- This topic has 60 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
Delighted that the Coolmore team tactics blew up in their faces …very satisfying that they failed to get Harry Angel at it and that he actually won.
Unless Coolmore change tactics, Caravaggio needs more of a test of stamina than 6f on a faster track (Newmarket) with slower run early fractions (faster latter fractions) which gave not only the speed deficit, but also the added positional disadvantage. ie Either a stronger run race on good-firm (like the Commonwealth at Ascot) or softer ground should suit.
Value Is EverythingSteve, I notice you have a great deal of respect for the Racing Post Ratings. I see you’re often quoting them to make a point. Many in the industry (must admit I’m on their side) consider them something of an ongoing joke.
What makes you trust them above ORs and Timeform ratings?
Steve, I notice you have a great deal of respect for the Racing Post Ratings. I see you’re often quoting them to make a point. Many in the industry (must admit I’m on their side) consider them something of an ongoing joke.
What makes you trust them above ORs and Timeform ratings?
I don’t trust them implicitly by any means at all. It’s merely a ball park figure and I use it because they are free and normally come out fairly quickly. You can wait for a long time on a Wednesday before the official ratings get their fingers out.
I sometimes put a rough figure up myself right after the race. When I watched The Pentagon at the weekend, I mused that he had run to roughly 100. RP gave him 105. As I say, it’s mostly when I can’t get the other figures that I quote the Racing Post.
You can pay and get Timeform to tell you Wings Of Eagles was 124p after the Derby. That’s a joke if ever there was one
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Fair play. Thanks for getting back to me so quickly, especially since I posted the question on the wrong thread!
Good point about Timeform too. Wings Of Eagles an especially guessy one on their part!
I think good old fashioned ORs are probably the best ratings going although, like Timeform, they can lack a bit of perspective with the best horses at times. It would be good if all of them had the ability to make retrospective amendments. No shame in admitting you got it wrong.
Fair play. Thanks for getting back to me so quickly, especially since I posted the question on the wrong thread!
Good point about Timeform too. Wings Of Eagles an especially guessy one on their part!
I think good old fashioned ORs are probably the best ratings going although, like Timeform, they can lack a bit of perspective with the best horses at times. It would be good if all of them had the ability to make retrospective amendments. No shame in admitting you got it wrong.
Nobody can get it right all the time, it’s an impossible field.
I sometimes wonder if they give a higher rating than normal because they want to be seen to be “More correct” about an improving type?
I thought the idea was to give roughly what they had run to on the day and then, in the case of Timeform, give a p for potential improvement, or a capital P for potentially above normal improvement.
Timeform were famously bullish about Time Test and had him way higher than the official handicapper did. The horse has been beaten favourite twice in his new career for Chad Brown. He was defeated at odds on at Belmont Park in a Grade 3 race, where the Racing Post had him running to 106.
The Racing Post recorded Time Test as having recorded his best rating (124) in winning the Brigadier Gerard by a neck from Western Hymn. Subsequent events since beating Gosden’s notorious dodge pot suggest that the 124 rating is fanciful.
As you say, why can’t people admit they over-rated a horse?
Last year, US Army Ranger went into The Derby rated 108. He emerged from the second place finish with a rating of 121. I said at the time that this (The Official Rating) had probably been inflated just because it was the Derby. Of course, I got pelters from the usual outlets.
US Army Ranger has never won again and the Racing Post has consistently shown him to have run well below his official rating, yet it has taken the handicapper ages to admit that the horse is nowhere near that ropey Derby rating. US Army Ranger has finally dropped to 110. Which is, coincidentally pretty much the rating he went into the Derby on. Surely the most obvious explanation is that the horse simply never was a 121 horse?
The probability, based on the statistics, is that the Derby run was an “Outlier”, which would be eliminated from deriving a true mean figure.
Winner Harzand was given 112 and 110 for his last two runs by the Racing Post, the official handicapper only dropped him 2 lbs for that but had he raced on, he may have come down further. He went into Epsom rated 110 and that was the figure the Racing Post gave him for his run behind Found in the Arc.
Ulysses could well be the best horse who ran in that Derby and Cloth Of Stars may be the other contender.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Fair play. Thanks for getting back to me so quickly, especially since I posted the question on the wrong thread!
Good point about Timeform too. Wings Of Eagles an especially guessy one on their part!
I think good old fashioned ORs are probably the best ratings going although, like Timeform, they can lack a bit of perspective with the best horses at times. It would be good if all of them had the ability to make retrospective amendments. No shame in admitting you got it wrong.
Nobody can get it right all the time, it’s an impossible field.
I sometimes wonder if they give a higher rating than normal because they want to be seen to be “More correct” about an improving type?
I thought the idea was to give roughly what they had run to on the day and then, in the case of Timeform, give a p for potential improvement, or a capital P for potentially above normal improvement.
Timeform were famously bullish about Time Test and had him way higher than the official handicapper did. The horse has been beaten favourite twice in his new career for Chad Brown. He was defeated at odds on at Belmont Park in a Grade 3 race, where the Racing Post had him running to 106.
The Racing Post recorded Time Test as having recorded his best rating (124) in winning the Brigadier Gerard by a neck from Western Hymn. Subsequent events since beating Gosden’s notorious dodge pot suggest that the 124 rating is fanciful.
As you say, why can’t people admit they over-rated a horse?
Last year, US Army Ranger went into The Derby rated 108. He emerged from the second place finish with a rating of 121. I said at the time that this (The Official Rating) had probably been inflated just because it was the Derby. Of course, I got pelters from the usual outlets.
US Army Ranger has never won again and the Racing Post has consistently shown him to have run well below his official rating, yet it has taken the handicapper ages to admit that the horse is nowhere near that ropey Derby rating. US Army Ranger has finally dropped to 110. Which is, coincidentally pretty much the rating he went into the Derby on. Surely the most obvious explanation is that the horse simply never was a 121 horse?
The probability, based on the statistics, is that the Derby run was an “Outlier”, which would be eliminated from deriving a true mean figure.
Winner Harzand was given 112 and 110 for his last two runs by the Racing Post, the official handicapper only dropped him 2 lbs for that but had he raced on, he may have come down further. He went into Epsom rated 110 and that was the figure the Racing Post gave him for his run behind Found in the Arc.
Ulysses could well be the best horse who ran in that Derby and Cloth Of Stars may be the other contender.
Yes, “nobody can get it right all the time” – Time Test a case in point with Timeform, but they had already brought Time Test’s rating down from the Tercentenary level (of 130 I believe) to 125 in their Racehorses Of 2015 annual. So they did “admit they over-rated” him. But why let the facts get in the way of your story, Stevie Boy? :roll eyes: Exaggeration seems to be a habit when it comes to you and Timeform.
Time Test is not that straightforward and remains to be seen whether he’ll be as good for a different trainer/in the States.
Anyway, your own confirmation bias seems to be stronger than Racing Post’s or Timeform’s.
You yourself want to believe you were right in rating last year’s Derby as poor, so are clinging on to what little evidence you’ve got for that opinion to be correct.After both Harzand and third placed Idaho franked Epsom form in the Irish Derby. Had Harzand been only a 112 or 110 horse, the distances of the Irish Derby would never have been 1/2, 3 3/4, shrt hd to Idho, Stellar Mass and Red Verdon. Stellar Mass went on to win his next two, including Group 3 Ballyroan by 1/2 length and 1 1/2 from Armela (who next time won the listed Oyster easily by 4 3/4 lengths) and St Leger runner-up Bondi Beach. Red Verdon on his next start was only beaten 1 1/4 lengths in the Group 1 Grand Prix De Paris by Mount Ormel, with your Cloth Of Stars a neck away in 3rd. So strictly on a line through Red Verdon, the Irish/English Derby winner can be rated just over 3 lengths in front of the Grand Prix De Paris.
Idaho went on to again frank the form when winning both Voltigeur and Hardwicke.
Harzand’s “last two runs” were at 10f on good-soft in the Irish Champion. Then ran in the Arc after an interupted preparation and on the firmest going he’d ever raced on… having previously shown he’s particularly suited by a test of stamina (and give in the ground) at 1m4f. So it’s surely unsurprising he was below form on his last two runs? Do you really think Harzand ran to form in finishing 10 lengths behind Found in the Arc? :lol:
You’re not seriously suggesting US Army Ranger should have been 112 after the Derby, Steve?
Horses are not rated on their best form. They are rated on what they are now thought capable of given their optimum conditions. “Most obvious explanation” why US Army Ranger’s rating has come down is: Immediately after Epsom he was off the track for 12 weeks and (like many who come back from injury) is in all probability not as good as he once was; hence the reduction in rating.Timeform’s ratings are on a different scale to others (like degrees C against degrees F). If punters do not recognise that then they’ll always (wrongly) think their ratings are too high.
124 Timeform rating for Wings Of Eagles is not that high at all for a Derby winner, eg Harzand was 126 and Golden Horn 130.At the end of 2016 there were 12 three year olds rated higher than 124 in Timeform Racehorses Of 2016, 14 if counting fillies with an allowance.
Value Is EverythingRe the RPR for Gustav Klimt and The Pentagon.
Timeform gave Gustav 112p on Kelvin Scale. While they awarded 109p on the Kelvin Scale to The Pentagon.
Those figures back up my feeling that there wasn’t much between the two but one is 7/1 for the Guineas and the other 33/1.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Tedious.
Pardon me for explaining, Stevie Boy. :lol:
Wonder how you’d have responded to me had I replied like that?
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.