QM I shall refrain from debating your educational background (or lack of it) but if you can you not appreciate that the two phrases amount to the same thing i.e the horse was badly tiring (I'm keeping this simple for you) then I am happy to agree to disagree with you on this point and leave it at that
You are right, I cannot appreciate that they “amount to the same thing” because they do not. I would agree that “tying up badly” is synonymous with “badly tiring” as the use of “ing” in conjugating the verbs implies present tense continuing; however, “out on his feet” is much more extreme and implies no progression. If one also takes into consideration the common usage of the phrases, the disparity becomes more evident.
QM...I ment that Master Willie won his next 3 starts in G1 company after his narrow Derby defeat in 1980, if he won a G2 aswell then surely tgat further boosts the form
I've just popped into this thread and see we are struggling to reach agreement. But then why should we? Horse racing, along with many other topics, is full of differing opinions which is what makes it so interesting. I find it fascinating reading everyone's opinions as it helps to view things from a perspective I might not have considered. I think as long as we keep it objective and accept that sometimes we just have to agree to disagree, without getting personal, it is very healthy. An opinion may change having listened to the opinions of others and taken account of new information or just viewing existing information from a different angle, but it can not be forced to be changed. At the end of the day we have to accept that others see things differently and we should respect their views without necessarily agreeing with them. Let's continue debating but keep it friendly please. It's the friendliness of this forum that makes it attractive to others.
Ron, there is nothing unfriendly going on here. I am no boxing fan but the term "out on his feet" means something completely different to the state of Frankel in the last furlong of his Royal Ascot victory. King Shergar, you should learn to write what you mean as what you actually wrote was factually inaccurate - as I pointed out.
I think the term "out on his feet" was used more as a colloquial expression but if you take it literally then, of course, your technical analysis of the phrases is correct QM. I'm sure it wasn't intended to be taken to heart. I think people are taking very different views about the Frankel performance, ranging from "out on his feet" to "got bored". Out on his feet does sound a bit extreme but I think what was actually meant was that in another 100yards the second horse would not just have caught him but would have gone away as there seemed to be nothing left. On the other hand SHC and Queally say he got bored on his own, implying (one supposes) that, had the other horse gone past, Frankel would have got back up. At the end of the day no-one knows what would have happened and it is impossible to prove one way or the other, so each is left to their own opinion. I'm sure also that everyone would like to see him prove his brilliance by defeating the older generation in a truly run race. Again people will have their opinions as to whether he is good enough to do that over a mile (or 10f) and there is only one way to find out. At this point may I join in the debate please? From where I was watching (admittedly armchair in the lounge) Frankel's stride was shortening dramatically, to the point he was almost going up and down on the spot (exaggeration). Whether that was due to boredom, or tying up through lack of fitness, or feeling the ground or whatever I have no idea but I suspect that SHC might have a better idea now and it will be interesting to see the tactics used next time. The one thing that has occurred to me though is that both horses took virtually the same time to cover the 8f. Now, given that the second horse was finishing strongly we have seen quite clearly what that horse is capable of. So we could ask ourselves, had Frankel been held up could he have covered the 8f any faster. If not, he would have lost. If so, he might well have broken the course record. I find that an interesting angle to ponder. What do you reckon?
Ron, I recorded the BBC coverage and I have the video clip on my PC, including the replay of the race from the camera on the inside of the track. In the last two furlongs, Tom Queally used his whip twice. The last of those occasions was a tap behind the saddle in the last fifty yards. The rest of the time he was pushing the horse with hands and heals. There is no way that this is "out on his feet". In NH racing, we see Tony McCoy lift exhausted horses over the line on heavy ground but this certainly was nothing of that calibre. We all saw that he slowed up towards the line and we can all have our opinions about whether he was tying up or he was bored. The race time was just one second outside the current record, which will be down to the very strong pace that Rerouted set for the first six furlongs. General consensus appears to be that Queally went too soon. If he had waited until the two pole the winning distance would have been much more emphatic.
Fair comment QM. Does the argument that he would have won had he been held up assume that the second horse would have still come from behind? What is your view on my final paragraph, on the assumption that the second horse would have run exactly the same race as he did (ie and therefore in the same time)?
Frankel to me looked tired in the final half furlong, his petrol tank was on red, though I do accept that a more patient ride would have resulted in a more emphatic win. It was a poor ride from Queally, and the likes of CC and Goldikova would never have won that race had the button been pressed on them with 4 to go, so although it didn't look very impressive, it actually was. I remember another young inexperienced jockey riding a great horse, and sending him for home very early in a big race, that was a certain Walter Swinburn, though there was no tiredness from his horse
Shergar i remember that race too, but Green Desert did get picked off by Dancing Brave in the end though. I think we've already seen the best of Frankel,patient ride or no patient.That horse cant go through what he has been through in the last 2 races.Frankel was out with the washing in his last race ride IMO.What do you think CC is going to do with him when they face each other?
Whilst I think Canford Cliffs is a very good horse, I don't believe he is a horse out of Frankels mold. We see horses of CCs ability year in year out, he's nothing overly special. Frankel is a horse who is capable of running to the level of a great horse, we've seen that in the Royal Lodge and the Guineas, if they hang onto Frankel until the last 2 furlongs he will crush CC, I have no doubt about it
Year in year out lol?Name them? But the main problem is that Queally cant hold him.If we are to see his true potential they need to get of rid of Tom ASAP.But whether another jock is capable of doing a better job is debatable.
Well the majority of 2000 Guineas winners are as good as Canford Cliffs, Makfi was better he just didn't go well at Ascot, but he beat CC comfortably in the guineas and delt with Goldikova easier, without being assisted by the mare carrying overweight. Frankel settled on Tuesday he was just sent for home to early, so I'm not concerned about him settling , I'd agree that in an ideal world Queally wouldn't be riding, but how hard can it be, wait for the 2 pole and press the button, he's still a capable jockey, if they use those tactics he won't be beat regardless of jockey
Ron, had Tom Queally held on to Frankel until say the last two furlongs and then let him go, he would have won by six or seven lengths and I would have expected the course record to have gone. The burst of acceleration he used to catch Rerouted and go way in front was ultimately what won him the race. Being out in front for three furlongs getting bored (or whatever) is what allowed the others to close at the line. He was held up near the pace (well six lengths behind it) rather than being tucked away at the back. The furious pace that Rerouted set meant that everybody that could not lay up behind him (most of the field) was going to come from the back as the horses in front were stopping. Whilst I cannot read Queally’s mind, I think he went to the front too soon because he did not want to disappoint the horse. On a couple of occasions he has looked difficult to settle, which may be part of the reason why they just let him go in the 2000 Guineas. Sir Henry does need to take him to one side and make sure that he gives specific instructions before the Sussex Stakes. I will assume that Rerouted will be lining up to set the pace at Goodwood but obviously that will also be to the benefit of Canford Cliffs. It is the worst-kept secret in racing that Richard Hughes will try to track Frankel and stay close enough to catch him late. In my opinion, Canford Cliffs is not suited by Goodwood’s topography and he barely managed to overhaul Rip Van Winkle last year so Frankel will win.
I find it interesting people are not concerned how suited Frankel will be to the undulations of Goodwood, given his enormous stride. The mere fact that Canford Cliffs won on it, despite hating the track is further testament to his talent. I very much look forward to this race, should Sir Cecil not swerve it and head the Juddmonte route, what a shame that would be. If Frankel 'idles' in the last furlong like the 'experts' say he did, when allowing Zoffany to close him down rapidly, it will be interesting to see how he will fair against a proven Group One performer like Canford Cliffs. Bring it on!
But King Shergar is right about this continual banging on about Frankel getting 8lbs. He's not getting 8 lbs he shouldn't get: as if it was a handicap. He gets 8lbs less than Canford Cliffs because he's a 3yo. The Weight for Age Scale has been with us for almost as long as the 1855 Bordeaux classification. In 150 years they've made one change to that one, and in a similar period they've made one change to WFA (that being that 3yos get 1lb more than they used to in July prior to 1976). The circumstance that caused that change being the 'Race of the Century' when the chief handicapper felt that as horses he could not distinguish between Grundy and Bustino so from henceforth 3yos should carry 1lb more in July than they were (Grundy having won by half a length). So if anyone does mention weight differences in the future say if it's WFA. QM is right Master Willie won his CC and Eclipse before the 1981 KGVI & QE.
When I was at school there was this boy who at 11 looked about 14. He started shaving at 14. At games he was miles ahead of the rest of us and was the best footballer in his year and best cricketer in his year. Things stayed that way until he got to 17, then the difference was gone. At 18 he wasn't in the top 3 for his year. Horses can be the same. Frankel looked magnificent to me in the Guineas, although I did venture the thought that he might be the greatest 7f horse ever. But I felt that if he ran as he did in the 2000G he would probably beat Canford Cliffs. After the St James Palace Stakes I'm not so sure. He's still a magnificent horse but maybe he'll not progress as much as others. I think the Sussex Stakes will be a great spectacle. Must admit I can't remember CC having that much trouble last year against Rip Van Winkle. So I'm edging towards CC more and it means we've got at least 3 top milers in Europe this summer.
Bustino, I tend to agree with much of what you say. At the moment, we don't know how precocious Frankel was when he ran as a two year old- and in the 2000 Guineas. Unfortunately, the St James Palace didn't confirm nor deny that possibility. Cecil really needs to give Frankel a decent break and then bring him back fresh for his next race. We then may be able to gauge his true worth. I smiled at what you wrote about the "overgrown 11 year old" at your school. We had one just the same when I was at grammar school and, in his case, everyone else started to catch up to him at sixteen.
