Frankel and the International Stakes

[Dawnrunfan]

Frankel runs in the Juddmonte
because is a very good race and also because it is sponsored by his owner

And also because Frankel is the best since Wollow (to quote Henry Cecil) and Wollow (a miler) won the B & H Cup = Juddmonte - and I won money on him, hooray!

 

[Euronymous]

And also because Frankel is the best since Wollow (to quote Henry Cecil) and Wollow (a miler) won the B & H Cup = Juddmonte - and I won money on him, hooray!

Henry Cecil thinking Wollow is his second best ever horse is another indication that trainers don't always know best.

 

[reet hard]

Frankel runs in the Juddmonte
because is a very good race and also because it is sponsored by his owner

But the POW and the Eclipse are also very good races, and he didn't run in them - despite 'knowledgeable forumites' clamouring for him to be stepped up in trip ever since his Guineas win.

 

[sunybay]

I dont know why people would rate Frankel higher than he is if beating Nathaniel , Farhh and So You Think in any of this year 10f gr1

others trainers
are running scared of him because it is not the case of a horse with a chance to beat,
what happens is Frankel destroy them
Excelebration is a better horse than So You Think and look what has happened to him in the QA, Lockinge, QEii,etc


the only race they will not run scared would be the Arc but other than that people will be running in the races they know Frankel is not going to be


This is the best horse ever.

 

[clivex]

Jockeys and trainers make misjudgements all the time... we all do...including every poster here...

and its very easy for some to say "this should have been done" or "that should have been done" without ever having to front up the results isnt it? I bet most would freeze on the spot if the actual decision had to be taken

Good exmaple to quote Nick mordin. I like Mordin in many ways, but hes made some seriously strange calls in the past and if those were practised, explaining away some bonkers theory to a Magnier (you can see his face now) or a Mohammed is somewhat different to moving on to the next column

But the idea that someone reading a little bit of form and watching c4 racing once a week will know more about a horse than the professionals training, assessing and riding every single day is bollocks frankly

 

[EC1]

would agree with much of the above but not that really. what do punters see that trainers and jockeys do not? and the info on a few group ones in a season is hardly mind boggling

if i was hiring a trainer i woudl bloody well hope he has a better idea of what the horse is suited to than some berk on betfair

i wasn't talking about a berk on betfair though..i was talking about serious punters..pricewise & ordinary punters at the level of Gigilo and even Nick Mordin sometimes. There are lots of knowledgeable punters out there who study the game hard..harder than a trainer would have time to do

 

[EC1]

A quick glance through this thread should expose the above supposition for the complete bollocks it quite clearly is.:lol:

its bollocks to say there any good knowledgeable punters out there..people who do it for a living????

I think you don't know what you are talking about tbh...and thats most of the time..so if we are talking about punters like you..then yes my statement is b0llo0x

 

[EC1]

Agreed, I've had to point out the bleeding obvious to trainers on a number of occasions.

no thats not possible Stan..Reet says they are experts and everyone else can't possible know more than they do

 

[EC1]

Jockeys and trainers make misjudgements all the time... we all do...including every poster here...

and its very easy for some to say "this should have been done" or "that should have been done" without ever having to front up the results isnt it? I bet most would freeze on the spot if the actual decision had to be taken

Good exmaple to quote Nick mordin. I like Mordin in many ways, but hes made some seriously strange calls in the past and if those were practised, explaining away some bonkers theory to a Magnier (you can see his face now) or a Mohammed is somewhat different to moving on to the next column

But the idea that someone reading a little bit of form and watching c4 racing once a week will know more about a horse than the professionals training, assessing and riding every single day is bollocks frankly

i think professional punters do a little more than that Clive

i never said that what should have been done..i have said that relying on what jockeys & trainers say & do isn't the best policy in finding what conditions suit a horse

 

[clivex]

There are lots of knowledgeable punters out there who study the game hard..harder than a trainer would have time to do

And all they can do is study whats gone before. I would be absolutely certain that if these self same punters were trying to place a horse in races from their bedsit rather than actually working with the beast every single day, they would make a complete mess of it

And I bet those very same punters value every bit of information they can get from a yard and certainly do not ignore a respected trainers plans or think they automatically know better

 

[EC1]

But the POW and the Eclipse are also very good races, and he didn't run in them - despite 'knowledgeable forumites' clamouring for him to be stepped up in trip ever since his Guineas win.

i think its fair to say that the Juddmonte is a harder race to win usually than either of those two..but if he had run in either of those two you can be sure he would have had an easy time as all the best oppo would have been pulled out

you think a stiff 10 in your opinion would stop F winning..but to be fair he could run at 12 and still win as trainers won't oppose him

i never said forumites knew better than anyone..i was talking about people who study racing for a living

although its fair to say some of the antics that trainers do with horses even a novice punter could see the foolishness

 

[EC1]

And all they can do is study whats gone before. And I bet those very same punters value every bit of information they can get from a yard and certainly do not ignore a respected trainers plans or think they automatically know better

i didn't say they automatically know better

i think you'll find that all trainers can do also is study whats gone before as well

i doubt many serious punters take much notice of trainers and jockeys tbh..obviously if someone tells you that a horse has a stone in hand and has been on the ball in the past..then yes you take notice..but i'm talking about what trainers think a horse's best trip and ground is...not inside info

 

[clivex]

think you'll find that all trainers can do also is study whats gone before as well

So no assessing how a horse is progressing on the gallops How its strengthening out ? How it is or isnt settling? How its jumping obstacles at home?

and so on and so forth

and none of these factors matter in relation to which race it goes for?

The idea that AOB for instance just sits in an office with timeform whilst Camelot spens all morning on some running machine...

 

[EC1]

Good exmaple to quote Nick mordin. I like Mordin in many ways, but hes made some seriously strange calls in the past and if those were practised, explaining away some bonkers theory to a Magnier (you can see his face now) or a Mohammed is somewhat different to moving on to the next column

i wasn't talking about his bonkers theories though..the example was where he picked a race suited to a horse..and the trainer acknowledged he took note of a mere punter

 

[clivex]

you miss my point. That was an isolated example and fair enough

But would you have him running your horses on the basis of nothing more than his databases? Not a chance

 

[EC1]

So no assessing how a horse is progressing on the gallops How its strengthening out ? How it is or isnt settling? How its jumping obstacles at home?

and so on and so forth

and none of these factors matter in relation to which race it goes for?

The idea that AOB for instance just sits in an office with timeform whilst Camelot spens all morning on some running machine...

i think you are missing what i'm saying..in regard to what suits a horse ..ground distance & course..a trainer has exactly what we have as evidence to look at..it makes no difference how fit a horse is at home to what i'm saying

i don't know what you are on about with the timeform comment...i said a trainer has a lot do rather than dicking about with stuff a pro punter would look at...which is why just looking at where a trainer places a horse doesn't mean the trainer "knows" for a fact that it is the right placing

a lot of this game is trial and error for anyone involved..i don't see what special powers a trainer has to know what a horse's best conditions are without some trial and error. once that trial and error has taken place we can all then look at that horse and take a view of what suits it and what doesn't

imo..once that evidence is in the formbook...i don't believe a trainer is any more of an expert than a pro punter at assessing its best conditions or which races will suit it

 

[Marble]

Could it be the reason we're having this debate is because trainers are not forthcoming enough in regards to expressing why they make decisions and what methods they used to make them? For example, why will Sir Henry not run Frankel at the Breeders Cup, what is that based on? I'm not questioning his decision, but I'm curious as to why he's never even considered it, and written it off at every possible point.

I can't recall the specific example but I'm sure there was a case a couple of years ago where a trainer such as Jeremy Noseda took stock of what someone like Nick Mordin had said with regards to sending a horse for a foreign race and it payed dividends.

This is a key debate though, as what drives punters mad is not knowing when and when not to listen to a trainer (stating the obvious here).

 

[EC1]

i'm pretty sure sure you may be thinking about Dancing Rain Marble re the foreign race.

the debate stems from Reet judging how stiff York 10 is based on ONE horse being placed in a certain way by AOB...and that any evidence put forward by anyone other than a trainer is inferior

well..i'll give another example of how a trainer went against a lot of reasonably knowledgeable punters views and got it wrong just to show that trainers don't always know better than some lesser beings

again its AOB..and no i haven't got anything against him..but seeing as how RVW was the horse Reet used...lets look at the Derby that RVW ran in

i would guess that to a man on here everyone ..from what i read anyway..thought that his best chance in that race was F&G..but AOB geared the pace of that race against F&G and for RVW...even though at the time we didn't know STS was going to stay 12....AOB's tactics actually would have helped STS being a doubtful stayer... but because he thought RVW was the best horse in his stable..and better than STS...he disadvantaged what many punters thought at the time was his best 12f horse.

so..who was right about which was his best 12f horse at that time?...and don't forget AOB knew those horses better than any punter as he saw them everyday..unless he were on the running machine reading Timeform and never bothered with em

do trainers always know more than punters based on that very high profile example?...imo its not always the case

going back to RVW mile argument..AOB thought this horse his best 12f horse one month..but according to Reet just a few weeks later had realised he was just a miler...is that possible?

i can see that a trainer may think it might be in question whether a horse will get 12f..but i can't see AOB mistaking a 12f horse for a 8f one to the point of gearing the biggest race of the year in its favour over his best 12f chance F&G...you know with him being an expert and all. I think AOB realised after the Derby that RVW was actually a 10f horse and put him in the Eclipse..which he would have won any of the previous 20 runnings. Saying a horse didn't stay 10 because it bumped into STS is like saying F&G didn't stay 12 in the Derby because he got beat by STS

if RVW was just an 8f horse i can't see how AOB would have geared the Derby up for him when he had a stone cold selection in F&G...but if AOB was pretty confident he stayed 10 and hoped for the 12..it might make more sense going to all that trouble

 

[reet hard]

the debate stems from Reet judging how stiff York 10 is based on ONE horse being placed in a certain way by AOB

There you go again, deliberately misquoting me - it makes it almost impossible to discuss anything seriously while all you're interested in is venting your bile. Ffs give it a rest, and just stick to discussing what is actually written, rather than pushing your jaundiced and misleading slant on it.

AO'B, like most other trainers, wouldn't generally try his horses out for distance in a full-blown contest on the gallops, and wouldn't know a horse's optimum trip without racecourse evidence. That's why RVW ran in the Derby.
He then ran RVW in the Eclipse, and apart from the evidence of his own eyes (and those of his many professional advisors) he also knew from the jockey how the horse re-acted at every stage, and how the horse had come out of the race in the next few days - much of which would not be available in any form book.
Based on that knowledge, he was then dropped back to 1m and proceeded to win a Sussex and a QE11. The rest - as they say - is history, though AO'B never revealed he thought him miler until 14 months later (in a moment of unusual candour), and some still think him a 10f horse, even though the stiffer tests were studiously avoided.
No trainer gets it right all the time, but those at the very top of their profession are there for a reason, and - as a matter of course - have much better advice and insight into their own charges than any pro gambler could possibly muster. The real trouble is, many of the misinformed on racing fora think they know better.

 

[clivex]

I totally agree with last para reet. Also whilst an optimum trip will never been confirmed until the racecourse surely some evidence from the gallops and the general feel of the horse plays a big part ?

 

[EC1]

There you go again, deliberately misquoting me - it makes it almost impossible to discuss anything seriously while all you're interested in is venting your bile. Ffs give it a rest, and just stick to discussing what is actually written, rather than pushing your jaundiced and misleading slant on it.

you give yourself away with this type of offensive nonsense Reet

you have for the last 6 years on here and elsewhere purposely posted against any views I have..or if you agree with me you don't post

its boring pal

i haven't misconstrued anything..your attitude is that trainers know way more than any punter..i disagree and have posted examples to show that

you are pointless to debate with as your views are so dyed in the wool

and you always resort to personal attack..only on me it seems though...Bruce used to post up any nonsense and you agreed with it

 

[reet hard]

EC
The quick answer is to check back through this thread, and just see who's the father of all this personal crap.

 

[EC1]

EC
The quick answer is to check back through this thread, and just see who's the father of all this personal crap.

the personal crap started many years ago by yourself ..aimed at Stav/Seen & myself

all you have done is come to this board and continued it

on this thread there have been some good arguments put up not just by me but the overriding point you want to make is that punters are clueless and listening to trainers is always the best bet

well..all power to you..if you really believe that..i don't and have have put up counter argument..bile as you call it..nice

i'll let others take part in the thread if they can be arsed...i can't be bothered wasting more time with it

 

[Marble]

Speaking of TheRacingforum, anyone know what happend to that cocky little chap Mr Wilson?

If you're reading in, I just want to say, didn't Colonel Mak end up being one to follow...

 

[reet hard]

This is a key debate though, as what drives punters mad is not knowing when and when not to listen to a trainer (stating the obvious here).

Aye, there's the rub, Marb - how to sort the wheat from the chaff.
Pre-race comments are often anodyne and uninformative, but there's many a real gem in what winning connections say in their euphoria immediately afterwards, and well worth trawling through when putting any money down.
Wouldn't be without them, personally, and the odd nugget picked up from TV interviews. Referring back to an earlier post, I recall an interviewer asking John Dunlop if a horse (trying a new trip) would stay, and he replied "We don't really know till we've tried them" which is as honest as it gets, and well worth storing for future information.
Needless to say, it helps to have some respect for the training profession, there's thousands that don't, and are missing a trick because of it.