- This topic has 211 replies, 34 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
It is baffling that people want to chuck out its principles only when it suits them.
Is it not a case of chucking it out when you get an obviously "freak" result?
If you get an 11 length winner of a King George, surely that is exactly the time to throw out the race standardisation figure and go back to "best guess" (as race standardisation is, almost by definition, going to give you a ridiculously high rating in these circumstances?)
(I’m playing devil’s advocate here Rowley + wouldn’t pretend to know more on the subject than your good self…)
Last year at around this time we were being told that Fame And Glory was a superstar (135 was it?) for beating Golden Sword by 5 lengths…
tdk,if this years Arc is run on genuine Soft ground i would expect Fame and Glory to beat Harbinger,he is another underestimated horse who is more than capable of handling any surface,Harbinger hates soft,Workforce hates firm,the ground will dictate the outcome for sure! As far as ratings go i have Fame and Glory at 130 and Harbinger at 135 but on soft ground you can throw them out the window,just look at Sariska,a 120 filly and yet on Heavy ground i would back her to beat everything in the Arc,its all about opinions,some know their stuff some think they do!
We get 11-length winners of 6-runner races, or something similar, if not every day then certainly every week. While the degree of confidence in any assessment is less than with a more "normal" result (though time analysis can change this) there is no evidence that you have to treat such races completely as special cases. PROVIDING you have developed a sufficiently robust methodology which takes these things into account.
The 135 was after the Irish Champion (used to justify 140 STS) – my mistake.
Still – that rating was too high imo…
Someone at Timeform thought so too, as that rating was never published. Fame And Glory’s rating when he next ran was 133. Is that about right, or should it have been lower still? IYO.
- Total Posts 17716
It’s interesting and disapointing how quickly Timeform are to forget about Sea The Stars and make it so easy to diminish his career 6-7 months later done the line in one performance.
You have to take into consideration the racecourse, this is my ratings for 12f at Ascot 08-10. Just a reminder to what I work off (G1: 100+, G2:98 G3:97 LST: 95)
107 Harbinger
100 Bronze Cannon
100 Conduit
99 Campanologist
99 Macarthur
99 Harbinger
98 Duke of Marmalade
97 Duncan
97 Mawatheeq
95 Father Time
95 Drill Sergeant
94 Record Breaker
93 Pippa Greene
92 Sugar Ray
91 Colony
91 Spirit Of Dubai
90 Polly’s Mark
90 Dandino
90 Monterosso
89 Night Cresendo
89 Flying Cloud
88 Hibaayeb
86 Michita
86 Barshiba
85 Spanish Moon
85 Crystal Capella
85 Night Crescendo
85 Press The Button
83 Hatton Flight
83 Run For Ede’s
82 Any Given Day
79 Stanstill
79 Peintre D’Argent
75 Crossbow CreekJust look at Bronze Cannon up there in his win in last years Hardwick, who set the pace? Barshiba so could Bronze Cannon of won last years King George? he was 0.81 seconds outside Harbingers win but he’s not a Group 1 horse just an Ascot specialist.
Harbingers Career
68 Newmarket (SLOWLY RUN)
86 Chester
84 Goodwood (SLOW RUN)
63 York
95 Newbury
– –
96 Newbury
94 Chester
99 Ascot
107 AscotHe’s always been touted as a class animal but he’s never really shown his Group 1 class outside Ascot and for me its an area to tred carefully as the ratings show an iratic rise there.
Sea The Stars Career
87 Curragh
84 Leopardstown
91 Curragh
– –
101 Newmarket
93 Epsom (SLOWLY RUN)
105 Sandown
105 York
104 Leopardstown
102 LongchampDo I even need to say anything? they speak for themselves
Please Timeform don’t get caught up in the hype!
Think you can get too caught up in times and time figures personally. Id always go by who beat who and by how far and how the race was run. If every horse in every race went lickety spit every time they ran they would have more credenence.
Some very good points here. The lionisation of recent wide margin winners is always going to happen- punters and ratings people all suffer from recency bias and drawing firm conclusions from insufficient evidence. Just as it was good practice to presume that Workforce wasn’t as good as he looked in the Derby, I’ll be betting that Harbinger won’t be running another 142 or whatever anytime soon.
I’d say if anything Timeform have NOT rated horses as high as they should in the last 20 years. And the 1960’s as too high. Times have got faster over the years, therefore horses have got faster, therefore horses running today are better than they were 50 years ago.
Why can’t the race be rated around Cape Blanco?
If he ran to form, then Youmzain and Daryakana ran roughly to their last time out ratings at Saint Cloud (not their very best).
Harbinger 139+
Cape Blanco 123
Youmzain 118
Daryakana 114
Workforce 114Add a pound or two to the above rating of Harbinger for ease of victory.
Value Is EverythingTimeform have not belittled Sea The Stars by their rating of Harbinger.
They have to rate this performance on merit. What they believe this one performance is worth. What would you expect them to rate the horse on next time it runs if not his best performance? Every horse is rated on what they think it’s capable of. Not it’s consistency or how many times it’s put up a rating of that nature.
Sea The Stars only put up a rating around 140 twice in the Eclipse and Irish Champion. Should they bring his rating down because he ran well below form to win the Arc? Of course not.
Harbinger may never run to this rating again, because he might never need to. Doesn’t mean he won’t be capable of it.
Value Is EverythingVery good post, Mr Wilson.
What? Mr W rates Macarthur higher than The Duke of Marmalade and yet The Duke beat him out of sight in the 08 King George! He"s having a laugh!
Didn’t go through every one of those ratings, Mr.King. But Mr.W putting some context on the Sea The Stars/Harbinger comparison is relevant don’t you think?
Didn’t go through every one of those ratings, Mr.King. But Mr.W putting some context on the Sea The Stars/Harbinger comparison is relevant don’t you think?
If Mr W"s ratings have any bearing at all then my names numpty! Harbinger would have sprinted past Sea the Stars yesterday but yesterdays history! Harbinger will be remembered for one race,Sea the Stars will be remembered for being a legend! Thats racing,this years Arc will be a cracker and if the ground has any cut at all Ryan Moore will still be on Workforce,he knows his horses too!
punters and ratings people all suffer from recency bias and drawing firm conclusions from insufficient evidence.
I am intrigued as to how a business-rule based process which has been developed over decades, and in which there is specifically NO recency bias written in, manages to display recency bias. Do these algorithms have minds of their own?
I am also intrigued as to what else a ratings company could do than rate a performance as it sees fit: NOT rate the performance, perhaps? By the same token a rating of 131 on Harbinger would be a "firm conclusion from insufficient evidence" that Harbinger had not improved.
Or perhaps it would be just a rating, based on the evidence available and subject to revision when more evidence becomes available.
Daryakana’s last 4 runs had yielded RPRs of 115, 113, 115 and 115. Surely you need a consistent, non-improving horse to build any ratings around, and surely Daryakana’s the very epitomy of a consistent, non-improving horse? That puts Harbinger 17.5 (call it 18 given the ease of victory) ahead of Daryakana on 133. Maybe add a couple more points for the ease of victory and you’re looking at a 136 maximum. That’d put him 2 points ahead of Daylami, 3 points ahead of Montjeu, 3 points ahead of Swain and 5 points ahead of Dylan Thomas. What’s more, if you use Dylan’s rating, that means Youmzain’s digressed by 5lbs since 2007. Also must remember that Dylan was a far better horse on fast ground.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.