- This topic has 109 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
Paddy Power pushed Time Test out from 5/1 to 10/1 for the Champion Stakes. They must be ignorant numpties just like myself.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Gingertipster wrote:</div>
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>stevecaution wrote:</div>
Still a shocker but at least there were some clues there along the way and she was running in her 4th consecutive Group 1, compared to Time Test, who was handicap and group 3 the previous two races.Is there any actual form line that you do not like Steve?
If Time Test was so badly over-rated then please explain the Ascot time? Or was every other Royal Ascot race slowly run?Sometimes a horse puts up a Group 1 performance in a Group 3.
If it is wrong to rate a horse so highly just because it has not won in the grade, then it must have been wrong for Timeform to have said of Golden Horn after debut Nottingham Maiden win (amongst other superlatives) “Group horse in the making”.
I’ve always been of the view that the time of the race, and more specifically, the sectional times are of paramount importance in understanding the way in which a race has been run and by extension, the relative performances of the horses in the race.
That being said, as somebody who will always use his stopwatch [both on the flat & over jumps] to break-down a race, I can categorically say that the clock (when used as a comparative tool) does not always tell the whole, or even the accurate, story.
The issue in what you (and Time Test who gave him a ludicrous 130 rating) are saying is that it not only is incompatible with the formbook but that it outright contradicts the form book.
If Time Test was so badly over-rated then please explain the Ascot time? Or was every other Royal Ascot race slowly run?
If you were to take that Time Test is a Group 1 animal (or a 125-130 rated animal) then you would also have to argue that Peacock and Mustadeem (who both raced in less advantageous positions than Time Test that day yet were only 3-4 lengths behind him) were 115-120 horses themselves; something which they patently are not.
Indeed, having re-timed the race, you would have to said on a literal basis that both Peacock and Mustadeem were better horses than The Grey Gatsby & Free Eagle going on the clock!
In athletics the stopwatch is everything in assessing abilities. Line up eight men a 100 metre of quality and, barring injuries and out of form athletes a man with a personal best one tenth of a second faster than another competitor will beat him nine times out of ten at least.
Applying the stopwatch to horses yields far less reliable conclusions. The going factor for a start, the way the race pans out, rapidly improving horses, horses who run badly for some reason etc can all make a mockery of the most impressive time rating going into a race.
Resident stopwatch expert The Blues Brother knows his stuff inside out but tends to have blind faith in his figures and can get upset when challenged about it. It was his opinion that Coneygree should be raised 20 lbs by the handicapper after the time he clocked winning the Gold Cup. I disagreed that that would happen and it turned out he went up only 6 lbs. I understand having faith in your work but I believe that you need to accept that there are times when it won’t correlate with the formbook. The Blues Brother felt that New Bay’s French Derby winning time marked him down as a potential Frankel but although he won his next race nicely, I believe time will show he falls well behind Cecil’s legend.
There are no doubt tons of times when the stopwatch boys make their figures work for them in terms of beating the bookies. Good luck to them I say, they deserve the fruits of their labours. However, it doesn’t make them infallible and it would be nice to see the odd occasion when the admit that the Offical Handicapper or Racing Post Ratings, or whoever, made the correct call in that instance.
Nobody is right anywhere near half the time in my experience, far less all the time. Mutual respect and manners should be the watchword if you want a thriving forum where more people feel able to contribute without the resident Svengali butting in.
My name isn’t Morethan Freeman, thank you for glistening.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Golden Horn after the Eclipse was being touted as a better 12f horse.
With the going and the pacemaker this race would of felt like 12f.
Time Test is being considered to dropping back in trip after today, talking about a mile as he has speed. His effort at Ascot was on the firm side of good which would suit a speed horse over 10f.
They said the going would suit TT today as he is a Dubawi but I think he is better on quicker and going down 4 lengths in the circumstances isn’t a bad result.
The trouble I have with ratings is a horse could be rated xxx on quick ground but can run totally below par on another, same with distance and course. Even going left or right handed can make a huge difference to some in terms of ratings especially over jumps with Captain Chris being a good example.Charles Darwin to conquer the World
What an anti-climax! Even with a substandard performance, I still kinda expected Golden Horn to finish in front of Arabian Queen
Arabian Queen’s victory looks like a flash-in-the-pan. I can’t see her running to that level of form again.
I can’t help but think that if Jack Hobbs would’ve been in that line up and on that ground, he’d have hosed up.
Whilst I was not inclined to read too much into Time Test’s fast time at Ascot, he did strike me as a horse open to improvement but I think a lot of today’s races showed that being held up was not the place to be.
A combination of ground slightly on the slow side of good and a strong tailwind down the home straight meant that not many of the race leaders today appeared to come back to their field – take out the pacemaker and the first three were in that order for the whole race.
Yes TT did not perform quite as well as I was expecting but I am willing to give him another chance (even on similar ground as today) as I think he is a genuine 120+ horse (he was just over 1L behind TGG afterall) and I for one would like to see him run in the Irish Champion Stakes next as I don’t think reverting back to 8F is a good idea.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Gingertipster wrote:</div>
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>stevecaution wrote:</div>
Still a shocker but at least there were some clues there along the way and she was running in her 4th consecutive Group 1, compared to Time Test, who was handicap and group 3 the previous two races.Is there any actual form line that you do not like Steve?
If Time Test was so badly over-rated then please explain the Ascot time? Or was every other Royal Ascot race slowly run?Sometimes a horse puts up a Group 1 performance in a Group 3.
If it is wrong to rate a horse so highly just because it has not won in the grade, then it must have been wrong for Timeform to have said of Golden Horn after debut Nottingham Maiden win (amongst other superlatives) “Group horse in the making”.
Get off my case Ginger.
Every race has to be judged individually. If you think Timeform are infallible that is your preprogative but for christ sake listen to the facts for once.
I am talking about ONE race and that race is the Tercentenary. It is totally irrelevant what other races Timeform have assessed and got wrong or right over the years.
I am saying that in this ONE instance, they badly overrated the performance of ONE horse. That is ALL I am saying, nothing more, nothing less.
As BiggerBucks has said, if Time Test clocked a remarkable time then how come the moderate Peacock and Mustadeem were also able to clock relatively fast times compared to their ability?
I doubt Simon Rowlands would make the claim that Timeform always get it right. I am sure he will admit that they get it wrong from time to time. When the handicapper and Timeform are a stone apart on ratings, you know one of them is badly wrong and we, as punters, have to choose which one we believe more likely.
Maybe if you listened to other people’s input on this forum and gave it more respect you might find more people willing to engage with you.
As it is, you come across as a big-headed, know-it-all boor and that is something I find unpleasant and rude.
Once again Steve, you’ve criticised how someone rates a race/horse and then gone way over the top when someone defends those ratings. This is a discussion forum. Surely if someone criticises a rating it is reasonable to ask that person how he/she came to that conclusion? Take another look at my post; there is none of the things you accuse me of and I do not deserve your condemnation. Nothing personal in there, I am ONLY defending the rating of ONE horse.
Value Is EverythingI was that close to backing Arabian Queen today, nothing to do with the form book or Timeform ratings, just on the fact that this is the time of year that fillys/mares will beat the colts and also when the form of horses that have been on the go all season can take a drastic change for the worst..it’s going to be interesting to see how that pans out from now until Champions day.
Also you can’t mention In The Groove without also mentioning Triptych who won it in 1987 an old favourite of mine if you didn’t notice.
Things turn out best for those who make the best of how things turn out...<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>stevecaution wrote:</div>
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Gingertipster wrote:</div>
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>stevecaution wrote:</div>
Still a shocker but at least there were some clues there along the way and she was running in her 4th consecutive Group 1, compared to Time Test, who was handicap and group 3 the previous two races.Is there any actual form line that you do not like Steve?
If Time Test was so badly over-rated then please explain the Ascot time? Or was every other Royal Ascot race slowly run?Sometimes a horse puts up a Group 1 performance in a Group 3.
If it is wrong to rate a horse so highly just because it has not won in the grade, then it must have been wrong for Timeform to have said of Golden Horn after debut Nottingham Maiden win (amongst other superlatives) “Group horse in the making”.
Get off my case Ginger.
Every race has to be judged individually. If you think Timeform are infallible that is your preprogative but for christ sake listen to the facts for once.
I am talking about ONE race and that race is the Tercentenary. It is totally irrelevant what other races Timeform have assessed and got wrong or right over the years.
I am saying that in this ONE instance, they badly overrated the performance of ONE horse. That is ALL I am saying, nothing more, nothing less.
As BiggerBucks has said, if Time Test clocked a remarkable time then how come the moderate Peacock and Mustadeem were also able to clock relatively fast times compared to their ability?
I doubt Simon Rowlands would make the claim that Timeform always get it right. I am sure he will admit that they get it wrong from time to time. When the handicapper and Timeform are a stone apart on ratings, you know one of them is badly wrong and we, as punters, have to choose which one we believe more likely.
Maybe if you listened to other people’s input on this forum and gave it more respect you might find more people willing to engage with you.
As it is, you come across as a big-headed, know-it-all boor and that is something I find unpleasant and rude.
Once again Steve, you’ve criticised how someone rates a race/horse and then gone way over the top when someone defends those ratings. This is a discussion forum. Surely if someone criticises a rating it is reasonable to ask that person how he/she came to that conclusion? Take another look at my post; there is none of the things you accuse me of and I do not deserve your condemnation. Nothing personal in there, I am ONLY defending the rating of ONE horse.
You barged into this thread claiming that Timeform did not rate Time Test and Golden Horn the same. I have asked you to provide the figures but you have failed to do so.
You never address the pertinent points in a thread. You wander off into irrelevant waffle.
What the hell has Timeform’s assessment of Golden Horn at two got to do with the rating they awarded Time Test for the Tercentenary? I was talking about ONE rating for ONE horse in ONE race. What Timeform think of other horses has no relevance whatsoever to my opinion about the accuracy of their rating for one particular horse, in one particular race.
I have been sceptical about Timeform’s rating for Time Test since the moment it was published I have said so several times on this forum. It is my right to have my opinion on that rating.
You did not ask my how I came to this conclusion, instead, as you always do, you come barging in shouting the odds in a rude manner, obsessively defensive of Timeform.
You can try to defend your actions if you wish. Perhaps you are just naturally gauche and obtuse, failing to see your own poor way of putting things across. I don’t like your style and I find that you carry an attitude of superiority when addressing other members.
There are subtle and friendly ways to communicate on a forum. These skills are something you do not possess.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
You barged into this thread claiming that Timeform did not rate Time Test and Golden Horn the same. I have asked you to provide the figures but you have failed to do so.
You never address the pertinent points in a thread. You wander off into irrelevant waffle.
What the hell has Timeform’s assessment of Golden Horn at two got to do with the rating they awarded Time Test for the Tercentenary? I was talking about ONE rating for ONE horse in ONE race. What Timeform think of other horses has no relevance whatsoever to my opinion about the accuracy of their rating for one particular horse, in one particular race.
Take a look at this quote:
I have nothing against Time Test, other than the notion that he was the same rating as Golden Horn, for winning in group 3 company, versus a horse who had won a Derby.
I don’t really have the right to tell you what the difference in Timeform ratings were between Golden Horn and Time Test, but suppose they wouldn’t mind. It was 3 lbs, not “the same” as you claimed. It is now 7 lbs. As always, a horse needs to be rated on the available information.
You mentioned here Steve, that Time Test had only run in a lower grade (Group 3) and therefore should not be rated like a horse that won in a higher grade (Derby). Which is why I mentioned Golden Horn being rated by Timeform as “Group class” despite only winning a Nottingham maiden. Like Time Test, another horse who was rated significantly higher than the grade he ran in.
Like I said, it is possible for a horse to put up a Group 1 class performance in a Group 3. Just as it is possible to put up a Group class performance in a maiden.
I used an example of another performance better than the grade he raced in to illustrate my point. Why is that not a “pertinent point”?
Value Is EverythingI have been sceptical about Timeform’s rating for Time Test since the moment it was published I have said so several times on this forum. It is my right to have my opinion on that rating.
It is indeed your right to have an opinion on that rating Steve. Do I not have the right to defend that rating?
Value Is EverythingYou did not ask my how I came to this conclusion,
I did ask how you came to that conclusion here:
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>stevecaution wrote:</div>
Still a shocker but at least there were some clues there along the way and she was running in her 4th consecutive Group 1, compared to Time Test, who was handicap and group 3 the previous two races.Is there any actual form line that you do not like Steve?
If Time Test was so badly over-rated then please explain the Ascot time? Or was every other Royal Ascot race slowly run?I asked if there was “any actual form line that you do not like”, because as far as I could see your conclusion was only based on names of races and not actual form lines. What was wrong with my question?
I also asked politely (even using “please”) if you could explain the exceptional time clocked in the Tercentenary, pointing out that other times on the day and week (even the Group 1’s) were not run as fast. So unless all those other Royal Ascot races were slowly run (which they weren’t) – then imo it’s extremely difficult to see Time Test as anything else but a Group 1 performer. Not only did he win in a fast time, but did it without coming under maximimum pressure.
Tell me why any of that wasn’t “relevent”?
Value Is Everythinginstead, as you always do, you come barging in shouting the odds in a rude manner, obsessively defensive of Timeform.
You can try to defend your actions if you wish. Perhaps you are just naturally gauche and obtuse, failing to see your own poor way of putting things across. I don’t like your style and I find that you carry an attitude of superiority when addressing other members.
There are subtle and friendly ways to communicate on a forum. These skills are something you do not possess.
Where’s the “barging in”?
How am I “shouting the odds in a rude manner”?
If I see someone criticising a rating that does not even exist, why shouldn’t I defend Timeform?
Think I’ve been very withstrained in not retaliating by calling you names Steve. No need to get personal. May be you should look at your own attitude before criticising others.Value Is EverythingThere were plenty of talking points before this race and, as expected, many to emerge from it.
On the subject of the winner and valid excuses for the second, I think Arabian Queen was a deserved winner on the day and a combination of the formbook and the obvious potential for improvement are reason to believe she can build on this success.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but she had previously mixed it with some very talented fillies this year – Ervedya, Legatissimo and Amazing Maria – and there were no formlines to categorically prove that the 3YO colts were superior to their female counterparts. She certainly boasts a middle distance pedigree, and it’s quite astonishing that she had the speed to compete – and defeat – some pretty useful types as a juvenile over sprint distances. This serves as proof that she is, indeed, a talented filly.
Golden Horn is almost certainly a better colt on better ground. The proximity of The Grey Gatsby at Sandown and York, respectively, are quite interesting. Golden Horn maintained his three lengths superiority over Kevin Ryan’s inmate yesterday, which brings into question the ground-related excuse. The formbook suggests that The Grey Gatsby is reliant on fast ground to a similar extent, and he would have been equally as inconvenienced by the conditions. This possibly explains the reproduction of the Eclipse form to a mere quarter of a length.
From a tactical perspective, I can’t fathom why, in a race with no obvious pace, connections decided not to persevere with the tactics that were so effective at Sandown. Golden Horn was uber-impressive making all that day and I’m confident that yesterdays result could have been different if they had decided to let him stride on or maintain closer order to the pace.
There should be plenty of praise for The Grey Gatsby. He is undoubtedly the most reliable top level yardstick in Europe. He has been competing with very good horses since his 2YO campaign, and is defined by incredible consistency, competing against a plethora of superstars – Australia, Solow, Golden Horn – and this Dante, French Derby and Irish Champion Stakes winner is a credit to connections. To those of you who enjoy rating performances, look no further than basing them on the respective performance of this chap because he always runs his race.
As for Time Test, I was in the camp before the contest that failed to believe how a proven Group 1 performer like The Grey Gatsby could be available at 9-1, while a colt climbing the ladder could be trading at 9-2. Many shrewd experts were of the opinion that Roger Charlton’s improving 3YO would handle the steep rise in class. They were right. He, too, would clearly prefer faster conditions and made up plenty of ground from the rear, which could prove difficult this week. He looked like a rookie who would benefit from the experience of competing at such an exalted level and will be more street-wise in the future.
On a separate note, it was touted after the race that Time Test could drop back to mile. Time Test’s dam, Passage Of Time, is a full sister to both Father Time and Continuum, which suggests that he could be well worth a try over twelve furlongs. He has finished strongly on all three attempts at ten furlongs and a race like the Breeders’ Cup Turf – fast ground, sharp track – could certainly play to his strengths.
Ground will dictate where the field go from here. Despite their reservations, fast ground is more likely in America than Europe at this stage of the campaign, and connections of Golden Horn could very well be tempted by the Breeders’ Cup. If soft ground persists and Keeneland is not on the agenda, that was possibly the last time Golden Horn set hoof on a racecourse.
This guy is a machine. All he does is work out and pick winners. Talk about fit. You should see him without his shirt off, serious side of beef.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Gingertipster wrote:</div>
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>stevecaution wrote:</div>
Still a shocker but at least there were some clues there along the way and she was running in her 4th consecutive Group 1, compared to Time Test, who was handicap and group 3 the previous two races.Is there any actual form line that you do not like Steve?
If Time Test was so badly over-rated then please explain the Ascot time? Or was every other Royal Ascot race slowly run?Sometimes a horse puts up a Group 1 performance in a Group 3.
If it is wrong to rate a horse so highly just because it has not won in the grade, then it must have been wrong for Timeform to have said of Golden Horn after debut Nottingham Maiden win (amongst other superlatives) “Group horse in the making”.
I’ve always been of the view that the time of the race, and more specifically, the sectional times are of paramount importance in understanding the way in which a race has been run and by extension, the relative performances of the horses in the race.
That being said, as somebody who will always use his stopwatch [both on the flat & over jumps] to break-down a race, I can categorically say that the clock (when used as a comparative tool) does not always tell the whole, or even the accurate, story.
The issue in what you (and Timeform who gave him a ludicrous 130 rating) are saying is that it not only is incompatible with the formbook but that it outright contradicts the form book.
If Time Test was so badly over-rated then please explain the Ascot time? Or was every other Royal Ascot race slowly run?
If you were to take that Time Test is a Group 1 animal (or a 125-130 rated animal) then you would also have to argue that Peacock and Mustadeem (who both raced in less advantageous positions than Time Test that day yet were only 3-4 lengths behind him) were 115-120 horses themselves; something which they patently are not.
Indeed, having re-timed the race, you would have to said on a literal basis that both Peacock and Mustadeem were better horses than The Grey Gatsby & Free Eagle going on the clock!
Although I do not agree, that’s the sort of answer I had hoped to see from my questions, thank you Bigger Bucks.
As someone who knows about time, you’re no doubt aware of the adage: Race times do not tell a punter how good a horse is, but tells how bad it is not. Or words to that effect. ie Good horses can do slow over all times if the sectionals are not even; where as a poor horse can not do a good over all time no matter how the race is run.
The Grey Gatsby and Free Eagle’s Prince Of Wales was not run at even fractions, so the timefigure rating is a lot lower than the form rating. In Time Test’s case it was run in fractions conducive to a fast over all time. A “literal” comparisson between the two races (Peacock/Mustadeem and The Grey Gatsby/Free Eagle) can not be done. POW time means nothing because of slow early fractions, where as the Tercentenary time proves Time Test a good horse because only a good horse would be able to do that time.
Although the POW was not truly run plenty of Royal Ascot races were – and none were as good as Time Test.
Peacock’s rating is indeed 116, he is yet to run since the Tercentenary. If all’s well Peacock should pick up at least a Group 3, although obviously not good enough on Ascot form to win at Group 1 level.
The way Mustadeem was ran in to the ground as pacemaker at Newbury next time out has ruined the horse; doubt he’ll ever come back from it.
7 1/2 lengths 4th Disegno went on to be 6 1/2 lengths behind subsequent runaway Secreteriat winner Highland Reel at Goodwood over further. (also bearing in mind each length is worth more lbs at 1m2f than 1m4f).
The one thing that is disputable is how much Time Test’s performance rating can be increased by the manner of victory. Fact he won without coming under anything like maximum effort. ie How much further did/do you believe Time Test could have won by had he been asked? Timeform initially added a further 7 lbs, they’ve now dropped it to 3 lbs. This still rates the horse as a genuine Group 1 animal.
I have no problem with people believing Time Test over-rated by Timeform, but have to disagree with anyone who thinks he’s not a Group 1 animal. Fast times prove how good a horse is. As you say Bigger Bucks, a Group 1 animal is 125+.
Value Is EverythingThe Juddmonte can throw up a surprise winner. Golden Horn beat The Grey Gatsby by the same distance as in the Eclipse so it looks like he isn’t as good as many thought he was. Arabian Queen ran out of her skin and although headed briefly stayed on and won well and obviously hadn’t read the script.
Not sure what Gosden will do with GH now as he seems to be saying he is ground dependent and the autumn isn’t usually the best time of the year for a fast ground horse, similar comments apply to Gleneagles.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>stevecaution wrote:</div>
instead, as you always do, you come barging in shouting the odds in a rude manner, obsessively defensive of Timeform.You can try to defend your actions if you wish. Perhaps you are just naturally gauche and obtuse, failing to see your own poor way of putting things across. I don’t like your style and I find that you carry an attitude of superiority when addressing other members.
There are subtle and friendly ways to communicate on a forum. These skills are something you do not possess.
Where’s the “barging in”?
How am I “shouting the odds in a rude manner”?
If I see someone criticising a rating that does not even exist, why shouldn’t I defend Timeform?
Think I’ve been very withstrained in not retaliating by calling you names Steve. No need to get personal. May be you should look at your own attitude before criticising others.How many posts do you need? Get it all said in one go.
Firstly, I have never heard anything as ludicrous as someone defending a horse’s rating.
What’s all this pish about not being able to tell me the Timeform rating for Time Test and Golden Horn? They are both freely available from Timeform articles in the public domain, so you can drop the “I am a subscriber and I am must protect the data” attitude.
My comments on the relative ratings for Time Test and Golden Horn have always been about the ratings they were awarded for their Tercentenary and Derby runs. If I recall correctly Timeform initially expected to rate Golden Horn 130p but later uprated that to 131p, Time Test was rated 130p for the Tercentenary Stakes. Easily google-able facts.
There we have it, near enough identical ratings and if you want to pull somebody up for being 1lb out then it’s a pretty sad world. Even if you felt you couldn’t quote the ratings, you could have expressed the difference. Even if it were 3lb difference it is still a long way away from the official ratings, which had 14lbs between the two and formed the crux of my argument.
Instead of a measured response, you barged in with no evidence to support your claim. That is poor stuff in my opinion.
I repeat that Timeform’s ratings for other horses have utterly no relevance to their rating for Time Test. Likewise, the fact that some horses run to group 1 level in a group 3 race has utterly no relevance to my opinion that Time Test was overrated by Timeform. When will you accept the scientific truth of this?
By coming onto my posts and “defending” Timeform’s rating, you are, effectively, criticising my opinion and my logical process. I assume you either cannot see that fact, or, you are just being rude.
Whatever you think, or whatever Timeform think about Time Test, it was I who considered him overrated, I who considered him poor value for the Juddmonte, and I who was proved correct in my original assessment that The Grey Gatsby was better value at double the odds of Time Test. For the purposes of this thread, that is all that matters.
You are an obsessive, argumentative character, who always has to have the the last word in any debate and you will draw out endlessly long and boring dissections of a post, as if it is somehow more scientific. Your argument is often meandering and irrelevant to the actual crux of the matter though and you actually lose traction, in my opinion, because of that. These are my observations and I am simply being frank and honest in my opinion of you as a poster.
We have been down this road several times now and it is getting boring. Feel free to have the last word as usual. I have no more to say to you and take that as final please.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.