very far ahead of his competition. It's a shame he won't run at 12F but it shouldnt detract from what he has done.

Originally Posted by andtheyreoff

Agreed. An all time great, but not among the truly immortal IMO.

Perhaps to you, but to knowledgable fans within our market, Frankel once retired will be percieved as an immortal. The mere fact that the question "Who is better, Brigadier Gerard or Frankel" exists validates this.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by cj

You've been Zen-yattized.

My views on how to best handle high level horses were formed a few decades ago.

You can't put the cart in front of the horse.

The reason "some" of these horses are continuing to improve, holding their form so long, succeeding when finally given a steeper challenge, peaking on the right day etc... is because their trainer is preparing them for their assignments so well etc..

Had Frankel been rushed to a major 10F race at the start of the year it's no lock he would have handled it as well as he just did.

If he lost what would that have proved?

It would have short changed a great horse that "can" easily handle 10F when it was the trainer that was an idiot. It may have even set the horse back.

I bet if you asked Bill Mott (who IMO is one notch below God) about his training job on Majestic Warrior (who I thought was very talented and who now may turn out to be an excellent sire) he'd cringe. He might even say he contributed to ruining the horse by trying to do too much too fast after the horse had some delays in his training.

It's not like we all don't want top horses to run against each other in the biggest races and prove their greatness. IMO you have to manage horses properly though. The trainer of Frankel might already know he can't handle 12F at this stage in his development. If he thought otherwise, he'd probably go in the Arc just like he eventually tried 10F when he thought the horse was ready for it.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Humph

so winning in the arc is what defines a euro champion ?

absolute nonsense.

No, that is not what I'm saying at all. I'm not sure how that was your conclusion from my post. He'll be remembered, as you say, as a great racehorse and champion. An Arc win, though, and he'd be considered the absolute best ever by many, and in the discussion for all. That is what I was saying, nothing more.

[cj]

Originally Posted by J17star

Sure.

Atleast im not logically retarded.

Nice post. Classy.

[cj]

Originally Posted by J17star

Dylan Thomas. Rail Link. Workforce. Hurricane Run.

Recent winners of the Arc that nobody will really remember.

The Arc is the best race in Europe per year, however, it doesn't mean the best horses in Europe always win it.

Frankel will be remembered in 40+ years. I live in the market we are discussing and the hype is beyond ridiculous.

We have a triple crown candidate for the first time since Njiisnky, and yet still, the only horse anyone wants to discuss is Frankel.

Again, as with the other guy, this isn't what I'm saying at all. A win in the Arc would add to his reputation. A win in this other race will do little.

At no point did I say winning the Arc alone was anything special. Added to his great record, it would be.

[cj]

Originally Posted by J17star

Impossible. Frankel can never definitively be proven to be best horse ever. Inane and ridiculous claim to make. All we can say is he's in the highest tier we've ever seen.

The standards are the same, given we are assessing horses against horses. Unless you don't understand how ratings work.

A horse doesn't have to win over a variety of trips to show it's peak ability is among the greatest ever seen. Sea the stars was a vastly inferior Miler to Frankel, and won a weak Guineas. You're simply confusing peak ability and versatility. Versatility is not essential when assessing peak abilities.

Brigadier Gerard did win at 12F. He won a King George.

Horse racing is different now. Different motives and options. Horses are rarely tried over a wider range of distances in Europe relative to the past.

Who cares? We aren't comparing Frankel with these horses. It's an impossible cross comparison to make.

His victory in the Queen Anne is his highest rated performance to date, and is considered one of the best performances ever seen on a UK race course.

Frankel hasn't been adventurously campaigned, however, at 8 and 10F we know he's utterly exceptional and very very far ahead of his competition. It's a shame he won't run at 12F but it shouldnt detract from what he has done.

Perhaps to you, but to knowledgable fans within our market, Frankel once retired will be percieved as an immortal. The mere fact that the question "Who is better, Brigadier Gerard or Frankel" exists validates this.

You don't want to compare horses across generations, yet you keep referring to man made ratings as some definitive tool. They mean absolutely nothing unless you actually do compare them across generations. None of us need numbers to know he is the best horse currently.

[cj]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

My views on how to best handle high level horses were formed a few decades ago.

You can't put the cart in front of the horse.

The reason "some" of these horses are continuing to improve, holding their form so long, succeeding when finally given a steeper challenge, peaking on the right day etc... is because their trainer is preparing them for their assignments so well etc..

Had Frankel been rushed to a major 10F race at the start of the year it's no lock he would have handled it as well as he just did.

If he lost what would that have proved?

It would have short changed a great horse that "can" easily handle 10F when it was the trainer that was an idiot. It may have even set the horse back.

I bet if you asked Bill Mott (who IMO is one notch below God) about his training job on Majestic Warrior (who I thought was very talented and who now may turn out to be an excellent sire) he'd cringe. He might even say he contributed to ruining the horse by trying to do too much too fast after the horse had some delays in his training.

It's not like we all don't want top horses to run against each other in the biggest races and prove their greatness. IMO you have to manage horses properly though. The trainer of Frankel might already know he can't handle 12F at this stage in his development. If he thought otherwise, he'd probably go in the Arc just like he eventually tried 10F when he thought the horse was ready for it.

I think you give trainers way too much credit. In most cases, they know very little about a horse's best distance or surface until they actually try it. Sure, they like to think they know, but history has taught us countless times the only real way to know is race.

Just because treating a few horses with kid gloves has worked, it doesn't change the fact that exponentially more have failed using the exact same strategy. It is way more about the horse than the human.

[J17star]

Originally Posted by cj

You don't want to compare horses across generations, yet you keep referring to man made ratings as some definitive tool. They mean absolutely nothing unless you actually do compare them across generations. None of us need numbers to know he is the best horse currently.

I don't wish to compare horses from Europe and North America, given it's patently not reliable. We have no idea how Frankel would perform on dirt.

Secondly, we can use ratings to compare generations, but they are never utterly reliable. If we compare Frankel with Brigadier Gerard, we can never say with particularly confidence which horse would beat which. They are rated too close together to ever have much confidence in giving a confident answer. Hence, the question "Greatest of all time" is such a retarded one, given the data available is not complete enough to ever begin to tackle the question. European races are never run for optimal times, and with no sectional data, it becomes an even more impossible task.

I agree, ratings are not a definitive tool.

[J17star]

Originally Posted by cj

Again, as with the other guy, this isn't what I'm saying at all. A win in the Arc would add to his reputation. A win in this other race will do little.

At no point did I say winning the Arc alone was anything special. Added to his great record, it would be.

It may add to his reputation, but the tone given suggested he hasn't earnt his place in the top tier without winning the Arc.

Brigadier Gerard won a King George (A high class renewal too back when the race was far more prestigious than it is now). However, the form of his win there is much lower than the form of his wins at lower distances. He didn't really stay. Now whilst it looks tremendous on the CV, it was still significantly lower than his peak ability performances. With or without that King George win, he'd still have exactly the same reputation.

Frankel not going to the Arc is most disappointing. However, the ratings of the horses he's likely to meet in the Champion don't differ too much from the Arc, outside of the Japanese horse/unexposed middle distance French Colts. Plus the Champion stakes is actually more conducive to producing a better rating than the Arc, which is usually a messy tactical race.

I guess it depends on how you judge greatness. Do you judge it solely on peak ability, or include various other factors such as versatility/durability. We can compare him to Sea the stars. Frankel patently has shown much better peak ability, whilst also showing IMO better durability (I.e shown elite ability over 3 seasons). He hasn't had the chance to show his versatility (I also believe he'd be champion sprinter in the UK if he'd been trained for that) on the track, but does the trainers conservatism really warrant a reduction in perceptions of this undoubtedly exceptional colt? In the end, i don't think lack of data at 12F or 6F should stop him from being grouped where he ineveitably will ; at the very top of our turf history.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by cj

I think you give trainers way too much credit. In most cases, they know very little about a horse's best distance or surface until they actually try it. Sure, they like to think they know, but history has taught us countless times the only real way to know is race.

Just because treating a few horses with kid gloves has worked, it doesn't change the fact that exponentially more have failed using the exact same strategy. It is way more about the horse than the human.

People think training has change a lot since the 70s, but IMO it hasn't changed as much as people think.

The trainers that got the best long term results back then were patient, moved their horses along slowly, and gave their horses a mid season break to keep them fresh.

The guys that rushed or overworked them often destroyed them prematurely.

In the 70s and early 80s, it wasn't uncommon for the horses that were leading the division early in the year to be past their peak by the end of the year and the later starters to take over. It's just that back then, all the Grade 1s in NY and CA were of similar value when it came to year end awards. Now, the BC has greater weight. So it has changed the strategies for when to peak and where to run.

I don't even have a strong view on the extra spacing between races that is common now.

My one strong view is that most horses wear down as the season progresses if they are heavily raced and that if you put them where they don't belong, they often get buried and don't recover. I've seen that a huge number of times with some very talented horses over the years. So if I owned stakes horses my first choices would be guys like Mott, Shug, Sheriffs, etc... because of their patience.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by J17star

Dylan Thomas. Rail Link. Workforce. Hurricane Run.

Recent winners of the Arc that nobody will really remember.

The Arc is the best race in Europe per year, however, it doesn't mean the best horses in Europe always win it.

Frankel will be remembered in 40+ years. I live in the market we are discussing and the hype is beyond ridiculous.

We have a triple crown candidate for the first time since Njiisnky, and yet still, the only horse anyone wants to discuss is Frankel.

Why would you and your friends not hold it against him for skipping the Arc? If this is truly a horse for the ages, dont you want to see him in either the Arc or the Breeders Cup classic? Wouldnt you just love to 'stuff it' into the faces of the Arrogant Americans who say he's just a flashy Euro turf horse and nothing more and not even close to being worthy of an all time great discussion?

I guess my point might be if he is an 'all time great' why would you accept him ducking the Arc and or the BC?

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by cj

You've been Zen-yattized.

Yet even Zenyatta (a female, mind you) didn't skip the biggest race on the racing calendar.