Road to the 2000 Guineas

Bar the Bull said:
There is nothing wrong with St. James' Palace -> Sussex -> Juddmonte or Jacques Le Marois (I suspect the former, given his owners). Depending on the performance in the Juddmonte, then decide whether to go for the Arc or the QEII/Breeder's.
Click to expand...

That sounds good to me. I don't think a horse with that sort of speed will stay the Derby trip. I cant see them not running at York in August and I think that that will be his first crack at more than a mile.
 
My figure for Frankel's time on Saturday is 134. It includes WFA. From memory, my best figure for a Guineas winner in recent years was Haafhd's 129 in 2004.
 
Last edited:
SteveM said:
I see the RPR for Frankel is 133, while Timeform has him on a provisional 142. As big a fan of Frankel as I am the Timeform figure simply cannot be accurate. TF is saying that Frankel has already justified a higher mark than the best of Dancing Brave or Mill Reef (by its own standards). In a race run almost 2 seconds slower than standard how is this possible?

btw... it's already like you've never been away EC ;)
Click to expand...

cheers C - lord:cool:

the 2 seconds thing isn't mysterious Steve..even though the ground was fast the wind slowed all times..using the other comparative times shows that Frankels time was exceptional

i still don't undertsand why people are missing a major factor here re the rating that TF have given F

the extra they have given him is because if any horse had gone that fast that early they would have finished 50 lengths behind whatever horse won

if anyone knows anything about running..try running a mile ..at 200 metre pace ..see what your overalll time is..then run the mile at a mile pace..when you compare the two you will find that the 200 metre pace race is lots slower overall time...and that in that race..you would have been beaten by a lesser runner who ran even pace for a mile

thats what TF have tried to do..they have realised that F went way too fast early..i think adding 5lb is being cautious tbh

anyone reading that race on how far behind F horses finished..is missing one hell of a big slice of what actually occured in that race.
 
cheers Gearoid

I've done some timings..not 100% accurate but i've checked them a few times

Frankel ran the first 4f in 47.00
Tangerine Trees ran the first 4f in 46.70

that is frankly staggering really isn't it?..or is it Frankely staggering?

he has run about a length or so behind a mature sprinter after 4f..then still kept going to trash the guineas field

its a bit freakish
 
Last edited:
just to add..the 4th furlong of the sprint is downhill..so its fair to say Frankel ran as fast as TT did for 4f..as his first 4f were reasonably level
 
That really is an outrageous split.... Good insight EC cheers. This performance will be the subject of debate for a long time simply because of the unconventional nature of it.

After 3f I was shouting at the screen asking "what is he doing?"!!!!
 
Grey said:
What an exhilarating performance by Frankel, who was literally out on his own yesterday and simply burst any rival who tried to go with him. He is one of the most exciting horses I have ever seen.

That said, I would query the Timeform rating for Satuday's win. When horses win races by a big margin the methodolgy used to rate them starts to give wobbly results. The yardstick of so many pounds per length beaten works ok in normal races, but not in races where a horse detaches itself from the rest of the field.

I don't have a satisfactory explanation, but it seems to me that if one horse gets too far in front and won't be caught, that the elastic of competition breaks. Once that happens each additional length put between the winner and the rest of the field is more cheaply achieved.

I therefore operate a rule of thumb and reduce the RPR ratings of wide margin winners. Over jumps, if a horse wins by more than say six lengths I reduce the points for each additional length by perhaps half, sometimes even more. For example, I would usually reduce the rating of a performance assessed at 140 after winning by 20 lengths to something in the low 130s. I have found that this approach has served me well, that it provides a more realistic assessment of wide margin winners.

Timeform seem to be taking the opposite approach, and are not only following a linear scale for distance beaten but are even adding bonus points for wider margin victories.
Click to expand...

Very interesting post... not scientific and can be torn apart in that way, but sometimes sheer common sense goes a long way..
 
SteveM said:
I hope you're right. I did see that they said they had added in 5lb for the worth of the performance (so I suppose they are saying he has run to 137)... but they can't just do that. This is what the + and P are for. Extra pounds were not added in the past. Why now.

They can't claim Frankel is superior to Dancing Brave or Mill Reef if he hasn't actually run to a figure.
Click to expand...

Exactement. I have been told I was trying to start arguments for saying as much!

Do I remember you posting exactly the same about Sea the Stars 2 years back (I may even be tempted to dig that out!)?
 
Gearoid said:
What's your opinion on Frankel running on a more even keel over 12f?
Click to expand...


Its impossible to say isn't it really.

i would be a watcher in the Derby..i would love him to win it..but its no betting proposition imo

i think compartmentalising him as a streched out sprinter might be wrong though

i would employ a pacemaker in the Derby..and a very strong jockey on Frankel:)
 
EC1 said:
Its impossible to say isn't it really.

i would be a watcher in the Derby..i would love him to win it..but its no betting proposition imo

i think compartmentalising him as a streched out sprinter might be wrong though

i would employ a pacemaker in the Derby..and a very strong jockey on Frankel:)
Click to expand...

Anything else on your rating worth noting so far this season?
 
On my speed ratings, I've given Frankel an unadjusted Beyer figure of 118 which would equate to a Timeform figure of around 135 with WFA (can't find the exact conversion as a friend has the Beyer book with the accurate conversion chart in it).

On that figure, he'd batter Canford Cliffs unless he improved quite a bit and even Goldikova would have a job on her hands to beat him, I'd make Frankel slight fav over her depending on how she runs in the Ispahan this weekend.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't read anything into the Ispahan - it will be a pipe opener for Goldikova and no more. She should still win though.
 
You're so excited you're posting in the wrong section! I am in the same boat - come on Judd!
 
Hamm said:
Exactement. I have been told I was trying to start arguments for saying as much!

Do I remember you posting exactly the same about Sea the Stars 2 years back (I may even be tempted to dig that out!)?
Click to expand...

Timeform appear to be doing this all of the time in the past couple of seasons (when it suits them). It seems to me to be a headline grabbing tactic that has little to do with absolute ratings. A horse can only be judged in historical terms by what it has actually run to, not what it might have done if the conditions had been different or if they had been ridden differently.

We are left not only with an inaccurate master rating, but one that depreciates the great performances of the past. I took issue with Harbinger's provisional rating among others.
 
Last edited:
http://www.britishhorseracing.com/goracing/blogs/handicappers.asp

Something that needs bearing in mind when comparing the apples/oranges/other citrus fruits of ratings from different organisations is different pounds per length scale used. The BHA have released ratings for the first 3 as 130 (129+1)/117/116, I don't have the RPR's but Timeform's are 142 (137+5)/121/120. I don't know what the BHA's lb per length scale is, but it is clearly different from Timeform's. The difference in lbs 0/16/17 Tf scale. 0/12/13 BHA.
 
Euronymous said:
I still think a coherent argument can be made that Sea the Stars ran to 140 in the Eclipse.
Click to expand...

on which scale though?..OHR or TF..which are different as shown in David's posting.

this is why i get confused when people quote a 140 but don't allow for the different scales used

i always go the OHR route myself as i work off their ratings with speed figures.
 
Back
Top