R.Ascot : RPR & TS - I must have been rating a different R.Ascot

No doubt they are bent into shape. It's a fairly impossible task really. The race distances can't be relied upon for a start.
Maybe they should be called speed handicapped ratings. I suspect many of us so a similar thing with our own ratings.
Ascot must be even harder to predict, given the part artificial surface of the home straight.

i agree with stow judge about ascot,track is so hard to gauge performances.I have a rule for ascot and doncaster(for that matter) keep the ratings those horses achieved to those  tracks and them only.Make sure they can/have achieved similar marks away form these track before you dive in at short odds.

Bit long winded but i hope you get where i am coming from.

Sandown

I'm not an RP member so I don't know the Topspeed ratings. It's also difficult for me to make direct comparisons as I prefer to use a much lower scale and prefer not to factor wfa allowances. What I can say is I have Al Kazeem running only a Listed/Gp3 time, although there was only one race on the round course that day so it's open to a wider interpretation than most. I agree Rizeena was a good time, as was No Nay Never. I can see why Remote could be rated higher if using a direct comparison with other races on the round course, but in my view, the slowish early pace and bunched finish is at odds with this. I did, however, rate him higher on his previous run and he's a horse I would be interested in backing again. Kiyoshi was very impressive on the clock, as well as visually, well above average for the race, although I'm not convinced about her long term.

As far as future betting goes I thought the most interesting performance was that of War Command, as in my opinion the time was pretty mediocre for such a seemingly visually impressive performance, I'll be looking to oppose that one.

figgis,war command is highest rated 2yo by timeform by some eleven pound,like you at short odds i will be looking to get him

SJ, I hadn't seen that Timeform rating, even more keen to lay oppose him now then

I'm not saying it was a rubbish time but I'd say it was slightly below average. Since the course alterations I have only Hellvelyn and Power below him. It looks as though the whole race fell apart around him. Of course, he might be better than that, or might improve on it, but as he was even a surprise to connections maybe that's as good as he is? As he's going to be priced up as a future superstar he has to be opposed by anybody that uses the clock as a guide.

*lay or oppose him

cheers for that figgis,also feel that the stand side may have had a slight advantage.
Btw do you time boys take that into account as well?

Thanks for many replies

SJ, I don't generally factor that into my ratings but I make a note of the circumstances.

thanks again figgis i'll leave you in peace now.lol

No problem at all, sj.

i swear top speed figures are just plucked from the air...

Just to chat about ascot in general...and the 2 year olds...poor bunch in general

I have to say although it was a weak looking chesham I really liked the winner...he still has a lot to learn but can only improve physically...hope he can go on from this and although i'm not a heavy 2 year old backer i am interested to see how this fellow progresses...the mother was a really progressive mare and although the maiden he ran in first time looked a poor affair with a bunch finish, he himself looks progressive and is just a likeable individual...just hope they don't go mad with him as like i say it was a poor chesham but if he goes on from this he could be good... p.cole a worry though

here's my speed figures for day 1 on the straight track.
my standards are slightly different to RP. plus i use less wfa.

DOW 115
SP 122
WC 119
EX 109

Figgis I have War Command just 3lb less than what I gave dawn approach last year. thought it was a decent performance myself

I think my biggest differences were on saturday my ratings for Lethal Power and York Glory much higher than TS.

Stevie, actually I have him only 2lbs less than the rating I had for DA. I had DA improving significantly in the National Stakes. I tend to think that the difference between a good winner and an average winner is too big where most official ratings are concerned, I don't know if that's because they overestimate the effect of weight or some other reason. I don't know what the official ratings were for the race since 2006 but I have only a 6lbs spread between best and worst over the last 8 years.

As I said, I'm not saying the performance was slow, just that it was ordinary and he's going to be priced up as much better than that. In my view he isn't on the evidence so far.

Yeah, in Lethal Power we might just have a British sprinter who can back up a Gp1 win for the first time in years.

Apologies, I wasn't including Canford Cliffs, would be an 11lbs spread with him included.

I agree with you on Remote Figgis, I had him running higher at donny but looking at the sectionals on turftrax I would say he is alot better than the time figure I gave him for that race. none of the races on the round course were truly run that day

btw Sandown, one of the difference between Topspeed this year is the 6f standard time was changed from 73s last year down to 72.4 this year. my one is 72.6. anyway must study carlisle now.

fwiw, best 2yos last week with me were:

116 - War Command (compared to 113 for Dawn Approach last year)
110 - Berkshire
109 - Extortionist
108 - Kiyoshi
108 - Supplicant
107 - Anticipated
107 - No Nay Never

the winners War Command, Kiyoshi and Berkshire looked to have fair bit more to come

Wow, ped, I'm surprised you have WC so high, you obviously must have a higher 6f standard than me, in relation to the other distances on the straight track.

Ascot does puzzle me Figgis, hence the rider "fwiw".... but had the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th  in the Coventry running to near pre-race figures so think the winner very good.

Just checked database and highest 2yo figure have awarded last 4 years (bar Magic City Newbury 5f win in April 2011)..... including Frankel!

Yeah it can be problematic, ped. I still maintain that allowances can change even for races on the same part of the course when there has been no rain. I think this helps to blur the issue when compiling standards. However, for the Tuesday it was pretty straight forward for me, one allowance for the straight and one for the round.

morning, I have actually downgraded my first days ratings after checking sectionals on turftrax site and first race was steady fractions early on
So winners on straight track first day now
DOW 108
SP 115
WC 112
EX 102

WC still just highest of my 2yos for Ascot but on friday the headwind was stronger early on in the day when I checked the met office
Site after racing and I also think ground dried out by lightning cloud race. So possibly kiyoshi could be my highest if I make adjustments

Some observations re the future

1. War Command could turn out to be a G1 horse at 8f/10f
2. Al Kazeem is up to G1 class already
3. Rizeena and No Nay Never could both turn out  to be G1 class sprinters
4. Estimate is not yet in the same class as previous GC winners
5. Remote is better than his rating and can win at G2 class at least and possible G1 in time
6. Hillstar improved remarkbly and could go on to be G1 class
7. Berkshire is one to keep an eye on

Interesting that I differ with some over War Command who put up a fastish time with good splits and rates solid 2000 Gns material imo

Yes, Stevie, I'm absolutely sure that conditions for the Lightning Cloud race were much faster than for the earlier races. Too often one allowance is used for a whole card where one race is much quicker than the others. The implication being that all the other races were run so hard early that the runners all hit a brick wall, or they crawled early and sprinted, even though our eyes totally contradict the theory. Also, if people get their allowance wrong then the sectional conclusions will also be wrong.

Agree with most of that, Sandown, except WC obviously and Hillstar I have improving only 4lbs on his Newmarket run. I laid BOM in the race but it was a poor bet really as I'd figured that Hillstar was the main hope I had running for me and I ought to have backed him instead. I have it as just a bog standard King Edward performance, but wouldn't surprise me if he improved a bit more.

I think it's good that there are such varied opinions on this thread. It annoys me when I hear McNae on tv saying such and such ran a big/poor speed figure, giving the implication that all time enthusiasts are in agreement.

Actually Al Kazeem is another I disagree about, for me he's never run faster than a Gp3/borderline Gp2 time. Maybe he's just not had the circumstances to but I'm inclined to be against him when he meets proper Gp1 opposition.

That Newmarket run of Hillstars was quite difficult to rate given the tail-wind that day which seemed to get stronger. I still gave it quite a decent figure but do have the ascot run 12lb better with a possible 2lb sectional mark up. I do think he improved for the step up in trip.

Yes I agree about the tail wind getting stronger that day. I also gave Hillstar a fairly high figure last year at Leicester, where, for me, the ground was slowing after the first 2 races. Judged on that I think there's room for a bit more improvement, although I'd only back him to improve again if there was any value in his price, which is probably unlikely now.

Your comment on Al Kazeem is interesting, I wonder where this better opposition is going to come from. From the look of the Eclipse he might well have to beat the same two horses again plus maybe Mars to win. Although there could be definitely an arguement made that there is a dearth of decent G1 1m 2f horses at the moment. I agree he didn't improve much in the performance (if at all) but I still think this will be good enough to pick up the eclipse for instance.

Yes, the Eclipse looks a rubbish renewal this year and Al Kazeem would be a worthy favourite, although I won't be backing him. The only likely runner I can see that looks capable of giving him a race is Mars, but he's another I have no plans to bet on. I'm hoping Al Kazeem wins with the view of taking him on next time when his reputation will be even higher.

@Figgis, I am now on Al Kazeem ante-post at decent enough prices and would like him to win obviously, I have stated on the eclipse thread that I think he will go off a lot shorter, potentially 5/4 or 11/10 as a top price. If there aren't alot of entries then I could see even shorter than that. However I would agree that if he wins he could shorten up for a lot of races for which I wouldn't fancy him so much, for instance the Arc.

Just a word about the Chesham

I saw the runners in the pre-parade ring and noted that Berkshire was very skittish (and therefore crossed him off). Both he and Bunker were very mature 2yo (someone suggested to me they both looked like 3yo) and hence my plunge on the latter as he was well behaved.

New system required here

I remember when I was at Doncaster and Rasheeda was going nuts in the parade ring and thought I had done my money but he won so wouldn't put too much stock into it. It also didn't stop him being gambled from 8/1 to 3/1.

Just opinion but I think that the winner apart, the Coventry was a terrible race, so the winning distance is misleading.
Also I think Spencer is a genius over 6f at Ascot, and as such Kiyoshi might be a bit flattered.

120p    WAR COMMAND
109p    KIYOSHI
108p    BERKSHIRE
108    RIZEENA
106p    COACH HOUSE
106    EXTORTIONIST
106    SANDIVA
105    ANTICIPATED
105    SUPPLICANT

Timeform's ratings have War Command well clear

The last time I can remember a similar situation like this was when Three Valleys looked very impressive winning the race, the time was ordinary, though, imo anyway. He was well beat by One Cool Cat next time, but did go on to win a weak Middle Park and finish 2nd in a poor Dewhurst.

My highest rated maiden before Ascot was the Leicester one in which Toormore beat Ertijaal.

Ertijaal won today, not a great time, although I managed to get a rough sectional to a path after 2f which he appeared to reach around 3s after the 6f hcap and then ran the final 4 around 2.5s quicker and he's beaten a reasonable horse in 2nd by 6.

Both him and Toomore I feel could match War command's rating.

The difference of opinion over War Command shows just how much error or a difference in calculations, can make. FWIW I have WC running to a projected rating (i.e what he could be capable of) of up to 128. We shall see what we shall see but it might pay for all of us to be a little wary given differences in opinion.

Must say, I'm a bit baffled by the difference here. I certainly don't expect everybody's ratings to be uniform, standards will differ slightly for some courses and sometimes I make some unorthodox alterations due to wind influence. As it's Ascot, though, I'm very confident in my standards and I only used one allowance for the races on the straight. It would be possible to raise the allowance and rate the Queen Anne higher than I have, I have it as a moderately run below average renewal (possibly the winner would be capable of better), but the 5f races would be unrealistically high.

Figgis

I've used Declaration of War and Sole Power to anchor my ratings for the Tuesday. Both have OR the same or within 1lb of each other.On the assumption that both ran  to no more than their marks and using the same going allowance for all races, I have WC running to 118 but given that he ran 23.66 for last 2 furlongs (fast for a 2yr) I have to credit him with up to max 10lb more . The conversion of time to a weight rating is where differences will occur plus the WFA but even without conversion I'm pretty comfortable with WC looking all over a G1 horse.

Sandown, so without the sectional mark up, how does your 118 compare with, say, the last 5 winners of the race?

absolutely no doubt War Command a serious Group 1 horse, which don't say for many types who actually manage to win a Group 1. If he trains on, must have very good chance of landing a classic

Figgis

I gave Dawn Approach 123 projecting to 129 in 2012, Power running to 112 but not projecting more in 2011, Strong Suit 102 projecting to 121 in 2010, so WC  maybe 1 lb below  DA possibly.

120 - Canford Cliffs
116 - War Command
113 - Dawn Approach
109 - Power
107 - Art Connoisseur
96 - Strong Suit

2009 Canford Cliffs 123 (projection 123) in 2009, Art conn 109 proj 118 in 2008

Of the last 8 winners I have him only ahead of Hellvelyn and Power and would say he's a below average winner. I'm not saying he's rubbish and I'm not nailing that rating to him and saying he's not going to improve on it, but I am saying he's certainly no superstar in waiting on that showing and can't wait to oppose him.

Figgis

but the 5f races would be unrealistically high.

After reading "Bioenergetics and Racehorse Ratings" I decided to adjust 5f and 6f standards as I too had trouble in the past with 5f ratings in particular coming out over-rated. There is a formula in the book which explained why that might be.

he's certainly no superstar in waiting on that showing and can't wait to oppose him.


This is why there will always be a backer for every layer. If we  and Pedrobob can't all agree (although he and I obviously do on WC) then it's clear that a market can always be formed.

Figgis, if you are saying that War Command is not very good and will oppose him nto, then would you not also be inclined to oppose all the also-rans who finished 6 lengths and more behind a not very good winner?

Yet 12 of the 15 strong field were lto winners, with 9 of them finishing in the first 9 home, followed by a newcomer. The pair who finished 2nd and 2rd lto finished 13th and 15th. Seven went into the race unbeaten including the first 4 home?

Forget the clock for a moment, surely our eyes would have to say this is a very smart winner?

Sandown

I have that book somewhere, it's very good. I have to admit some of it is over my head and not really much use to me, but he makes some valid points regarding pounds per sec/length. While I don't go along with the people who believe weight has little relevance, or only becomes relevant when a 'tipping point' is reached, I've always believed that the official scale overestimates the effect of weight.

pedrobob

the reason i would prob be against war command next time(at short odds granted) i believe stand side runners later in day were favoured,but i have been wrong many times.Also i do believe at times ascot does throw up 'funny' results

Ped, yes, but as far as racing is concerned I've learned that my eyes often deceive me . The beaten horses might not be great but I believe that many of them ran below par, for whatever reason. It might sound unlikely but it does happen. As I said, Three Valleys won the race and was visually impressive, I'd argue he was even more impressive than WC as he won by 8 lengths. It was difficult to believe all the runners behind ran so bad but on the clock it was a below average performance and his subsequent efforts proved he was overrated.

I use the formulas in the bob wilkins book too, but as I said before i downgraded War Command from 119 to 112 because I did my ratings too quickly as I thought Queen Anne was reasonably run and I was happy Aljaamaheer had run to his previous figure of 114 but after doing the sectionals I found I would have to mark him up by 7 so therefore had to reduce all ratings for that day.

As for WFA I add on 18lb for 2nd half of June. That works best with my figures. I'm quite happy with my Ascot figures now. I do think War Command will improve for further distance but I don't think he's G1 class over 6f yet.

I meant 18lb for 2yos over 6f 2nd half of June. so thats included in my 112

tbf to Three Valleys, the Coventry was only a Group 3 in 2003, Figgis. As you say, those behind weren't very good (looks like they won 1 Group race between them on subsequent starts)

On the other hand, Three Valleys broke the juvenile track record, so surprising that you say he clocked a modest time given that the ground recorded as Good To Firm that day, no other track records recorded (despite Choisir beating Acclamation and Oasis Dream in the following race and Dubai Destination winning the Queen Anne by 4 lengths later on)

also Three Valleys (easy in hindsight) was a precocious 2yo never likely to improve much at 3?

Not sure I would put War Command in that category

WC did not win because they went too fast. Look at his last 3 furlong sectionals - he won because he had much greater speed over the last 3f both in a relative and an absolute sense. Given that he dropped back from 7f and that he has only had 2 races and that physically he has plenty of scope, I most definately would not be against him. Only the price will deter me from getting involved and but for the fact that I don't want to tie up cash I would be backing him to win the 2000 gns .

I can't recall the track record bit, I do know the ground was fast that day and from memory I don't think there would have been many top class races over 6f back then? The 5f record would've been more difficult to beat and I had Choisir on a high rating for his Kings Stand win. It was more Three Valleys' 2yo record that I was talking about. He did win a weak Middle Park and came second in a poor Dewhurst but that form was short of what was expected of him immediately after his Coventry demolition.

according to wiki, fastest Coventry times on the old 6f track since 1980:

73.62 - Three Valleys
73.80 - High Estate
73.95 - Petardia
74.34 - Verglas

on the new track:
72.46 - Henrythenavigator
72.86 - War Command
73.55 - Power
73.59 - Art Connoisseur
73.64 - Canford Cliffs
73.64 - Dawn Approach

Wasn't doubting your information, ped, just couldn't recall that. As we all know, track records are meaningless (apart from revealing fast conditions) on their own. I still have the spread sheet for the card that day. Choisir I had above average, Dubai Destination I also rated a good winner, I backed him that day against Hawk Wing (nice opportunity for a bit of aftertiming ). Three Valleys still comes up below average, in fact, it's exactly the same mark I have WC on. It looks like yours and Sandown's 5f and 6f standards are closer to each other than mine.

Figgis, Pedro I notice you both have Canford Cliffs above Dawn Appriach. Now I wasn't doing my ratings back in 09 but looking back now I see they both recorded the same time and the Kings Stand and Windsor Castles races were just a shade faster in 09?

Stevie, looking back the Windsor Castle was a shade slower in 09. One thing I would add about times at Royal Ascot is the effect of watering when conditions are hot. It's not unknown for that water to dry rapidly after a race or two.

ah I see cheers.

Stevie, I downgraded the later races on the straight course for Dawn Approach day, no adjustment for Canford Cliffs year. Figgis' explanation would be correct.

Just curious, are we all in agreement that Frankel ran the best overall times (not including sectionals) of any horse we've seen, or do some disagree?

gave Frankel 131 when winning the Guineas and 130 in the Queen Anne, and 126 when winning the Juddmonte International.
On my scale, giving a 120+ rating is rare. In the last 4 years, apart from Frankel, only:

125 - Harbinger, King Gerorge
124 - Workforce, Derby
121 - Camelot, Derby though that was a standout for the horse which never got anywhere near before or after, may have to go back and review

correction, gave Frankel 132 when winning the Juddmonte International

That Wrotham Heath race on last years derby day was quite a steady pace pedro. I had to downgrade Camelot. Yes Frankel my highest by a fair way.

I think Camelot's Guineas win was one of the worst I've seen in recent years but his Derby performance is now being wrongly downgraded just because he hasn't gone on from it. It wasn't the fastest I've seen, it was behind Authorized and Workforce, for me, but it was up to the standard of a decent winner, as good as Galileo's for instance. For some reason, in racing if a horse's form deteriorates then there's a tendency to go back and rubbish what it did earlier, this doesn't happen in other sports.

I only downgraded it recently due to looking at sectionals which I didn't do last year and I rated the Wrotham Heath win as if it had been truly run but I've since given that race a sectional mark up and therefore had to adjust the going allowance which led to Camelot only getting a 118. I've gone back and done Workforce and given him 126.

Didn't mean you, Stevie, I think anyone compiling ratings has to go back and revise stuff as the season unfolds, or they ought to, nobody can get it right first time every time. I was referring to the racing media, most of whom piss me right off anyway

sorry Camelot, you've been downgraded down to 115. Never got within 15lbs of that either before or after. Whilst the 2nd, 3rd and 4th in that Derby still similarly have by a fair margin their best figures either before or after. Might even have to knock some more off....

Let's hope the Irish Derby is a truly run affair tomorrow. Really want to see how good the likes of Rule The World and Libertarian really are.

From memory I can't remember one that was particularly falsely run. To be fair, it's not often that Epsom is falsely run either, this year especially and STS' year were the ones that stand out.

when you think O'Brien went mob handed both years, Figgis, amazing that he put his jocks on a go-slow.... when you would have thought that if the fav had a chink in their armour pre-race, it was stamina?

I know, ped, in the end it didn't make any difference to the winning results of both races, although I'm not convinced the places necessarily would've been the same this year off a better pace. In 09 you could say all his runners were possibles but this year he ran 2 no hopers with no intention of using them for pace, some people said the slow pace wasn't by design but I find it a strange accident, especially as Bolger had mentioned wanting a good pace to settle his horse.

personally think one of the jocks stuck a needle up the backside of Dawn Approach first 10 yards, Figgis.... or a sniper on the grassy knoll fired a dart....

Yes, it was a conspiracy by Timeform and the racing world to keep Frankel's lofty reputation intact

Finalised my Ascot ratings and I'm not making any more changes for at least a few days
My top 10 2yos

Kiyoshi 114
War Command 111
No nay never 110
Rizeena 107
Berkshire 106
Coach house 105
Extortionist 104
Supplicant 103

I see Topspeed today has DOW a huge 22lbs behind Al Kazeem, which is baffling to me.

agree, I made it 4lbs?
Suspect they have a problem with the 5f to 1m comparison of standard times? If Topspeed raises Declaration of War (93), then will have to raise the 5f Windsor Castle winner (Extortionist 97) to a figure perhaps "doesn't like".

I have AK only 1lb higher, ped. As I've said before, I certainly don't expect everyone to agree, but 22lbs is ridiculous.

The 1lb higher rating is from his Curragh run, I rate the POW run 1lb below the Queen Anne.

ironically, I have the Curragh as a slow race

Ped, I can understand that, though. After repeated viewings of the Curragh race I'm not convinced it was as slow run as the comparative times suggest, so, rightly or wrongly, I made some adjustments for wind, as I often do for the Curragh.

Pedrobob, well your 4lbs was much closer to the result than my 1lb. How do you rate today's race? My immediate reaction was I must've underestimated the POW but I find it difficult to rate the Eclipse any higher than below average, which is surprising as the pace looked fair enough.

agree Figgis, just a modest gallop produced a slow time for a Group 1. They're a poor bunch imo and though he keeps winning, don't have Al Kazeem anywhere near Arc standard.
Visually, thought the pace was slow in the first half, they were racing all over each other?

Yes, I agree, after watching the race again I can see the pace was steady for most of the way. Maybe he's better than we're giving him credit for and he's capable of running faster if needed. Like you, though, I'm against him when he faces stronger in form opponents. Still, he deserves credit for toughness and consistency, attributes that some more talented horses don't possess.

looking at database, actually have him only 5-6lbs behind Orfevre, but bit more behind Intello (8*, notional figure) and Treve (11*), but as you say maybe Al Kazeem can go quicker yet.
One thing for sure, had the 3yos as a poor bunch bar Dawan Approach (and then Toronado in the St James Palace) all season, though the French Diane and Jockey Club winners above did very well imo.

the bha figures look too high to me.
Al Kazeem a 126 horse going into eclipse, Mukhadram a 125 horse and Miblish a 116 horse, that's miles out. Miblish can only be 104/5 max Mukhadram 114. Al Kazeem I have on a 119 after sectional adjustment at ascot which put him 5 ahead of Mukhadram.

It seems to me some modest horses have contested prestigious races and been awarded high marks.

AK getting damned with faint praise.

This is a very good horse that is improving with every race. Considering that it was arguably not his best distance, certainly not his best ground, he hosed up yesterday. He has speed, stamina and guts.

I think he is the real deal.

Oh actually it looks like the handicapper has rated the Ascot race through The Fugue's 116. Despite that horse having been given far too much to do on sectionals and was having first race of season.

think a lot of Al Kazeem's form rests on how high you rate Camelot.

Personally don't rate Camelot at all and think one of the biggest hype jobs Coolmore ever produced. Ran possibly one decent figure in the Derby (115), but not given him timefigure of higher than 90 in 6 starts since.

So remove Camelot, and what has Al Kazeem beaten? Beat Mukhadram twice narrowly, that horse's best effort is a 1/2 length beating of Main Sequence in a Group 3, who in turn hasn't won in 7 starts

AK beat Declaration of War yesterday, who in turn won the poorest Queen Anne in decades. The close 2nd and 3rd Alhamaheer and Gregorian in the Queen Anne had won 3 (listed, conditions and Grp 3) of their previous 14 collective starts between them

Agree that Al Kazeem keeps winning and very consistent, but not earned anything higher than timefigure of 100 in 11 career starts, well short (so far) of winning something like an Arc