Frankel

[brockguy]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

The runnerup ran like crap.

I don't know how people don't see that.

Why are you so sure he ran like crap?

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by brockguy

Why are you so sure he ran like crap?

Because to say anything otherwise would come close to legitimizing Frankel and we just can't have that. I honestly believe that if we had a board like this when Secretariat ran his Belmont or when Spectacular Bid ran his 1:57 4/5, there's a certain group of skeptics on here that would have found fault with those performances. I understand not just jumping in head first whenever we see something that appears to be great and I understand wanting to take the time to analyze it. But sometimes it's ok to admit you've seen greatness and it's ok to appreciate it. People are naturally reluctant to place anything new onto the same level or higher than that which they've romanticized for a long period of time. I get that.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by brockguy

Why are you so sure he ran like crap?

The angle makes things a little difficult to be certain, but he did bear out pretty badly in the stretch, right when he and Frankel were both asked for run.

That had to be problematic for him.

The thing that I'm having difficulty gauging with CC, because of the angle, is that it looks like he lost some lengths to both Frankel and the Godolphin runner, but as he finally straightened himself out, he was able to put some distance between himself and the Godolphin runner while gaining on Frankel.

But that totally could have been the camera angle.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Because to say anything otherwise would come close to legitimizing Frankel and we just can't have that. I honestly believe that if we had a board like this when Secretariat ran his Belmont or when Spectacular Bid ran his 1:57 4/5, there's a certain group of skeptics on here that would have found fault with those performances. I understand not just jumping in head first whenever we see something that appears to be great and I understand wanting to take the time to analyze it. But sometimes it's ok to admit you've seen greatness and it's ok to appreciate it. People are naturally reluctant to place anything new onto the same level or higher than that which they've romanticized for a long period of time. I get that.

So far, just myself and DrugS have said anything that didn't stamp Frankel as an all time great.

Neither of us said his race sucked, or were critical of Frankel, or said he wasn't a great horse.

All I am trying to say is that people completely lose any sort of historical perspective when they talk up a horse like they are doing with Frankel, or did with Zenyatta.

What the fugg is so hard for you to understand about this?

Frankel as one of the top three milers of the last century? That's ludicrous!

I'd be hard pressed to put him in the top three of the last eleven years.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Because to say anything otherwise would come close to legitimizing Frankel and we just can't have that. I honestly believe that if we had a board like this when Secretariat ran his Belmont or when Spectacular Bid ran his 1:57 4/5, there's a certain group of skeptics on here that would have found fault with those performances. I understand not just jumping in head first whenever we see something that appears to be great and I understand wanting to take the time to analyze it. But sometimes it's ok to admit you've seen greatness and it's ok to appreciate it. People are naturally reluctant to place anything new onto the same level or higher than that which they've romanticized for a long period of time. I get that.

By the way, did you even notice CC badly lugging out in the last 1/4 of the race?

What would you call that?

Would you say that that didn't hurt his chances?

Would you say that didn't affect his finish position, relative to the winner?

Or, are you trying to say that it didn't indicate that maybe something was wrong? That lugging/bearing out that strongly is completely meaningless?

In your post, you even say you understand about not jumping in and taking the time to analyze it, yet when two people do just that, they just are being grumpy old farts that don't want to legitimize a great horse.

You really outdo yourself sometimes.

[Mawhip]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

By the way, did you even notice CC badly lugging out in the last 1/4 of the race?

What would you call that?

Would you say that that didn't hurt his chances?

Would you say that didn't affect his finish position, relative to the winner?

Or, are you trying to say that it didn't indicate that maybe something was wrong? That lugging/bearing out that strongly is completely meaningless?

In your post, you even say you understand about not jumping in and taking the time to analyze it, yet when two people do just that, they just are being grumpy old farts that don't want to legitimize a great horse.

You really outdo yourself sometimes.

Did you ever think he was lugging out because he knew he was soundly defeated and his will was destroyed.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Mawhip

Did you ever think he was lugging out because he knew he was soundly defeated and his will was destroyed.

horses don't lug out because they are beaten and their "will is destroyed."

They bear out because 1) don't like the whip, 2) are over the top and tired, or 3) are injured.

Now, I thought highly of the performance but the runner up didn't run his A+ race.

[Mawhip]

Originally Posted by philcski

horses don't lug out because they are beaten and their "will is destroyed."

They bear out because 1) don't like the whip, 2) are over the top and tired, or 3) are injured.

Now, I thought highly of the performance but the runner up didn't run his A+ race.

How do you know?

He wasn't injured, he's not over the top. Only his third race of the season. And he's never shown a distain for the whip.

I suggest he was beat like he's never been beaten before and that effected him in a way that led to his lugging out. This is just a theory but it's as likely as any other that has been suggested here.

[brockguy]

Originally Posted by philcski

horses don't lug out because they are beaten and their "will is destroyed."

They bear out because 1) don't like the whip, 2) are over the top and tired, or 3) are injured.

Now, I thought highly of the performance but the runner up didn't run his A+ race.

Agree with the last statement Phil -

Canford has veered violently to his left before last year at Newbury and lugged to his right in the 2000 Guineas so it wasn't entirely surprising he did it but saying that, I'm hoping there isn't anything wrong and we can have a rematch in the QEII

[TouchOfGrey]

Originally Posted by Mawhip

Did you ever think he was lugging out because he knew he was soundly defeated and his will was destroyed.

[OTM Al]

Originally Posted by Mawhip

How do you know?

He wasn't injured, he's not over the top. Only his third race of the season. And he's never shown a distain for the whip.

I suggest he was beat like he's never been beaten before and that effected him in a way that led to his lugging out. This is just a theory but it's as likely as any other that has been suggested here.

Please keep betting. We need more like you.

[Indian Charlie]

One more race for Frankel this year, the QE2 at Ascot in October, then he's to return as a 4yo.

No BC.

[Indian Charlie]

Oh, and Canford Cliffs is being aimed to the QE2 as well.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

One more race for Frankel this year, the QE2 at Ascot in October, then he's to return as a 4yo.

No BC.

Ducking. Can't blame them.

[Seattleallstar]

thats some BS if they dont even attempt the Arc, if this is supposedly the best horse of all European times.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

By the way, did you even notice CC badly lugging out in the last 1/4 of the race?

What would you call that?

Would you say that that didn't hurt his chances?

Would you say that didn't affect his finish position, relative to the winner?

Or, are you trying to say that it didn't indicate that maybe something was wrong? That lugging/bearing out that strongly is completely meaningless?

In your post, you even say you understand about not jumping in and taking the time to analyze it, yet when two people do just that, they just are being grumpy old farts that don't want to legitimize a great horse.

You really outdo yourself sometimes.

To answer your questions, this is what I posted on the other thread soon after the race:

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I know that it might just be the moment speaking but I am pretty sure that he's the best miler I've ever seen. If you didn't know how good Canford Cliffs was, you'd have still been impressed. Knowing the quality of CC and how easily he was defeated, maybe it's not just the moment speaking. The only thing that's holding me back is that it's likely that Canford Cliffs was injured during the race looking at the way he was drifting out down the lane.

So yes, I did see him lugging out and I think he may be injured even though nothing has been said yet. So of course I think it affected how big the margin of victory was. But for me, I don't judge how good an effort one horse puts in by what another puts in. If he comes over and wins the BC Mile in 1:31 2/5 and wins by 20, do I say that since the others didn't run so well, it devalues what he did? I don't think so. That's just not how I evaluate a performance.

What I said in the other post was that I do understand that it's always best not to jump to premature opinions without analyzing everything.....but that sometimes you see something that you don't need to spend weeks and years of analyzing the data. Sometimes, you just know what you see right when you see it. Things like Usain Bolt running a race, Albert Pujols at the plate, Michael Jordan with a basketball in his hands....you know greatness when you are watching it. I will agree with you that it takes a longer time, usually until a career is over to accurately try to place a horse's achievements in a historical perspective but I don't think it takes as long to recognize talent. You may believe that it's silly for people to say they think he's one of the great talents they've ever seen. That's a matter of opinion. For whatever it's worth, his trainer says he's the best he's seen and he's been around and had some pretty good ones in his care. In any event, just because some of us disagree with you doesn't mean we don't understand where you are coming from.

[OTM Al]

Originally Posted by Seattleallstar

thats some BS if they dont even attempt the Arc, if this is supposedly the best horse of all European times.

He's a miler, not a middle distance runner.

[Seattleallstar]

woo hoo the Euro version of Twirling Candy

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by OTM Al

He's a miler, not a middle distance runner.

Well, to be fair, some of the great Euro runners of the past excelled doing both. Look at two of their most recent "superhorses" in Zarkava and Sea the Stars. Both were good enough to win grade ones at 8f and also win the Arc the same year. In fact, Zarkava was not only good enough to win a grade one at 8f but she beat Goldikova while doing it. He can continue to dominate at a mile and maybe go down as one of the best milers ever but I think that in order to join the conversation as best ever period, he's going to have to show an ability to do a little more than just run miles.

[Mawhip]

King Glorious is right on here. He's a brilliant miler, maybe one of the best in recent memory but in order to go down as one of the best he will have to win a race like the Irish Champions Stakes or the Juddmonte International both at 10 Furlongs. I think asking him to win the Arc may be a bit much for a horse with his speed. I'm sure if they cut him back to sprint distances, he would win any Group 1 at that distance as well.