Phil Bull documentary 1982

Hindsight great in racing, truth on the day drifted from 2/1 to 11/4, where was Sangster's money that day?

In his pocket

Thanks onlooker,she had a good innings got to 94 and died 2 years ago,its on at 14.26,she looks as though she's on a bit of a mission to get her fiver on!

Nothing to see here other than Ribero's mum. Great stuff, well spotted.

Other than that, man tells us he wins money backing horses, that's new. Man picks several in the same race sometimes he wins others not, that's new. Man tells us how much he won after the race, that is also new. Man backs a tip he has been give. Great! Man has no problem putting bets on, that's new. Man has gripes about the way racing is run and the results of stewards enquiries. Big surprise. He spent most of his time talking garbage.
Nothing I saw made me think he was shrewd or wise or I would want to be anything like him.

What I would have liked to see is him explaining how he set up Timeform. How he worked out the ratings and put the business together and built it up to what it was when he sold it and what gave him the money to bet. How one person can make so many mistakes but end up wealthy I suppose it could only happen in racing. He had an idea and ran with. Now that would be worth watching. Not, look at me I back winners, sometimes.

Excellent post, brigust1, you've articulated what I was thinking but thought I'd better not say!

Tbf to Bull, it was a snapshot in time of an ageing gentleman, maybe under a bit of pressure to come up with bets for the camera, and not at all reflective of his 'golden' years.

If someone on here, for example, said he thought the 6 runner Jockey Club Cup was between the first 3 in the betting including the 5-4 fav, said he thought the Derby was between the first four in the betting and then proceeded to get it badly wrong financially as he effectively laid the fav who won comfortably, he'd be ridiculed, and that's before after-timing a £5K win.

As Brigust1 says, there would have been more interest in hearing about Timeform.

The confusion over FPTP bets suggested Bull had not been a regular in the ring for years if not decades, but that film of Bull placing bets was demanded by the television company in return for Bull banging on about getting one over on the toffs who ran the Jockey Club.

And he was no in-running punter as we saw in Ardross's race. Come to think of it though, in-running is (or was) dominated by on-track punters relying on a time advantage to cover up their lack of race-reading skills.

@brigust1 -- What I would have liked to see is him explaining how he set up Timeform. How he worked out the ratings and put the business together

Phil Bull was the Time half of Timeform. The form ratings came from Dick Whitford who'd taken up private handicapping to while away his time onboard ships. It was mentioned in the film that Bull started by selling speed figures under the name William Temple (to avoid the wrath of his employers; he was a maths teacher).

As well as time (or speed) figures, Bull also started the annuals with their assessments of horses and essays on the leading performers.

Used to see him in the ring a lot,he obviously had accounts with plenty of bookmakers,by the time of the film he will have no doubt amassed his fortune and maybe he did have an edge many years before but like everything that eventually may have been eroded. For me it was good to get a reminder of "the good old days" and he certainly mixed in the right company,the Charles st George party looked a nice jolly up,no surprise to see Charles Benson at the forefront there! Also spotted Lord Porchester/Caernarvon the queens racing manager following him in at the Hills joint.

It was a good watch. Thanks for posting.

A slim John McCririck. Tommo asking Sangster stupid questions after Golden Fleece's win.  Spotted Gerry Gallagher (Vincent's travelling head lad) with Golden Fleece

Haven't watched this video but recall it being aired at the time, my vague recollections of it were that it showed that his money wasn't made from his gambling but from his Timeform empire, didn't think he came over as shrewd at all, but do agree that the pressure of picking horses to back for the camera makes things harder. I remember John Goughs' documentary as well and he could hardly back a winner in front of the cameras either.
His documentary i felt was much more interesting for the average punter than filming this old codger with his elite cronies. Will watch later to see if my views have changed.

That's him rubbished then, so who's next Alec Bird as another right mug?
And don't forget those idiots at Druids Lodge either.

Howard Wright's biography of Phil Bull includes his betting accounts showing he did indeed make a fortune.

Trouble is, it too devotes a lot of space to Bull's struggles to drag the Jockey Club into the 20th Century which are very important but not necessarily entertaining.

Just an opinion of the documentary sparrow, but it's from a time long ago. A rich man with loads of contacts in stables living in a castle doesn't have much relevance to most keen horse race punters i wouldn't have thought. Incidentally 1982 was the only year i bought the Timeform Hurdlers and Chasers new, nearly 40 years ago, £82! Was interesting to read the essays on the top horses of the season but i can't say i found it much use in picking horses for the following season, £82 what would that equate to now about £500, no wonder he lived in a castle.

You were robbed Stewart. Even the 85/86 edition was just under £50.

£82 in 1982 = £291 average inflation 3.5% per year.

My edition of Chasers and Hurdlers 1981/82 has an official price of £38 printed on page five.

I'm not convinced. Didn't see him doing any studying or checking the form just wandering around smoking cigars. He never made any attempt to impress everyone which was the reason for the film. Unless that was him trying to impress. I don't believe anyone who won that kind of money wouldn't be getting bets on that easily unless he had another source.
I had accounts closed with Ladbrokes and the Tote in the early 70's and I was only betting in 10s and 20s and the very occasional ton. I rang up Lads one Saturday evening to back Fort Marcy in the Washington International they halved the bet and told me no more.

As I said I would have been really interested in the machinations and setting up of Timeform The rest is just not interesting.

He was 72 in this documentary don't think I would be to bothered if I backed a winner or not with his money at his age, if it was 1952 be different story, still enjoyed it alot thanks for posting.

My bad memory Anorak was £42 for 82/83 season, sorry but still dear enough, would imagine half to a weeks pick up pay to most people at the time, so probably about £250 now i'd guess. Then the racecards, the black books, the phone services, didn't need to bet at all.

By the way Stewarts, your rich man in the castle was a miners son from Hemsworth in Yorkshire.

He did well, all the best peoples dads were miners, mine included!

Thanks for posting, very enjoyable.

Bull thought the film was a load of cr@p so I suppose you knockers have a point. But Bull was a very talented man certainly in racing/betting. He was only playing with it for the last 20 years plus. An interesting comment I heard from Jimbo was that Bull would have loved LAYING on here. Makes sense as many pro backers look for bad favourites first.

I'm not knocking Bull, Howard. Just not interested in a look at me punting set up. We have no idea what ended up on the cutting room floor but you can bet it wasn't winners. I was more interested in how he started Timeform and how he/they run it in the early years.

The people that made it ( ITV ) make it for the ITV audience which these days makes X Factor BGT and Ant/Dec.  It wasn't made for you and me so it's not going to dig where we went it to.

Late 40's to mid-60's Bull made millions betting ( adjusted to  today's money )  Every pound for every season is fully detailed in Howard Wright biography.

I've been a lifelong admirer but hadn't seen this before. Have to admit to feeling a little deflated. There are allusions in Howard Wright's book as to a certain shallowness and a whiff of hypocrisy, and I thought it showed here. The Phil Bull of my mind's eye would have been telling the production team what direction to take with the film. Where was the emphasis on logic, where was the philosophy and the debunking of the church? All we heard was "you have to put in the hard work to win money" - ok but how? I didn't need to hear it but as soon as I saw the link I sent it to an old school friend, who after many (and I do mean many) years, still backs trainers and jockeys blind in patents and yankees, in the vague hope that he's be inpired by the great man. Yet I could offer him nothing in this that would come close to doing that. Not even a mention of his mantra of "eyes open ears closed" - instead we got that pretentious latin nonsense, even telling us it was latin - just in case we hadn't picked up on that. What a missed opportunity.

thought there'd be more race track shots,
betting, more races to be honest.
How much would that £5k be worth today,
(Touchung Wood,St Leger?)

penzance 10 Aug 20 16:20 
thought there'd be more race track shots,
betting, more races to be honest.
How much would that £5k be worth today,
(Touchung Wood,St Leger?)




£5000 in 1982 would be worth just short of 20k today.

cheers.
I'm not one for everything was better in the
old days adage,but that's what the courses should
be like,the books,do away with these boards and
machines they use today and go back to the old
ways.

steerforth , Bull tried to change things big-time from what came out. And had plenty of arguments about it. But then threw in the towel. These days with RTV/SSR something very different could have been made. This was made for ITV audience and ones NOT INTERESTED IN RACING.

1981 £5k = £19k today.

Thanks Howard - that's restored my faith a little - but part of me wishes he'd just walked. Interesting to see todays toxic popularism at work all of 38 years ago. A sign of what was to come.

I think Golden Fleece putting Assert in it's place wasn't bad form.

How good was Assert by this stage? He'd not yet won the French and Irish Derbies.

Golden Fleece never raced again. Some were sceptical about the number of training injuries suffered by Coolmore's stallion prospects back in the day.

Won the group 3 Beresford at 2 easily and then the Gallinule at 3 before going on to do the things it did. It wasn't rubbish form was it.

If Phil Bull was no good as a lot on here say then why did William Hill employ him as a private handicaper, This is in William Hill's book.

Not sure If Golden Fleece or any other horse could avoid cancer.

Saying Bull was no good at betting is like saying Federer is no at tennis.

no good

I really enjoyed the documentary for what it was.

Mr Bull places two bets on the rails on the same race, Slightly Dangerous and Mullins Charm, anyone know the result of the race?

Sam,

I'm guessing you mean Merlins Charm, not Mullins. Those two fillies finished fifth (SP 4/1) and tenth (SP 7/1) respectively in the 1000 Gns won by On The House (SP 33/1) in 1982.

Apologies, TheAnorak, I thought he said Mullins.

I thoroughly enjoyed the documentary, watching racing from the 70s and 80s is a magical time for me, as this was when I was just being introduced to this great sport. I hope you're well.

Agree with Brigust1, I found it boring to tell the truth , I was always in awe of Phil, well the myth was certainly broken for me there....His devotion to G.B.Shaw was obvious , even the lookalike beard . Sorry to say I found him very cold and not the genius I was lead to belief .

workrider , you now think he's not a betting genius based on a handful of bets in the film ?  My mate thought the film showed him to be a hypocrite. It was what Big Mac thought ie.Champagne Socialist. I suppose you could say he didn't have to hobnob with the aristocracy when there were a lot of intelligent businessmen with whom he could have been friends

I admire anyone who makes the money Phil Bull did out of Racing irrespective of any TV programme.

Howard, my point is I was brought up to think he was a genius , a clever punter who never took advice from anyone and relied totally on his own skill, this film showed otherwise. I found myself thinking thats not the kind of man I admire , do I believe he was a genius, yes I do but not to the extent I once did, as Sparrow says to make money out of racing in any shape or form takes genius . I also admire anyone who betters himself , I remember the look of horror on my Uncles face when I told him i was going to play golf many years ago, he said NONE of our family play golf, to which I replied well they do now!

workrider, there's very much something of an age thing here. Bull was 72 when this film was made. Men of that age would be very unusual if they had the same mental abilities of twenty years before. He had long retired from serious betting and was now betting for fun. And a very big point. If you or others on here understand the effect on profit /loss of a 4% course tax which was charged in '82 you will know that it can and did make the difference some years of making Bull a loss well into 5 figures when without the tax he would have made a profit. Alex Bird had said the days of the pro punter were over. That's why Bull was messing about. Totally different from his heyday when as he said he made 20k ( obviously worth much more now ) a year for over 20 years.

I don't know any of the facts either but I have treated claims of excess and continual winnings by punters with a pinch of salt.
What I do know for a fact is that in the late 40's he started selling information to punters under the Timeform banner and being a well publicised winner would be the only way he could do that with any success. Truth or fiction? I know what camp I am in.
What I also think is that the idea of printing and selling information in the Timeform format was a brilliant idea and no mistake. Whether it was his idea or his partner's idea I have no idea. But brilliant it was.

All that success from a miners son from Yorkshire.

These are the sorts of posts I like to read on the forum.

He'd have ruffled a few feathers on the forum.  He was a dyed in the wool and socialist, extremely opinionated and could be very prickly.

I knew someone who wrote to him suggesting a change in format to his Racehorses annual.  He received a hand-written reply - a diatribe full of swear words!

Phil Bull's annual betting returns, taken from his biography, Bull, by Howard Wright. Note that the cumulative totals are about £30 out, perhaps owing to Wright's arithmetic or human proofreaders.

Year	Won/lost	Cumulative
1943	£2,709	£2,709
1944	£12,412	£15,121
1945	£36,142	£51,263
1946	£28,106	£79,369
1947	£12,577	£91,946
1948	£26,720	£118,666
1949	£30,924	£149,590
1950	£12,337	£161,927
1951	£16,859	£178,786
1952	£37,892	£216,678
1953	£6,171	£222,849
1954	-£13,919	£208,930
1955	£10,008	£218,938
1956	£21,186	£240,124
1957	£3,931	£244,055
1958	£8,911	£252,966
1959	£8,016	£260,982
1960	-£13,848	£247,134
1961	-£12,828	£234,306
1962	£32,679	£266,985
1963	£1,046	£268,031
1964	-£13,969	£254,062
1965	£30,747	£284,809
1966	£21,016	£305,825
1967	-£25,501	£280,324
1968	-£1,885	£278,439
1969	£11,205	£289,644
1970	-£5,619	£284,025
1971	£3,764	£287,789
1972	-£22,089	£265,700
1973	£7,780	£273,480
1974	£22,478	£295,958

To be clear, the won/lost figures are as in the book. There is a small difference in the cumulative figures. The figures shown here are correct, at least for the given win/loss figures.

ive got his book and he must of been way ahead of his time, his methods were well thought out and based on a solid foundation of knowledge and common sense,
supoose he applied his academic skills to the racing game and enjoyed all the trappings of being a successful  professional gambler

Bull was a punter and I think punters are like anglers. 'It was this big' and only remember the good days.
I designed a book once specifically aimed at punters wanting to keep records. I went through discussions with The Sporting Life then after we had arranged a few things and put plans in place they pulled out saying they thought it wasn't viable. I still have all the letters. Six months later they bought out their own book. They couldn't directly copy mine so it was cr ap and disappeared after a couple of years.
I remember John Francombe's agent came round to see me about it. We sat in my office (kitchen) and he looked through my copy then, during the discussion said 'what about when a punter has a losing streak he'll just', and he threw it on the floor. Still tickles me today. And he was right, punters are fickle about keeping records.

Bull may have kept records up to a point but punters like to think they are either winning or not losing too much. When I started on here some time ago I couldn't believe my P&L and that soon made me pull up my socks, I can tell you. Now I have no problem my wife seeing my records.

About Bull I think it was a good publicity stunt to be a big winner. If it was you or I the bookie would not let it happen, and I have had accounts closed by all of the big bookies back then, and I am not a big punter, but it was good publicity for them (the bookies) to make him look like a winner and that they paid out winnings and it was good publicity for him selling Timeform tips.
Therein lies the answer in my opinion. If he showed Howard Wright closed bookies accounts and bank statements showing bookies payments in and out then that would be different. And, don't forget, HW wanted to sell books. Everyone was happy. A threesome!

a long thread for just basically calling him a liar

I don't know Gazo, and you don't know, I am only playing the percentages. I've not read the book and if there is evidence then that would be a different matter and, may I suggest, if you are a diligent book-keeper, as Bull clearly was, he will have plenty of evidence to support his claims. And, had that been me, I would be waving the evidence around. It was in his interests as a businessman to appear to be a successful punter and it was in the bookies interests to sell their trade. What you believe and what I believe, from the evidence we have, may differ. So be it.

What I am not saying is that he wasn't a clever man. He was. Timeform was a brilliant idea.
I just think he made his money selling information to punters and it looked good and helped him sell more information if he appeared to be a successful punter. Had he said he made his money selling information to punters what do you think the punters who paid for that information and lost their money, would think? He won and the bookies won.

if you just look at those numbers there are some big minus years and from 1966 to 1974 it actually shows a loss of around £10,000,doesnt come across as trying to mask the numbers but its true that only he would really know

Well I respect him far more as a good punter than inventing just another tipping firm.

Were there other tipping firms like Timeform then? They are still going strong 70 years later.

Well I'm pleased all their customers are satisfied with profiting from their investment.

You know who profited most.

My old man told me he used to use H. J. Masons time test in the 1940s  he told me it was very good and profitable.

Thanks for that ,the man was a true legend .

Legend

Legend

I used to get the Annual ,and was on Golden Fleese at 33/1 but he wasn’t but was with him on Touching Wood winning the Ledger,liked his stories about his old man.

I used to get the Annual ,and was on Golden Fleese at 33/1 but he wasn’t but was with him on Touching Wood winning the Ledger,liked his stories about his old man.

The notion that Bull was faking results to attract clients does not hold water because the figures in the book were from Bull's private papers and were not publicised at the time. I'd imagine Bull kept records partly because everyone should, partly because he was an actual maths geek, but mainly that in the days of betting on credit, it was inevitable.

And Timeform was not a tipping organisation. It sold form guides -- the black book -- and racecards and annuals. What it was actually selling was its ratings and assessments, not tips.

Timeform ratings and assessments are just opinions aren't they?
Official ratings are also opinions.
Paying for an opinion whether it be a rating or an outright tip is just the same in my view.

I suppose it depends on the quality of the ratings/tips....Timeform USED TO be the byword in quality...NOW it's owned by PaddyPower/Betfair FFS!

The first I heard of Bull was that he used to stand by the finishing line and bet on which horse had won.

Whether you call it tips or advice it was a great idea especially when the spectators were in greater number than today. I used to buy their little books and still have few of them today and they were great. I never followed the ratings but to precise their chances so that you could decide was, as I have said, a great idea.

There are a number of things I disagree with as far as Timeform is concerned but the organisation and presentation is very experienced and it definitely adds to the experience.

brigust1 28 Aug 20 12:20 
The first I heard of Bull was that he used to stand by the finishing line and bet on which horse had won.




That was Alec Bird.

Sure you're not talking about Bird ? He was the big photo player.

You are right Sparrow, I have my animals mixed up.

Should have said Alex not Alec though.

Phil Bull  had his Timeform ratings going long before official ratings started, Don't think official ratings started until the mid 70s. Definitely NOT going in 1970 at tht time different handicapers  for different racecourses, It used to tell you in the old Handicap book who the handicaper was  for that racecourse.So to my way of thinking they started doing centralised handicap marks to follow the work of timeform.

Alex bird father was a bookie and used to stand on the doorstep praying for rain and with some of the latest results I can see why

@clayfield1 is right. Timeform's most crucial *innovation* was to maintain a central running free handicap. They were decades ahead of the field, though nowadays that is the standard approach and there are several publicly available variants.

Ramruma - to repeat Clayfield's question - when did official ratings start?. The Jockey Club took control of the handicapping system in the mid 1930's and reduced the large number of handicappers to just SEVEN shortly afterwards. I am not sure, but I doubt that Timeform were "decades ahead" of a centralised handicap. Geoffrey Freer would know.

Thanks for putting this up
Very enjoyable watch
Two main points
Hamdam- ignorant ****
Henrietta, Marchioness of Tavistock
Yes please- wonder what sort of a state
she’s in these days?

@blackbarn -re centralised handicaps.

According to his obituary, David Swannell made the change but the Independent does not say when. It could have been any time between his appointment in 1953 and retirement in 1983.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/obituary-major-david-swannell-1536014.html

Timeform was founded in 1948.

More on Jockey Club's change to central handicapping -- Probably around 1973 as that was when Swannell became Senior Handicapper, and it ties in with the Guardian in 2004 saying the change was made "more than 30 years ago".
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2004/sep/01/horseracing.gregwood

Timeform was founded in 1948.

courtesy of Thoroughbred Owner&Breeder

https://issuu.com/ownerbreeder/docs/ob_sept11

(see Page 48)

Centralized handicaping  100% WAS NOT in use in 1970, as I said in earlier post that I can remember reading the handicap book (newspaper) and it giving the name of the handicaper for each meeting.

Daily Telegraph, Jan 13th, 1972:

"The Jockey Club announce that by 1973, all handicaps may be compiled centrally, rather than as at present by a single individual."

Actually, centralisation of handicaps is not the only point, important though it is. Timeform was also a running free handicap. Free handicaps (ie abstract ratings not confined to the circumstances of a particular race) existed but their publication tended to be annual exercises. Timeform's would be continuously updated and include all horses, not just the top ones.

btw, that fascinating TO&B article refers to weight-for-age tables which are another key component in handicapping (and not without their own controversies).

I think as far as punting is concerned handicapping is a failure and should be abolished. Believe me I have spent many many long hours studying handicaps but there are too many anomalies to succeed. They are great for bookmakers, many of whom used to sponsor the big handicaps such is the profit they can make from them. They may be a good spectacle and I always looked forward to the Lincoln, the Spring Double and Cambridgeshire and Cesarewitch. Spent long hours watching for horses being prepared for these big handicaps but I never made any money from them.
I have had some notable successes but they were few and far between. I went to Newbury to bank Strands of Gold in the Hennesy, I think I got 10s, I had the one bet then went home.
I backed Bindaree in the National and I had a big win of Highclere in the 1000 Guineas at 33s doubled with Red Rum at 10s in'74.

My biggest win on a handicap, however, was in World Cup year when I worked for a national company and they had a Grand National draw. I drew Anglo at the local depot and Anglo at the National Depot. Plus I had a couple of quid on it for luck. What a weekend that was.

I used to keep regular records and I soon realised where my money was going and my time. I never bet in handicaps now, and haven't for many years unless for fun. I want my bets to be on horses in races they want to win not to get their weight down for some race I have no idea about.

And isn't the idea of a handicap is that they all finish in line? If it is then that's a joke.

People like them. And collectively punters are going to lose big money  whatever racing takes place.

A number of years ago I wouldn't have agreed about your view on handicaps brigust but these pat few years my records are telling me a different story.  They are telling me I do far better on American racing which has hardly any handicaps.

*past few years

Enjoyed that documentary. Only now seeing it for the first time.

I don't suppose anyone can point me in the direction of that famous 'Sportsnight' programme in the mid-70s all about John Banks?  Would love to see that again !

The funny thing about Timeform's innovation of a centralized, "free" handicap, and the Jockey Club's copying of it in 1973, is that the advantage for punters came from ignoring it, rather than following it.

Giving a horse a rating of 70 on the basis of it giving a stone and a 3-length beating to a horse rated 50, then expecting it to dead-heat with a horse rated 90 getting 20 lb off it, reflects a faith in numbers over experience. Giving weight to something slow and ungenuine around Lingfield, then expecting it to be competitive getting weight off something with a turn of foot at Newmarket, just doesn't work.

John Francome with hair like Sideshow Bob at the time Alun!
I have fond memories of Remainder Man hosing up in the Free Handicap, bet in to 7/2 from 13/2, then running very well in all the big races thereafter, at good prices.  Reg Hollinshead.  Trainer of jockeys and horses!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/racing/article-2320415/Reg-Hollinshead-dies-aged-89.html

Excellent documentary thx, not seen it before. Didn't know much about Bull other than the Timeform connection; he talked a lot of sense and was clearly a visionary for change. Phi lBull impressed me as much as Bird disappointed in the documentary I saw of him.

Thanks here too.
I remember Jim ( If you go racing as often as I do you would know, and I go every day ) McGrath whineing with some resentment that he had worked for him at Timeform and been rebuked for putting in a comment about a horse - "Loves the soft"!  Bull apparently didn't like the phrase.  "They're animals, they don't love anything"!