Frankel

[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 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.

[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.

[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

[philcski]

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.

I guess it was #3, unfortunately

[Mawhip]

Originally Posted by philcski

I guess it was #3, unfortunately

The injury was surely caused by trying to keep up with a horse he was incapable of keeping up with. CC showed his class but it ultimately got him injured and retired.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by Mawhip

The injury was surely caused by trying to keep up with a horse he was incapable of keeping up with. CC showed his class but it ultimately got him injured and retired.

Heck yeah man! Every runnerup in grade 1 races injure themselves when they can't keep up with the winner!

[hockey2315]

Originally Posted by Mawhip

The injury was surely caused by trying to keep up with a horse he was incapable of keeping up with. CC showed his class but it ultimately got him injured and retired.

Oh god. . . I was waiting for this one. Always a classic.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Mawhip

The injury was surely caused by trying to keep up with a horse he was incapable of keeping up with. CC showed his class but it ultimately got him injured and retired.

or maybe he couldn't catch him or keep up because he got injured? this is almost as nonsensical as anyone saying he had his heart broken or his spirit crushed.

[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.

[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.