I read this as the official handicapper is not fit for purpose, so get rid of him: There is a strong smell of after-timing here... perhaps you could point me to where between the Oaks and the Irish Oaks, you posted about Enable’s Oaks win being the “best middle distance performance in Europe”. After Epsom, Highland Reel’s Coronation Cup victory was deemed to be a better performance than Enable’s Oaks victory because the official handicapper had her rated three pounds inferior to him. In the Irish Oaks she went off 2/5 because virtually all of her opponents that day were Group 2 performers at best. A facile victory did not elevate her official rating. This is just another case of what you say must be the undisputable facts and anyone that disagrees is wrong.
As far as Ulysses performance is concerned, everyone has taken the opinions of Sir Michael Stoute that he is better on firm ground as gospel. All trainers say this though, as they don't want their horses labelled as mudlarks. Though if you actually look into the horses pedigree, Light Shift the dam won the Oaks on good to soft, and she was 2nd to the superstar fillie Peeping Fawn in the Irish oaks on heavy ground. Not to mention Galileo himself won on soft, and has produced loads of soft ground performers. Is there not a case to say that maybe Ulysses is suited by soft ground, and he showed improved form on it? This would make Enables performance even more impressive.
Well I really can't be bothered to go through months and months of posts to find my previous comments. But I know I said on here that Enable would win the King George easily if she was given the opportunity to Run, this was just after the Oaks. I'm pretty sure I said this in response one of Rons posts on the fillie, who too had the same opinion as me. I never said it was the best performance of the year so far, as that wasn't what we where debating, but saying that she would win Britains premier flat race easy, should be enough of an indication that I thought she was the best middle distance horse so far.
Yes. In response to a comment "When was the last time an Oaks winner won the Arc?", I definitely said she was the best 3yo in Europe which was why at 20/1 I felt she was an outstanding bet for the Arc
Both Frankel and Dubawi look fairly similar in terms of wins to runs. I don't like to take to much notice of the prize money, as you often get poor G1 races especially in USA which are worth a fortune. So at the prices Frankel is definitely the better option. Nathaniel is doing well, but his runners in general are not better than Frankels, he's just produced one absolute superstar. He's still very good value at 17.5k though, doubt he'll stay at that for much longer.
I wouldn't mind getting something like Wuheida out of Dubawi. Most of the Frankels seem to want a mile and a half at a minimum.
I think it is fair to say that soft ground in the King George was an Enabler I'll get mi coat .............................
Agree that Nathaniel looks good value and that he won't be that price next year. The stats are as follows: Frankel: Winner to runners - 58% Stakes winners to runners - 14% Group winners to runners - 13% Dubawi: Winner to runners - 64% Stakes winners to runners - 12% Group winners to runners - 8% Nathaniel: Winner to runners - 36% Stakes winners to runners - 3% Group winners to runners - 1% For the money you would probably side with Frankel at the moment, but it is way too early to tell as the 2014 crop is only halfway through their 3yo season. There are obviously other considerations for breeders to pay the money such as them becoming stallion in their own right, Dubawi and Frankel would be ahead of Nathaniel in that respect too at the moment.
Its going to take another couple of crops to find out what type of mare will work best with Frankel, once they do they will then hone in on that type. I agree though at the moment the Frankels do seem to be real stayers so maybe they will look at breeding with a few more quicker mares which seems to work well for Galileo.
Are you sure those stats are accurate? Enable has won 3 group races, so unless Nathaniels had 300 other losers at group level, I'm not sure how he can be at 1%
Its just number of horses rather than number of actual races won. http://www.the-racehorse.com/stats/stallion/nathaniel/2017/26621/ I cannot guarantee the accuracy of the link though.
Oh ok I get it, so it's the number of horses that have gone on to win a group race. I think you also have to remember the type of mares being sent to both horses. I bet Frankel is getting better quality mares than Nathaniel is for example. That might change for Nathaniel, now Enable has been so impressive.
Undoubtedly, Frankel earn't the quality of mares on the racetrack. Nathaniel will have to earn his by the quality of his progeny and its fair to say he ha made a decent start.
I suppose it depends on how much money you have. Obviously Nathaniel will increase substantially. He is still not having 2yo winners but his first crop of 3yos have more than just Enable. Worth remembering that first season sires have had classic winners with their first crop then susequently achieved very little. I have a feeling, and it is only a feeling, that Nathaniel may not have had such great books in 2016 and 2017. As for Frankel it was surprising to hear Charlton's comment of too much hype. There was certainly too much unfair expectation.Will his fee reduce after 2 crops. A slight adjustment may be in order.
None of these superstar race horses ever live up to expectations at stud. The one that I think might have done, if he'd lived longer was Dubai Millennium, his first and only crop of horses was very encouraging. The success of Dubawi at stud and even on the track, supports that. If people are still prepared to pay the fee for Frankel then I see no reason why they'd lower it. They are definitely paying a massive premium for him, but id imagine it would be hard not to be tempted as a breeder to send your mares to him, even at such a high price. People who breed horses normally have loads of money anyways, so the fees probably not all that important to them.
