Hi, Ardent. The rating system baffles me somewhat...so Danedream has 122 and Nathaniel 124. Are they rated over their speciality distance, and does Phil Smith, Timeform, etc, take into account their versatility and performance over a given period- as opposed to one or two sparkling performances. Take Danedream...her 122 rating is only 3lbs more than Homecoming Queen's 119- after the latter had been well beaten behind Samitar in the Irish 1000 Guineas. Personally, I think the closeness of those ratings is an insult to Danedream- and H.Queen was obviously hyper-fit at Newmarket (on ground she loves), and produced an early season freak result. Now take Nathaniel's rating of 124. He's won England's best 12 furlong race (King George) and narrowly failed to repeat that win last week. He's also won England's best 10 furlong race (Eclipse). That entitles him to be considered not only our best middle-distance horse but also quite versatile. If we look at his career, he also ran Frankel to half a length at levels when they made their first racecourse appearances over a mile. Doubtless both have improved tremendously since, but we now find that Nathaniel is rated 23 lbs inferior to a horse who has only specialised, albeit breathtakingly, over a mile. In my opinion, Nathaniel has beaten a better group/range of middle distance horses than Frankel has beaten over a mile. I can only conclude that there are two ways to view these two horses' respective ratings.. Either you believe that Frankel's 23 lbs superiority over Nathaniel is the measure by which he dominates the "mile division only" as opposed to Nathaniel's place in the "middle distance division;" or you believe simply that Frankel is 23 lbs better than Nathaniel- full stop! Perhaps the only fair way would be for both horses to meet over 10 furlongs. Do I believe Frankel is 23 lbs better than Nathaniel over a mile. No, I certainly do not! And over 10 furlongs, I believe the race would be very interesting a level weights, let alone at a 23lbs difference! Notwithstanding Frankel's ability, I have to conclude that he is overrated at 147. It does not stack up irrespective of visual impressions, but rather based on the horses he has beaten and comparative ratings of other top current horses. Personally I also feel his performances vis-a-vis the opposition and range of distances are inferior to those of Brigadier Gerard.
This is beginning to look like a similar argument put forward against Sea The Stars. It's always going to be difficult when one horse is head and shoulders above its contemporaries as it results in an inflated number of G1 wins on the CV. Frankel showed how special he was at Ascot. Before then I had some reservations but that performance blew those away. Having looked at that début run I could not help but notice that Nathaniel was under strong pressure whereas Frankel was hands and heels and had a very gentle introduction. So I think the closeness of the 2 on début is misleading. Nathaniel, receiving 23lbs from Frankel over 10f would be very interesting especially at Sandown. Nathaniel put up a fast time there on good to soft so Frankel would have to be on fire to beat that time giving away 23lbs. Doesn't look right somehow. I think if they met on any going no firmer than good at Sandown over 10f on those terms I would have to have a bet on Nathaniel. But it's all theory. I think what you (Tam) and I are saying, is that either Nathaniel is under rated or Frankel is over rated; maybe a bit of each?
"I think what you (Tam) and I are saying, is that either Nathaniel is under rated or Frankel is over rated; maybe a bit of each?" Yes, I'll go along with that , Ron, but I'd also say that I don't accept Frankel's rating of 147. Even if that rating is earned purely as a specialist miler, the opposition he has beaten are quite a bit below those beaten by Brigadier Gerard- who beat top opposition over a mile- and all distances from 6 furlongs to 12 furlongs. Also, if and when Frankel runs over 10 furlongs, his performance will need to be just as emphatic as those over a mile to anywhere near justify a rating in the 140's. If he struggles- or is beaten- the rating will look foolish, and what will Phil Smith do then? Drop him only 1lb- as was done with Homecoming Queen?
We have some crossed wires here. Frankel is rated 147 by Timeform and 140 by the Official Handicappers. The ratings we are talking about for the others are Official Ratings so compare to Frankel's 140.
Very good points Tamerlo. I think Frankel is a fabulous horse but they are hardly testing him are they?. Sure he runs his heart out every time and produces spectacular performances but he hasn't done what BG did, which was to produce spectacular performances at 6f, 8f and 10f against the best around (his only try at 5f wasn't bad either). So they are saying Frankel would dead-heat with Nathaniel giving him 16lbs. Gosden seemed ready to take him on at levels. He may be foolhardy but I'd find it hard to believe Frankel would beat Nathaniel 8 lengths over 10f. I think people are also being a bit harsh on Camelot. What he is attempting to do is not your run of the mill season. Royal Palace would probably have done it but got injured just before the Leger and after only 2 races. So why should Camelot run in a lot of other races when the target is the difficult feat of winning 3 classics over 8,12 and 14.5furlongs? Next year will be time enough to take in all those other races. I know Nijinsky ran in the Irish Derby and King George as well but he hardly had the toughest opponents amongst the 3yo and 4yos of that season. Camelot is no Nijinsky and so all the more difficult for him to achieve the Triple Crown.
Bustino, good morning. Yes, people are being a bit harsh on Camelot- possibly because he was only 'workmanlike' in winning the Irish Derby. Visual impressions of horses' victories seem to have more impact than they ever did, but you need to have a cool head when appraising them. Winning the Triple Crown would certainly be an historic feat, irrespective of Camelot's place in the hall of fame. You mention Royal Palace- an underrated horse by many. He was wonderfully consistent and probably deserved higher ranking and accolade. I'll certainly look forward to Frankel running at 10 furlongs- the Benson and Hedges? Brigadier Gerard's defeat by Roberto in that race was a big shock to many, but he was beaten by a Derby winner who was almost certainly best at 10 furlongs. I always believed that Rheingold only lost The Derby to Roberto, partly because it was at Epsom and partly due to Lester's ability- I think his Arc victory confirmed that. Nonetheless, Roberto's scorching gallop at York found B.Gerard out on that occasion, and it would be interesting if Frankel faced an opponent who employed similar tactics. The problem is will any horse of Roberto's class line up?
A lot of horse's reputations suffer if they are not good stallions. Royal Palace only got one good one and that was Dunfermline. Yes Roberto only gave 2 performances like that. The other one being his Coronation Cup victory. Lester was brutally effective on him in the Derby. Horses as good as Roberto may line up but will they have the guts to go for it with a searching gallop like his?
What Camelot proved in the Irish Derby was that he had a big heart. He was run on ground that he "won't walk on at home". This has to go down as one of the most ridiculous and inconsiderate decisions in recent history. He could have won that race (probably) with a horse that loved the ground yet he pulls it out "because of the ground". He pulled it out so that he didn't get Camelot beaten - almost back fired. Make of that what you will but this was the firm opinion of a Timeform spokesman on Timeform radio recently and there aren't many that would disagree. In the process could have ruined Camelot; I hope he hasn't. One thing I'll put my house on - if he doesn't win the Leger AOB will probably say he shouldn't have run him in the Irish Derby.
Interesting point Ron and relates to something I've been wondering for a while. Who actually decides which horses run where in the Ballydoyle operation? You've got Magnier/Tabor/Smith who, you would think, will have stud fees as their main priority, is there sometimes disagreement with AOB about who runs where? And if yes, who has the ultimate say? (My guess would be Magnier .....................) AOB is clearly a great trainer, you don't train that many top winners by being crap. But he does have the best ammunition any trainer has ever had.
Probably not! Front-running class horses are largely a thing of the past eg.your namesake. They tend to employ pacemakers, some of which are successful and some the opposite. I'm not lover of pacemakers. I believe a class horse should make use of its own attributes, especially since horses, like humans, have varying degrees of not only stamina but how long they can sustain an all-out gallop. The classic example is the 1968 Arc De Triomphe- look how far out Ascot Gold Cup winner, Levmoss took up the running and was never headed. People thought Piggott and Park Top were unlucky but the mare had a much shorter, decisive burst. Piggott knew this but it wasn't enough. Ironically they'd met before at Newbury and the result and tactics were the same. Very emotive that Park Top was hot favourite for The Arc and Levmoss 80/1! Tony Bin's win over Mtoto was similar in a way, although the latter had a lot of traffic to negotiate. Yet that's the advantage of using your stamina from the front. Apologies that I've digressed, but I love positive, front-running tactics. Ironic that I've never backed Overturn, either on The Flat or over Jumps!
I'm a huge fan of the front running horse. There is something the strength these animals show that really gets to me. I've posted this link before, but I'll make no apologies for doing it again. Vo Rouge is easily my favourite racehorse. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5S9acJ_gkLU&feature=relmfu
Cyclonic it's interesting that horses are run far more at the front in Australia. As I followed Glass Harmonium in England it was fascinating to see how he was ridden in Australia and how he's far more successful there. Tamerlo: I loved Reference Point for that very reason.
I guess that sitting in another horse's slipstream for 3/4 mile helps save energy. As a keen cyclist I can tell you it's much easier to bowl along at 30mph in someone else's slipstream than it is being out on your own. From that point of view it makes sense to hold horses up, and it also underlines how impressive winning from the front is.
Following front running horses can be very profitable too as they are often overlooked in the market. Take Dancing Rain at champions day last year for example. I still cant believe that they let that go off at 6/1! Made all in the oaks, its only race since then it was taken on for the lead and lost but at champions day it was the only confirmed front runner and lo and behold it goes off unchallenged and makes all again! One of the most satisfying winners i have had as i was telling anyone that would listen to lump on her!
