ok

At end of day weight for age allowance is there for a reason which makes it equal. The older horse is stronger and more developed compared to 3yo. It equals it out as far as im concerned. If they face off and whichever one wins has to be considered better than the other over that distance.

makes perfect sense mate
W4A has been in racing since day 1 and like you say its there for a reason

That is why they wouldnt race Frankel over a mile last year cos they wanted to wait another year til he had grown up more and settled and got stronger.

But by your reckoning it would make no difference as the wight for age nullifies the advantage he would get from strengthening.

I can tell you that if Camelot beat frankel by a short head recieving 10lb every handicapper would still put frankel above Camelot in the ratings. Think of it as in human sprinters. Let's say the weight for age allowance for a 16 year old compared to a 24 year old is 15 metres. Let's say the fastest 16 year old races usain bolt using this allowance. So bolt gives him a 15 metre start over 100 metres, but gains on him and is in the end only beaten by a metre. By your reckoning the 16 year old is better as he has won. However anyone else would say bolt is better, which clearly he would be as he had to overcome a disadvantage. This is the same for older horses against 3 year olds, they have to overcome a disadvantage so it is harder for them, so if they are only just beaten they have in absolute terms put in a better performance. What the weight for age does is it allows you to see who is relatively better FOR THEIR AGE but it doesn't determine is who is ultimately at the time the better horse. So the 16 year old would be better for his age than bolt but clearly bolt is still much better. This is why the Dubai Millenium vs montjeu and frankel vs BC were so appealing because they would both be off level weights(discounting the gender allowance), which would ean the outcome would be clear cut as to who is the better horse.

Yeah but what can Camelot do? It cant change that can it? It can only win. It would still be ahead cos its had more races with more time to get that rating with impressive performances. If camelot then came out after that meeting and won leger and arc i think it would be a similar rating if not ahead. Sea the stars never beat a horse as good as frankel yet got a rating of 140 timeform. Guess there is no point Camelot racing older horses then going off what you are saying

How can you say Montjeu would have been murdered by Dubai Millenium?

He wouldnt have been able to live with Dubai milleniums pace. He wasn't that quick a horse. To put it into perspective, on the arc trials day the year sinndaar won the arc, montjeu and sinndaar both won their separate races impressively, both carrying 9-2, but sinndaar was a whole 6 seconds quicker. That's about half a furlong at least. Dubai Millenium was a group 1 winning miler. Have you seen te prince of Wales. Sendawar was a group 1 miler as well. But it wasn't that Dubai Millenium outstayed him, as Sendawar was gone before they had travelled a mile. If your telling me montjeu, who didn't win a proper race below 1m4 would have been able to keep up with Dubai Millenium, then I don't know how you can call yourself a follower of racing.

There would be nothing it could do about that apart from beating frankel by the distance that equates to whatever the weight for age allowance is e.g 2-3 lengths. In the scenario I proposed where he only beat him by a short head, which is the most likely situation should he win, which I doubt, he would have beaten frankel by maybe the equivalent of a pound, so frankel would still have put up a performance of 9lb better.

So you think the brigadier would have beat mill reef over 1m2?

I am not saying that Camelot shouldn't race older horses, I am just saying a match between Camelot and frankel wouldn't work. I completely understand why they have the weight for age as otherwise the older horses would win everything and it makes it a level playing field. However for finding out purely who is the better horse, it distorts the result. So when a 3 year old beats older horses in a group 1 he is a better horse for his age, but he still might not ultimately be a better horse. There is also nothing to say he will improve to the next year, so of he has reached his peak at 3 as opposed to 4 then he gets a massive advantage. This was shown with workforce who made the most of the weight for age at 3 but then couldn't build on it at 4.

I don't see how this is connected to the original debate but the brigadier beat everything that was put in front of him except once when he wasn't right , so yes.
Also can you put a poll at the top of this thread so we can get an idea of people's views.

In my opinion workforce was not a great horse though and hence why he wasnt able to build on it at 4 and beat nathaniel in king george

He hit his peak at 3 and was conceding nearly a stone to nathaniel and was only just beaten, and for this reason I believe nathaniel this year will also be a disappointment.