Sussex Stakes

hucklebuck

Morgans wrote: »

Looked at his form again. Had Frankel been injured/never been born, Excelebration would have lost on his debut.

He then would have won 11 out of his 12 races. He would have won

Prix du Moulin (GP I) - 1.5l
QE II (GP I) - 3.5l
Lockinge (GP I) - 4l
Queen Anne (GP I) - nk
Jacques Le Marois (GP I) - 1.5l
German 2000 guineas (GP II) - 7l
Hungerford Stakes (GP II) - 6l
Gladness (GP III)
Greenham Stakes (GP III)

He would have been 2nd in James Palace

People still think he is an average horse - Frankel has never faced good opposition. Had he faced something like Rock of Gibraltar...

That is one hell of a leap of faith given Frankel had scared off plenty of horses and Excelebration mightnt be as good in bigger fields. Sure he would have won more but all?

Morgans

On the contrary,

Excelebration deliberately swerved the guineas cos he was beaten by Frankel in the greenham and went to germany. Had Frankel not been about, he is very likely to have gone to Newmarket and beaten Dubawi Gold as he did twice afterwards in the season.

Can you name the horses Frankel has scared off?

Morgans

hucklebuck wrote: »

His BHA rating, I think Frankel is great but better than the greatest of all time, I think that is being over generous.

I am surprised by the Mordin speed figures, I hadnt heard that.

I am not knocking Excelebration as a horse, he would be a good group winner if Frankel wasn't around.

There is a case for Excelbration having been broken by Frankel, his Le Marois was a deserved win for him and give him more heart for his next battle with Frankel.

I only use the time of the race as people were spouting rubbish that Sea The Stars would have been beaten by Frankel on the bridle and it would be a lot closer than that.

What do you make of all of Frankels mile races being slower than STS guineas(caveats on previous post)?

I can't wait to see Frankel tomorrow, I hope Joseph uses his head and goes for home 4 out, Twice Over has lost it so St Nic looks the only chance of giving Frankel a race.

If you are using speed figures like you use them, Gan Amhras is a better miler than Frankel. Its nonsense, you should stop using it.

There are way too many mediocre horses with course records for that line of argument to stand any scrutiny.

Morgans

hucklebuck wrote: »

Excelebration mightnt be as good in bigger fields.

This is exactly the attitude of those looking to run down Excelebration. Thanks for the straightforward proof. Maybe he would be a far better horse in bigger fields. There is no evidence whatsoever that he is affected by field size.

hucklebuck

You want to say that times aren't arguments and saying Excelebration mightn't be as good in bigger fields is running him down? Yet you think Excelebration would have won every race Frankel was in by the margin the third horse was from him if Frankel didn't run?

If Frankel didn't run then Bullet Train probably would not have run. Assuming a race without a pacemaker nothing would change is a hell of a punt. Sure Excelebration would have won races but all of them??

Times are not the strongest way of comparing but saying every race would pan out the same if Frankel didn't run is every bit as fallible.

Rainman could not name the horses Frankel scared off, just look at the size of the fields he has run in, surely evidence enough, loads defected at the declaration stages.

Morgans

What horses rated higher than Excelebration has Frankel scared of?

You do not need to be rainman. You just need to be interested.

On time, Gan Amhras is better than Frankel. Is that what you believe? Keeping half-baked opinions regardless of evidence is why Im getting out of this thread.

At least someone like Tryfix has engaged with the subjects properly and has done an amazing job in getting to an informed position. I applaud that man.

hucklebuck

Morgans wrote: »

If you are using speed figures like you use them, Gan Amhras is a better miler than Frankel. Its nonsense, you should stop using it.

There are way too many mediocre horses with course records for that line of argument to stand any scrutiny.

There sure are but how do you explain/ Nick Mordin explain Frankel hasn't ran a quicker mile than STS yet has a better speed figure. I am not being smart, I have never studier or looked at speed figures.

tryfix

Morgans wrote: »

I wouldnt bet on any horse in my lifetime beating him between 6f and a mile at least. That includes the likes of Zilzal, Dancing Brave, and Dayjur over 6f. (Dayjur over 5f different story)

I wouldn't be so quick to assume that Frankel would beat Dancing Brave at between 6f and a mile. Just look at the quality of the 1986 2,000 Guineas field that Dancing Brave swept aside with ease. Champion Sprinter Green Desert was 3l back in second and left for dead in a slowly run race, back in in third was the Dewhurst winner Huntingdale, in fifth was Sure Blade who went on to win the St James Palace and Queen Elizabeth stakes.

Add to that his second last Furlong of 10.36 seconds in the Derby, his last to first bust of 10.8 seconds in the final furlong of a record breaking Arc. He had speed in abundance, he just didn't stick to the shorter trips to show it. His turn of foot was his weapon, the trip wasn't that important.

In Frankel's Queen Anne the sectionals were.

15.11
11.79
11.96
12.10
11.26
10.58
11.04
14.01 last furlong


El Gran Senor in 1984 easily beat Chief Singer ( St James Palace, Sussex Stakes and July Cup), Lear Fan (Jacques La Marois ) and Rainbow Quest (Arc De Triomphe).

Do you think Dubawi Gold, or Native Khan would have got close to either of those easy 2,000 guineas winners or even the placed horses?

hucklebuck

Morgans wrote: »

What horses rated higher than Excelebration has Frankel scared of?

You do not need to be rainman. You just need to be interested.

On time, Gan Amhras is better than Frankel. Is that what you believe? Keeping half-baked opinions regardless of evidence is why Im getting out of this thread.

At least someone like Tryfix has engaged with the subjects properly and has done an amazing job in getting to an informed position. I applaud that man.

Where did I say rated higher than Excelebration? He has won plenty of races in smaller fields as other trainers don't want to take him on. The highest rated horses don't always win the races.

Less competition = higher probability of winning the race.


This is just a general comment - I was looking up speed figures and I found this guide to calculate your own, I will give it a go when I have more free time and let you know how it's working:

http://skybluekangaroo.com/blog/how-to-calculate-speed-ratings/

hucklebuck

That was his best performance yet for me, hats off to him.

Gringo180

hucklebuck wrote: »

That was his best performance yet for me, hats off to him.

Agree that was breathaking

Morgans

tryfix wrote: »

I wouldn't be so quick to assume that Frankel would beat Dancing Brave at between 6f and a mile. Just look at the quality of the 1986 2,000 Guineas field that Dancing Brave swept aside with ease. Champion Sprinter Green Desert was 3l back in second and left for dead in a slowly run race, back in in third was the Dewhurst winner Huntingdale, in fifth was Sure Blade who went on to win the St James Palace and Queen Elizabeth stakes.

Add to that his second last Furlong of 10.36 seconds in the Derby, his last to first bust of 10.8 seconds in the final furlong of a record breaking Arc. He had speed in abundance, he just didn't stick to the shorter trips to show it. His turn of foot was his weapon, the trip wasn't that important.

In Frankel's Queen Anne the sectionals were.

15.11
11.79
11.96
12.10
11.26
10.58
11.04
14.01 last furlong


El Gran Senor in 1984 easily beat Chief Singer ( St James Palace, Sussex Stakes and July Cup), Lear Fan (Jacques La Marois ) and Rainbow Quest (Arc De Triomphe).

Do you think Dubawi Gold, or Native Khan would have got close to either of those easy 2,000 guineas winners or even the placed horses?

Tryfix, keep up the good work.

I really really hate the listing of credentials behind defeated horses. It tells you nothing, just subjective cherrypicking. Dubawi Gold and Native Khan didnt get close to Frankel. None of those horses were ever ridden in the balls out manner in which Frankel won the 2000 guineas.

In his maiden win, Frankel beat a King George winner, an eclipse winner, an Ascot Gold Cup winner. He beat the July Cup winner, the Haydock Sprint Cup, the Middle Park, and Prix de al Foret winner in the Dewhurst. Its a horse**** game that gets no-one anywhere. You arent saying that Green Desert was a non-stayer at a mile, that Rainbow Quest was over a distance too short for him, that Rainbow Quest won the arc on an unjust stewards decision, that Rainbow was never a miler. Its a game to fool those who cant remember or look up a database.

Do you think Bering would be remembered as one of the greats, had Dancing Brave not beaten him?

tryfix

tryfix wrote: »

This is the big one in terms of separating Frankel from the usual gang he kicks around the place at a mile. If I was Coolmore, I'd have put Imperial Monarch in, he's a hard horse to shake off and he might have finished close enough to Frankel to boost his own rating a bit.

If Frankel is a 140 horse, then he'll beat Saint Nicholas Abbey by 9l, Farhh by 10 1/4l, Twice over by 12 1/2l, Sri Putra and Planteur by 13 3/4l.

If he's a 135 horse, then he'll beat SNA 6 1/4l, Farhh by 7 1/2l, Twice Over by 9 3/4l, Sri Putra and Planteur by 10 3/4l.

SNA is an unknown quantity at a mile and a quarter, but the rest of them should be capable of running to their mark, although Planteur has the potential to run above his 117 OR mark.

Well he beat Farhh 122 by 7l giving a rating of 134.25, St Nicholas Abbey 124 by 7l and a nose giving a rating of 136.5, Twice Over 118 by 13l giving a rating of 140.75, Bullet Train 108 by 13 1/2l giving a rating of 131.6, Sri Putra 116 by 15 1/2l giving a rating of 143. The rest didn't run anywhere near form.

Bullet Train ran his race, he probably ran to his career high of 111 and he was 23.6 lb behind today, that gives Frankel a 135 today. Using Farhh gives Frankel 134.25. SNA looks to have run just a little below form which is understandable over the trip. Twice Over and Sri Putra look to have run below form unless you think Bullet Train ran to 118 which would be a 10lbs improvement on his OR going into the race.


On time Frankel 9 stone . 5 lb was 0.91 faster than standard, over the same distance in the handicap Dandana OR 101 with 10 stone ran 2.49 seconds slower than standard, that's 3.4 seconds at 6l per second = 20l or 35lb superiority for Frankel minus the 9lb extra that Dandana carried compared to Frankel. So 26lb plus 101 = 127. So the time of the Juddmonte was nothing special.

That's his 6th 135+ run in a row, he's the most remarkably consistent horse I've ever seen and he's proven his versatility as well.

tryfix

Morgans wrote: »

Do you think Bering would be remembered as one of the greats, had Dancing Brave not beaten him?

He would have been in France if Dancing Brave hadn't beaten him, he broke the course record in the Prix Du Jockey Club and would have broken the Arc record while winning an Arc from what's widely recognised to be the best Arc Field ever assembled.

Morgans

Interesting that time is being used as the basis.

Bering was a length ahead of Triptych, Shahrastani, Shadari and Darara. Claims of being the greatest ever on the basis of that form alone would be laughed out of town these days - too many horses holding the form down. Triptych being a favourite of mine, but she was simply beaten too many times to ignore. Would be interested to know if Dancing Brave even came out best at the weights in the race? I'm not sure what race Shadari won. Second in the King George.

As for the greatest arc field ever assembled, hmmm, its the same with those who support Sea Bird, they claim that the Russian Derby winner was in the race. I think its a self-serving argument to bolster Dancing Brave's brilliance. It was probably the greatest field of 3yos that I can remember in the Arc.

Bering is 2lbs behind Celtic Swing with Timeform. Interesting.

ArmaniJeanss

tryfix wrote: »

Can someone explain how Frankel is rated at 140, if 1 pound = 1 length then he's never run to that level. So what method are they using to arrive at the 140 figure?

Excelebration's 126 rating has been used to boost Frankels rating, yet he only ran to 114 in the Queen Anne unless you think Side Glance is a 125 horse.

I can't see how Excelebration can be rated the equal of Rock Of Gibraltar and Giants Causeway 126 and above Henry the Navigator 125. There's a whole host of really great horses around that mark.

Am I missing something?

Tryfix, the above post was before the Jacques Le Marois.
What do you think of Excelebrations 126 rating now, it looks a very solid mark after that race.

tryfix

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Tryfix, the above post was before the Jacques Le Marois.
What do you think of Excelebrations 126 rating now, it looks a very solid mark after that race.

It does indeed, although I think he didn't run to that in the Marois. 3rd placed Elusive Kate is probably not a 123 horse. I think Excelebration was left on 125 after that race.

Morgans

Elusive Kate was getting WFA and Fillies allowance so wouldn't need to be a 123 horse to get within 2l of Excelebration last weekend.

tryfix

Morgans wrote: »

Elusive Kate was getting WFA and Fillies allowance so wouldn't need to be a 123 horse to get within 2l of Excelebration last weekend.

I'm not so sure that's how it works, but I'm open to correction.

Take Zarkava in the Arc, she beat Youmzain OR 125 by 2l at 1.5lb a length in the Arc. She was given an OR of 128 for the race, that's how it works, the weight allowances are built in, in WFA races. The same for Frankel as a 3yo against the older horses he was given 2lb per length he won by over a mile even though he was getting the allowances. Now that he's the older horse he's stronger and he has to give the weight to the younger horses, but he'll still get 2lb a length in the OR for beating horses in WFA races.

The fillies allowance confuses me a bit but I assume it works like the Age Allowance.

Morgans

Think its the performance was worth 123, but you subtract the WFA and allowances to get the horses master rating. (Its adjusted to the highest weight in the race, I can ask a few people for the most precise info)

Excelebration is value for a 7l beating off her off levels. 10lbs + 2l. If Elusive Kate OR is 123, then Excelebration's rating should be something like 123 + 14 = 137.

But you are right, Elusive Kate is not a 123 rated horse.

tryfix

I came across the BHA handicappers blog on the Marois.

Excelebration ran to 125 in first place.

Cityscape ran to 122 in second, his 124 OR was for running over 1m 1f and 122 is a career high for him over a mile.

Elusive Kate ran to 119 in third, she was beaten 1 1/2l at 2lb a length which is a 3lb beating by a 125 horse which would give her 122 but she is deducted 3lb for the fillies and mare allowance, which brings her back to the 119 rating she achieved in winning the Prix Rothschild.

Moonlight Cloud in fourth OR 121 was judged to have had bad luck in running and was expected to have finished within 1/2l of Excelebration. which would have been a 124 run minus the 3 lb mares allowance.

Caspar Netscher in fifth was given a rating of 121 for being beaten 2l at 2lb a length.

So it seems the wage for weight allowance in GP1 s doesn't affect a horses official rating but the fillies and mares 3lb allowance has to be deducted when calculating the relative performances

http://www.racingpost.com/blog/horse-racing/the-bha-handicappers/excelebration-time-with-no-frankel-in-the-way/1098411/

ArmaniJeanss

Yep, weight-for-age allowance is always ignored for ratings purposes. Theoretically the wfa allowance is turning it into a true level weights contest, so the winner is by definition 'better', even if in receipt of a big wfa.