Apologies if this has been put up anywhere else, but I have located the sectional times for each of the races on Saturday. Obviously it is difficult to compare the figures to other races as it is not yet standard to keep the times of all races. The figures that everyone is going to be interested in are those for Frankel. The times show that he ran the fastest fractions in 3 of the 8 furlongs (the 4th, 6th and 8th) and that he hit his top speed of 40.96mph between the 2f and 1f markers, which he covered in 10.99s. To put that into perspective, in the Sprint race that same furlong was run in 10.83s by Moonlight Cloud, hitting a top speed of 41.58mph, showing that Frankel was covering the ground at G1 sprint pace. Pretty impressive! The sectionals for each race: Long Distance Cup: http://data.attheraces.com/images/sectionaltimes/20111015/asco15oct11r1report_course.pdf Sprint: http://data.attheraces.com/images/sectionaltimes/20111015/asco15oct11r2report_course.pdf Fillies & Mares: http://data.attheraces.com/images/sectionaltimes/20111015/asco15oct11r3report_course.pdf QEII: http://data.attheraces.com/images/sectionaltimes/20111015/asco15oct11r4report_course.pdf Champion Stakes: http://data.attheraces.com/images/sectionaltimes/20111015/asco15oct11r5report_course.pdf
This was the best thing from Champions day that could have a massive impact on British racing. I can only hope that they see this as a massive positive and try to get it into every courses future planning. Interesting to see that they went an uneven gallop in the Champion with one of the early furlongs being run at a much faster pace than most of the others.
i was interested in johnny murtaghs sections on danicing rain as i spent some time doing the sections for the oaks,derby and coronation cup at epsom. dancing rains overall time was good ,over 2 secs faster than the benchmark,but at epsom it was really slow. at epsom she managed to crawl for the first 2/3 rds of the race and blast home for the final 3rd,but the damage had been done early on to the overall time. at ascot she went fast for the first 1/3 ,then slowing it down after before picking up again for the final 3f's and because of this the overall time wasnt effected and was quite good. in the derby they went slow for the first 4f but then picked up after,so i reckon as long as no more than a 1/3rd of the race is slowly run,for 12f horses anyway,the final time they clock will be a good representation once converted into a speed figure of there ability. the qe2 was a absolute crawl for the first furlong and not much better till halfway ,but like he did at goodwood ,frankel as the ability to sustain a 4f kick that his rivals cannot immortal verse hit 3 good sections,but simply could not sustain it and was rather slow for the final furlong.excelebration also from 4f to 3f moved quickly and held it quite well ,but could not go beyond that in the last furlong. they all ran there final furlong slow with the uphill section contributing ,even frankel ,but he only dropped by 0.8 where excelebration and immortal verse were double that !
Exactly my thoughts Pilsudski, whilst he slowed a little in the final stages, he did not slow as much as the other runners. It bodes well for getting the 10f next year.
and Frankel was hardly pushed in the final half furlong. He seemed to be easing up rather than slowing.
So I'm told (didn't see it as I was heading for the winners enclosure) he took a lot of pulling up too!
This really backs up what I have said before. The slow early pace made it more like a 7f race at which Frankel is unbeatable. To stand any chance (if there was any) of beating Frankel over 8f they must go like the clappers from the beginning and see who can stay on at the end. They didn't do that, so the writing was on the wall from 6f out. They had absolutely no chance. It would have been interesting if Frankel had instead been in the Champion Stakes 30mins later where the course record was broken. I honestly believe he would not have won that race.
A bit of digging around has thrown up some sectionals (unfortunately not matching) for Frankel’s Guineas and Sussex Stakes wins: Guineas – 1.37.3 First 2 furlongs – 25s (bearing in mind standing start) 3 & 4 furlongs – 22s 5 & 6 furlongs – 24s 7 & 8 furlongs – 26.3 Sussex Stakes – 1.35.7 First 4 furlongs – 51.8s (4.8s slower than Guineas) 5-7 furlongs – 33.2s Final furlong – 10.7s So despite running the opening half mile in a time 4s slower than his Guineas run, he still managed to make up 6.4s and win in a time 1.6s faster than his Guineas win.
Put another way Princess. If he starts off slowly he goes like the wind for the remaining 5 or 6f and it's impossible to catch him. On the other hand, when he goes off full pelt, he slows considerably towards the finish in a time of 1.8secs slower than standard (on fast ground). Backs up my view even more so.
Ron i dont think your point holds any water here, it has been proven that no horse can go with Frankel. The only reason he nearly got collared in the St James palace is because Tom Quelly sent him for home about 5 furlongs from the winning post not because the others were able to live with his speed.
You also seem to be saying if he goes like the clappers from the start then he'll get caught at the business end, so why did this not happen in the Guineas? No horse could go with him in that race and no horse looked like getting remotely close to him at the end.
the guineas is also the only race that i can recall frankel going like the clappers from the start so is your point more of a theory as i dont see any actual racing evidence for it
My point is that on very fast ground, had there been a horse good enough to at least run to a time of Standard, they would have given Frankel a race. And had there been something good enough to beat the course record, who knows what might have happened. He has run only one race at 8f in a time faster than standard ( 0.76s) and in that race he was nearly collared in the final furlong. As I have maintained since that race, my one reservation with him is whether he could hold out over 8f if there was a strong pace from the beginning and there was something good enough to run a fast time. If it is possible to beat him over 8f, the only way is to set a strong pace from outset and not give him a chance to make it a 7f race. It looks as though there isn't anything good enough around to do that but it must be possible; since 1987 14 horses have run the 2000 Gns in faster times, all of those probably better than Zoffany. We cannot blame his run in the Sussex on a riding error. Had he been good enough he would have been easing up in the Sussex, not struggling to hold off Zoffany in a time 0.76s faster than standard.
I am sort of with you Ron, but first i must say i am not one who wants to see him beat as he is what i love racing for, the fact that every April we start to see what we have, and we hope we have that dream horse. We get so many hyped up that when one lives up to it and more it rejuvanates the love of our sport for us, and Frankel has certainly done that for me this year. But anyway.... I think to get him beat you need 3 horses a 6f horse a miler and a 10 furlong horse. The sprinter needs to go from the stalls setting a pace that is just under sprinting times. The miler has to follow behind in 2nd and be ridden as if it is a 7 furlong race so pick up the sprinter when he folds at the six pole and sprint all the way to the seven, he will fold but will have ensured enough pace as without him they would just let the sprinter go. The 10 furlong horse then is driving for all his worth from the 6 pole to the line making it a real test. I feel So you Think could have given it a shot at the weekend as he is a class horse with a big engine and a turn of foot, i also think Rewilding would have been good for the job as well but may have lacked a little speed. I think this is the way to test Frankel not what happened on Saturday which was really a case of Bullet train being run as a red herring, a pace maker only in name as that first furlong was slow.
You guys are mad if you think a fast pace is going to get him beat, if this was the case then why on earth would Henry Cecil chose to run a pacemaker, it is hardly Frankel's fault that the others chose to ignore the pacemaker. Clearly none of the trainers of any of the horse's Frankel has faced believe a fast pace is the way to get him beat, or they would have tried it. You are talking about a horse who can go flat out from start to finish in the Guineas and still get home, that doesn't strike me as a horse who lacks stamina. I would actually love to see them try and draw the sting out of Frankel over a mile, it would just make Frankel look even more impressive as his engine is so big, that he would cruise home on the bit. Frankel's performances I believe are being held back by the lack of pace in his races. The only way Frankel is going to get beat over a mile is if he isn't fit and well or Queally gives him a disastrous ride, and even then he has already shown at Royal Ascot that he can overcome a terrible ride. His doubters keep thinking he wasn't seeing out the trip at the Royal meeting, but any horse would have beenknackered had they been shifted into top gear in a mile race after only 3 furlongs. He was going flat out for for 5 furlongs, so its no suprise he was struggling in the last furlong. If Paula Radcliffe went flat out for 400 metres, her final 100 metres would be considerably slower than the other 3, would that then mean she didn't stay the trip?
princess, the sussex stakes sectional times add up to 1m35.7 but his actual time was 1m37.47 so there is a 1.77 secs difference thats gone wrong somewhere.i think i know where you got these sections from,but they are hand timed sections and not official as no official sections were available for his sussex stakes win.it was also suggested that if frankel did that,then also canford cliffs ,rio de plata and rasajaman have ran a faster final 4f at goodwood than any other horse where turftrax data was available in 2005/06 ,and that would of included top sprint races,so that is highly unlikely another factor that messed up the sections that day is the movement of running rails,its possible that they didnt run over the exact 1 mile trip,this happens a lot,especially with meetings that stage manys days racing after each other. a more likely sectional times for frankel that day is around 52.8 secs for the first 4f then around 44.7 for the last half which is more realistic and is still pretty impressive. ron ,on initial analysis ,a group 1 winner clocking a time -1.8 secs behind standard on gdfm (gd in places) and where they didnt hang around is hardly a impressive time ,but you need to look at the times of the whole race card.not one horse that day ,on a card featuring group races and good h'caps came no where near there benchmarks and that doesnt make sense at all. green destiny 1m1f -4.17 -3.69 dandino 1m4f - 5.20 -3.47 frankel 1m -1.80 -1.80 (dubawi gold -3.00) tangerine trees 5f -2.10 -3.33 sea rock 6f -3.04 -4.05 ocean war 1m2f -6.08 -4.86 bahceli 1m -4.70 -4.70 the first set of standards are actual,the second are when converted to a mile and as you can see frankel is way out there the best time of the day by far .dubawi gold in 2nd as probably clocked what would happen in a normal year and would be a decent winner.f for some reason that day,top horses couldnt beat there standard and were quite some way of bar frankel.they watered the ground so that may of caused it to ride slower than what was officially given.it was also a breezy day as well that may of impacted the times.you can also look at times on the sunday 1000 guineas card,again times awful for so called fast ground conditions. a similar things happened in 2003 for the irish champion stakes,with aiden o brian threating not to run high chaparrel if it was too fast ,they started watering in the week leading up to it,infuriating luca cumani and holland as falbrav liked it fast.officially on the day it was gdfm (gd in straight) but they couldn't beat standard even though there was a good pace and you had the best horses trying too!!
You normally try to be objective about form Shergar but it seems once you have an opinion about a horse you seem to turn a blind eye to certain facts. As regards being mad, I don't think so. The facts are there, the rest is belief. I don't want to see Frankel beaten. I just want him to achieve something that proves beyond all doubt that he is one of the greatest. So far he has proved he can go like the clappers either for the first 6 fur or the final 6 fur. In the former, he slowed considerably and didn't even beat the standard time (and he wasn't easing up). In the latter they went so slowly in the first 2 fur that his incredible speed in the final 6 furleft them for dead; again in a time slower than standard. The pacemaker was irrelevant as he was ignored. The only time he beat the standard time over a mile (and only just) he was all out to beat Zoffany. Look for all the excuses you want but the facts are undeniable. He looks magnificent, he moves magnificently and is a joy to watch but nothing stands a chance of beating him if the races are run to suit and/or his opponents aren't up to the job of recording better than standard time. Surely some of his opponents are capable of recording a time better than standard in which case one could argue that his opponents have been wrongly ridden.
I don't actually disagree with you Shergar that he is unbeatable over a mile and i certainly hope he stays this way even when tested against the best. What i think the suggestion is that IF he is going to be beaten a very strong testing pace is the way to see. I am not sure i agree with the fact that they would have tried it on Saturday had they believed that as there was a hell of a lot of place money at stake and Excelebration and Immortal verse could have blown that if they experimented with pace themselves. If it's to be done it needs to be done with a high class group 1 10 furlong horse running over a mile. Were Coolmore to have run So you Think in that race at the weekend you can bet they would have made it a kind of pace we are talking about.
