Hello figgis,why to you percieve the opposistion ran below form in the KG?

Hi, MJ, using times it's possible to judge that the others ran below par. That still doesn't take anything away from the performance, for me, he's still the fastest older horse over 12f I've seen in recent years. The official ratings and Timeform also judged the rest ran below their best but that still resulted in high ratings. If the form had been taken literally he'd have been off the scale.

what price would Harbinger have been for the ARC?

I don't know as I think he was due to go to York first. Personally I wouldn't have taken a short price about him as I never take it for granted that a horse will still be in the same form in October after a summer campaign and those fast races probably would've taken something out of him.

would you have bet Workforce against Harbinger in the ARC?

No, as I didn't even bet Workforce without him in the field. I had a small bet on Cape Blanco that year, who ran dismally.

Why is it that horses finishing behind Frankel not given the same analysis?

They were, in his best performances like the Queen Anne a lot of the horses behind were judged to have run below par, but that still results in a high rating.

it is not good if time - speed ratings are in such disagreement,in merely prove the that there is no science behind it!

I've seen this said before and I just don't understand it. Speed ratings are just another form of handicapping, except time analysis is the bedrock instead of collateral form, although there still has to be a collateral element to it despite what some might say. There is some science behind it, although some people use different methods. Ultimately the figures are only as good as the person compiling them, as there are still a lot of judgement calls to be made, and even somebody skilled at it is going to make errors. Just because there can be disagreements or mistakes doesn't mean the whole concept isn't worthwhile, as regular handicapping also has the same problems (I'd say more so). A lot of these misconceptions about the 'science' of it come from tv pundits, who say things like "This horse ran a big speed figure", as though there is one undisputed definitive figure for a horse. Sometimes most compilers will reach the same conclusions but often they won't, and if you hear anybody regularly saying "This horse ran a big speed figure" as though it's a fact instead of an opinion, then take it from me they are talking out of their arse

Ivanhoe would be of great interest with a bit of dig in the ground.

I don't want to get into this MJ and Fig I am clenching my teeth and wringing my hands but sitting this one out. Irrespective of my views the actual facts are that when Harbinger (Ascot) ran a good time and Sea The Stars (York) broke the course record they were running on NEW courses so any depth of comparison is very small indeed. I will swerve the Queen Anne comment (seething) and say that I cannot see how a rating can be anywhere near being accurate when all of the other runners never ran to form.

I am clenching my teeth and wringing my hands
seething

What a very odd chap

Thank **** for that

I'm going to watch the footie. I will be having a few quid on Seismos in the big one tomorrow MJ while looking for a lower price lay off. GL all.

Looks like I'm a oner down already but it was only a punt. Hey ho!

"I cannot see how a rating can be anywhere near being accurate when all of the other runners never ran to form."

Horses are not machines, they don't "run to form" (exactly anyways) with anything like the regularity that is often spoken of.

"giving something a very high rating while guessing by how much they ran below form"

This is a solid definition of what a good handicapper does.

Oh yes Big O. That's why they are earning a pittance by working a handicappers! And that's why the ratings experts sell their ratings. A slow way to the poor house. As the handicapper said 'If you want to end up with a small fortune from betting it's best to start with a big fortune'.

Muddling race. I loved the way Willoughby talked about the natural speed of the favourite. How his time at Ascot compared favourably with Telescope. How he had so much speed he would pick them off late. Good race for the time men I guess.

I loved the way Willoughby exalted the virtues of the favourite and his natural speed. How his time compared so well with Telescope at Ascot. How he would sit on the leaders and pounce a furlong out. Good race for the Ascot time merchants.

Easy in hindsight this game.

Yes, sint, very brave not being able to give an opinion before a race and waiting to have a pop at somebody who has. Added to that there are the clueless assumptions that every 'time merchant' rates Telescope the same, every 'time merchant' backs the recent highest rated in a race every time and that 'time merchants' don't sometimes oppose a highly rated horse due to other factors.

Yep Figgis, and Arab Spring touched odds-on today on here, wouldn't have been the most expensive lay in the world if he obliged. But then you've got to have the balls to do that before the race.

Stop it you two. Stop it. You are ruining the thread.

why is that dead murph^^^???