Was Frankel Overrated?

How about a nice controversial topic to liven up the day/week/......?

Constructive answers only please; no bitching.

What prompted this question you may ask? Well it was this article I came across when trying to get a view on the best Frankel 2yo (which, incidentally I didn't find)

Graham Oliver says:
April 14, 2017 at 11:07 pm

"Although I count myself a great admirer of Frankel, I think on occasion the praise for him can get a little over-hyped.

Frankel was a fantastic racehorse, and his wins in the Royal Lodge, Queen Anne, and Juddmonte were breathtaking. However, I feel that he did not start to mature until his first (again very impressive)Sussex Stakes victory. Although much the better horse, he was nearly caught by Zoffany in the St James’s Palace, and Zoffany failed to win a race at three.

Although at first glance Frankel’s demolition of his Two Thousand Guineas field was awe inspiring, was it as good as it seemed? The second and third in the race, Dubawi Gold and Native Khan, were definitely not top drawer. Depending on the commentary that you listen to, after five furlongs Frankel was either twelve or fifteen lengths in front. He had the whole field strung out like three mile chasers in the mud. Just after this point he started coming back to the field, or they started catching him! From twelve/fifteen lengths his winning distance was whittled down to six lengths at the post. I quite accept that six lengths was a big winning margin, but there have been plenty of others who would imo have treated this field with similar disdain . I include the Brigadier (of course), Sir Ivor, El Gran Senor, Dancing Brave, Nijinsky, Nearula, Tudor Minstrel (especially of course) Big Game, Colorado. Before you ask, I did not witness (really? Ed) any of the above winning prior to Sir Ivor. I was actually born sixty years to the day before Frankel.

Channel Four Racing once ran a computer race of what they thought were the best Guineas winners, although none were earlier than Brigadier Gerard, so no Sir Ivor or Tudor Minstrel.
To the presenters utmost consternation, Frankel failed to win *there race. I think he finished either third or fourth behind Brigadier Gerard and El Gran Senor. One of the presenters (Rishi Persad?)said words to the effect that something wasn’t right, and to ignore the race. It was never mentioned again. I actually believe that the computer was right, and had Sir Ivor and Tudor Minstrel been included, he would have finished behind them to. He was not the finished article on Guineas day, nor at Ascot.

Of course from Goodwood on I think he would have beaten all of the above with the possible exception of Tudor Minstrel and Brigadier Gerard. Possibly someone could organise a computer race between these three.

Finally, numbers of Group One wins from different era’s can be misleading. For instance, by today’s reckoning, Brigadier Gerard would have won twelve Group One races, whereas if Frankel had raced in 1970/71 his total would have been cut by three, from eleven down to eight. In those days, the Lockings, Prince Of Wales, and St James’s Palace were Group Two, whilst the Queen Anne was only Group Three. All wre just as hard to win as now though. All swings and roundabouts when trying to assess the various merits.

As a stallion, I do hope Frankel is a success, but one thing is for sure, he will NEVER sire anything as good as himself. The very best never do. With Galileo as his sire, and Danehill close up on his distaff side, it will be interesting to see the mares that he attracts. THe European gene pool seems to be shrinking with Galileo and Danehill in a preponderance of pedigrees, and it would be interesting to see how Frankel would (or will)fare with Japanese and US mares with rather less Northern Dancer in their make-up. No doubt Juddmonte will blend Arrogate (Unbridled’s Song, no Northern Dancer) and Frankel blood in the future."

* I assume he means "the" or "their"

He invites email comments too. If anyone fancies a debate with him here is the link

 

Oh dear....

 

This is the sort of comment I absolute abhor as nothing more than opinion is being presented as undoubted fact! Yet another point of view, on this forum (albeit not from an actual member this time), that needs to be prefixed by the words ‘in my opinion’ or ‘I think…’.

I’m of the view that Frankel was one, if not the very best, I’ve ever seen on the level. My only crib re him (and this is, obviously, not the horses fault) is that he never ran outside the UK (I never subscribed to the whole ‘Sea The Stars wonder horse’ belief but the one thing he did do, and should be hugely lauded for, was conqueror 3 countries in his stellar ’09 campaign) and his 4YO campaign should have been far, far more aggressive than it actually was – concluding in either the Arc or a Breeders Cup race. But that’s a fairly minor moan when offset against what he did achieve on the track.

As to his stallion career surely it’s far too early to say anything definite. I’m sure the ‘for’ and ‘against’ brigade could spin things either way, at this formulate stage, if they so wish. I’d prefer to sit back and wait for a few more generations to hit the old course before casting judgement, methinks.

 

Yes, a very strange comment that as Frankel was clearly better than his sire. I can't argue with the view that there were plenty of horses in the past that would have "slaughtered" that 2000 Gns field. I recall the Zoffany race being exhausted at the time and one that raised serious doubts in my mind. BUT, what he went on to do after that, especially as a 4yo, was pure class. I'm glad he didn't run in the Epsom Derby because that would have probably spoiled his otherwise perfect record (in my view). It takes something to be the best horse 3 seasons running and we have to admire the late Henry Cecil (and the owner) for keeping him in training as a 4yo.

Frankel the wonder horse. **** knows why I started this thread. What a prat.

Tomorrow it will disappear

 

I wouldn't say that Frankel was overrated at all. At least in my opinion if he was it was to a lesser extent than the likes of STS and Dancing Brave. There are many top class horses that put in a single astonishing performance over their careers but we'll be waiting a long time to see one do it with such regularity as Frankel.

I'd also take issue with the 'simulated' 2000 Guineas race. What parameters are they basing this on? Are they assuming that Frankel would be ridden in exactly the same way as he did when winning? If so it wouldn't surprise me if they would have beaten him. In fact, if you wanted to get a horse beat you would probably ride him the same way he was ridden in the guineas. Thats why for me, the Guineas was his greatest performance and to accurately compare you'd have to ask yourself how many past winners could have still won if they were ridden in the same manner.

As for the breeding side its still far too early to tell. They are still learning which mares will work best for him and even if they found that out this year you'd still be waiting another 3 years to find out if they are right. As it stands his stats pretty good even against the established sires even though he has far fewr runners than them.

 

Underrated, if anything, such is the begrudging nature of most sports fans.

What was his OR anyway? Can't be arsed to google it. It was probably right anyway, they usually are. RPR, Timeform rating, they are guesswork adjusted for opinion, but the Official Raceform ratings are as unbiased and scientific as these things ever get.

Edit: I did google it, 140. Ffs, don't anyone embarress themselves by arguing with that. Best I've ever seen or ever will.

Will he ever get a 140 rated animal? Doubt it, you don't see them very often.

 

Agree

 

Agree

 

You all know I'm a massive Frankel fan! I completely respect other people's opinions if they do not consider him the best, but I do and my opinion is the only one that matters to me!

If you look at the sheer number of previous and subsequent G1 winners he beat during his career (Nathaniel, Dream Ahead, Canford Cliffs, Treasure Beach, Cirrus des Aigles, St Nicholas Abbey, Farhh to name a few off the top of my head) you can't honestly say he didn't beat much.

It's far too early to glorify or condemn his Stud career, but statistically he is doing better than average and is in the current top 4 worldwide sires based on his number of Stakes performers from his first crop.

See below from the TDN:

 

To be honest Princess, it was after I posted this thread that I thought of you and wished I hadn't (posted it that is)

 

The chances of Frankel siring one of his level is almost zero, the statement is as about close to fact as you can get

 

Aww, I'm not that scary Ron

 

And the award for the most ridiculous thread goes to......

 

I am struggling to ascertain the point that is being made here. No racehorse starts out on debut as a wonder horse and repeats that performance at the same level every time they visit the racecourse. Every owner hopes that their horse improves and progresses from one race to the next.

With regard to Zoffany, it was clear to most observers at the time that the pacemaker went very fast in the first quarter and in the straight Frankel had been in front for a long time and idled, allowing the runner up a proximity that he did not deserve.

Having been at Newmarket on that day back in 2011, it was perfectly clear that Frankel shot out the gate and had won the race after two furlongs at most. He was going to have to seriously run out of steam to be caught with the huge lead that he had. The hand-timed sectionals for each quarter were 25 secs, 22 secs, 24 secs and 26 secs, showing he slowed up the hill into the wind. Queally was not exactly riding the horse hard at any stage and he coasted home. Since none of the other horses mentioned would have employed such tactics it is not realistic to suggest that any of them would have dispatched the same field with equal contempt as I think I can be pretty sure that Dancing Brave won his Guineas (beating the subsequent champion sprinter) with contempt by three lengths with Greville Starkey barely making much effort.

The computer simulation was completely irrelevant as it had to contain too many assumptions. Given that the named horses all won their 2000 Guineas on different states of ground, the stopwatch tells us blindly that Frankel recorded a faster time than Tudor Minstrel, Sir Ivor, Brigadier Gerard and El Gran Senor so none of them would have caught him. People indulge in these fanciful comparisons of generations just to create debate, not out of any scientific purpose. Had it concluded that Frankel was the best, then disciples of Brigadier Gerard would have been outraged.

The point was not ‘finally’ since a subsequent point followed and the pointlessness of the argument was made by the writer in that first sentence. What matters is who you beat and how you beat them. In that respect Brigadier Gerard won a better 2000 Guineas in terms of quality if not in terms of size of field.

Palpable nonsense – since Frankel was better than his sire on the racecourse, then we must conclude that either Galileo was not amongst the “very best” so he is allowed to sire a horse as good as himself; or that Frankel will cease to attract mares of sufficient quality that he could produce better offspring. Only a fool would say “NEVER” whilst Frankel is still alive and passing on his genes. They must have thought 200 years ago that they would never see the likes of Eclipse again.

 

Oooo its a tricky one!

Visually you would say Frankel was one of the most impressive. The number of races (& grades) and the manner he won them in was impressive.
However some of the times were not. If you take the last 20 runnings of the 2000 Guineas for example, Frankel does not appear in the list of 10 quickest. Similarly with the Sussex Stakes he is not one of the quickest.

He was a joy to watch in full flight though.

 

But are times really such a good indicator of ability? There are too many other variables that influence times - ground, wind direction, etc.

Is WINGS OF EAGLES a better horse than SEA THE STARS for winning the Derby in a time 3 seconds faster? Is WORKFORCE the best ever Derby winner for holding the race record?

It's not as straightforward as just quoting race times.

 

Very true. Times per se are of no value in comparing the merits of horses. Time does, however, prove how quickly a horse can get from a to b in the conditions. As Phil Bull used to say "The time does not tell you how good a horse is but it does tell you how bad it isn't". The time experts can factor in all sorts of things for comparing times of races and if the difference in the times of races cannot be reconciled by taking those factors into account then we are still left with the question "How much faster could the horse with the slower time have gone if pushed?" or indeed "How much faster could the horse with the faster time have gone if pushed?" At the end of the day the race times are facts and everything else is "scientific" calculation and opinion. It is the opinion bit where the arguments can never be resolved

 

Wonder what old SA would have said had he still been around on the forum. Bet he would have stuck a right old firecracker into the conversation, he loved to be 'the difference'! Somehow or other, dear old Arkle (the horse) would have got himself into the discussion too.

Seriously, Frankel's the best I've ever seen, albeit only on TV, sadly. He's doing AOK at stud too, not bad at all.

 

Oh absolutely, times are important but they're not the be all and end all.

Another statement that gets thrown around is that Frankel can't be considered a great as he never ran over 1m4f. It's a ridiculous statement to make as if that is truly the case we'd have to discount every sprinter and miler to have ever run from being a "great".

 

SwanHills if I get the chance I will try to organise another stud visit for 606ers when I'm back at work after maternity leave. I'll ensure that it includes a visit to meet Frankel just like last time.