Frankel WTR rating
- Thread starter SteveM
- Start date
B
Bruce_Savage
Guest
If only Sir Henry had the balls to run him in the Epsom Derby.
Every man and his dog could see he had the stamina in his pedigree to stay 12f, it's almost as if he run him that way in the Guineas to force the pressure of running him in the Derby.
Frankel would have won the Derby by at least 10 lengths.
Every man and his dog could see he had the stamina in his pedigree to stay 12f, it's almost as if he run him that way in the Guineas to force the pressure of running him in the Derby.
Frankel would have won the Derby by at least 10 lengths.
Which course would you choose for this match, Aragorn? Newmarket, Ascot, or Epsom? What I do wonder is if BC would handle undulations here in the UK - Australian tracks look pretty flat to me, although now someone will stomp me to dust and say I'm wrong! Or would you like FRANKEL to travel to Melbourne?
It'd be the race of a lifetime for most of us around now - imagine the take on the gate, wherever it was!
It'd be the race of a lifetime for most of us around now - imagine the take on the gate, wherever it was!
davidjohnson
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2007
- Messages
- 3,434
He's got a long way to go to be as good as Dancing Brave it seems.
On The Bridle
At the Start
And El Gran Senor..... Is there anything that can be done retrospectively about those monster ratings? I cannot see El Gran Senor as being a better miler than Frankel no way.
Great as Frankel has been in his 3yo season he didn't do what Dancing Brave did at a range of distances between the Guineas and the Arc... few have. DB got his high rating of 141 primarily for his Arc win at 12 furlongs.
I'd expect Frankel's mark to progress this season as he gradually steps up.
That would be a match. Even though I'd side with Frankel there is zilch chance he'd be stepping back in trip this season. Look forward rather to him taking on the best at around 10 furlongs.
DB got his high rating of 141 primarily because the ratings were inflated back then.
Or: Frankel got his low rating of 136 primarily because the ratings are depressed now.
Pick your favourite
There has been a little slippage, but it's not really correct to call either rating inflated or depressed (I know this is what one handicapper at least claims, but recent ratings for some horses have been very inflated despite slippage... Harbinger on a WTR of 135 for example only 1lb short of STS and Frankel). However, I accept that true comparables probably ought to be a little closer re Frankel vs DB. But DB certainly deserved his rating for a phenomenal classic season. Just as the likes of Mill Reef, etc deserved theirs before him.
Last edited:
Euronymous
Senior Jockey
DB got his high rating of 141 primarily because the ratings were inflated back then.
Or: Frankel got his low rating of 136 primarily because the ratings are depressed now.
Pick your favourite
Timeform had DB on 140 and have kept a broadly similar scale since. They have Frankel on 143. The IC have been a joke since they rated Old Vic higher than Nashwan.
Last edited:
There was 1lb in it, but I remember the consensus at the time claiming they wouldn't have done this had Nashwan been expected to reappear at four.
Bar the Bull
At the Start
I prefer Timeform to these.
This would put Frankel 2lb ahead of Mill Reef with only Sea-Bird, Brigadier Gerard and Tudor Minstrel ahead of him. While Frankel may justify this sort of rating in time I'd doubt this should be due to him quite yet.
136 may be a little low, but 143 is too high. I couldn't rate him above Mill Reef on what he has done so far.
Last edited:
This is the question that intrigues me. People tend to forget how good HW was in this. Despite being more inconsistent overall he may have been as good as we have seen from Frankel on his Lockinge performance. It's certainly one of the few performances from any horse at a mile that would compare.
Last edited:
Harbinger
At the Start
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 11,282
It depends on your perspective. Either way, they're not comparable, as the official handicappers admit themselves.
A single example of a horse you think was over-rated says nothing for the overall level of the handicap. Again, the official handicappers have admitted that the overall level of these ratings has changed. Straight comparisons are worthless.
The only requirement for a horse to "deserve" his/her rating is if a single performance, analysed with as much skill and rigour as possible, leaves no other fair and realistic result. A horse who achieves great things doesn't necessarily deserve a high rating, and a horse with a high rating hasn't necessarily achieved great things. The greatest ones manage both, of course.
...and Dancing Brave was one of the greatest.
Although, as I say there has overall been slippage, comparison of respective ratings is not worthless. It is certainly sensible to say that the likes of Mill Reef and Dancing Brave have shown a superior level of form at this stage.
Harbinger is sadly not an isolated case. The fashion these days seems to be to add pounds for what they might have run to rather than what they did run to, which should not have a place in historic ratings (more appropriate as a working hypothesis during the season).
I reckon Frankel's 136 may well underestimate him by the end of this upcoming season though.
Although, as I say there has overall been slippage, comparison of respective ratings is not worthless. It is certainly sensible to say that the likes of Mill Reef and Dancing Brave have shown a superior level of form at this stage.
Harbinger is sadly not an isolated case. The fashion these days seems to be to add pounds for what they might have run to rather than what they did run to, which should not have a place in historic ratings (more appropriate as a working hypothesis during the season).
I reckon Frankel's 136 may well underestimate him by the end of this upcoming season though.
STS did though and he has the same rating as Frankel - discuss.
Personally, I would be amazed if the horses from the 60's, 70's, 80's got within five lengths of these two. In the same way that professional football, Athletics, Rugby etc have benefitted from modern training techniques and advances in and medicine, Horse racing has done the same. Compare the 100m record to what it was in 1975, there is no comparison. Trying to compare previous generations is just pointless.
Harbinger
At the Start
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 11,282
He's got a black mark in the achievement column, but I don't think that's really in any question.
You might see it as sensible to say, but you'll find no evidence in the International Classifications to support it (certainly not for Mill Reef!).
If that was the case, then surely the ratings would be higher now than they were in the '80s? They're not, because the "fashion" these days is actually to compress the ratings, and require a horse to do more to hit those 140+ ratings.