How,on earth,can it be that the official handicappers can rate Dancing Brave above Frankel ??All the trainers,ex-jockeys and current jockeys say that Frankel is the best they have seen.Sir Henry Cecil says that Frankel is the best horse he has ever seen,and that will do for me!Dancing Brave was a good horse,but he was not a Frankel!!!
They've admitted that Dancing Brave was given 141 "probably light-heartedly", which is a great shame. There is always a certain amount of slippage in ratings and many people think that you can probably knock 5lbs of the older ratings to bring them more into line with the criteria used today.
calmcumbrian, it's horse for courses- and personal opinion. There's no doubt Frankel's a great horse but "distance" comes into it. I'll always remember Frankel as essentially a miler, not a middle distance horse. I don't believe there's a gnat's whisker between him and Brigadier Gerard at a mile, even though I think Brigadier beat better horses. Comparisons between those two aren't really necessary either. For my part, the distance is important because I don't rate Frankel the best middle distance horse I've seen, but that's a moot point because Frankel never ran over 12 furlongs. If you think Frankel's the best horse "overall" that you've seen, then that's fine- even though I'd beg to differ. But that's what debates and opinions are all about, isn't it?
, Personally, I'd challenge your last sentence, Princess, in that I'd be more inclined to knock 5lbs off current ratings. Look at the top 150 historically rated horses, using either/both current handicappers/Timeform. You won't find many UK/Irish horses from the 21st century in that list. You could argue that Frankel has beaten more 'Group Horses' than previous champions, but that is only because there are more Group Races than years ago. More to the point, how many horses have competed against Frankel with a rating in the high 120's or 130's? Notwithstanding I'm not undermining Frankel. He's a great horse and should be cherished.
I don't know who is/was the best and neither does anyone else with the remotest degree of certainty. Insoluble and pointless argument as opined by the great John Oxx (one of the "all" trainers you mention Cal who isn't one of the "all")... Sorry but please lets not go down this road again. Btw,I am certainly not one of the many who deduct 5lb's off historical ratings...if anything we're a little more kneejerk nowadys and love to crown a King,which Frankel is without a doubt.
Unfortunately, the legends of flat racing are almost exclusively 12F animals, since the definition of greatness has, historically, been winning Derbies, King Georges and Arcs. Utter nonsense IMHO. I therefore think another of Frankel's achievements, and perhaps as yet not recognised by many, is that he has shattered that illusion and said "Hey, look at me, I'm one of the greatest there has ever been and I've never run at 12F". It's a bit like the Big Buck's debate ............... "He can't be a great because he hasn't won a Cheltenham Gold Cup" ......................... I very much liked Tam's comparison of Big Buck's to Ed Moses the other day. Both greats in their own field.
Get your bets on now - Frankel WILL end the season as the highest rated horse of all time. Yesterday, Elusive Kate (rated 119) beat Carlton House (rated 119) by a neck. Cityscape (rated 124) beat Elusive Kate by 3.25L. Excelebration (rated 125) beat Cityscape by a comfy looking 3L. They'll up Excelebration's rating to 128 at least. Then at the end of year review meeting they'll look back, assume Excelebration hasn't improved much, and re-assess Frankel's 11L battering of Excelebration as putting him at 141 or more. I don't think that would necessarily be a fair way to do it, but if we're honest, the handicappers were probably dying to do it today, and that line of form gives them the opportunity - I'll be surprised if they don't take it.
