- This topic has 67 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote: from andyod on 6:06 am on June 28, 2007[br]Ben I feel that superior class becomes apparent when two horses go eye to eye. Was it Rock of Gibraltar or Giants Causeway I have forgotten which, that refused to be beat if he could see his challenger, but was beaten by a horse who stayed out of sight. <br>
It was Giants Causeway. But he wasn’t beaten by a horse out of sight, he was beaten by a superior miler in Observatory.
Quote: from andyod on 5:55 am on June 28, 2007[br]Reethard<br>I do not believe that DT was fully fit the day that NNC beat him. Which leads to the using of the track to train the Ballydoyle horses; a pet peeve of mine.<br>
Obviously 2 relatively recent races (1 at G1 level) wouldn’t have DT fit for the T Gold Cup?
Very interested to hear your answer ;)
- Total Posts 17716
andyod
I sincerely doubt that DT was unfit when beaten by Notnowcato. As Salselon points out, he had run twice previously this season with a month between each race, winning both, the latter a gp1 where he ran within 3lbs of his previous best.<br>Other recent examples of horses winning gamely and the form being overturned later are Red Evie/Ramonti and Scorpion/Maraahel. There are plenty of others, too, which rather undermine your original theory.<br>I have come across this theory a few times before, and while I wouldn’t totally disagree with it, it is no more reliable a measure of class than OR’s, s/f etc, in the main.<br>As an example, take a look at Giant’s Causeway, generally reckoned to be one of the classiest (and gutsiest) horses of recent years.<br>On at least 2 occasions he was beaten by lesser battlers, and all his victories were hard-fought affairs, regardless of the class of his opposition.<br>Isn’t the truth that, though very high class, he was just a lazy horse that did no more than he could be persuaded to?<br>Just my opinion, but isn’t class simply one horse being better than another and, though they might not always show it, capable of running better when the cards fall their way?
I finally got my hands on this book yesterday, in Waterstone’s with an eye to buying it. After flicking through the pages for 5 minutes or so I did not bother.
Most of it appears to be mumbo-jumbo, and the comment that really stuck in my craw was the one to the effect that time analysis was invented by Andrew Beyer in the US in the 1970s.
I have read this untruth in US books, which is bad enough if perhaps just about forgiveable, but there is no excuse for it appearing in a work penned by a British author. Phil Bull was publishing time-analysis figures in the 1930s, and for all I know he might not have been the first.
Beyer was perhaps the first to write openly on the subject, but there is a world of difference between that and what is sometimes claimed for him.
Pru,
Even in the States, Len Ragozin had reinvented speed ratings from around 1953.
The Class Figures book is puffed to be a brand new way of looking at horseracing. I wonder if they were aware of Pittsburgh Phil (the less famous American one) who was writing on this in 1908.
"RACING MAXIMS AND METHODS OF PITTSBURGH PHIL
Originally published in 1908, this book by a respected turf writer is based on exclusive interviews with one of the most successful handicappers of the century. Twelve of the thirteen chapters deal with such topics as time handicapping, class and weight, developing honest jockeys, effect of drugs on performance, and the impact of time and weight. The thirteenth chapter is made up of dozens of short tips on handicapping.The entire book contains some of the best horseplaying advice ever, because it has stood the test of time for generations of horseplayers."
Fascinating thread.
As one who relys much more on "raceday conditions" than on ratings for selections I have a view in the Dylan Thomas/Notnowcato debate. It’s fairly obvious to me that two closely rated horses can reverse form with one another given differing racing conditions. I backed NNC at the Curragh because it rained here quite significantly the night before, favouring him and slightly inconveniencing DT. Another factor may have been the NNC got on the favoured far rail in the straight and couldn’t be passed on the outside- seen many times at the Curragh. Thirdly the jockey factor may have contributed(Murtagh v Heffernan). In my view the ground at Ascot was faster and I backed DT there (lost to Manduro) thinking this would inconvenience NNC.
Ratings mean far less than horse’s preferences for ground, trip, field size etc etc.- Total Posts 17716
Fascinating thread.
As one who relys much more on "raceday conditions" than on ratings for selections I have a view in the Dylan Thomas/Notnowcato debate. It’s fairly obvious to me that two closely rated horses can reverse form with one another given differing racing conditions. I backed NNC at the Curragh because it rained here quite significantly the night before, favouring him and slightly inconveniencing DT. Another factor may have been the NNC got on the favoured far rail in the straight and couldn’t be passed on the outside- seen many times at the Curragh. Thirdly the jockey factor may have contributed(Murtagh v Heffernan). In my view the ground at Ascot was faster and I backed DT there (lost to Manduro) thinking this would inconvenience NNC.
[b:h2qchvl2]Ratings mean far less than horse’s preferences for ground, trip, field size etc etc.[/b:h2qchvl2]
Precisely Carvills, and the reason why Notnowcato, though probably not as good as Dylan Thomas, has 2 decisions over him.Prufrock
Beyer was preceded by Pittsburgh Phil by quite a few years in the US, as I am reasonably sure, was Phil Bull by Mason’s Time Test in the UK?Indeed, Reet Hard, that was essentially my point.
A horse’s ground preferences, effectiveness in small/large fields etc can be identified and expressed through ratings. Ratings are not just about stating how good a horse "is" at its best.
Standardised ratings most likely would have identified at the time that Dylan Thomas did not run to his best when beaten by Notnowcato in Ireland, incidentally.
- Total Posts 17716
Standardised ratings most likely would have identified at the time that Dylan Thomas did not run to his best when beaten by Notnowcato in Ireland, incidentally.
Which emphasises the point that there is little future in raters, commercial or otherwise, agonising over whether such as George Washington is a 126 or a 130 horse, when raceday circumstances can, and do, make enough difference to render such fine tuning pointless?
Reet Hard,
A very fair point, but really one that is axiomatic.
The exact circumstances of any sporting event can never be repeated – so any ratings assigned have to be a value judgement on the day.This implication of ‘on that day and in those circumstances’ always applies.
Whenever ratings compilers measure performances, they are aware that future tasks for the horse can only be judged loosely on past performances. The scope for error is very large, otherwise there would be no one prepared to lay a bet.The Racing Post handicappers are always careful to separate the performance from the task; one being an appraisal of a result, the other a prediction of how a horse might fare with the weight it is set to carry over a given distance.
I think you do well to raise the point because people can get carried away with ratings, applying them with mathematical precision to future events which is unrealistic. You can’t blame rational punters for doing this, because ratings are one way of starting an assessment of how a race might unfold. I suppose it’s natural for some of us to try and use numbers as well as words to express the quality of a performance.
Yes, a rating applies to a particular performance in a particular race.
Whether that rating will ever be acheived again is open to speculation.
I think it erroneous for a commercial outfit like Timeform to give a horse one rating. It should have a number of ratings; for different distances, ground counditions, type of track, size of field, etcetera etcetera.
In effect, Timeform does have individual ratings for different circumstances: they are the horse’s individual performance ratings, and the astute customer will pay attention to these and not just to the master rating.
But, Prufrock, don’t you think that the first time buyer, or inexperienced buyer, would be swayed by that Master Rating, I know I was all those years ago!
Colin
The master rating is important: I’m not suggesting otherwise.
If anyone wants to ascertain exactly how much George Washington is considered to have run below form at 10f or on heavy going the answer will be in the individual performance ratings, however.
Seabird
I think that the first-time buyer/inexperienced buyer would be even more put-off by a range of master ratings all for different trips and going assessments.
Ofcourse you also have to remember that the information is published, has to be printed. In the days of 48 hr decs, when the going has changed from good to firm to soft, quite often you could easily end up with the ‘wrong’ rating published.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.