Using time here shows nothing but a horses ability to run 3f, according to what you're saying. Since it's not really a flat course, and the total time is 6 seconds slower than the world record on turf for a true flat course, I fail to see your point. Unless you use the time for the whole distance, for me this information is useless. If I'm missing something please point it out. As I just don't understand timing a race not being judged by time.
It doesn't make any sense to only take a 3 furlong time in an 8 furlong race. Either you take final times for the whole distance or don't bother at all. This applies to any horse not just Frankel. It just doesn't make any sense. Since when are these races judged by time anyway. I don't understand the point of this at all. On the one hand using TR and then on the other inserting partial time. To insert Usain Bolt into this, who's time is taken as a whole makes it even more bizarre, puzzling video
Times dont mean a hoot. Black caviar would eat Frankel over 5 furlongs flat tack on a hard track. Frankel would murder Black Caviar over 8 furlongs on the UK tracks. They are different horses on different tracks and are never likely to meet except in a Breeding barn and I doubt BC's connections would want Frankel over her bearing in mind its not an ideal cross.
no because excelebration's would be a longer time as well u twat not just frankel's you cant pick holes in facts frankel is the king he runs faster time's than black caviars final furlong for 3 furlongs he is the best horse the world and this is why he run's sprinter last furlong sectional's for his last 3 furlongs which is unreal and wherever your from your trainers will be doing anything to get there hands on his yearlings.
The 14.01 final furlong seemed instinctively wrong you would have thought they would have had a closer look as part of their analysis. After seeing the 14sec final split I was starting to think he'd be vulnerable in the Juddmonte. Luckily I read the comments and saved myself some money. Hand timed the final furlong at 12.2sec that means the extra 1.8sec would make it unlikely that Frankel didn't run a sub 11sec furlong but if they can be 1.8sec out for one furlong who knows.
Instead, the official sectionals say that Frankel was 1.33 seconds faster than Excelebration through the final 2f, which is only 8.5 lengths. It appears that Frankel's 3-2f is too fast, and that his final furlong, or possibly his final 2 furlongs, are too slow.
I'm not sure if the overall time is incorrect at all, or that simply the 3-2 sectional and the 2-winning post sectional are out by an equivalent number that balances out."
For the final furlong, Turftrax have Frankel recording 14.0, and Excelebration recording 14.7. The .7 seconds difference this time implies that Frankel has run his final furlong 4-4.5 lengths quicker than Excelebration.
As it is now evident that Frankel and Excelebration were close to neck and neck at the 2f pole, Frankel has to have gone 10.5-11 lengths quicker than Excelebration in the final 2 furlongs.
you can pause the video 10 seconds on from 1:05 (1:15), 11 seconds on from 1:05 (1:16), or 12 seconds on from 105 (1:17), the results remain the same. From this it is obvious that Frankel has not recorded 10.58 for the 3-2, but more like 11.0-11.2, much the same as Excelebration.
Excelebration passes the 2f pole, Frankel has not gapped Excelebration by 3-3.5 lengths, they are still very much in the same positions relative to each other as they were when they passed the 3f pole, with probably no more than a half length between them, and certainly not 3-3.5. As you cannot see the 2f pole in this video, it may seem silly to try and guess where they pass it, so to account for any error in estimating the point where they pass that 2f pole,
Turftrax have Frankel recording a 10.58 for the sectional between the 3f and the 2f. They have Excelebration recording 11.12, therefore they have Frankel going .54 seconds faster than Excelebration in that sectional, or about 3.5 lengths. If you fast forward to the 1:05 mark of the video, you can see that as they pass the 3 furlong pole, Frankel and Excelebration are separated by at most a half length. If you go to the 1:16 mark of the video, 11 seconds later where apparently
This is a copy of an email I sent to Turftrax regarding the sectionals for Frankel's Queen Anne detailing why I believe them to be incorrect, and consequently why I believe (through no fault of Simon Rowlands) much of this analysis is incorrect.
"Hi Mike, just thought it'd be worth explaining myself a bit better incase the first explanation is confusing at all:
It appears that there are errors within the sectionals provided by Turftrax, specifically for the 6th and 8th furlongs sectionals.
Icyhotboo Says:
29/01/2013 6:47:36 AM
Using time here shows nothing but a horses ability to run 3f, according to what you're saying. Since it's not really a flat course, and the total time is 6 seconds slower than the world record on turf for a true flat course, I fail to see your point. Unless you use the time for the whole distance, for me this information is useless. If I'm missing something please point it out. As I just don't understand timing a race not being judged by time.
Icyhotboo Says:
27/01/2013 11:53:17 PM
It doesn't make any sense to only take a 3 furlong time in an 8 furlong race. Either you take final times for the whole distance or don't bother at all. This applies to any horse not just Frankel. It just doesn't make any sense. Since when are these races judged by time anyway. I don't understand the point of this at all. On the one hand using TR and then on the other inserting partial time. To insert Usain Bolt into this, who's time is taken as a whole makes it even more bizarre, puzzling video
FUCKUflylion132 Says:
4/11/2012 5:26:00 PM
Frankel = G-A-R-B-A-G-E
FUCKUflylion132 Says:
4/11/2012 5:25:25 PM
Wise Dan "absolutely" smoked Excelebration. Make me wonder what Frankel was finishing in front of. Obviously not much. Enough said.
jon1357911 Says:
17/10/2012 5:22:46 AM
because he is the best maybe
Tivashley Says:
15/10/2012 8:53:06 PM
BTW what gives the Armchair Jockey's the right to declare so definately as to which horse is best. Who the hell are they?
Tivashley Says:
15/10/2012 8:50:47 PM
Times dont mean a hoot. Black caviar would eat Frankel over 5 furlongs flat tack on a hard track. Frankel would murder Black Caviar over 8 furlongs on the UK tracks. They are different horses on different tracks and are never likely to meet except in a Breeding barn and I doubt BC's connections would want Frankel over her bearing in mind its not an ideal cross.
princessforeverxxx Says:
12/10/2012 5:42:23 AM
See, frankels faster than black caviar
jon1357911 Says:
11/10/2012 12:38:08 AM
no because excelebration's would be a longer time as well u twat not just frankel's you cant pick holes in facts frankel is the king he runs faster time's than black caviars final furlong for 3 furlongs he is the best horse the world and this is why he run's sprinter last furlong sectional's for his last 3 furlongs which is unreal and wherever your from your trainers will be doing anything to get there hands on his yearlings.
Pactrolus Says:
24/09/2012 9:47:47 PM
Unlikely. The probably recognised him as the nutter he clearly is!
postcardterry Says:
24/09/2012 7:29:35 PM
These facts should shut up the jerks but I doubt it will.Andy Warhole should never have mentioned the 15 second bit.Too many pricks took it on board!
gypsy9865 Says:
10/09/2012 10:35:08 AM
alright ill take a bet wi ya 20 says he'll win again anyone?
teganstott Says:
22/08/2012 8:14:29 PM
The 14.01 final furlong seemed instinctively wrong you would have thought they would have had a closer look as part of their analysis. After seeing the 14sec final split I was starting to think he'd be vulnerable in the Juddmonte. Luckily I read the comments and saved myself some money. Hand timed the final furlong at 12.2sec that means the extra 1.8sec would make it unlikely that Frankel didn't run a sub 11sec furlong but if they can be 1.8sec out for one furlong who knows.
sp3193 Says:
28/07/2012 12:46:31 AM
Instead, the official sectionals say that Frankel was 1.33 seconds faster than Excelebration through the final 2f, which is only 8.5 lengths. It appears that Frankel's 3-2f is too fast, and that his final furlong, or possibly his final 2 furlongs, are too slow. I'm not sure if the overall time is incorrect at all, or that simply the 3-2 sectional and the 2-winning post sectional are out by an equivalent number that balances out."
sp3193 Says:
28/07/2012 12:45:39 AM
For the final furlong, Turftrax have Frankel recording 14.0, and Excelebration recording 14.7. The .7 seconds difference this time implies that Frankel has run his final furlong 4-4.5 lengths quicker than Excelebration. As it is now evident that Frankel and Excelebration were close to neck and neck at the 2f pole, Frankel has to have gone 10.5-11 lengths quicker than Excelebration in the final 2 furlongs.
sp3193 Says:
28/07/2012 12:45:05 AM
you can pause the video 10 seconds on from 1:05 (1:15), 11 seconds on from 1:05 (1:16), or 12 seconds on from 105 (1:17), the results remain the same. From this it is obvious that Frankel has not recorded 10.58 for the 3-2, but more like 11.0-11.2, much the same as Excelebration.
sp3193 Says:
28/07/2012 12:44:05 AM
Excelebration passes the 2f pole, Frankel has not gapped Excelebration by 3-3.5 lengths, they are still very much in the same positions relative to each other as they were when they passed the 3f pole, with probably no more than a half length between them, and certainly not 3-3.5. As you cannot see the 2f pole in this video, it may seem silly to try and guess where they pass it, so to account for any error in estimating the point where they pass that 2f pole,
sp3193 Says:
28/07/2012 12:43:33 AM
Turftrax have Frankel recording a 10.58 for the sectional between the 3f and the 2f. They have Excelebration recording 11.12, therefore they have Frankel going .54 seconds faster than Excelebration in that sectional, or about 3.5 lengths. If you fast forward to the 1:05 mark of the video, you can see that as they pass the 3 furlong pole, Frankel and Excelebration are separated by at most a half length. If you go to the 1:16 mark of the video, 11 seconds later where apparently
sp3193 Says:
28/07/2012 12:43:13 AM
This is a copy of an email I sent to Turftrax regarding the sectionals for Frankel's Queen Anne detailing why I believe them to be incorrect, and consequently why I believe (through no fault of Simon Rowlands) much of this analysis is incorrect. "Hi Mike, just thought it'd be worth explaining myself a bit better incase the first explanation is confusing at all: It appears that there are errors within the sectionals provided by Turftrax, specifically for the 6th and 8th furlongs sectionals.