Royal Ascot Day 1: Frankel!

re: Royal Ascot Day 1: Frankel!

John T — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 02:54:56 GMT

I am so sad to hear about the passing of Sir Henry Cecil, but so happy for him that he was blessed with such a horse as Frankel in his latter years.

re: Royal Ascot Day 1: Frankel!

John T — Tue, 26 Jun 2012 01:47:49 GMT

It was a great effort by Brigadier Gerard to win the King

George at 12 furlongs and perhaps he was a bit flat for the

York race as on paper he certainly was a much better horse

than Roberto.There are no plans to run Frankel at 12 furlongs but his younger brother Noble Mission put on a great effort trying that distance for the first time in the

King Edward V11 Stakes as the third horse Thought Worthy had

finished fourth in the Derby and the winner Thomas Chippendale had beaten Kentucky Derby fourth Went The Day Well in a 2 year old race at Leicester.

re: Royal Ascot Day 1: Frankel!

Alan Porter — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 20:25:46 GMT

Sceptre/John T/Hal/Hongkonger

Thanks for all the replies. Timeform, I think, has to be a little interpretive as time alone is probably overall not such a good guide to performance on English turf, as U.S. dirt (for example the Wokingham Handicap - run over the same six furlongs as the Jubilee Stakes - was won in a faster time than Black Caviar and co ran. In athletic terms it's the difference between a championship race (like the Olympics or World Championships) which for middle-distances tend often not to be won in super fast times, and a non-championship meeting with pacemakers.

I think another factor is that the compression - in general - between the best and the rest, means that a horse like Frankel seems to be beating up on a pretty generic bunch, who lack the charisma of some of the good horses that runners of 30 and 40 years ago defeated - Frankel doesn't have a John P. Grier, a Sham, Alydar, or Easy Goer to be measured against. Excelebration is really a pretty good horse, but he really paid for trying to go with Frankel at Ascot.

One thing about Timeform ratings is that it does appear that they are somewhat more heritable than Beyer speedfigures (ie. there is a greater relationship between the Timeform rating and performance at stud than the Beyer speedfigure). Frankel's stallion career is going to be interesting - Galileo is making a good start as a sire of sires, notable New Approach, who had three first crop stakes winners at Ascot, but we can also note that he is bred on what is already the strongest cross for the sire (with Danehill mares). Funnily enough, the brother, who ran a close second in the 1 1/2 mile King Edward VII Stakes, is a totally different type. The comment re Black Caviar being placed in considerable jeopardy wasn't far wrong.

Re Frankel and the Juddmonte International/Benson & Hedges Gold Cup: York is a really galloping track with a long straight, and we'll really find out if he gets the trip. He might not be subjected to anything like Roberto, who was capable of brilliance on his day, although he wasn't the most consistent animal in the world. Brigadier Gerard had actually been somewhat stretched earlier in the year by a horse called Ballyhot who set a strong pace against him in the Westbury Stakes, and ten furlongs (York is 10 1/2 furlongs) might have been a bit of a stretch for him. It's probably too that the King George over 1 1/2 miles might have taken a lot out of him.

Frankel won't have that disadvantage,and it unless anything can gradually wind it up and really push the tempo of the second half, I wouldn't be surprised if he can do it. I don't think he's going to match "the Brigadier" with a group level win at 1 1/2 miles.

Thanks for the reminder on Cape of Good Hope. He really got around, foaled in England, sent to Hong Kong, where the likes of Silent Witness, Grand Delight and Bullish Luck, stopped him taking a big, but the won gr. 1 in England and Australia. You'd have to wonder, over the last ten years ago, whether as a group the sprinters in Hong Kong, haven't been the strongest on turf anywhere in the world.

re: Royal Ascot Day 1: Frankel!

HongKonger — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 07:42:14 GMT

Actually there was a Hong Kong-trained horse won a feature race in Royal Ascot, that's 2005 Golden Jubilee Stakes, won by Cape of Good Hope.

re: Royal Ascot Day 1: Frankel!

Hal Dane — Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:43:56 GMT

It's probable that Excelebration and Side Glance were still going FULL OUT.. to win second place prizemoney of £75.000 which is equivalent to winning a Group Two race..

Perhaps Timeform has actually under-rated Frankel.?

re: Royal Ascot Day 1: Frankel!

John T — Sat, 23 Jun 2012 03:56:32 GMT

Hi Alan

The race that has been chosen for Frankel to make his

apperance at 10 furlongs is the same race at York that Brualio Baeza rode such an magnificent race on the Epsom Derby winner Roberto to get the better of the great Brigadier Gerard.Can Frankel go one better than the Brigadier? I really think he can do it.

re: Royal Ascot Day 1: Frankel!

sceptre — Sat, 23 Jun 2012 01:15:39 GMT

Thanks for the explanation, Alan; it was considerate of you to take the time.

I did do some more reading on Timeform's "methods". As you imply, while they're consistent in their approach it's not exactly science. It's probably a more precise tool than was the Thoroughbred Record's "Performance Points", or the "Beyer's", etc., but my guess is that if you dig deeply enough you'll discover that it is somewhat predicated on less than scientific assumptions, and employs a goodly amount of subjectivity. Fact remains that the horse didn't break the course record (albeit over less than ideal ground). Such ground, however, is not uncommon to Ascot and it was run over a common distance. It might be interesting to review earlier years Ascot 1 mile races run over similar conditions, their times, and the past quality of the winners. My guess is that there were others with times/conditions fairly close to Frankel's -that didn't receive nearly the "rating"...I guess I'm just not that smitten with Frankel, nor with those he has defeated. I'll also admit that I don't like his physical type, and am not too taken with his pedigree. So, he is one I tend to root against. I do feel he's an extremely well managed horse, and his employed pacemakers tend to serve him well. Don't kow if I'll be around long enough to see if my prediction that he'll be a relative dud at stud proves accurate.

One that I do care about, and root for-Black Caviar- runs tomorrow. I really hope her record remains unblemished, but am fearful that her connections have placed her in great jeopardy. Her deserved reputation will be tarnished should she lose or win unconvincingly.

re: Royal Ascot Day 1: Frankel!

Alan Porter — Fri, 22 Jun 2012 13:26:58 GMT

Hi Sceptre,

It is hard comparing European turf and U.S. dirt races. The first thing to look at is that Timeform had (prior to the race) Excelebration as the joint-second best horse in Europe (with the excellent Cirrus des Aigles) on 133.

The official distances behind in England are based on time lapses between the horses at the finish, on a fixed scale according to the official going report. Timeform also take into account the pace of the race to create a lengths to lbs. figure. The figures are then correlated to historic figures for the race, and with the other runners.

At 3 lbs to a length it was something like a 33 lbs. beating that Frankel gave to Excelebration, which if the runner-up actually ran 14 lbs off his current rating actually puts Frankel at over 150, so presumably they are working off just a little less. Apparently - as you say - this is consistent with the third and fourth running within 2 lbs of previous form, with other horses in the race running below known form.

I'd also have to suggest that the reason Excelebration ran below form was his attempt to cover Frankel's mid-race burst, which "cracked" him. I think what does get a bit lost these days is that the gap between the best horses and the rest has closed over the last 40 years or so. This means that it's quite difficult to absolutely annihilate a decent group three winner, especially over a distance as short as a mile.

With the mid-race split v the Arlington Classic (and Impressive's 1:06.8 opening three-quarters), I think it's very difficult to compare a tactically move in the second have of the race, by a horse that wins, with an admittedly freakish opening split by a horse who finished off the board.

I don't know how the Racing Post (England's equivalent to the DRF) derives their ratings, but interestingly enough the have Frankel running a new top of 142, compared to a previous top of 139, and they gave Dubai Millennium 139 for for his Dubai Gold Cup win.

At the end off the day, there's obviously more to greatness than speed figures, but I'm prepared to believe that it's more likely Frankel did run off the charts on Monday (narrowly missing the course record on ground rated good-to-soft) than the entire field ran massively below their best .

re: Royal Ascot Day 1: Frankel!

John T — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 04:47:23 GMT

I think Fred Archer,Sir Gordon Richards,Charlie Smirke,

Steve Donoghue,Lester Piggott would all have loved to sat on

a horse like this one ''Superb''

re: Royal Ascot Day 1: Frankel!

Obmar — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 03:59:45 GMT

Sea-Bird Derby and Arc Timeform = 145.

Ribot won 2 Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe = 142.

Todays everyone gets a trophy.

re: Royal Ascot Day 1: Frankel!

IrishEuroSpy — Wed, 20 Jun 2012 22:06:45 GMT

Frankel : Scary monster,I cannot understand what I saw. He is Northern Dancer back for more, How can he evolve like this?

re: Royal Ascot Day 1: Frankel!

sceptre — Wed, 20 Jun 2012 21:06:48 GMT

Alan,

You're likely more informed than I on the Timeform Ratings' mechanics. That said, I'm still puzzled how they arrived (logically) at Frankel's 147 for the Queen Anne. I, too, watched the race-this time live-, as well as all his others.

Forgive me, but I remain unconvinced of his greatness. Let's take this Queen Anne, for example. Exactly what did he beat? -and much the same could be said for his earlier races. (by the way, you mention that Excelebration's effort was 14 lbs. below his best. Timeform states that he ran a few lengths below his norm-and the 3rd and 4th a few lengths better than their best. So, how does all this equate to Excelebration's 14 lbs. below his best?). If Excelebration did indeed run well below his best, why was an 11 length Frankel victory-in a bit above course record time-deserving of the highest Timeform Rating ever? Excelebration is far from a true great-at his best-, and look at the others. OK, even assuming you're correct that Little Bridge's best furlong was :10.78, and Frankel's best, :10.58, what's so remarkable about that? As you know, the pace/style methods over there differ from ours, so it's not that unusual for there to be a very swift 1/8 mile split within, for ex., a mile race-and as swift as one contested at shorter distances. I certainly wouldn't equate that Frankel :10.58 single furlong split on par with let's say Impressive's 6 f. time (on route to a mile!) in Buckpasser's '66 Arlington Classic victory or, for that matter, Frankel's Queen Anne vs. Buckpasser's Arlington Classic-particularly in view of the competition each faced. Among many other examples, I also can't fathom how Frankel's Queen Anne rating (at a mile) could be so much higher than Dubai Millenium's World Cup (1 1/4m) in which he defeated a far superior field in track record time. It's unfortunate that they weren't of the same crop, because I'm relatively certain that Dubai Millenium would have defeated Frankel handily-even at Frankel's limited range of 1 mile. Frankel is, no doubt, a very gifted horse, but his resume, thus far, seems to fall well short of deeming him a truly great.