- This topic has 139 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
- Total Posts 17716
RPRs and Timeform ratings are not directly comparable – so you aren’t comparing like for like.
I don’t agree re not being able to reproduce the rating against better horses either
TDK
Timeform’s ratings may be idiosyncratic, but unless they bear comparison to the more widely used and internationally accepted OR’s, I’d suggest there’s little point in rushing them into print for general assimilation.If you go out in front and run a Timeform 136 speedfigure (or whatever – they aren’t the only ones who have the time as exceptional) and never see another horse, it doesn’t really matter what you are running against
And how many attempts did Bannister’s team have, before they got the pace perfect enough to break the 4 minute mile barrier – and they were trying to help him, not beat him.
Of course it makes a difference who they are racing against, and the pace the others race at.Am I correct in assuming that Frankel’s rating has been revised to 137p?
Am I correct in assuming that Frankel’s rating has been revised to 137p?
It seems that way, and i’d have no problem with that figure based on the way he has basically blitzed the best 3yo milers around. It’s more credible than a straight 142
No, the first column of figures is the bare performance ratings from the Guineas, the second column are the timefigures. Frankel’s master rating remains 142.
RPRs and Timeform ratings are not directly comparable – so you aren’t comparing like for like.
I don’t agree re not being able to reproduce the rating against better horses either
TDK
Timeform’s ratings may be idiosyncratic, but unless they bear comparison to the more widely used and internationally accepted OR’s, I’d suggest there’s little point in rushing them into print for general assimilation.Reet,
RPR is Racing Post Rating, OR is Official Rating. Two different things.
It is Racing Post ratings that I believe are out of cinc, not Timeform. Timeform have been going decades longer than Racing Post. Why should Timeform change?Value Is EverythingI never really had a problem with Timeform rating
Harbingers
King George run at 142 as the clock confirmed it was sensational,his previous run in the Hardwicke on faster ground was impressive but to do what he did in a canter last July in 2m 26.78 secs a course record that will stand for a very long time was the performance of the year. To rate the 3yo Frankel the same and thats allowing for a headwind somewhat surprises me,i wonder what happens when the non Group 1 winner Dubawi Gold gets beaten fair and square in the Irish 2000gns,ah yes he goes back to 136.
Harbinger 140, not 142.
Already explained why Dubawi Gold might not run to that rating again. Other than the winner himself, Native Khan is the horse who really needs to go close in a big race (not neccessarily next time out or win) in the future to justify Frankel’s rating of 142.
Value Is Everything- Total Posts 17716
I agree to a point, but odds are not necessarily a pointer to how good a horse is or can be. Look at Wharf, the 2nd fav behind Zafonic in his 2000. Had Zafonic not been odds on Wharf would have traded at as little as 9/2, but what did Wharf ever do?
It’s interesting that you chose Wharf from that race and not Barathea. Wharf was the unders of the race for mine with Cecil’s horses often over bet in that era. He won a listed race at headquarters from very few remaining UK runs. Wharf’s victory subsequent to the Guineas was one more than the winner though. Let’s all pray Frankel does a lot better.
The also rans behind Zafonic won a Lockinge, Irish Guineas, Queen Anne, Breeders Mile, Grand Premio D’Italia, numerous other Group races and several Gr1 placegetters like second in the French Guineas. I’m not sure the 2011 field will match the Zafonic Guineas also rans feat of winning a Gr1 Hurdle but I expect a decent haul of black type over the long term.
The price comparison between Zafonic and Frankel is considerably off given the former started at 5/6 and the latter SP’d at 1/2. That’s a considerable percentage difference reflecting Frankel’s absolute domination of the market and the inflated odds of the placegetters and also rans. If Zafonic had of started at 1/2 then second placed Barathea’s price would have been comparable to the 16/1 about Native Khan.
I agree that the grey could be the key to the long term standing of the 142 rating. That’s if Frankel doesn’t make a mockery of Canford Cliffs and Goldikova first though.
Gone a little off track here. That’s enough!
The 137+ looks fair enough, presumably the 142 is arrived at after adding the two lengths on that the TF team felt he had in hand.
From their site – here’s a basic rundown on how Timeform handicaps horses. http://www.timeform.com/show_article.asp?num=166
DJ – One thing that isn’t covered there that people might be interested in is how the ‘Master’ rating arrived at and how does it derive from/differ from the performance and/or timefigures?
Back to the debate above – I don’t think you can ignore Dubawi Gold’s future performances in favour of Native Khan’s when assessing the rating allocated to Frankel. In fact, in light of the fact that DG will probably be racing at or around a mile in future while NK will be upped dramatically in trip I’d say that DG may be precisely the horse that’ll give us our marker (at least until Frankel himself races again).
I was wondering how highly Frankel would have been rated had Pathfork or Casamento been second on Saturday?
DJ – One thing that isn’t covered there that people might be interested in is how the ‘Master’ rating arrived at and how does it derive from/differ from the performance and/or timefigures?
I was wondering how highly Frankel would have been rated had Pathfork or Casamento been second on Saturday?
The master rating is the rating given to the horse, to which the handicapper at his descretion thinks the horse is still capable of running to given optimum conditions. In the vast majority of cases, the master rating will be the same as the best of one of his recent performance ratings, but on occasions this will be slightly higher if the handicapper feels there are good reasons for doing so e.g. horse hampered or other factors i.e sectional times indicate the horse is better than the bare result.
We have a number of tools at our disposal that weren’t available 60 years ago when Phil Bull started out, being able to watch the races for a start, to ignore these developments to continue to do things exactly the same way we always have is a bit like shunning the motor car to travel by horseback. Rest assured that the fundamental way that Timeform handicap horses remains the same as ever.
I agree to a point, but odds are not necessarily a pointer to how good a horse is or can be. Look at Wharf, the 2nd fav behind Zafonic in his 2000. Had Zafonic not been odds on Wharf would have traded at as little as 9/2, but what did Wharf ever do?
It’s interesting that you chose Wharf from that race and not Barathea. Wharf was the unders of the race for mine with Cecil’s horses often over bet in that era. He won a listed race at headquarters from very few remaining UK runs. Wharf’s victory subsequent to the Guineas was one more than the winner though. Let’s all pray Frankel does a lot better.
The also rans behind Zafonic won a Lockinge, Irish Guineas, Queen Anne, Breeders Mile, Grand Premio D’Italia, numerous other Group races and several Gr1 placegetters like second in the French Guineas. I’m not sure the 2011 field will match the Zafonic Guineas also rans feat of winning a Gr1 Hurdle but I expect a decent haul of black type over the long term.
The price comparison between Zafonic and Frankel is considerably off given the former started at 5/6 and the latter SP’d at 1/2. That’s a considerable percentage difference reflecting Frankel’s absolute domination of the market and the inflated odds of the placegetters and also rans. If Zafonic had of started at 1/2 then second placed Barathea’s price would have been comparable to the 16/1 about Native Khan.
I agree that the grey could be the key to the long term standing of the 142 rating. That’s if Frankel doesn’t make a mockery of Canford Cliffs and Goldikova first though.
Gone a little off track here. That’s enough!
I’m not so sure that Goldikova would be a real benchmark, as tough as she is, i’d be looking at Canford Cliffs and Dick Turpin as the ones to beat. Goldikova is not getting any younger, and I don’t think beating a 6yo mare would really prove an awful lot other than that 137 is a fair mark. People would be tempted to say she has lost her edge if she gets comprehensively stuffed. If Frankel can demolish the other two aforementioned, then he is definitely ‘the one’.
DJ – One thing that isn’t covered there that people might be interested in is how the ‘Master’ rating arrived at and how does it derive from/differ from the performance and/or timefigures?
I was wondering how highly Frankel would have been rated had Pathfork or Casamento been second on Saturday?
The master rating is the rating given to the horse, to which the handicapper at his descretion thinks the horse is still capable of running to given optimum conditions. In the vast majority of cases, the master rating will be the same as the best of one of his recent performance ratings, but on occasions this will be slightly higher if the handicapper feels there are good reasons for doing so e.g. horse hampered or other factors i.e sectional times indicate the horse is better than the bare result.
We have a number of tools at our disposal that weren’t available 60 years ago when Phil Bull started out, being able to watch the races for a start, to ignore these developments to continue to do things exactly the same way we always have is a bit like shunning the motor car to travel by horseback. Rest assured that the fundamental way that Timeform handicap horses remains the same as ever.
Dick Whitford invented the "Timeform" method 70 years ago and in its day it was a good thing. Mainly because Dick Whitford’s used his skill an intelligence to adjust out the silly anomalies of beaten distances and weight carried. Dick moved to Sporting Life and his ratings remained the best to date of that type. Timeform have changed the methods to try to paper over the chasm like cracks, never replaced staff of the quality of Dick and introduced daft things such a race standardisation which tends to give Listed class Derby winners (who never win again) ratings in the 120s instead of the 105’s. None of the the professionals I work with in London, Hong Kong and Australia will touch Timeform ratings or any such ratings based on methods that are proven not to work. The betting world moved on 30 years ago.
Timeform’s ratings may be idiosyncratic, but unless they bear comparison to the more widely used and internationally accepted OR’s, I’d suggest there’s little point in rushing them into print for general assimilation.
Reet
I’m sure I’m not telling you anything you aren’t aware of, but Timeform have been rated Flat horses on the same scale as they use today for over 60 years. It is the BHA and International Classifications that came along later and on a different scale, am I right in thinking official ratings were first calculated on a 0-100 scale? It is also the international classifications that admitted in 2009 that their ratings from as recently as 1986 (Dancing Brave) weren’t comparable with their current figures because of a change in approach.
Thanks for that clarification David (re- Master rating).
Looks like the St James’s Palace will be next.The problem we may have there, in so far as progressing with the pursuit of his rating, is that he may scare the opposition away, although I’m sure that Team AOB might be tempted to take him on with something.
It’d be convenient, from a ratings viewpoint, to see Dubawi Gold take him on again but Hannon seems understandably keen to stay as far as possible from Frankel.
- Total Posts 17716
Reet
I’m sure I’m not telling you anything you aren’t aware of, but Timeform have been rated Flat horses on the same scale as they use today for over 60 years. It is the BHA and International Classifications that came along later and on a different scale, am I right in thinking official ratings were first calculated on a 0-100 scale? It is also the international classifications that admitted in 2009 that their ratings from as recently as 1986 (Dancing Brave) weren’t comparable with their current figures because of a change in approach.
I hear what you’re saying DJ, and while I appreciate Timeform ratings were established earlier, and understand there’s some need for continuity, aren’t you suggesting the rest of the world is now out of step with Timeform?
Another question for you DJ. I read on J.McGraths new site that the Frankel Timefigure is one of the best ever recorded. Is there a list anywhere of the best-ever timefigures recorded by TF?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.