Was Frankel Overrated?

Just been on the Frankel website run by Juddmonte. They have a list of the horses he beat during his career.

They include:
25 G1 winners (of 62 G1 races)
10 G2 winners
8 G3 winners

Full list here: http://frankel.juddmonte.com/race-career/horses-beaten.aspx

 

Eg Usain Bolt is not a great because he never runs beyond 200 metres. Mo Farah is not a great because he can't win a 100m sprint. Mind you we can't say Bolt is the greatest athlete ever; we can only say he is the best sprinter ever. Maybe we should stick to the same comparisons with horses. In the extreme, we don't compare the likes of Frankel with the likes of Sprinter Sacre.

 

On the way in this morn I found myself pondering on whatever happened to the proposal for ‘Frankel – The Movie’???

I’m only asking as I was going to audition for the role of Lord Teddy Grimthorpe.

 

And going totally off topic (apologies) whatever happened to ‘Jamie Vardy – The Movie’ as well?!?

Although I’m guessing the sequel would have been somewhat better. Could have got very dark with Craig Shakespeare (somewhat apt surname) being cast in the Richard III role.

 

Frankel was without doubt the most talented racehorse I have ever seen, and anyone who is crabbing his form in either the Guineas or the St James Palace stakes has no clue what they are talking about.

Both races were won in very inefficient styles. It is not normal to go flat out at the start of a mile race, and be 15 lengths clear at the half way stage, nor is it normal to set off for home so far out in the St James Palace stakes. Frankel though in these 2 races was able to do what so many other great horses couldn't and that was still win despite being asked to do the impossible by his jockey.

I keep hearing about the likes of Dancing Brave and Sea The Stars, but neither of those horses would have got anywhere near winning those races had they been ridden in the same manner. Sea The Stars put together a very impressive 3yo campaign, probably a perfect one in terms of the races he won. But none of those wins were visually impressive to watch.

Dancing Brave, unlike Frankel, lost his unbeaten record because he couldn't overcome the impossible task given to him by his jockey, and even the races he did win were not what I'd call really impressive. Everyone seems to ignore that there was a heap of 125-130 horses within a couple of lengths of him in the Arc, and he was all out to beat Shadari a length in the King George.

Neither Sea The Stars or Dancing Brave had form of a 140 rated horse, both were heavily over rated, with the handicapper clearly allowing personal emotion to get in the way of rating both horses objectively.

Frankel though didn't need any sympathy from the handicapper, as he gave him no choice but to rate him so high, as he was demolishing 130 rated horses with ease.

Frankels biggest downfall was probably his own ability, I think when connections realised they had this superstar horse, it led them to wrap him in cotton wool far to much. For me he'd have won any race from 5-12 furlongs. Let's not forget his full brother was a G1 12f horse. And I don't think any sprinters would have had more gears than Frankel. I'd of at least had a go at a July Cup and just let him go for it straight out of the gate. This was not Frankel's fault that connections chose to be so cautious, all he could do was win the races he was placed in.

The horse that never gets mentioned often enough, who was probably the 2nd best I ever seen was Dubai Millennium. He for me put up some special performances too. It takes a real superstar to make all and then go even further clear in the straight, like he did so often. I'd say Frankel, him and Shergar are the only 3 horses in my lifetime who put up genuine 140+ rated performances. What made Frankel so special though is that he did it with such regularity.

 

Excellent and thought-provoking post, KS, but personally, I would have to put-up Sea Bird II as a 140+ plus racehorse too? He was something else. His Derby and Arc wins in 1965, in both of which he slaughtered some very good racehorses, I don't think I will ever forget.

 

Sea Bird probably was on that level too, I just wasn't around in that era. I have seen some videos of him, and he was impressive, though his Arc winning distance was exaggerated.

Other horses who you could probably include are Ribot and certainly Brigadier Gerard. Any horse who shows Mill Reef a clean pair of heels has to be very talented.

Then you have Harbinger

 

Before all our times there was Tudor Minstrel and Abernant who were pretty hot.

Shergy, I don't think it's valid to claim that no other horse could have won the 2000 Gns ridden the same way, even though that may well be true. The question is, whether or not horses far superior to those Frankel beat that day would have overtaken him up the final hill. Don't forget it's how long it takes to get from the start to the finish, not how fast they went in the first few furlongs

 

I was going to remove this thread, which I insensitively started; but, as it has attracted some interesting responses, perhaps I should leave it after all.

 

I wondered how long it would be before Shergar got a completely pointless mention in this discussion...

It seems that when assessing Shergar beating trees in the Derby by ten lengths, the handicapper was able to remain totally dispassionate and come up with an objective assessment. However, when Dancing Brave beats the best field ever assembled for the Prix de l’Arc de Triomphe, the narrow margin of victory means that he must have become overwrought and just plucked a number out of the air. Surely not another case of somebody who only believes ratings when they back up their own opinion?

At least Dancing Brave has a place in the argument as he contested the 2000 Guineas and he also ran over ten furlongs at the highest level. Strangely, so did Sea The Stars, but he never hosed up against much inferior opposition at every opportunity.

Perhaps the thread should be renamed “Was Shergar Overrated?” Although I do seem to recall we had that one years ago and Glint Of Gold suddenly became brilliant to boost Shergar. Not Shergar’s fault that all he could do was beat the same inferior opponents repeatedly over middle distances any more than it was Frankel’s fault that he beat the same ones, including a horse in Excelebration who would have been champion miler most other years and would have been last year and so far this year.

 

SO who is a better horse frankel or arkle??

sorry guys couldn't resist that

 

Easy. Frankel. Arkle was a gelding

 

You are supposed to finish last after doing what Frankel done in the Guineas and St James Palace, he ran like an ignored pacemaker in the Guineas and was asked to run from over 3 out in the St James Palace after being the only one to chase a ridiculous pace from half way. Incredible really that he won both races.

The Queen Anne performance is the best I have seen in my time, just not normal. This was a freak animal, the biggest freak since Secretariat id guess.

And if you want to talk about times, he was 0.69 off the Ascot track record on gd to soft.... would have smashed it on firm, clocking a furlong faster than any in the Kings Stand.

Re Dancing Brave King George being described as all out to beat Shadari a length, doesnt really do it justice with the cantering all over them omitted from the description. It would be similar to describing Frankel as being all out to beat Zofanny a length, doesnt accurately reflect what happened in the race.

 

We have been over this so many times before. Shergar got the rating he did for beating a 6 time G1 winner by 10 lengths, despite being heavily eased, had he been ridden to the line heavily flogged as Dancing Brave was in all of his wins, he'd of probably won by 15+ lengths.

In terms of Dancing Braves Arc, this is one of the biggest myths in racing that his Arc was 'the best field ever assembled' Please do me a favour? This was only ever a sentimental assessment so they could warrant giving Dancing Brave such a lofty undeserved rating. Bering who was 2nd won 1 G1 in his career and that was a 1 length victory in the French Derby, hardly worthy of a rating of 136? Tryptich was 3rd, she was a very admirable and good filly, but she lost a lot more races than she won. A 133 rated filly would win most of her runs. And then we move on to Sharastani, and Shadari All 4 of those horses where within a couple of lengths of Dancing Brave In the Arc. None where even remotely close to being near the 135 mark, you'd even have to be generous to say any of them where 130 rated. They all fit in somewhere between 125-130 to any sane handicapper. In the KG he may have come there cantering at the 2 furlong pole, but he made hard work of seeing off Shadari, hit about 7 times with the whip in the running to score by just under a length, and Shadari was beginning to come back at him as they approached the line.

Shadari lost more races than he won, and won 1 G1 in his entire 13 race career, yet we are supposed to buy that he was a genuine 134 rated horse

The handicapper did the exact same with Sea The Stars, as like Dancing Brave he too won a lot of races without putting up a performance fit for a superstar. So they hiked up all the horses he beat, Rip Van Winkle, Mastercraftsmen and Fame And Glory all got lofty undeserved ratings so they could rate Sea The Stars at 140 too.

I'm not saying Dancing Brave or Sea The Stars weren't very good race horses, but to be rated 140+ a horse needs to be winning its races with complete ease.

Even horses ranked around 135 are very rare, yet we are supposed to buy that the whole generation of the horses those 2 beat where all of that standard.

 

Sorry Shergy, but those paragraphs reeks of conspiracy mate.

 

Oh dear. Much as I like Dancing Brave, and he is my wife's all time favourite, I'm afraid much of what you say Shergs is hard to argue against. Moreso in the case of Sea The Stars. However you do tend to colour Shergar's achievements somewhat by referring to a 6 time G1 winner (which happened to be?) rather than use the same measuring sticks as you use to downgrade Dancing Brave and Sea The Stars.

As for querying the ratings, I think something has to be used as a reliable yardstick and, whatever number that horse is given, others have to be rated relative to that. We all know how difficult/impossible it is to compare horses of different generations. The value of these ratings is put into question when some can be changed retrospectively without changing the lot

 

Sea The Stars is rated 135

the 140 is with Timeform

 

I do not need to use the same measuring stick to beat Shergar with, as he actually won his races with enough authority to get the rating he got. Shergars opponents did not need to be hiked up, to give him a high rating.

Glint of Gold was the horse he beat in the Derby, a horse with a rating of 128, a horse who won more races than he lost and a horse who won 6 G1s. He was a better horse than both Shadari and Tryptych, and his racing record supports this.

So in beating him 10 lengths heavily eased I think Shergar more than deserved the 140 rating he got.

 

Four of Glint Of Golds group 1s were in Germany and Italy, of the two in France, one was at 1m7.

"After three consecutive defeats in England, Glint of Gold was sent to France for the Grand Prix de Saint-Cloud over 2500m on 4 July."

Not convinced this was a 128 horse, 120 more like.

 

Hmm. A few horses have won the Derby easing up, winning by 5l or more (in times 8-12 secs faster). Not sure what that says about Glint of Gold. Maybe he was eased in the final furlong?

Frankel's OR increased with racing, culminating in 3 consecutive 140s (on different tracks, ranging fro 8- 10.5f) and he achieved an average of 138.8 in his 5 races as a 4yo

Interesting that Excelebration's highest OR was 126, achieved twice when beaten by Frankel. In beating Excelebration he increased his winning margin each time (and his OR from 135 to 138). His 140 ratings came from easily beating the 122 rated Farhh (twice) and beating the 130 rated Cirrus Des Aigles by 1¾ on the latter's favoured ground.

The difficulties in rating horses based on the ease with which they won are:
1. How much more did they have in the tank if they had been challenged?
2. How much was the beaten horse eased when clearly having no chance, or conversely, how much closer could it have got if ridden to do so?
I believe this is where time becomes a factor. If the beaten horses ran a fast time and the winner wins easily it can only add to the argument that it was indeed a special performance

As far as I'm aware Frankel didn't break any track records but, from the manner of his wins and some of the times he achieved, it isn't unreasonable to speculate that he could have. As Joe pointed out "And if you want to talk about times, he was 0.69 off the Ascot track record on gd to soft.... would have smashed it on firm, clocking a furlong faster than any in the Kings Stand"