I'm not claiming Camelot is a super star Blue. All he has done has beaten average horses easily. And I would say the same about Frankel and STS. This is what makes it so difficult. Until a horse is exposed we don't know how good they are or could be.
Frankel v Camelot
- Thread starter Ron
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Frankel most definitely has set a really really fast time taking account of conditions. His 2000 Guineas was nothing short of exceptional.
An absolute fast time means nothing. Course records are frequently held by horses that wouldn't blow wind up the backside of a decent handicapper, let alone a horse like Frankel.
An absolute fast time means nothing. Course records are frequently held by horses that wouldn't blow wind up the backside of a decent handicapper, let alone a horse like Frankel.
I'm sure you know that I'm playing devil's advocate Zen. Look at that 2000 Gns race again and see how much start Dubawi Gold gave to Frankel. He was still at the back when Frankel was 10-15l clear (according to the commentator). Therefore at one stage he must have been at least 20l behind yet finished only 6l behind. It's pure conjecture how much faster Frankel could have gone but is a fact that DG made up at least 14l on him.
If Frankel and Dubawi Gold travelled side by side in the race, would Frankel still have beaten him by 6 lengths?
I don't know Cyc. Absolutely no idea. I suspect it would have been a different result depending on whether DG got away with Frankel or Frankel was slowly away with DG. I suppose it's pretty obvious that had Frankel been as slowly away as DG and shown the same speed as he did in the actual race then, at the stage where he was 15l clear, he would have been coming through to take the lead. The mind boggles.
I do feel that Frankel has been tested against some pretty good opposition in as much as Canford Cliffs had rock solid form in the book and although he keeps beating Excelebration nothing else does as he is a good horse in his own right.
This debate is what is great about the sport, we want to see who is best and this year is already looking fantastic on two counts as we have a very sporting Prince Khalid keeping Frankel in training and a very promising 3 year old in Camalot. Many people claim that it's just about gambling but nothing is capturing our imagination like these two horses and i for one will be unlikely to bet in any race they contest all year due to skinny prices, but it's these races i really want to see.
This debate is what is great about the sport, we want to see who is best and this year is already looking fantastic on two counts as we have a very sporting Prince Khalid keeping Frankel in training and a very promising 3 year old in Camalot. Many people claim that it's just about gambling but nothing is capturing our imagination like these two horses and i for one will be unlikely to bet in any race they contest all year due to skinny prices, but it's these races i really want to see.
I agree 100% Blue. The thrill of seeing top class horses and the anticipation of seeing the best clashing at some stage is far more exciting than the betting.
Excelebration and Canford Cliffs are two exceptional milers. The fact that Frankel makes them look ordinary just confirms how good he is.
As for the Guineas, Frankel had Group 1 winners beaten after 2f. He absolutely destroyed them. Astonishing.
As for the Guineas, Frankel had Group 1 winners beaten after 2f. He absolutely destroyed them. Astonishing.
I can't see them meeting. If they did it would be over 10f which would give Camelot a squeek but for me he has a lot more to do to prove he is in the same league as Frankel.
Bloody hell Zen. That really is scraping the barrel. That is one argument I would never use.
Anyway, it's about time I said what I really like about Frankel.
1. He looks magnificent
2. I love his pedigree
You must log in or register to see images
Sire Galileo by Sadlers Wells out of Urban Sea
and just look whats' behind that wonderful dam Kind.- Northern Dancer, Ribot (my all time favourite), Blushing Groom, Noblesse, Roan Rocket.
One would think, with that pedigree, that he has a better chance of staying 12f than some of the horses that contested this year's Derby.
Frankel's connections have a clear plan and I personally don't see any reason for them to deviate from it. They always said he would start off at a mile and would be stepped up to 10 furlongs thereafter. He won the Lockinge ridiculously easily and I fully expect him to do the same in the Queen Anne, a race which (let's not forget) Canford Cliffs so stylishly beat Goldikova last year, so it's not just some Micky Mouse race. Options for stepping up to 10 furlongs are the Eclipse (7th July - probably a bit soon after Royal Ascot, unless he wins there in a canter) and the Juddmonte International (22nd August). They may elect to go for the Sussex Stakes (1st August) again and then the Juddmonte but I suppose it depends upon a) how many races they plan for him in total this season and b) the main target. I think the answer to b) will once again be Champions Day at Ascot and I really don't think they'll entertain thoughts of the Breeder's Cup.
His programme for the rest of the season could therefore be:
Queen Anne
Sussex Stakes (possibly)
Juddmonte International
Champion Stakes
So we may only see him run 3 more times. maybe 4. Queen Anne, Sussex, Juddmonte, Champion (or QE2). Job done, retire unbeaten 14/14 and off to a glorius career at stud. I think connections have pretty much settled on that programme and he is there to be shot at. If everyone else chooses to avoid him then so be it - but the horse can't be blamed for that. As it stands he is unlikely to face any horse this season that will allow him to increase his rating - there just aren't horses of that calibre around. If Camelot goes for the triple crown then they may meet in the Juddmonte but there will always be the excuse that Camelot was using the race as a prep for the Leger.
His programme for the rest of the season could therefore be:
Queen Anne
Sussex Stakes (possibly)
Juddmonte International
Champion Stakes
So we may only see him run 3 more times. maybe 4. Queen Anne, Sussex, Juddmonte, Champion (or QE2). Job done, retire unbeaten 14/14 and off to a glorius career at stud. I think connections have pretty much settled on that programme and he is there to be shot at. If everyone else chooses to avoid him then so be it - but the horse can't be blamed for that. As it stands he is unlikely to face any horse this season that will allow him to increase his rating - there just aren't horses of that calibre around. If Camelot goes for the triple crown then they may meet in the Juddmonte but there will always be the excuse that Camelot was using the race as a prep for the Leger.
For a horse that was going to be campaigned at 10f this season, i am very disappointed with Frankel,s connections.
He is going to through half the season without stepping up from a mile...a bit of an anti-climax if you ask me.
Thank god for AOB and and Camelot.
He is going to through half the season without stepping up from a mile...a bit of an anti-climax if you ask me.
Thank god for AOB and and Camelot.
I agree Dancingbrave there is little point in Frankel taking in the Sussex. I think the pipe opener at Newbury was perfect for him and to take in the Queen Anne is also appropriate, after this however i see no reason in running over a mile again and he should contest the Eclipse if coming out of Ascot ok, then the Juddmonte followed by the Champion stakes. If they feel the Eclipse is too soon after Ascot it would be better to miss Ascot and take the Group 1 Eclipse over 10f. Whatever this permutation of targets there can be no point at all in taking in the Sussex over a mile if already having won the Queen Anne.
I think I have missed your point Ron. How is saying he had Group 1 horses beaten after 2f 'scraping the barrel'?
Dave Edwards - Topspeed
"Faced with a stiff headwind head·wind he was never likely to establish any new benchmark times and taken at face value his winning time of 1m 37.30sec was over three seconds slower than the track record and 1.8sec outside Racing Post standard. But once factoring in the all important going allowance, his performance warranted a Topspeed 132, topping the previous race best 129 posted by King's Best in 2000. When analysing the sectionals the usual caveats about hand times, points of reference and margin of error apply. From a standing start he covered the first furlong in 13.5sec, the second in 11.5, third in 11.0, fourth in 11.0 and the fifth in 11.5 which cumulatively means he covered the first five furlongs in an astonishing 58.50sec. In effect he went at a Group 1 sprinter's pace for five furlongs and, when clocking the consecutive 11-second splits, he was averaging 20yds - almost the length of a cricket pitch a second. Understandably he slowed in the closing stages with the final three furlongs taking 12.5, 13 and 13.5sec respectively but considering the headwind and that he had no company to make him go even faster it was a staggering display of raw speed and power. Frankel went through the first five furlongs in around 58.50sec - over a second quicker than the time Tangerine Trees clocked in the Palace House, admittedly not over the same section of the track - and then maintained a relentless gallop for a further three furlongs. Looked at another way, Newmarket's five-furlong track record established in 1994 by Lochsong is 56.81sec but factor in the going allowance from that day and the six-year-old's 'adjusted' time becomes 58.61sec. Apply similar logic to Frankel and his adjusted time for the opening five furlongs on Saturday equates to 56.3sec. Admittedly there are a few ifs and buts involved, but the comparison further illustrates just what an electrifying performance Frankel put up."
Simon Rowlands - Timeform
"Sectional analysis would have helped greatly in measuring the merit of how Frankel went about winning the 2000 Guineas, and not just that he did. But British racing does not have official sectionals, and the falseness of this economy becomes especially apparent on occasions like this. Nonetheless, it is possible to establish that Frankel got to halfway in about 47.5 sec (after response delay and parallax error is accounted for). That is significantly faster than the Guineas for which we have electronic sectionals, including ones run under quicker conditions than this year's. Frankel appeared to be posting 11-second or near-11-second furlong sectionals mid-race, something more likely to be seen in a top sprint."
Dave Edwards - Topspeed
"Faced with a stiff headwind head·wind he was never likely to establish any new benchmark times and taken at face value his winning time of 1m 37.30sec was over three seconds slower than the track record and 1.8sec outside Racing Post standard. But once factoring in the all important going allowance, his performance warranted a Topspeed 132, topping the previous race best 129 posted by King's Best in 2000. When analysing the sectionals the usual caveats about hand times, points of reference and margin of error apply. From a standing start he covered the first furlong in 13.5sec, the second in 11.5, third in 11.0, fourth in 11.0 and the fifth in 11.5 which cumulatively means he covered the first five furlongs in an astonishing 58.50sec. In effect he went at a Group 1 sprinter's pace for five furlongs and, when clocking the consecutive 11-second splits, he was averaging 20yds - almost the length of a cricket pitch a second. Understandably he slowed in the closing stages with the final three furlongs taking 12.5, 13 and 13.5sec respectively but considering the headwind and that he had no company to make him go even faster it was a staggering display of raw speed and power. Frankel went through the first five furlongs in around 58.50sec - over a second quicker than the time Tangerine Trees clocked in the Palace House, admittedly not over the same section of the track - and then maintained a relentless gallop for a further three furlongs. Looked at another way, Newmarket's five-furlong track record established in 1994 by Lochsong is 56.81sec but factor in the going allowance from that day and the six-year-old's 'adjusted' time becomes 58.61sec. Apply similar logic to Frankel and his adjusted time for the opening five furlongs on Saturday equates to 56.3sec. Admittedly there are a few ifs and buts involved, but the comparison further illustrates just what an electrifying performance Frankel put up."
Simon Rowlands - Timeform
"Sectional analysis would have helped greatly in measuring the merit of how Frankel went about winning the 2000 Guineas, and not just that he did. But British racing does not have official sectionals, and the falseness of this economy becomes especially apparent on occasions like this. Nonetheless, it is possible to establish that Frankel got to halfway in about 47.5 sec (after response delay and parallax error is accounted for). That is significantly faster than the Guineas for which we have electronic sectionals, including ones run under quicker conditions than this year's. Frankel appeared to be posting 11-second or near-11-second furlong sectionals mid-race, something more likely to be seen in a top sprint."
It wasn't too long ago that 10 Furlongs was crabbed as being a compromise for horses who didn't have the speed to win over a mile and didn't stay the 12 furlongs of top races such as the King George & QE Diamond Stakes or the Arc. Now it seems that the greatest miler we have seen for 30-odd years (or maybe ever?) MUST be stepped up to 10 furlongs. Looking at timeform ratings, behind Frankel on 143 we have Cirrus des Aigles and Excelebration on 133 and, having thrashed the latter on multiple occaisions over a mile, do we really think beating CdA over 10f would be a greater feat? Or So You Think? And what if he were to meet, and thrash, Camelot over 10f? The Derby winner has a 130p rating from Timeform but if soundly beaten by Frankel, would we say he was overrated for winning a weak Derby? And would we then be shouting for Frankel to be upped to 12f for the Arc? Perhaps he should then be aimed at the Triumph Hurdle, to truly cement his greatness?
We should be glad that he's been kept in training as a 4YO, unlike so many previous equine superstars. Such as shame if retiring unbeaten after 14 starts including 10 group 1s were to be seen as anything less than sensational ......................
We should be glad that he's been kept in training as a 4YO, unlike so many previous equine superstars. Such as shame if retiring unbeaten after 14 starts including 10 group 1s were to be seen as anything less than sensational ......................
It would be impossible for Frankel to be considered less than sensational Odddie no matter what happens now but i feel the reason people want him to try a trip other than a mile is that in showing versitility he is demonstrating that final facet of greatness in a racehorse. I believe he could have won the July cup last year at 6f and then moved back to a mile while this year could win at 10f easy whilst also winning at 12f if selecting a sensible group 1 as opposed to something like an arc that may not suit with a fast pace and softened ground.
I think we all want to see him tested and we often do not get the chance in racing.
I think we all want to see him tested and we often do not get the chance in racing.
Only because have you looked at the rest of the form of those G1 winners Zen? And the other horses that also beat those G1 "performers" that day? I was just trying to point out that Frankel is a bloody good horse and the form of those 2 (or 3) horses you mention doesn't do him justice.
We must be very careful this doesn't start to look like I'm putting Frankel under scrutiny. All I have tried to do is look objectively at the possible outcome of a clash between Frankel and Camelot over 10f with Camelot in receipt of 11lbs and, bearing in mind the respective adjusted Timeform ratings, I have said it is not so cut and dried as many think and that my money (under those conditions) would be on Camelot.
Is it so wrong to consider that any outcome other than a Frankel "walk over" is conceivable?
We must be very careful this doesn't start to look like I'm putting Frankel under scrutiny. All I have tried to do is look objectively at the possible outcome of a clash between Frankel and Camelot over 10f with Camelot in receipt of 11lbs and, bearing in mind the respective adjusted Timeform ratings, I have said it is not so cut and dried as many think and that my money (under those conditions) would be on Camelot.
Is it so wrong to consider that any outcome other than a Frankel "walk over" is conceivable?
If you have seen another race where one horse had a field containing numerous Group winners beaten after 2f then I would be delighted to see it.
I think scrutiny is a good thing but your criticisms of Frankel are very wide of the mark in my opinion. I fail to understand the obsession for a fast time when time is so much a factor of conditions rather than ability. Similarly I don't understand how you can criticise his Ascot win when the way he raced would have made defeat a certainty for any other horse. And finally, the Guineas form is very good, not necessarily exceptional, but it was the way he did it that was so amazing. I am not saying that they are superstars in behind him but they were the best of his generation and nothing else had a chance from before halfway. I have never seen a performance anything like it.
I think scrutiny is a good thing but your criticisms of Frankel are very wide of the mark in my opinion. I fail to understand the obsession for a fast time when time is so much a factor of conditions rather than ability. Similarly I don't understand how you can criticise his Ascot win when the way he raced would have made defeat a certainty for any other horse. And finally, the Guineas form is very good, not necessarily exceptional, but it was the way he did it that was so amazing. I am not saying that they are superstars in behind him but they were the best of his generation and nothing else had a chance from before halfway. I have never seen a performance anything like it.
I have always maintained that Frankel is unbeatable over 7f and would have probably beaten anything from any generation over 7f. These figures certainly support that belief. Absolutely incredible. Also makes one wonder why he didn't bag the most valuable sprint race on the calendar; sounds like it would have been a cakewalk.
To show such speed with his pedigree is incredible. On breeding one would think he should easily get 10f and I sincerely hope he gets the chance to prove his greatness over 10f. He might prove to be even better over 10f now he's learned to settle. Now that would be something to savour.
I think this is getting out of hand. You keep accusing me of criticising Frankel. Also you are now accusing me of having an obsession with fast times. If that's how I have come across then I think I will just have to apologise to everyone. As I have said so many times, I am a fan of Frankel, just as much as anyone else on here. I was just trying to be objective about the feasibilty of him giving away 11lbs to Camelot in a truly run 10f race. If it goes against the grain to question what others believe to be inconceivable then maybe I should keep my comments to myself.
I consider this debate to be a failure on my part and am wondering if I should maybe close the thread.