- This topic has 139 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Why is 142 so silly?
All they have done is rate Frankel as a 2 lengths better horse than the 6 lengths he won by (2 lengths better than a rating of 137) at the finishing line. Considering he was many more than 6 lengths ahead of his field before the pace eventually told; it is not "silly" to rate the horse as an 8 lenghth winner.
You can say they are wrong, fine. But to call it is "silly" without explaining why it is "silly", is in itself silly. You call it "guesswork" and "rediculous", yet don’t tell us why? That…. well you see where I am going with this.
To be honest, before I sat down to work the race out myself, I thought 142 was too much, but when looking at the form it is at least 140 (imo).
It’s silly because they have taken the basic form and assumed the horse is actually two lengths better than that. Guesswork has no place in rating a horse. If you want to say 137+ then fine, because you are then saying that the horse has the potential to be better without attributing the rating. Timeform are saying that Frankel ran to 137 but they would have rather it be a 142 performance. Now
that
is silly. The rating is not credible.
A rating of 142 at this time of year lies in the realms of fantasy
And it could be similarly said that a rating of 130 just lacks imagination and is in the realms of mean spirited. Given your method of ratings what’s you highest mile figure for a 3yo in the last 5-10 years?
Here is the last 8 years figures, rated to my new method.
It shows just how impressive Frankel was yesterday.
Add 10lb WFA (New Scale) to speed figure to bring it in line with official Handicapper.2000 Guineas
(Last 8 years)
Newmarket 30-Apr-11 (Class 1) (3yo) 1m Good To Firm Frankel 1/2F120
Newmarket 01-May-10 (Class 1) (3yo) 1m Good To Firm Makfi 33/1
105
Newmarket 02-May-09 (Class 1) (3yo) 1m Good To Firm Sea The Stars (IRE) 8/1
104
Newmarket 03-May-08 (Class 1) (3yo) 1m Good Henrythenavigator (USA) 11/1
100
Newmarket 05-May-07 (Class 1) (3yo) 1m Good To Firm Cockney Rebel (IRE) 25/1
106
Newmarket 06-May-06 (Class 1) (3yo) 1m Good To Firm George Washington (IRE) 6/4F
96
Newmarket 30-Apr-05 (Class 1) (3yo) 1m Good To Firm Footstepsinthesand 13/2
86
Newmarket 01-May-04 (Class 1) (3yo) 1m Good Haafhd 11/2
88
Small comfort to the subscribers who back their overrated horses in the meanwhile, eh Ginge?
Fwiw, yesterday Cape Blanco added further query to the 142? awarded for Harbinger’s King George, also.
Ye, pick one race out from a different season and that proves everything.
What about the Irish Champion Stakes win on Cape Blanco’s next start after his King George run? Didn’t that frank the form? Even though Timeform have Cape Blanco running to a better rating at Leopardstown. Horses are not machines, they don’t run to the same form every time Reet.I for one did not consider Hawk Wing value in the Queen Anne, so it cost this subscriber nothing.
I note you have not explained your ratings of Frankel Reet.
Value Is EverythingThe overall time looks pretty hot in the context of other times yesterday. Ground slower today by the look of it, they watered overnight and that seems to have slowed them up a bit.
GT – you mention the early fractions, they clearly went fast but how fast that first two/three furlongs was run is unknown.
You can’t rate horses on how far they were in front at a certain stage in the race ‘before he got tired’. That’s bonkers. The race was a mile, you rate them over the full distance, where they are at the line. You might have more/less confidence in the likelihood of the rating being correct if the pace was strong/false, etc, but interpreting what ‘might have been’ is merely guesswork.
Also, if Dubawi Gold ran to ‘even pace’ then he should be able to reproduce that effort, although some of those who chased Queally early were clearly unable to sustain the Frankel gallop and will be seen to much better effect with a slower pace. Rather than DG being unable to replicate his effort, it
might
be the case that he might reproduce his run but still be beaten next time by some of the horses he beat yesterday.
I’m pretty sure that Frankel rating will be pegged back once TF have had a long, hard look at it. Dominic Gardiner-Hill’s reaction seems more ‘level’ to me.
That said, there is quite a bit of pressure on these fellows to produce a rating quickly, before they’ve had time to assess things properly. You could argue they should just refuse to do so but with commercial considerations to bear in mind (with TF which isn’t the case with DGH at the BHA) you can understand why they are keen to be first to get a rating out.
The more I look at it (the race) though he looked like a sprinter who just plugged on. To me, on that run, you wouldn’t give him a hope in a Derby and that, along with his tendency to pull, would make him a stand-out lay at anything under 2/1 for the Epsom race.
I’m pretty sure he’ll be Ascot bound, reading between the lines I think Cecil would love him to be a Derby horse, as would we all, but I think he just knows that he probably isn’t.
- Total Posts 17716
Ginger
Cape Blanco was overrated for his Champion stakes run – for exactly the same reason as Frankel undoubtedly was for yesterday.
Do try and keep up.Corm said:
“You can’t rate horses on how far they were in front at a certain stage in the race ‘before he got tired’. That’s bonkers. The race was a mile, you rate them over the full distance, where they are at the line. You might have more/less confidence in the likelihood of the rating being correct if the pace was strong/false, etc, but interpreting what ‘might have been’ is merely guesswork.”
I know I am “bonkers” but:
Yes you can. What if a horse is 10 lengths up going in to the last furlong, yet heavily eased and gets home by just a length. Do you rate the horse on a one length victory? When a jockey eases up you need to consider how far the horse would have won by. In the same way, if a jockey goes far too fast early, you can consider how far the horse would have won without going an overly strong pace. Provided there are grounds for doing so.
If Frankel had been all out two out, then I agree, it would be difficuly if not ompossible to rate the performance any better.
But in this case Frankel went many, many lengths clear still going well; and had the race won two out (or even before that) with all bar possibly Native Khan all out. If Frankel did as I suspect, and went an exceptionally strong early pace (I am obviously presuming I am right about the sectional times); anyone with this information can easily assume Frankel is better than the official 6 lengths win indicates. Therefore is perfectly entitled to up the rating. Instead of the word “guesswork”, I’d rather call it “informed opinion”. If I thought the performance in itself is worth 137, yet I believe Frankel’s run suggests he is capable of 142, why would I rate the horse 137 for his next race? Doing so would not be giving my truthful opinion of his merit.Corm Said: “Also, if Dubawi Gold arn to ‘even pace’ then he should be able to reproduce that effort, although some of those who chased Queally early were clearly unable to sustain the Frankel gallop and will be seen to much better effect with a slower pace. Rather than DG being unable to replicate his effort, it might be the case that he might reprodiuce his run but still be beaten next time by some of the beaten horses”.
That is what I am saying Corm, well, of sorts. Of course, Dubawi Gold will still be capable of replicating this time performance. But because many of his rivals went too quick early, they will be able to run better races another day. So (I believe) will be able to reverse placings / get closer; or in the case of Frankel get further away from Dubawi Gold. Therefore, in form terms this race flatters Dubawi Gold (imo). eg, If he met Native khan under the same ground conditions in the Irish Guineas, I would make Native Khan a shorter price than Dubawi Gold, because of being "flattered".
Value Is EverythingI think Frankel’s time was 2.9s faster than the concluding 1 mile handicap. Sea The Stars ran a time 2.22s faster that the concluding handiucap in 2009 – this does give Frankel and edge, however Frankel’s time was 1.42s slower than Sea The Stars.
A lot of Group perfromers seriously underperformed in behind Frankel allowing a horse who couldn’t even win a Woodcote Stakes to grab 2nd place.
I am not sure how much the headwind blunted his speed and if without that would his time compare more favourably with Sea The Stars?
I have to say, as visually impressive as Frankel’s win was, a rating of 142 compared with the 140 given to Sea The Stars at the end of his record breaking season seems to be a hasty reaction. Admittedly I am assuming the end of season/career rating is far more objective in that there is more collateral form to go on, and Timeform have to go on what is available to them here and now. However surely the "wrong horses" have filled the places and for that reason extreme caution needs to be exercised before proclaiming Frankel as the next Brigadier Gerard.
Horses will always be rated on the opinions of those who watch the race.If the jockey eases up that will be considered in the judgement of the rater. It is part of the evidence.How far ahead was he when eased up? That too is evidence.Was he paddling in one place or just eased up to the post? Again evidence.Had the body of jockeys on the main contenders eased up or given up? Again that is evidence and must be part of the decision.So finally it is up to the rater to decide the matter.
You cannot be successful making up ratings based on "opinions".
And you cannot wait until the end of the season as bookmakers don’t bet after the event.
If F had tracked a pacemaker and taken the lead 2f out to win by a head he would have been rated in the low 100s against vastly inferior horses unable to mount a challenge at any stage. Beating a 33/1 and 16/1 horse should tell you all you need to know about the form, but where were the Turftrax sectionals we were promised for all the 2011 Classics? Another opportunity to properly advertise a stunning, or not, performance in UK.Beating a 33/1 and 16/1 horse should tell you all you need to know about the form,
Rob,
Surely the main reason for Native Khan being a 16/1 shot and Dubawi Gold 33/1 was Frankel? The favourite took out two thirds of the book (a 1/2 chance). Any other year (or if you take Frankel out of this year’s race) and Native Khan would have been single figures.Both placed horses are probably not up to winning an average Group 1 yet, if ever. But they don’t have to be to rate Frankel as a 140+ horse. As I’ve said, I expect Dubawi Gold is flattered by how the race was run, but I fully expect Native Khan to produce a performance to at least go very close in another Group 1 at a mile. Hope he goes for the Irish Guineas instead of the Derby, or at least on his way to it. Native Khan travelled better than any other horse bar the winner, which possibly suggests he won’t get the Derby distance either.
Value Is EverythingI was almost certainly wrong with my initial interpretation of the winning distance but it was still more like four and a half lengths than the six that was credited. The picture of Tudor Minstrel in today’s Post would seem to indicate that his winning margin was nearer ten-twelve lengths than the eight that he was given.
As regards the future I can’t see anything wrong with Frankel being campaigned at a mile. Why risk losing the unbeaten record just for the sake of experiment?
I was almost certainly wrong with my initial interpretation of the winning distance but it was still more like four and a half lengths
I agree (I had it at 5 lengths TOPS).
How do they judge the distance? By eye? By the finishing strip?
How do they judge the distance? By eye? By the finishing strip?
….the Photo-finish software calculates distances based on the elapsed time between each horse multiplied by the Lengths per Second Scale in use, dependant on the ground conditions….
I can’t remember what the Lenghts per Second scale is, but it is somethink like:
6 Lgts per sec on Good or faster going and 5.5 Lgts per sec on going slower than good.
Boss, here you go:
How the Judge calculates Distances
Distances are calculated on the elapsed time between each horse and a scale known as the Lengths per Second Scale (Lps) is then used. In 2008 the scale was enhanced in conjunction with the BHA Handicappers and takes into account whether it is Flat or Jumps racing, the type of surface in use at the all weather fixtures and the official turf going description issued (and changed as necessary) on the day. The Scales used vary from 4 to 5 Lps for Jumps racing and from 5 to 6 Lps on the Flat.
The Photo-finish system records an elapsed time between each finisher and the Judge is responsible for ensuring that the correct Lps scale is being used…….
……
If, however, the actual visual distance appears to be different from that calculated by the scale software then the Judge has it within his powers to alter the distance – but only for the first three distances – up to two and a half lengths.
The lengths per second scales used are shown below
Flat: Turf
Going Lengths per second
GOOD OR QUICKER 6
GOOD, GOOD TO SOFT IN PLACES,
GOOD TO SOFT, GOOD IN PLACES,
GOOD TO SOFT,
GOOD TO SOFT, SOFT IN PLACES 5.5
SOFT, GOOD TO SOFT IN PLACES SOFT OR SLOWER 5Flat: All Weather
Course Lengths per second
KEMPTON PARK, LINGFIELD PARK, WOLVERHAMPTON 6
SOUTHWELL 5Jumps
Going Lengths per second
GOOD OR QUICKER 5
GOOD, GOOD TO SOFT IN PLACES,
GOOD TO SOFT, GOOD IN PLACES,
GOOD TO SOFT,
GOOD TO SOFT, SOFT IN PLACES 4.5
SOFT, GOOD TO SOFT IN PLACES SOFT OR SLOWER 4National Hunt Flat: All Weather
Course Lengths per second
KEMPTON PARK, LINGFIELD PARK 5
SOUTHWELL 4In the event of there being different Going descriptions on different parts of the Course then the Scale applied is relevant to the actual Course being raced upon or the Going in the finishing straight as that is where the photo-finish cameras are recording the elapsed times".
Racedays Operations and Regulations Blog, BHA Website, 30 Nov 2009.
GT –
If I thought the performance in itself is worth 137, yet I believe Frankel’s run suggests he is capable of 142, why would I rate the horse 137 for his next race? Doing so would not be giving my truthful opinion of his merit.
You give it 137 with a p, a P or a +, or whatever, to indicate that you think may be capable of better than it has already achieved. I wouldn’t rate him as though he’s already achieved it unless there were very opaque reasons why.
What if a horse is 10 lengths up going in to the last furlong, yet heavily eased and gets home by just a length. Do you rate the horse on a one length victory?
I agree, you wouldn’t. You might also ‘up’ a rating if a horse was clearly baulked or interfered with. But neither of these scenarios was the case. Frankel was ridden out (pretty vigourously, including a few cracks of the whip) from two out to withion 30/50 yards of the line.
But in this case Frankel went many, many lengths clear still going well; and had the race won two out (or even before that) with all bar possibly Native Khan all out. If Frankel did as I suspect, and went an exceptionally strong early pace (I am obviously presuming I am right about the sectional times); anyone with this information can easily assume Frankel is better than the official 6 lengths win indicates. Therefore is perfectly entitled to up the rating. Instead of the word “guesswork”, I’d rather call it “informed opinion”.
What you are assuming here, illogically, is that if the race had been run differently he’d have won by further. How can anyone possibly tell how a differently run race would have suited the others? Frankel has already shown that he is tricky to settle (Dewhurst) so informed opinion might suggest that the way he ran on Saturday was the only way he was going to win by as much as six lengths and rate him LOWER, which, I agree, would be as nonsensical as doing the opposite.
Yes, slower earlier fractions may have helped Frankel lodge a faster overall time (and this is purely hypothetical as we don’t have the splits) but it would have altered how the others ran their race and they could easily have managed a better performance. You even say this yourself –
But because many of his rivals went too quick early, they will be able to run better races another day
I get where you are coming from GT, and I agree he ‘might’ be value for more, but no one has any way of knowing. I don’t think we can be particularly informed about the ‘what-ifs’. He won by five lengths (not six btw) and did so under a strong-ish drive last two furlongs in a race which appeared to be run at a pace which suited him much better than the others leading me to believe that, if anything, he might have been slightly flattered by the winning margin.
Not saying he couldn’t do it again though, if he ran in a similar fashion (unlikley at Ascot with the bend to contend with) which disadvantaged his rivals to a similar extent while playing to the key strength he exhibited Saturday, namely the ability to keep up a blistering gallop for an extended distance.
So, give him the 137 for the 6 lengths (I’d say 135 for 5 lengths), and give him a p if you will, but don’t guess that he is a 142 when he hasn’t proved it yet.
Thanks Pete – comprehensive stuff.
Looks pretty scientific too so maybe I am wrong about the distance. I measured it as they crossed the line and still can’t get it much more than 5 lengths (5.33 is the very most I can make it, depending on how I judge a ‘length’).
More likely to be me, with my heath robinson method, rather than the finishing strip I suppose.
OK, they can have their 137 rating, but they’re not getting their 142!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.