Re-read what I said. It is the opposite of what you consider to be the implication.

Okay, they're a ratings company, that is what they do. When a horse comes along that they consider tops previous ratings, what would you suggest they do with such information?

brigust .... are you a customer of Timeform?

Figgis


Okay, they're a ratings company, that is what they do. When a horse comes along that they consider tops previous ratings, what would you suggest they do with such information?

I think that you are being deliberately provocative for no apparent reason that I can understand, for I have not questioned TF's reasons for producing the 147 rating, rather that the figure puts the horse on a pedestal with which I for one am uncomfortable.

Timeform rate ever horse...the worst ever and the best ever and all those in between. That is all.

I think it is very telling that since Timeform started rating horses there have been 12 years where they've failed to rate a 3yo horse 135+ .... those years are 1964 - 1966 - 1967 - 1969 - 1994 - 2001 - 2004 - 2006 - 2007 - 2008 - 2010 - 2012.

From 1945 until 1963 there had been a 135+ rated horse every year, then 4 of the next 6 years there was a drought ... during this time and just after it we had Sea Bird (145), Vaguely Noble (140), Nijinsky (138), Mill Reef (141) and Brigadier Gerard (144).  Forward on there was only one year (1994) without a 135+ 3yo until 2001 and then 6 of the last 9 years another drought in between which there has been Sea The Stars (140), Harbinger (140) and Frankel (147).

From this I would deduce that it is all too tempting to overrate horses that rise above a drought period, not just Frankel in this era, but also Sea Bird and Brigadier Gerard.  In fact, 7 of the 14 140+ rated horses in history have fallen within these two otherwise droughty periods.

Does seem a bit of a coincidence that 4 of the top 9 rated Timeform horses in history were born between 1962 and 1968

Does seem a bit of a coincidence that 4 of the top 9 rated Timeform horses in history were born between 1962 and 1968


Brigust has decided it is not relevant, so move on.

you would need 10 top judges from all countries involved in horse racing from all
over the world to vote on a correct rating.
I mean I think Orfevre and Danedream could give Frankel a run for his money.
What are they rated? **** and German horses.
The 147 is simply not correct based on the facts imo...
Nor is the 140 BHA rating

I have been critical of collateral ratings for many years now, not because I don't believe that they usually get to a figure that is within a few pounds either way of what might or might not be a reasonable estimate of a horses's ability, but they are of little value for betting purposes for that reason of being behind the curve. Those at the top of the ratings are invariably overbet.

For this reason, I am first and foremost an advocate of time ratings, but not just of the final time variety. I am a believer in the use of sectional times in order to assess just how much better the horse might be than the bare final time figure might suggest. This is not a methodology without its false forecasts and disappointments but in the main it is the way which I have found to gain an edge.

For my own satisfaction, I have looked at my figures for Frankel's 14 races and compared them to the OR, RPR and TS. Not TF I might add because I do not need their views and anyway do not know what they were after each run. Perhaps someone might enlighten me.

I will no doubt be accused of aftertiming but that is of no concern to me. After just 2 runs I had Frankel projectiong to 134 on the 0-140 scale and to 139 after his 3 rd run. At these points the best RPR was 125, TS 115 and the OR was 123.I think, therefore, that I was always a fan and a beliver that he was top-class. After his 9th run his RPR was raised to 139 and his OR was raised to 140 on his 12th run.

However,I never have had Frankel running to 139 again. I gave him 136 after both the Lockinge and the Champion. Looking back its possible that I may have under rated him (and bear in mind my view that one figure is insufficient to contain all you need to know) but to rate him much higher would have made several other horses on the day very over-rated.

I have only ever once had a decent win out of him (Dewhurst) so he has hardly been a money-spinner for me, but his record is one of several interesting points. Firstly, he has been very consistent. Secondly, he has put up one of the fatsest ever splits for the last 2f that I've seen on turf (Sussex vs Canford Cliffs). And thirdly, i am prepared to admit that because he shows such speed from further out than virtually any horse I've rated, |I may well be under-rating him, and am prepared to concede that he should be somewhere in the low 140's.Its just that my figures don't actually put him there.

My research shows me that collateral ratings are slow to get the measure of a horse until such time that it is blindingly obvious. Also, that no matter how statistically correct TF's methodology may be, it is considerably behind where the cutting edge is of rating assessment imo. I believe that it a plausible argument that marketing considerations may well have played a part in giving Frankel such an exalted rating.

Figgis

My pound/sec scale varies with the state of the ground, finishing sectionals, stiffness of finish, and the overall pace. It is mathematically derived from the actual figures. I would add that for my own use, I prefer to take into account the size and conformation of the horse and will adjust accoding to my own views on a hors's ability to carry weight. I have evidence of some horses putting up the same performance irrespective of the weight  and others who may be more than averagelly affected. Imo, the conversion of a time performance to a weight  rating is one of the biggest areas for error.

I agree about the pound per second scale varying according to the ground, pace of the race etc. However, in my view, as the pound per second scale increases/decreases, so does the lengths per second increase/decrease, therefore the actual differences when accounting for beaten horses does not vary as much as some seem to think, but, like I said, that is just my view and it is debatable.

That aside, you showed in your workings of Harbinger's KG that, variations or not, you use a lower pounds per sec scale than some of us use.

As for horses not being affected exactly the same by different amounts of weight, of course this is a probability, but it is one that can't be measured. A person can have their own views about any individual horse's weight carrying abilities, but I don't see how that could be expected to be taken seriously if it was incorporated into commercial ratings.

grendel

The best evidence you can have that weight off doen't give you the same result as weight on is to look at the win% record in handicaps of horses by weight difference from top-weight in handicaps. You will find that the win% drops in a clear pattern from the top-weight down to the bottom weight . This shouldn't happen if handicap ratings accurately reflected merit. It occurs because of the faster pace that lower class horses find when they are raised in class. In other words, weight off doesn't equate with faster pace, as you say.

On a weight related scale, the BG rating is nevertheless correct as that is what is assumed by collateral handicappers to be the case.

Figgis


As for horses not being affected exactly the same by different amounts of weight, of course this is a probability, but it is one that can't be measured. A person can have their own views about any individual horse's weight carrying abilities, but I don't see how that could be expected to be taken seriously if it was incorporated into commercial ratings.


As you no doubt know, the weight of race horse varies tremendously from maybe around 1000 lbs to perhaps as much as 1400lbs. Balck Caviar is apparentetly heavier than Kauto Star which is mind blowing considering she is a mare.

If you take this into account you will see that the conventional lbs/sec formula ia based on an average of around 1150-1200 lbs. This fact alone can account for a lot of variation. Also, if you have sat on a horse you will know statightaway the effect of someone heavy on a a light framed horse. I agree that it might not be of much use to a commercial ratings service but to thosse owho have studied conformation it is something that comes easily. Most of the time of course, for G1 races, it doesn't really apply except I do like to see very butch fillies/mares with a sex allowance - Black Caviar springs to mind.

Figgis


where time ratings are concerned, weight on and off generally has a more linear effect.

I believe it to be exponential in line with Einsteins formula of E=MC(2)although for most cases linear will do.

Also White Moonstone that day .... shame she didn't race beyond 2

Sandown
What did you reckon to Trading Leather's performance last time? Obviously he's a few pounds behind Dawn Approach but I thought it was a pretty good time for a horse who appears more a Derby type.

White Moonstone ran on the same day and I had her only 3 lengths/ mile behind Frankel in relation to RP standards.

She then won the Fillies Mile at Ascot, never raced again.

Figgis

Backed him at Newmarket but disappointed. Don't think he improved on Gowran run. Not in same league as Dawn Approach at present but then DA won't stay 12f.

Figgis


Ground was given as soft at Newm for TL but not in my book. Was the wind strong behind? RP gave ground as good. Otherwise I would have the grnd g/f