Talk:Brigadier Gerard (horse)

Importance

I know some people will think BG should be higher than mid importance. I'm putting him there because a) he only raced in one country, and b) he had no real long-term influence as a sire. Then again the project is called thoroughbred racing so I'm not all that sure Tigerboy1966 (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that Brigadier Gerard should certainly be rated higher than 'mid importance' in any project related to thoroughbred racing, and for good reason.

Firstly, in 1999 Brigadier Gerard was voted Horse of the Century by Racing Post readers where he beat all bar one racehorse who, incidentally, had not run at that time. Secondly he is currently rated joint third in the Timeform list of their greatest racehorses est. 1946. And thirdly, Brigadier Gerard's record on the racecourse has been unmatched by any racehorse in the modern era. Brigust (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was a great admirer of the Brigadier, but I think Mid is right. Readers of the Racing Post would have been most familiar with British horses. Had a French or American publication polled their readers, the result would probably have been different. And great as his record was, surely that of Frankel was even better? I think High importance is a very high bar for a horse to reach, and should mostly be reserved for articles about key aspects of the sport (eg its history and races such as the Derby). Of horses that have raced in Britain, arguably only Golden Miller, Arkle and Frankel should be rated High, plus Galileo more for his record as a sire than for what he did on the track. JH (talk page) 15:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree you. If you think Frankel earned to right to be rated high then these are my reasons.

Brigadier was unbeaten in 15 races, Frankel was unbeaten in 14.

BG won races from 5 furlongs to 12 furlongs. Frankel never.

BG won Group 1 races from 6 furlongs to 12 furlongs. Frankel never.

BG beat better, higher rated horses than Frankel namely Mill Reef and Rheingold.

Based upon 2020 figures BG won 12 Group 1 races compared to Frankel's 10.

BG broke two course records. Frankel never broke a course record.

BG beat average time 5 times. Frankel beat average time 3 times and all were on newly improved racecourses were based upon previous times he would have only beaten average time once.

BG beat Epsom Derby and Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe winners Frankel never.

As a four year old BG beat better, higher rated 3 year olds than Frankel.

BG carried 38lbs in penalties, Frankel carried none.

BG's 2000 Guineas was far superior in quality to Frankel's equivalent.

Brigadier Gerard's winning margins over one mile were superior to Frankel.

And, finally, the 147 rating given to Frankel, in my honest opinion, is questionable at the very least. And is certainly unproven.

These, among other reasons, are why I believe BG should be rated High. Brigust (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the occasional wording errors, this was written while watching one of the best tennis matches I have ever seen. Brigust (talk) 07:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See below. Brigust (talk) 12:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Group races

Need to be careful here, I have reworded the lead. BG's G1 total was nothing like 13. The Middle Park win preceded the Pattern and races like the QE2, the StJPS and the Lockinge were definitely not G1 in 1971-2.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC) Fair comment they were not Gp1 then but often of Gp1 standard (especially today's) Was Excelebration a better horse than Sparkler: I doubt it. Brigadier Gerard beat a lot of horses easily, and those horses would have won many of today's Gp 1s. His Middle Park win was against two absolutely top colts. His Sussex win (which was Gp1) was against a top French colt. Even poor old Gold Rod who was usually smashed by 10 lengths or so won 'Group 1' races and was quite a good horse. As regards your top point if the project is about Thoroughbred Racing it must be of high importance because there are only about 4 other thoroughbred racehorses since 1945 of the same class.(Victor Middlesex (talk) 09:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

It would be higher for British Thoroughbred Racing, and if ability = importance it would be top. Assessing importance is not an exact science, but I would look for a high importance subject to have an impact beyond its time and location. BG was clearly a better racehorse than Northern Dancer, but he wasn't as important. As for G1 races, the pattern understandably took a while to settle down and there were plenty of anomalies in the early days, with a bias towards French races. This probably reflected the balance of power in the 50s and 60s but quickly became outdated. Even in the 80s it was common for G3 British horses to pick up G1 credentials in other European coutries- especially Italy. It does seen crazy that the Gran Premio d'Italia was rated a better race than the July Cup or the QE2, but we don't get to rewrite history. Tigerboy1966 09:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At first BG is criticised for only running in this country, it was the same with Frankel, then the shortcomings of the quality of Group races in Europe are added into equation.

According to Timeform the quality of horses running in BG's era, and indeed Dancing Brave's era, were substantially stronger than those running in Frankel's era. And Timeform prides itself with using the same method of calculation they always have. In so much as they criticised the BHA for their temerity when they decided to review Dancing Brave's rating because it appeared they were unable get Frankel to match that rating. Brigust (talk) 13:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Something amiss

This sentence is rather garbled: "On retirement he had won more English classic winner of the twentieth century apart from Bayardo (winner of 22 from 25 starts) and his ancestress Pretty Polly (winner of 22 from 24 starts)." Also, in view of Frankel's latest Timeform rating, the bit about BG's place in the pecking order needs updating. Incidentally, I think I saw the 2,000 Guineas on TV which BG won. I remember that Mill Reef and My Swallow were contesting favouritism, and that BG started at something like 8-1 or 10-1. JH (talk page) 21:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing this. Tidied grammar, although the statement could certainly do with a reference. In fact the whole article could do with a makeover. I'll get onto it after I've finished work on Paradox (horse) which I seem to have nominated over-hastily for GA. As for Frankel, a lot of news sources and WP editors (me included) jumped the gun on this one. Frankel's current 147 TF rating is a provisional one, whereas BG's 144 is an "official" end of year rating. btw BG was 11/2 for the Guineas, which was pretty generous since he had been rated only a pound behind Mill Reef and two behind My Swallow in 1971. Tigerboy1966 21:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must, at this point, mention that I was Brigadier Gerard's lad during his racing career. However any point I raise is based only on facts.

The number of Group races has varied since the Pattern began in 1971 where, excluding classics, there were 13 Group 1 races. That number today has reached 31. When a horse racing at the beginning of the Pattern won the 2000 Guineas over one mile there existed only one other race in England over one mile to run in and that was the Sussex Stakes. Other prominent one mile races required 2000 Guineas winners to carry a penalty. Making them, in my opinion, harder to win than similar one mile races run today because the opponents would be invariably the same but no penalties are carried. Brigust (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]