Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Oh dear, another geezer without a clue. Bring back Jimbo imo.
Show More
Thsnkfully the BHA still have Dancing Brave ahead of Frankel.
I suppose rose-tinted nostalgia is the flipside of modern-day hype
I suppose rose-tinted nostalgia is the flipside of modern-day hype
winning distances ARE irrelevant SOMETIMES because horses have different styles of WINNING a race,
but the caliber of the horses they beat is NOT IRRELEVANT as the horses in that 2½ lengths covering the first 5 in D Braves's Arc race were all G1 horses !
but the caliber of the horses they beat is NOT IRRELEVANT as the horses in that 2½ lengths covering the first 5 in D Braves's Arc race were all G1 horses !
The milers Frankel is trouncing are very ordinary.
The Excelebration rating is laughable.
The Excelebration rating is laughable.
I wonder what Timeform would have Ribot on if he'd raced in this era and achieved an unbeaten 16 including 2 Arcs,
probly 170
probly 170
It always amuses me that when trying to diss a champion the totally unsubstantiated opinion that the opposition are poor or ordinary seems to be prevalent
... or even worse, injured in a race as people seem to be happy to accept that Canford Cliffs was
Not dissing a champion,
just don't think he has achieved (formwise) what the heart is dictating !
just don't think he has achieved (formwise) what the heart is dictating !
Find it hard to say frankie is the best ever on what he has done that is saying something when you have so many great horses gone before has he beat a classic winner yet I can't think of one
Ok heres a point, was frankel ridden to obtain the best possible rating possible because of history and the points made after Newbury about him racing at one distance rather than to just win the race, and, just as was the case last year after the guineas, will his next race be a little flatter??
Eddery was a jock who liked to come late, fast, or on the bridle on the MVOB and it looked good
Eddery was a jock who liked to come late, fast, or on the bridle on the MVOB and it looked good
well he won the guineas and was hardly likely to meet Pour Moi or a leger winner, 3yo's haven't met elders as of yet .... heavy cherry picking noflapleft
a good point Zil hence my point about different styles of winning and winning distances being irrelevant in some cases whereas the opposition is not irrelevant !
There seems to be a lot of wide margin successes recently. Homecoming Queen is just one example.
Homecoming Queen would've been hailed the best ever filly had it have been trained by Stoute or Cecil and had been fav !
Two many of the good horses are now in the same stable so we end up not getting the best taking on ezch other look at the derby what a joke
I would imagine when i am told this is the best horse ever he would have beat fields that had multi classic winner in it stacks of group1 winners behind you would think
An eleven-length win, without being all out, at the horse who's a minimum high 120s in a time only just outside course record (despite slower ground than that on which the record is held). What's so outrageous about rating that the best performance in history? To say distances are sometimes irrelevant totally undermines the whole principal of handicapping - on what else can ratings be formed conistently, other than the margins between horses?
I am not saying they can be irrelevant re handicapping,
I am saying they can be irrelevant when comparing horses with one another as the likes of Sea The Stars were never going to be visually as impressive as Frankel !
I am saying they can be irrelevant when comparing horses with one another as the likes of Sea The Stars were never going to be visually as impressive as Frankel !
So you suggest it's wise to essentially guess how much a horse had in hand, just because it's possibly beating horses of a better standard but by nothing like so far?
no, I am saying one should not get away by how far a horse beats clearly inferior opposition !
This that I found is worth a read, though, just for their explanation
http://betting.betfair.com/horse-racing/royal-ascot/results-reviews/frankel-queen-anne-winner-is-timeforms-highest-rated-horse-in-history-on-147-200612-43.html
http://betting.betfair.com/horse-racing/royal-ascot/results-reviews/frankel-queen-anne-winner-is-timeforms-highest-rated-horse-in-history-on-147-200612-43.html
Horses win by a wide margin like Harbinger and Hawk Wing then are immediately dissed. Whereas when Frankel wins by a wide margin that is fine.
No-one is questioning Frankel's superiority over Excelebration. No-one either is saying that is Excelebration's true form. You cannot have both ffs.
If Excelebration ran below form then by how much? Three lengths? That makes Frankel an 8 length winner.
You see Frankel supporters wan't the 11 lengths but they don't want the 'Excelebration form' bit. Because if Excelebration ran true to form he only ran 114. With even Timeform rating system of +29 that makes Frankel 143.
If Excelebration ran 3 lengths below form that makes him 120. Take 6lbs off Frankel that makes, according to Timeform, +23 superior we again reach 143.
But they don't want that, do they?
When Harbinger won he beat Workforce by a long way. Making the form look suspect. Then when Workforce was beaten further in the Arc last season perhaps the form is right? You cannot have both.
Frankel supporters want both and that ain't going to happen.
No-one is questioning Frankel's superiority over Excelebration. No-one either is saying that is Excelebration's true form. You cannot have both ffs.
If Excelebration ran below form then by how much? Three lengths? That makes Frankel an 8 length winner.
You see Frankel supporters wan't the 11 lengths but they don't want the 'Excelebration form' bit. Because if Excelebration ran true to form he only ran 114. With even Timeform rating system of +29 that makes Frankel 143.
If Excelebration ran 3 lengths below form that makes him 120. Take 6lbs off Frankel that makes, according to Timeform, +23 superior we again reach 143.
But they don't want that, do they?
When Harbinger won he beat Workforce by a long way. Making the form look suspect. Then when Workforce was beaten further in the Arc last season perhaps the form is right? You cannot have both.
Frankel supporters want both and that ain't going to happen.
How many extra pounds has Frankel gained from the Sir Henry Cecil attachment?
How many pounds has Frankel gained from the 'British horses are currently crap' attachment?
How many pounds has Frankel gained from the 'we need a superstar' attachment?
How many pounds has Frankel gained from the 'Racing for Change' attachment.
Add to that the fact that this is definitely not a golden era for British racing and Timeform find the best racehorse ever.
All of these points plus the hype and hysteria affect almost everybody but you can fool some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time.
How many pounds has Frankel gained from the 'British horses are currently crap' attachment?
How many pounds has Frankel gained from the 'we need a superstar' attachment?
How many pounds has Frankel gained from the 'Racing for Change' attachment.
Add to that the fact that this is definitely not a golden era for British racing and Timeform find the best racehorse ever.
All of these points plus the hype and hysteria affect almost everybody but you can fool some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time.
You see Frankel supporters wan't the 11 lengths but they don't want the 'Excelebration form' bit. Because if Excelebration ran true to form he only ran 114
you seem to be seething so much you are typinmg nonsense...if Excelebration ran to form Frankel would be in the high 150s
the race is rated as a whole and Excelebration obviously ran below form (to suggest he didnt would require you to think 3rd, 4th etc all improved)...no big deal
the idea that Timeform add on a few pounds for Henry Cecil/cos there's a recession and we need cheering up etc is just silly
you seem to be seething so much you are typinmg nonsense...if Excelebration ran to form Frankel would be in the high 150s
the race is rated as a whole and Excelebration obviously ran below form (to suggest he didnt would require you to think 3rd, 4th etc all improved)...no big deal
the idea that Timeform add on a few pounds for Henry Cecil/cos there's a recession and we need cheering up etc is just silly
so Excelebration is only half a length better than Side Glance ?!
On the Morning Line the Timeform chap rated Frankel +29 on Excelebration. That is +19 more than they had originally rated them on 143 and 133. Are you with me Dunc?
Side Glance was beaten a fast diminishing neck by Excelebration and Side Glance is OF is 113. The 4th horse Indomito is rated it's highest ever rating of 108 and was beaten a length and a neck. To me, strictly on that form Excelebration ran to 114. If Frankel is +29, according to Timeform, that makes Frankel 114 + 29 = 143.
If Excelebration ran 3 lengths below form and 8 lengths behind Frakel, 3 lengths further than the Lockinge, that means Excelebration should be +6 and Frankel -6. That makes Excelebration 114 + 6 = 120. By giving Excelebration +6 you must -6 to Frankel.
We therefore have Excelebration 120 and Frankel +23 = 143.
Side Glance was beaten a fast diminishing neck by Excelebration and Side Glance is OF is 113. The 4th horse Indomito is rated it's highest ever rating of 108 and was beaten a length and a neck. To me, strictly on that form Excelebration ran to 114. If Frankel is +29, according to Timeform, that makes Frankel 114 + 29 = 143.
If Excelebration ran 3 lengths below form and 8 lengths behind Frakel, 3 lengths further than the Lockinge, that means Excelebration should be +6 and Frankel -6. That makes Excelebration 114 + 6 = 120. By giving Excelebration +6 you must -6 to Frankel.
We therefore have Excelebration 120 and Frankel +23 = 143.
Have TIMEFORM announced their TimeFIGURE - NOT Rating - for FRANKEL, on Tuesday, yet? -
AND - does anybody know what TimeFIGURE FRANKEL achieved in the 2000 Guineas?
----------------
I ask because their FRANKEL Rating EXPLANATION article (Link given above by -danrb - 23 Jun 12 10:29) - is TOTALLY TIME orientated and BASED ...
Yet their END PRODUCT - a RATING of 147 is being compared against, "Traditional HANDICAPPING," (to use THEIR terminology) - which DOES produce RATINGS .... BUT, which, are NOT TIME based.
It would appear, therefore, that TIMEFORM 'want their cake and to eat it
------------
MEANWHILE
I am sat here with my copy of PHIL BULL's 'Best Horses of 1947' -
with the book opened at the TUDOR MINSTREL pages - showing photographs of him winning the 2000 Guineas in identical fashion to FRANKEL ....
Along with TUDOR MINSTREL's TIMEFIGURE for the race - Timeform RATINGS did NOT start until the following year, 1948.
Some of the Text says .....
"Never have I seen a Guineas which can bear comparison with it, and I never expect to do so again.
We have all seen races which were a foregone conclusion some way from home, but it was inconceivable that the Two Thousand Guineas should be over and done with before the horses had travelled half a mile.
Yet at the half-way stage the 'quick result' men would have run no risk in telephoning TUDOR MINSTREL as the winner.
The remainder were all stone cold a long way from home, leaving TUDOR MINSTREL with the race at his mercy."
-------------------
Now - Where are those TIMEFIGURES for FRANKEL, please?
AND - does anybody know what TimeFIGURE FRANKEL achieved in the 2000 Guineas?
----------------
I ask because their FRANKEL Rating EXPLANATION article (Link given above by -danrb - 23 Jun 12 10:29) - is TOTALLY TIME orientated and BASED ...
Yet their END PRODUCT - a RATING of 147 is being compared against, "Traditional HANDICAPPING," (to use THEIR terminology) - which DOES produce RATINGS .... BUT, which, are NOT TIME based.
It would appear, therefore, that TIMEFORM 'want their cake and to eat it
------------
MEANWHILE
I am sat here with my copy of PHIL BULL's 'Best Horses of 1947' -
with the book opened at the TUDOR MINSTREL pages - showing photographs of him winning the 2000 Guineas in identical fashion to FRANKEL ....
Along with TUDOR MINSTREL's TIMEFIGURE for the race - Timeform RATINGS did NOT start until the following year, 1948.
Some of the Text says .....
"Never have I seen a Guineas which can bear comparison with it, and I never expect to do so again.
We have all seen races which were a foregone conclusion some way from home, but it was inconceivable that the Two Thousand Guineas should be over and done with before the horses had travelled half a mile.
Yet at the half-way stage the 'quick result' men would have run no risk in telephoning TUDOR MINSTREL as the winner.
The remainder were all stone cold a long way from home, leaving TUDOR MINSTREL with the race at his mercy."
-------------------
Now - Where are those TIMEFIGURES for FRANKEL, please?
I have a problem with time figures Onlooker.
First the going reports cannot be trusted. Even today they are not trusted on a day to day basis.
Secondly course management must be different with length of grass etc.
Thirdly, I know we have had a wet time of it, but surely global warming and racecourse watering must have an effect.
And finally they have just laid a new surface at Ascot. I doubt it was a 1947 surface, do you?
Some people cling to time figures to prove a point but I find them the must unreliable source of information on British courses. They may be super in the US but not here imo.
First the going reports cannot be trusted. Even today they are not trusted on a day to day basis.
Secondly course management must be different with length of grass etc.
Thirdly, I know we have had a wet time of it, but surely global warming and racecourse watering must have an effect.
And finally they have just laid a new surface at Ascot. I doubt it was a 1947 surface, do you?
Some people cling to time figures to prove a point but I find them the must unreliable source of information on British courses. They may be super in the US but not here imo.
^ brigust .
As you know - we are both 'singing from the same Hymn Sheet' there - with so-called 'Speed Figures'
As I posted the other day ...
They are ALL based upon, and consequently calculated from, somebody's OPINION of the (mostly MYTHICAL) 'Going Allowance' .... that being something that can only be entirely UNQUANTIFIABLE to anything approaching exactness.
Consequently - EVERY Speed Figure for EVERY Horse in EVERY Race simply CANNOT be definitive.
To then 'award' a 'Handicap RATING' - based upon such methodology is, in my book, boith scurrilous. - and entirely UNrespresentative.
---------------------
My query, therefore, - Was to merely compare THEIR TIMEfigures for both TUDOR MINSTREL and FRANKEL - as they have been calculated by THEIR same modus operandi.
As you know - we are both 'singing from the same Hymn Sheet' there - with so-called 'Speed Figures'
As I posted the other day ...
They are ALL based upon, and consequently calculated from, somebody's OPINION of the (mostly MYTHICAL) 'Going Allowance' .... that being something that can only be entirely UNQUANTIFIABLE to anything approaching exactness.
Consequently - EVERY Speed Figure for EVERY Horse in EVERY Race simply CANNOT be definitive.
To then 'award' a 'Handicap RATING' - based upon such methodology is, in my book, boith scurrilous. - and entirely UNrespresentative.
---------------------
My query, therefore, - Was to merely compare THEIR TIMEfigures for both TUDOR MINSTREL and FRANKEL - as they have been calculated by THEIR same modus operandi.
The only figures I have for Tudor Minstrel are as follows.
Newmarket 2000 Gns 8f. Good. Made all never out of canter. Won. 1.74 fast
Asct. St James Place. Good. 8f. Made all. Won. .05 fast
Sandown. Eclipse. 10f. Good. Made running, ralied, faltered. 2nd. 1.29 fast
Ascot. Knights Royal Stakes. Good. 8f. Made all. .75 fast.
It appears the going was either good or good.
Newmarket 2000 Gns 8f. Good. Made all never out of canter. Won. 1.74 fast
Asct. St James Place. Good. 8f. Made all. Won. .05 fast
Sandown. Eclipse. 10f. Good. Made running, ralied, faltered. 2nd. 1.29 fast
Ascot. Knights Royal Stakes. Good. 8f. Made all. .75 fast.
It appears the going was either good or good.
And of course The Derby.
Epsom. Derby. 12f. Good. Always there took lead app.Tattenham Corner. Hard ridden. Btn 2 out. 4th. 0.45 fast.
Epsom. Derby. 12f. Good. Always there took lead app.Tattenham Corner. Hard ridden. Btn 2 out. 4th. 0.45 fast.
brigust .
I, too, HAVE all the figures for TUDOR MINSTREL -
In fact - I HAVE everything of any consequence, .... ALL Golden Miller's FORM BOOKS -- and BROWN JACK's etc, etc .
It is the FRANKEL figures that we NEED for comparison.
I, too, HAVE all the figures for TUDOR MINSTREL -
In fact - I HAVE everything of any consequence, .... ALL Golden Miller's FORM BOOKS -- and BROWN JACK's etc, etc .
It is the FRANKEL figures that we NEED for comparison.
^ Oh and SCEPTRE's FORM BOOK's - Rough Guide to the Turf.
- and the Racing Calendars for every year of the individual Classics.
- and the Racing Calendars for every year of the individual Classics.
some of them must be worth a nice few bob onlooker,
where do you live please
where do you live please
I have Sea Bird 11's original French racecard.
I got rid of my formbooks when I moved about 6 years ago. Thankfully there was a lot of cash about, or credit, in them days and made a few bob. I have kept a few around the mid 60s to mid 70s for reference. That was a brilliant era imo.
Sorry I digress. Perhaps we are just old gits living in the past. The day will come when these new boys will be old gits living in the past.
I got rid of my formbooks when I moved about 6 years ago. Thankfully there was a lot of cash about, or credit, in them days and made a few bob. I have kept a few around the mid 60s to mid 70s for reference. That was a brilliant era imo.
Sorry I digress. Perhaps we are just old gits living in the past. The day will come when these new boys will be old gits living in the past.
onlooker, do you know that if Tudor Minstrel had won the Derby the Joe Coral outfit
would not been able to pay old Joe stood it for far more than he was worth at the time.
would not been able to pay old Joe stood it for far more than he was worth at the time.
Google says you are situated near King's Cross, you have everything at your fingertips imo 
brigust1
23 Jun 12 11:36
Joined:
07 Dec 01
| Topic/replies: 3,759 | Blogger: brigust1's blog
On the Morning Line the Timeform chap rated Frankel +29 on Excelebration. That is +19 more than they had originally rated them on 143 and 133. Are you with me Dunc?
brigust1 can you explain please how is Frankel +29 on Excelebration 143 vs 133 is ten pounds difference?
23 Jun 12 11:36
Joined:
07 Dec 01
| Topic/replies: 3,759 | Blogger: brigust1's blog
On the Morning Line the Timeform chap rated Frankel +29 on Excelebration. That is +19 more than they had originally rated them on 143 and 133. Are you with me Dunc?
brigust1 can you explain please how is Frankel +29 on Excelebration 143 vs 133 is ten pounds difference?
or points whatever you call them Newbie here just asking?
Occasionally the international handicappers get it wrong and if
you are awake you can spot the flaws and make them pay.
Several years ago they rated OASIS DREAM as the top 2yo, yet if anyone went through the beatings of other horses, then SOMNUS
MUST have been rated the top at about 5lbs superior to OASIS DREAM, check my assertion out, they both met and beat the same horse but SOMNUS gave 6lbs when beating that horse.
you are awake you can spot the flaws and make them pay.
Several years ago they rated OASIS DREAM as the top 2yo, yet if anyone went through the beatings of other horses, then SOMNUS
MUST have been rated the top at about 5lbs superior to OASIS DREAM, check my assertion out, they both met and beat the same horse but SOMNUS gave 6lbs when beating that horse.
On the Morning Line the Timeform chap rated Frankel +29 on Excelebration. That is +19 more than they had originally rated them on 143 and 133. Are you with me Dunc?
yes, 29lb beating on Tuesday....19lb more than prev cos Frankel improved 4lb and Excelebration was 15lb below form.
what Side Glance etc are officially rated has nothing to do with what Timeform rate them and thus how they have arrived at Frankel's rating....only confusing matters
yes, 29lb beating on Tuesday....19lb more than prev cos Frankel improved 4lb and Excelebration was 15lb below form.
what Side Glance etc are officially rated has nothing to do with what Timeform rate them and thus how they have arrived at Frankel's rating....only confusing matters
he meant on tuesdays running ... Frankel 147 (improvement of 4lbs), Excelebration 118 (15lbs below form)
Brigust is mixing BHA ratings and Timeform ratings which are on a different scale so incomparable, you can only compare old timeform with new timeform if you want to crab timeform.
BHA recalibrated their own scale so that like for like is not comparable also
Brigust is mixing BHA ratings and Timeform ratings which are on a different scale so incomparable, you can only compare old timeform with new timeform if you want to crab timeform.
BHA recalibrated their own scale so that like for like is not comparable also
gentlemen, bullet train is the key.
frankel only beat him a few lengths more in the queen anne than he had been previously.
it is a complete waste of talent running this horse against excelebration again and again. as many of u know i have been harping on about it for quite some time. frankel is a worthy champion and i dont for a second question the ability of this horse but excelebration is not a reliable yard stick anymore, that horse is a very average g1 winner imo and his races without frankel prove this. as already mentiond, its frankels high rating that actually keeps his so high because he keeps finishing 2nd to him all the time. if frankel wasnt around they would be saying excelebration is one of the best ever which is too frightening for me to think of.
ratings are just opinion, timefore have been itching to up frankels rating since the beginning, i wouldnt pay them much attention tbh. they are a useful guidline thats all.
frankel needs a new challange now, hes not going to the eclipse from what ive read and will take his place in the sussex, i cant really express how much this saddens and annoys me. quite incredible this horse hasnt been stepped up in trip and i cant for the life of me understand why. just give him the first place for the sussex and be done with it because when he beats excelebration for the 5th or 6th time by a similar distance the press will be even more delerious, quite sad really as others have done what he has but over every trip and only needed one or 2 runs at the same distance to prove they were the best. they can rate frankel what they want, but i think more highly of horses that have won the guineas derbys arcs etc not the feckin sussex and queen anne against the same fookin horse, one horse.
the funny thing u keep hearing he'd beat dancing brave over a mile or nijinsky etc and maybe he would have but he wouldnt know which way they went over 12 so whats the difference? the difference in their achievements however is quite big as when frankel was winning the queen eliz, nijinsky was a triple crown winner, quite remarkable.
i say let him have the highest rating ever, good for him, give him 150 if it will satisfy timeform because i personally will never hold him in the same regard as the horses that have achieved the truly remarkable and i blame henry and the prince for not allowing the horse to really prove his greatness and instead wasted his talent and playing it safe, dont know about anyone else but im gettng pretty tired of hearing the phrase 'he'll tell us what to do'.
frankel only beat him a few lengths more in the queen anne than he had been previously.
it is a complete waste of talent running this horse against excelebration again and again. as many of u know i have been harping on about it for quite some time. frankel is a worthy champion and i dont for a second question the ability of this horse but excelebration is not a reliable yard stick anymore, that horse is a very average g1 winner imo and his races without frankel prove this. as already mentiond, its frankels high rating that actually keeps his so high because he keeps finishing 2nd to him all the time. if frankel wasnt around they would be saying excelebration is one of the best ever which is too frightening for me to think of.
ratings are just opinion, timefore have been itching to up frankels rating since the beginning, i wouldnt pay them much attention tbh. they are a useful guidline thats all.
frankel needs a new challange now, hes not going to the eclipse from what ive read and will take his place in the sussex, i cant really express how much this saddens and annoys me. quite incredible this horse hasnt been stepped up in trip and i cant for the life of me understand why. just give him the first place for the sussex and be done with it because when he beats excelebration for the 5th or 6th time by a similar distance the press will be even more delerious, quite sad really as others have done what he has but over every trip and only needed one or 2 runs at the same distance to prove they were the best. they can rate frankel what they want, but i think more highly of horses that have won the guineas derbys arcs etc not the feckin sussex and queen anne against the same fookin horse, one horse.
the funny thing u keep hearing he'd beat dancing brave over a mile or nijinsky etc and maybe he would have but he wouldnt know which way they went over 12 so whats the difference? the difference in their achievements however is quite big as when frankel was winning the queen eliz, nijinsky was a triple crown winner, quite remarkable.
i say let him have the highest rating ever, good for him, give him 150 if it will satisfy timeform because i personally will never hold him in the same regard as the horses that have achieved the truly remarkable and i blame henry and the prince for not allowing the horse to really prove his greatness and instead wasted his talent and playing it safe, dont know about anyone else but im gettng pretty tired of hearing the phrase 'he'll tell us what to do'.
Do Timeform publish historic timeform figures anywhere? e.g. if I wanted to find the timeform ratings (at that point in time) for all runners of a particular race in the past year, are these numbers available?
Comparing ratings from this season to last season or next season is futile let alone 40 years apart, the purpose of ratings is for them to be used in the season they're in as the season progresses, anything else is pure opinion and totally subjective as any opinion can neither be preoven nor disproven.
Passage of time and unsatisfactory memory have lead me to say OASIS DREAM and SOMNUS met TOUT SEUL, but they didn't, the link was TOMAHAWK whom TOUT SEUL beat at levels by 1 and
a quarter lengths, but lost to SOMNUS by a head receiving 6lbs, so in theory when OASIS DREAM beat TOMAHAWK 1 and a half lengths then SOMNUS came out 5lbs superior to OASIS DREAM, they only met once and SOMNUS won by 1 and a quarter lengths in the Haydock sprint.
a quarter lengths, but lost to SOMNUS by a head receiving 6lbs, so in theory when OASIS DREAM beat TOMAHAWK 1 and a half lengths then SOMNUS came out 5lbs superior to OASIS DREAM, they only met once and SOMNUS won by 1 and a quarter lengths in the Haydock sprint.
bazzar
23 Jun 12 13:21
Occasionally the international handicappers get it wrong and if
you are awake you can spot the flaws and make them pay.
Several years ago they rated OASIS DREAM as the top 2yo, yet if anyone went through the beatings of other horses, then SOMNUS
MUST have been rated the top at about 5lbs superior to OASIS DREAM, check my assertion out, they both met and beat the same horse but SOMNUS gave 6lbs when beating that horse.
Handicapping is not simply about collateral form....they may have beaten the same horses at 2 but they will have beaten them at different stages of development/improvement and possibly under different conditions too....for all Somnus beat Oasis Dream on only occasion they met, that was on soft ground over 6f at Haydock and i dont think there was much doubt that Oasis Dream was the top sprinter of the year based on his 5f form
Difficult and pointless in comparing horses of different generations, I know we have to have ratings but it really means nothing over the years. It is the impressive way that Frankel keeps winning that marks him as the best miler. I f and when they do step him up to 10f who is going to take him on? We seem to be living in a moderate era with the 4yo's and this years 3yo's and so Frankel and Camelot seem so far ahead.
Filante_ 23 Jun 12 13:28
Difference between Timeform and BHA is 7 points?
------------------------------------
Yes - around that -
The TIMEFORM ratings have always run at an OVERALL level higher that Official Ratings -
So comparing the two sets of Ratings - against each other - is FUTILE.
However - Comparing Each set against THEMSELVES - is, of course, RELATIVE.
Difference between Timeform and BHA is 7 points?
------------------------------------
Yes - around that -
The TIMEFORM ratings have always run at an OVERALL level higher that Official Ratings -
So comparing the two sets of Ratings - against each other - is FUTILE.
However - Comparing Each set against THEMSELVES - is, of course, RELATIVE.
Mr Magoo 23 Jun 12 13:29
Do Timeform publish historic timeform figures anywhere?
e.g. if I wanted to find the timeform ratings (at that point in time) for all runners of a particular race in the past year, are these numbers available
-----------
NO - and they NEVER have been, either.
The ONLY way to find those figures out are by your own 'mechanical assessment/handicapping' - retrospectively, too - which can be done - BUT takes great expertise.
Do Timeform publish historic timeform figures anywhere?
e.g. if I wanted to find the timeform ratings (at that point in time) for all runners of a particular race in the past year, are these numbers available
-----------
NO - and they NEVER have been, either.
The ONLY way to find those figures out are by your own 'mechanical assessment/handicapping' - retrospectively, too - which can be done - BUT takes great expertise.
They used to do the Annual Timefigures in a book around 25 years ago Onlooker for every race the horse had ran in, dont they still do something similar?
Seem to remember seeing last three Timefigures next to a horse in the racecard as well
Seem to remember seeing last three Timefigures next to a horse in the racecard as well
Timeform have kept consistant for 60 years but the BHA have changed methods, lowered their scale and even recent changes have been using different lengths per second dependant on ground conditions so official figures from years gone by are like for like lower than they are today.
Correct, zilzal - But those are TimeFIGURES - and NOT their RATINGS, though.
Have already posted on another thread that I believe that the handicapper has erred with SEA MOON, he should be rated lower.
Equally correct, grendel.
Now that we have moved on from the likes of Major Anthony Arkwight - and his military mob.
Now that we have moved on from the likes of Major Anthony Arkwight - and his military mob.
when i say that i mean officially Frankel would have been rated higher for the same performances years ago on the old methods, closer to Timeforms 147 assertion.
the official handicapper was reluctant to put Frankel above Dancing Braves Arc so effectively he wasn't being unbiased or dispassionate in his assessment
Mystery solved,
Richard Hills says it's the greatest horse he's ever see so that's that,
well done Timeform for proving the doubters wrong.
Richard Hills says it's the greatest horse he's ever see so that's that,
well done Timeform for proving the doubters wrong.
Do Timeform publish historic timeform figures anywhere?
e.g. if I wanted to find the timeform ratings (at that point in time) for all runners of a particular race in the past year, are these numbers available
-----------
NO - and they NEVER have been, either.
The ONLY way to find those figures out are by your own 'mechanical assessment/handicapping' - retrospectively, too - which can be done - BUT takes great expertise.
Well that's not quite true, they will have published them in the racecard for that race.
Now, to get current timeform ratings for a race, you have to pay (fair enough!) But what I'd like is to get hold of their old ratings for past races, I just wondered if these were archived anywhere. After all, if someone is going to pay for timeform ratings there should be a way of looking at past ratings to see if they are any good.
e.g. if I wanted to find the timeform ratings (at that point in time) for all runners of a particular race in the past year, are these numbers available
-----------
NO - and they NEVER have been, either.
The ONLY way to find those figures out are by your own 'mechanical assessment/handicapping' - retrospectively, too - which can be done - BUT takes great expertise.
Well that's not quite true, they will have published them in the racecard for that race.
Now, to get current timeform ratings for a race, you have to pay (fair enough!) But what I'd like is to get hold of their old ratings for past races, I just wondered if these were archived anywhere. After all, if someone is going to pay for timeform ratings there should be a way of looking at past ratings to see if they are any good.
80% of the people on this thread, starting with stewarty b, genuinely have no clue how handicapping works. So i have to ask, why comment? To talk about collateral form and take it as a concrete guide is absolute rubbish - each race has it's own circumnstances, different conditions, trips, pace, time etc. etc. etc.
stewarty b - Jim Mcgrath ran a failed tipping service (losing about 350pts over 3 years - i know because i stupidly subscribed (we all make mistakes!!)) yet you think he has a clue. Jim would be tipping you Black Caviar today - believe me.
slag timeform by all means, but don't hail Mcgrath.
stewarty b - Jim Mcgrath ran a failed tipping service (losing about 350pts over 3 years - i know because i stupidly subscribed (we all make mistakes!!)) yet you think he has a clue. Jim would be tipping you Black Caviar today - believe me.
slag timeform by all means, but don't hail Mcgrath.
Mr Magoo 23 Jun 12 14:10
Do Timeform publish historic timeform figures anywhere?
Well that's not quite true, they will have published them in the racecard for that race.
------------------
Mr Magoo - You are going even FURTHER down the WRONG road - with that assertion.
That can ONLY be true - when the individual horse has achieved it's HIGHEST EVER Rating LAST TIME out.
- and, even then - The Racecard Ratings are adjusted to 10 stone - and for Weight-for-Age - so you would have to RE-calculate from that to get the horse's BASE rating. ....
- and Timeform use a DIFFERENT Weight-for Age scale than the Official Scale
- and Timeform - just like Racing Post do - even 'FUDGE' their RACECARD RATINGS - in order to 'Top Rate' and 'Tip' the horse that they favour ...
So, even a 'Highest Last time out' horse can have an artificially inflated Rating, too.
Therefore, the Racecard Ratings are NOT ALWAYS a TRUE representation of what is actually held on the MASTER LEDGER.
------------------------
Do not doubt anything that I post on Handicapping and Ratings.
Do Timeform publish historic timeform figures anywhere?
Well that's not quite true, they will have published them in the racecard for that race.
------------------
Mr Magoo - You are going even FURTHER down the WRONG road - with that assertion.
That can ONLY be true - when the individual horse has achieved it's HIGHEST EVER Rating LAST TIME out.
- and, even then - The Racecard Ratings are adjusted to 10 stone - and for Weight-for-Age - so you would have to RE-calculate from that to get the horse's BASE rating. ....
- and Timeform use a DIFFERENT Weight-for Age scale than the Official Scale
- and Timeform - just like Racing Post do - even 'FUDGE' their RACECARD RATINGS - in order to 'Top Rate' and 'Tip' the horse that they favour ...
So, even a 'Highest Last time out' horse can have an artificially inflated Rating, too.
Therefore, the Racecard Ratings are NOT ALWAYS a TRUE representation of what is actually held on the MASTER LEDGER.
------------------------
Do not doubt anything that I post on Handicapping and Ratings.
Do Timeform publish historic timeform figures anywhere?
e.g. if I wanted to find the timeform ratings (at that point in time) for all runners of a particular race in the past year
they would be the ratings in the racecard, onlooker..albeit adjusted
e.g. if I wanted to find the timeform ratings (at that point in time) for all runners of a particular race in the past year
they would be the ratings in the racecard, onlooker..albeit adjusted
I didn't know that, onlooker. I had always assumed the timeform ratings were 'pure' and not adjusted for the race!
I don't suppose they give any explanation anywhere about how they do this?
I don't suppose they give any explanation anywhere about how they do this?
Grendel: Timeform have been consistently wrong for 60 years in many cases.
How can Excelebration (1 Group 1 win) be 2lbs higher than Royal Palace (2000Gns, Derby, Coronation Cup, Prince of Wales, Eclipse beating Sir Ivor and King George)?
How can Excelebration be 1lb behind Lammtarra ( unbeaten winner of Derby, King George and Arc)?
How can Excelebration beat a 113 rated horse a neck with a 108 rated horse a length behind and a 104 rated horse a length behind that and still be rated 119?
I think Frankel has f ook ed them completely. This is thier obituary year.
How can Excelebration (1 Group 1 win) be 2lbs higher than Royal Palace (2000Gns, Derby, Coronation Cup, Prince of Wales, Eclipse beating Sir Ivor and King George)?
How can Excelebration be 1lb behind Lammtarra ( unbeaten winner of Derby, King George and Arc)?
How can Excelebration beat a 113 rated horse a neck with a 108 rated horse a length behind and a 104 rated horse a length behind that and still be rated 119?
I think Frankel has f ook ed them completely. This is thier obituary year.
mr magoo, all ratings have to be adjusted for weight carried and are usually done so to 10 stone, as onlooker states
How can Excelebration beat a 113 rated horse a neck with a 108 rated horse a length behind and a 104 rated horse a length behind that and still be rated 119?
Hell's teeth, brigust...how long have you been watching racing? Did they drop Brigadier Gerard's rating the day after he got beat by Roberto? Did they drop Dancing Brave's rating after he flunked in Breeder's Cup? Excelebration had an off day...that has no bearing on what he achieved and was rated previously.
Hell's teeth, brigust...how long have you been watching racing? Did they drop Brigadier Gerard's rating the day after he got beat by Roberto? Did they drop Dancing Brave's rating after he flunked in Breeder's Cup? Excelebration had an off day...that has no bearing on what he achieved and was rated previously.
Duncan if you watched the Morning Line it is that race they used to get Frankel's 147.
You don't read the thread Dunc. Excelebration ran to 114. Frankel according to Timeform ran +29 the equals 143.
But Timeform know the figures do not add up so they say Excelebration ran to 119 in the QA and not the 114 he actually ran to. I know he ran below what they originally rated him. I have been syaing for ages that 133, a figure they gave him to substantiate the 143 they had given Frankel, was wrong.
You don't read the thread Dunc. Excelebration ran to 114. Frankel according to Timeform ran +29 the equals 143.
But Timeform know the figures do not add up so they say Excelebration ran to 119 in the QA and not the 114 he actually ran to. I know he ran below what they originally rated him. I have been syaing for ages that 133, a figure they gave him to substantiate the 143 they had given Frankel, was wrong.
And Timeform may include many factors but they do not include the fact that this is a shocking era for British racing. The Arc was won easily by a German filly with the Derby and St Leger winners tailed off. And the majority of middle distances races are now dominated by a 6 year old Aussie horse ffs.
onlooker newbie question here..
with WFA racing say a mare carrying 2kg less 56.5 vs a stallion 58.5 and winners a mare and wins by 2L over 1200m
and say you give her a 120 rating so assume you give the stallion 115 which is 5 points less for a 2L beating does that mean the Mare gets a 120 vs stallion 115 or do u add 4 points because the stallion carried 2kg more and rate the mare 120 and stallion 119?
with WFA racing say a mare carrying 2kg less 56.5 vs a stallion 58.5 and winners a mare and wins by 2L over 1200m
and say you give her a 120 rating so assume you give the stallion 115 which is 5 points less for a 2L beating does that mean the Mare gets a 120 vs stallion 115 or do u add 4 points because the stallion carried 2kg more and rate the mare 120 and stallion 119?
Filante -
You are confusing Weight-for-AGE ... with the SEX Allowance.
Weight-for-AGE --- ie: 3-yr-olds running against OLDER horses is far more complicated - and the ALLOWANCE varies/changes EACH TWO weeks - to accommodate the 3-yr-old maturing.
------------------
In your example - Of course you add the WEIGHT GIVEN by the Colt (they are only "Stallions" when they stop RACING) to the filly ....
Just as you would if one COLT gave weight to another COLT ... or Filly to Filly.
You are confusing Weight-for-AGE ... with the SEX Allowance.
Weight-for-AGE --- ie: 3-yr-olds running against OLDER horses is far more complicated - and the ALLOWANCE varies/changes EACH TWO weeks - to accommodate the 3-yr-old maturing.
------------------
In your example - Of course you add the WEIGHT GIVEN by the Colt (they are only "Stallions" when they stop RACING
) to the filly ....Just as you would if one COLT gave weight to another COLT ... or Filly to Filly.
onlooker yep i meant colts sry
So if filly and colt are same age say and the filly beats the colt 1L only over 1600m and the filly gets a rating of 120 while the colt gets a ratings of 118 but because the colt gave the filly 2kg in weight he gets 4 points extra added to his rating meaning he registers a rating of 122 while the filly is 120 is this right?
So if filly and colt are same age say and the filly beats the colt 1L only over 1600m and the filly gets a rating of 120 while the colt gets a ratings of 118 but because the colt gave the filly 2kg in weight he gets 4 points extra added to his rating meaning he registers a rating of 122 while the filly is 120 is this right?
YES - But, dependent on the race distance, and going - we could say that 2kg = 5 pounds (points} here.
onlooker is there a chart i can find online where it shows the difference in weight for each distance? I have the margins one but cant find the weight one
Here is a pdf - from the BHA - British Horseracing Authority - showing scale.
http://www.britishhorseracing.com/inside_horseracing/media/WFA_Flat.pdf
----------------
Unfortunately - some incompetent has re=typed 'Jan-15 16-31' under EVERY fortnight of every month.
Needless to say nobody - apart from ME - has noticed this nonsense.
Just IGNORE the 'JAN' bit - and take it as 1-15 and 16-31 for each successive month.
The FIGURES shown - are the ALLOWANCE in POUNDS that the 3-yr0old would receive, in the conditions of the race, from an older horse.
Note - 2-yr-olds only ever meet older horses in a MERE HANDFUL of late season races - so don't bother about 2-yr-olds.
Likewise - 4-yr-olds still get a small allowance from older horses in the early part of the year - in longer distance races ONLY - on the All-Weather.
http://www.britishhorseracing.com/inside_horseracing/media/WFA_Flat.pdf
----------------
Unfortunately - some incompetent has re=typed 'Jan-15 16-31' under EVERY fortnight of every month.
Needless to say nobody - apart from ME - has noticed this nonsense.
Just IGNORE the 'JAN' bit - and take it as 1-15 and 16-31 for each successive month.
The FIGURES shown - are the ALLOWANCE in POUNDS that the 3-yr0old would receive, in the conditions of the race, from an older horse.
Note - 2-yr-olds only ever meet older horses in a MERE HANDFUL of late season races - so don't bother about 2-yr-olds.
Likewise - 4-yr-olds still get a small allowance from older horses in the early part of the year - in longer distance races ONLY - on the All-Weather.
onlooker
23 Jun 12 15:14
Joined:
18 Feb 03
YES - But, dependent on the race distance, and going - we could say that 2kg = 5 pounds (points} here.
Going care to explain onlooker?
23 Jun 12 15:14
Joined:
18 Feb 03
YES - But, dependent on the race distance, and going - we could say that 2kg = 5 pounds (points} here.
Going care to explain onlooker?
Yes - 2 kb = 4.4+ lbs - So you have to go 'one way or the other' - to end up with a FULL Point
All part of the subjectivity, and experience, of Handicapping.
- and if the distances between the horses are not a FULL length - and do NOT, therefore, readily convert to a FULL point - then you can adjust to accommodate the differences in both by combining the two.
All part of the subjectivity, and experience, of Handicapping.
- and if the distances between the horses are not a FULL length - and do NOT, therefore, readily convert to a FULL point - then you can adjust to accommodate the differences in both by combining the two.
wow onlooker feel embarrassed to ask but might as well ask as stuck here lol doing yesterdays races and trying to learn this handicapping stuff :-) got all the rest OK just stumbled across this one and not sure...
If a 4y old colt at WFA carries 56 vs a 5y old 58.5 over 1200m do i deduct 2.5kgs the difference meaning say 5 points to the 4y olds overall rating for carrying less?
If a 4y old colt at WFA carries 56 vs a 5y old 58.5 over 1200m do i deduct 2.5kgs the difference meaning say 5 points to the 4y olds overall rating for carrying less?
You are very lucky I am here 24/7 - well 18/7 actually -
- and that you would find nobody finer to answer you.
----------------------------------------------------
Weight-for-Age does NOY apply to 4-yr-olds, and upwards -
Be they - meeting SAME age horses, or OLDER horses.
WFA only applies when 4-yr-old, and OLDER horses, meet 3-yr-olds.
So the 56 v 58.5 is a straightforward weight difference.
The the 58.5 horse runs to, say 100 - and wins by ONE length, over a 6 furlongs (1200 metres).
The 58.5 horse is awarded 100 - and the 56 horse runs to 92 ...
That being the 59.5 horse 100 Rating > LESS the 2.5kg/5points weight difference, AND 3 points for the ONE length beating - at a 1200 metres.... = a 92 RATING for the 56 kg horse.
-- and that you would find nobody finer to answer you.
----------------------------------------------------
Weight-for-Age does NOY apply to 4-yr-olds, and upwards -
Be they - meeting SAME age horses, or OLDER horses.
WFA only applies when 4-yr-old, and OLDER horses, meet 3-yr-olds.
So the 56 v 58.5 is a straightforward weight difference.
The the 58.5 horse runs to, say 100 - and wins by ONE length, over a 6 furlongs (1200 metres).
The 58.5 horse is awarded 100 - and the 56 horse runs to 92 ...
That being the 59.5 horse 100 Rating > LESS the 2.5kg/5points weight difference, AND 3 points for the ONE length beating - at a 1200 metres.... = a 92 RATING for the 56 kg horse.
and i really appreciate is onlooker 
yes i asked it wrong again was meant to say 3y old with 56kg vs 4y old with 58.5kg March ...in which i didn't deduct any points against the 3y old so OK was doing it right...btw been using this chart as it seems easier to read haven't compared it to other chart yet but thought i try it to start with while a newbie lol
http://www.racerate.com/WeightForAge_Scale.pdf
yes i asked it wrong again was meant to say 3y old with 56kg vs 4y old with 58.5kg March ...in which i didn't deduct any points against the 3y old so OK was doing it right...btw been using this chart as it seems easier to read haven't compared it to other chart yet but thought i try it to start with while a newbie lol
http://www.racerate.com/WeightForAge_Scale.pdf
Yes - that chart will suit you better.
TWO other points.
1 - There is Northern Hemisphere Weight-for-Age (Ours) -
and Southern Hemisphere Weight-for-Age .... which is, more than likely, YOUR kg Chart.
The Southern Hemisphere Weight-for-age application is, obviously 6 months different to Northern.- due to different foaling cycle dates.
2 - You can also get (many_ races where BOTH NATURAL weight difference carried applies - ALONF with Weight-for Age ASWELL.
For instance -
A 3-yr-old could best set to receive 4kg (9lbs) from an older horse -
BUT - the WFA is 2kg (5lbs) at the time of the race ...
SO - You would ONLY deduct 2kg (4 or 5 points) from it's new distance adjusted RATING - and NOT the whole 4kg (9 points) weight CARRIED difference - as the 3-yr-old was already ENTITLED to receive 2kg WFA in the first place.
Likewise - If the 3-yr-old received ONLY 1kg (2lbs) RACECARD weight -
BUT - was ENTITLED to 3kg (7lbs) WFA allowance - then you would NOT DEDUCT anything (for Weight carried) from the 3-yr-old's new distance adjusted Rating - as it had NOT received it's FULL WFA quota.
In fact - in this instance - AFTER DEDUCTING the distance beaten Points -
You would then have to ADD the 2kg (4 or 5lb) WFA 'Shortfall' - that it should have received - back ONTO it's new Rating.
As I said - It all takes expertise and experience -
- along with a natural affinity with, and ability to, see into and INTERPRET the RESULTS of races.
------------------
Not many can do it - and STICK AT IT - Even fewer have such a natural affinity and the needed ability.
TWO other points.
1 - There is Northern Hemisphere Weight-for-Age (Ours) -
and Southern Hemisphere Weight-for-Age .... which is, more than likely, YOUR kg Chart.
The Southern Hemisphere Weight-for-age application is, obviously 6 months different to Northern.- due to different foaling cycle dates.
2 - You can also get (many_ races where BOTH NATURAL weight difference carried applies - ALONF with Weight-for Age ASWELL.
For instance -
A 3-yr-old could best set to receive 4kg (9lbs) from an older horse -
BUT - the WFA is 2kg (5lbs) at the time of the race ...
SO - You would ONLY deduct 2kg (4 or 5 points) from it's new distance adjusted RATING - and NOT the whole 4kg (9 points) weight CARRIED difference - as the 3-yr-old was already ENTITLED to receive 2kg WFA in the first place.
Likewise - If the 3-yr-old received ONLY 1kg (2lbs) RACECARD weight -
BUT - was ENTITLED to 3kg (7lbs) WFA allowance - then you would NOT DEDUCT anything (for Weight carried) from the 3-yr-old's new distance adjusted Rating - as it had NOT received it's FULL WFA quota.
In fact - in this instance - AFTER DEDUCTING the distance beaten Points -
You would then have to ADD the 2kg (4 or 5lb) WFA 'Shortfall' - that it should have received - back ONTO it's new Rating.
As I said - It all takes expertise and experience -
- along with a natural affinity with, and ability to, see into and INTERPRET the RESULTS of races.
------------------
Not many can do it - and STICK AT IT - Even fewer have such a natural affinity and the needed ability.
OK thanks onlooker actually done about 4 or 5 BC races while at it now also and just comparing lol
onlooker after going over the races i done and i know its no way near enough.. but have always thought 1kg over 1200 which = 2 points a query when handicapping imo A horse who beats another 2L each time they race and now winner has to carry say 4 points more even 5 points more say around 2kg should have them level for that race for example ...not sure about that one though thoughts?
weights to lengths is my biggest query about rating/handicapping
You are very lucky I am here 24/7 - well 18/7 actually
if timeform are to be believed sir henry cecil must be the worst trainer in history, because frankel must have run 60ib below his best in last years st james palace or according to timeform improved 60 lb in 12 months, 
60lb? what are you going on about, 1TP? i dont know but i'm guessing his StJamesP rating is 20-odd lb below his best rating and the world and his wife agreed Queally made a Horlicks of that race by going for home 4f out. Nothing to do with Sir Henry's training performance.
quite astonishing that posters dont understand what happened in frakels SJP win. like they watch horse racing and they cant explain what he almost got beat.
amazing.
amazing.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539