Article: Frankel. How good is he? | Horse Racing

At the risk of rapidly becoming the red hot favourite for the "Most Unpopular Poster Personality Ever Trophy". I have to say that I am not totally convinced about Frankel's invincibility.

Although excuses are readily made for his scrambled victory over Zoffany, I still view that race as a sign of his vulnerability over 8f, and beyond. I cannot accept that he went too early; after all he did lead from start to finish in the 2000 Gns. The time was decent enough (0.14secs faster than Canford Cliffs just 75mins earlier) and I think he was coming to the end of his tether. There are better horses than Zoffany around and had one or two of those just followed Zoffany and taken him in the last 100 yards or so, I'm afraid the Frankel bubble would have been well and truly burst. The way Frankel caught the pace setter and effortlessly cruised past as though that horse was standing still and quickly opened up a 6l gap was undoubtedly very impressive but, for me, an all time World beater would have then been allowed to coast home unchallenged; not scrambling home all out. Unless I was watching a different race to everyone else I was under the distinct impression that he would not have stayed in front had the winning post been 50yards further on. Exciting though he is, how can that be the performance of "The best ever"?

I hope I'm wrong and I hope he proves to be the World beater that all the hype suggests he is. But at present, on the basis of what he has done so far, if ever a horse was over-hyped he has to be up there somewhere.

I have been a Timeform user on and off for 40 years and have seen their success and reputation tumble since Phil Bull stepped down. Some of their raatings of late have been beyond my comprehension and the 142 allocated to Frankel is still baffling me a little.

Here is the RP analysis of that race. I hope Zoffany and Excelebration, along with the top French colts/fillies take on Frankel before the season is out to shed a bit more light on Frankel's undoubted ability.

 

I too am completely and utter baffled by his Timeform Rating and will be joining you in the unpopularity contest.
No doubt he is a very good horse,and has the potential to be a great horse.But imo he isn't near there..yet.

Ive been watching horse racing for 25 years,and ive seen better Guineas winners,better St James palace winners and better Sussex stakes winners in my opinion.

 

His acceleration is something else. Even my mum went "wow" when he took off in the Sussex stakes and she knows zilch about him and not a lot about racehorses

 

So did I Janabelle to be honest.

 

He is without doubt the best flat horse i have ever seen and, whilst the time period under my consideration is shorter than many, i think his ability at the very least entitles him to be compared to the greats of yesteryears.

His win in the Royal Lodge marked him out as a potential champion, and he really confirmed that with his breathtaking display in the 2000 Guineas, which was unconventional but immensely impressive nevertheless. There are very few horses who could have carried off such a breathtaking performance of dominance. I think the St James' Palace victory was also a testament to his ability. Once more, there are very few, if any, horses who could have won that race in the manner that he did. The pace was fast, and then he was asked to quicken at least 4f out, he was ridden from before the bend, and still had enough in the locker to hold off the challengers late on. As far as i am concerned he had every right to be tired at the end of that race, but more of that later. If any other horse had been ridden in such a manner i would have expected them to finish well down the order. What is also unanimous is that the tactics employed that day went awry, for whatever reason. Lessons were learnt and his display in the Sussex Stakes must surely confirm his exceptional ability.

As his St James' Palace performance seems to be your primary criticism of him Ron, i will attempt to persuade you of the true merit of his performance. At first i was a little sceptical about the "he was idling argument" but the more i have researched the race the more convincing it becomes. Having watched the replay of the race, i noticed that Tom Queally used his whip on 3 or 4 occasions, twice at the 2f marker and either once or twice (the footage is a little unclear) inside the final furlong. This would support the argument that the horse was idling and that Tom was confident he would pick up if another horse came to challenge. I think if Tom had felt he was tiring and in danger of being beaten he would have done a little more than ridden him out hands and heels.

The second point to mention is that a sign of a tired horse is a shortening stride. As a horse tires their stride length will tend to shorten, but their stride pattern will usually remain constant. In other words their legs will be moving as quickly but they will be covering less ground, hence the phrase "going up and down on the spot": it literally looks as if the horse is galloping on the spot. In contrast an idling horse will tend to maintain their stride length constant and slow their stride pattern. This is not true of all horses and all circumstances, but a decent guide at the very least. I read an article by somebody who had researched this fact with respect to Frankel's race and their conclusion was that, as Sir Henry said, the horse was idling and not tiring. They found that his stride length remained constant but that his stride pattern slowed, suggesting he was idling and not tiring, as connections had stated. This does not provide a conclusive answer to whether he was tired or not but what it does do is provide evidence to suggest that the "he was idling argument" might be stronger than many would have you believe. Whether it is true or not we can only go by the evidence presented to us. I tend to trust my eye, and i did not see a desperate jockey that day. If Frankel had been tiring as badly as it looked i am fairly sure that Mr Queally would have been a little more 'animated' in the saddle than he actually was. As with many things to do with horse racing, there is a great deal of interpretation. What one person sees, another may not, and if one person thinks 'this', then another is certain to think 'that'.

To me it was a minor miracle that he was able to win at all. I don't think the form is worth the paper it's written on because of the extraordinary ride he was given. I would forget the distances to the placed horses and just marvel at how a horse was able to triumph when he had absolutely no right to do so.


So to conclude, and to answer your question; he is certainly the best i have ever seen and probably the best there has ever been.

 

Think you're wrong to doubt Frankel, Ron, he justifies that 142 rating imo. He'll blow anything out the water over 1m and maybe even 1m2f which I'm sure he'll try next season.

But I agree with your comments about Timeform, I don't take their ratings too seriously anymore. Not as rigorously "scientific" in their analysis as they once were.

 

I have to come down on the side of Frankel here. Yes he only just held on at Ascot but he was given a bad ride that day. The defeat of CC was extraordinary but the Guinneas win is the race which will never be forgotten. No horse has - in my lifetime at least - done anything close to that in a Guinneas. It really did take the breath away. To say he is the best ever is a huge call but he is undoubtedly a great horse. I tend to ignore Timeform ratings so am not really bothered what they give him.

 

What has really disappointed me about this debate is that no-one has picked up on my imminent award:

"Most Unpopular Poster Personality Ever Trophy".

 

My view on Frankel may offer a slightly different slant, albeit unpopular.
Firstly, I have no doubt that he is one of the best milers I have seen, but I should add a qualification.
I am convinced that the "classic generations" in the last ten years have lacked real quality in depth. Apart from Canford Cliffs, I do not believe Frankel has beaten a really high class miler.
Admitted, he can only beat what is put in front of him, but I would not rate Canford Cliffs - nor by association that wonderful mare Goldikova- as belonging to the very top echelons of post war milers.
Certainly other horses he has beaten eg. Zoffany, Rio de La Plata, Dubawi Gold are good animals , but that is all they are.
However, I certainly look forward to seeing him run again, and I do not decry his narrow win against Zoffany at Ascot- I've always felt that it's harder to maintain form and excellence at a mile than it is over say a mile and a half. History has tended to prove that, excepting Brigadier Gerard and only one or two others.
As a footnote, I believe his best distance is 7 furlongs but I accept that statement is academic. Personally, I should reserve my own opinion as to how good he is until he has finished his career.
I certainly don't wish to undermine what is undoubtedly a brilliant animal.

 

Although i cant do anything than agree about the Ascot race i do feel he was not at his best that day for some reason and won despite it. The way he has taken care of excelebration and Canford Cliffs who themselves have quite fantastic form this season, i have to come down on the side of saying he had a poor day not helped by his jockey and still won.

He is what so many of us have waited for, great horse, great trainer and great owner. They don't come along often but we certainly do in my opinion have one now so lets enjoy it fully, and if a little objectivity goes out the window in that enjoyment i can live with that.

I have been following racing since 1986 and in my opinion from what i have seen since then

Best sprinter Dayjur
Best Miler Frankel
Best middle distance Dancing Brave / Sea the Stars (can never decide)
Best Stayer Yeats

 

Ron,I like your acronym!!

As to the horse this thread relates to,I'll have to check who he is again!!...2 runs in four and a half months...think I remember him...ah yes,of course,one of those against an injured beast and one where he scraped home in the SJP against a moderate closing herd...<run>..

Your earlier piece Ron,about SYT,resonates even more against the backdrop of the frankelteenies...SYT was badly ridden at RA but exposed by the critics,when unlucky not to win.Frankel was badly ridden but apparently enhanced his reputation when hanging on against a 115 beast,allegedly his "afterburners" were lit too early..

Again we prioritise personality above performance.Tribalism trumps cogent thought.

Frankel is a hugely exciting miler but apparently lesser in that dept than BG,if we,like the frankelteenies,want to use Timeform as a calibration crutch.I think too many have gone overboard...so much to prove,against so many,over different distances,more than an hour away from his stable.

Helmet on...fire away..

Anyhow,shouldn't be long before King Shergar articulates that Frankie hasn't beaten Dick Turpin!!...well why all the hype then...!!

 

Don't Timeform give ratings during the season and then reassess at year end? If they assess him then as 142 in their eyes he's the equivalent of the Brigadier as a 3yo. Find that hard to believe and find it hard to consider Frankel would have beaten an all out Mill Reef by 3 lengths. But maybe they are right, then again maybe they aren't.

 

There can be no doubting of the class Of Frankel. His victory in the Guineas was astounding, and for me, far and a way his best win. This amazing win, or that of the St James should never be used as proof positive that he's the best horse we've ever seen. True, he is a once in a life time horse for an owner or trainer, but he is not the once in a life time horse for racing in general. As has already been written, the field he beat in the Guineas was hardly world shattering in it's class. And Canford Cliffs, whilst a wonderful horse and a top miler, he was certainly no Brigadier Gerard. Despite the huge respect that I have for Frankel, I'm afraid that I just can't compare him to the Brigadier either.

Best horse ever? Is that fair to the likes of Sea Bird, Brigadier Gerard, Ribot, Nijinsky, Dancing Brave, Shergar, Secriatiat or even my old mate Phar Lap?

 

Oddy.

 

But OddDog it's the nature of the sport. You can't ask Messi to play with 5lbs extra in his boots. But I also have sympathy with your view.

 

But would Messi play with 5 pounds less in his pocket?