- This topic has 224 replies, 60 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
Following hot in the hoofsteps of Frankel’s being rated the best flat horse in the experience of the boys from Halifax, we are now informed that Sprinter Sacre is the best steeplechaser since Arkle and Flyingbolt. Yep: beating Wishfull Thinking by 25l apparently elevates Sprinter Sacre above Mill House, Desert Orchid, Carvill’s Hill, Kauto Star and all the rest.
Whilst there is no doubt that the sky remains the limit for the Moulds’ tremendous ‘chaser,
is trouncing a has-been and lots of never-will-bes really deserving of such a lofty rating? And, more to the point, are Timeform now just elevating ratings for publicity purposes?
I own every edition of
Chasers & Hurdlers
and every
Racehorses
annual going
back to 1970
and I’ve noticed what I consider to be headline generating ratings creeping in over the last decade or so. I’ll continue to buy Timeform’s annuals as a historical reference but can’t help but feel that their ratings have to be taken with a pinch of salt from now on.
Am I alone in this or does anybody else agree?
What do you think of the Timeform ratings given to the hurdlers of the 1970’s then Gladiateur? Far from "creeping up", 2m hurdlers of that generation are generally rated higher than today… Which goes against what you appear to be insinuating.
If Timeform are "elevating ratings for publicity purposes" Gladiateur, you’d expect them to either rate the Queen Mother placed horses as running to their best, if not improving…
Sizing Europe has been given a performance rating of 167+ compared to his 2012 and 2011 Champion Chase ratings of 172. The 167+ being in line with his previous three starts, 166+ Punchestown, 167+ Leopardstown and 166+ Clonmel.
Wishfull Thinking’s may not be the most consistent, but his 159 Champion Chase performance rating is 3 lbs less than both Newbury last time out and Shloer Chase at Cheltenham earlier in the season. 159 is 5 lbs less than his very best rating achieved at Aintree as a novice.
Sanctuaire’s 155+ is a full 13 lbs (168) worse than both Kempton (this season) and final novice start at Sandown.At the time (142), I was amazed Timeform were so cautious in ranking Frankel so low in the Lockinge, after beating both second and third – Excelebration (fit from a run) and Dubawi Gold by further than ever. When looking at Lockinge performance ratings – it seemed the only way to justify not upping Frankel was to rate every other horse as below form. Since the original 142 Timeform upped the Lockinge rating to 144…
So I don’t see how Timeform can be accused of "elevating ratings for publicity purposes". Quite the opposite, 192p is in my opinion a cautious rating.
Value Is EverythingI’d be interested to know what degree of subjectivity goes into ratings – Timeform, OR, RPR, any recognised system.
How much weighting is given to yardstick horses and how much to theorising about the merit of individual performances – 70/30? 80/20? Does it differ from race to race and if so, why?
I believe there’s an explanation from Simon Rowlands (Prufrock) somewhere on the forum Joe.
Value Is EverythingSizing Europe isn’t the horse who drags down the rating. Is Wishfull Thinking really a 167 horse?
No, Wishfull Thinking is not a 167 horse. Which is why Timeform do not rate him 167. Now has a Master Rating of 162$ (sorry, don’t have a squiggle button) and ran to a performance rating of 159 last week. The highest I am aware he’s been is 165 in Chasers And Hurdlers 10/11.
Value Is EverythingHow did you come to the 185 rating Gladiateur?
It was a very difficult race to assess accurately, as neither Wishfull Thinking nor Sanctuaire is the most consistent of animals and Tataniano (beaten 46 lengths and 40 lengths in handicaps in his previous two starts) is currently nowhere near worth his lofty official rating of 160.
I rated the race through Sizing Europe, who ran a few pounds below his best of 169 on my ratings (which I’ve had for the top horses, both flat and jumps, for over thirty years) and has been assigned a mark of 166, due to his slip on the home turn. That leaves Wishfull Thinking running to 160, a mark of which he’s capable when in the mood, and Sanctuaire to a very plausible 157- it’s interesting to see that the last-named ran almost exactly to the pound with Sprinter Sacre on their Victor Chandler Chase form.
I notice that in your second post you observe that Timeform have Wishfull Thinking running to a mark of 159, one pound short of my rating for his effort last Wednesday. Maybe I’m getting old and my brain isn’t what it used to be, but 159+25 doesn’t equal 192 unless my maths is seriously wrong. The "p" ought to signify that there was more in the winner’s tank, rather than some arbitrary number added in to the winning margin.
How did you come to the 185 rating Gladiateur?
It was a very difficult race to assess accurately, as neither Wishfull Thinking nor Sanctuaire is the most consistent of animals and Tataniano (beaten 46 lengths and 40 lengths in handicaps in his previous two starts) is currently nowhere near worth his lofty official rating of 160.
I rated the race through Sizing Europe, who ran a few pounds below his best of 169 on my ratings (which I’ve had for the top horses, both flat and jumps, for over thirty years) and has been assigned a mark of 166, due to his slip on the home turn. That leaves Wishfull Thinking running to 160, a mark of which he’s capable when in the mood, and Sanctuaire to a very plausible 157- it’s interesting to see that the last-named ran almost exactly to the pound with Sprinter Sacre on their Victor Chandler Chase form.
I notice that in your second post you observe that Timeform have Wishfull Thinking running to a mark of 159, one pound short of my rating for his effort last Wednesday. Maybe I’m getting old and my brain isn’t what it used to be, but 159+25 doesn’t equal 192 unless my maths is seriously wrong. The "p" ought to signify that there was more in the winner’s tank, rather than some arbitrary number added in to the winning margin.
Applaud doing your own ratings Gladiateur, but the "arbitrary number" I can see is 1 lb per length. Is that always what you work to whatever the going/distance?
I don’t know if there’s the same time angle with Jump racing as Timeform’s Flat ratings… But a basic look at Timeform’s performance ratings for
all
horses home in the 2013 Queen Mother, seems to work out to around 1.3 lbs per length. However, this is in
no way
a figure plucked out of the air to justify Sprinter Sacre’s rating; both 2012 and 2011 renewals working out to around the same 1.3 figure.
Value Is EverythingGladiateur’s post raises some interesting points (leaving aside the possible suggestion that Timeform’s rating of Sprinter Sacre is inflated for whatever reason).
To suggest that the thoroughbered nowadays is an "improved" version of that which raced, say 100 years ago is probably one that would be demolished by many who study genetics and animal phsyiology (indeed there’s a very good case to be made for suggesting the current thoroughbred racehorse isinferior
to its predecessors.)
Record times do not necessarily indicate an improvement in the racehorse. Until you reach the point at which no possible reduction in time can be reached then records will always be being broken. (Who could possibly believe that Usain Bolt’s 100mtrs record will never be bettered?) Usain Bolt is not an improved "breed" of sprinter; he’s just the best of the same breed that’s been sprinting since Adam was a lad. Ditto horses. To suggest that the 21st century thoroughbred is better than the 19th or 20th century one is just conjecture (and that’s one of the things that make horse-racing so fascinating.) It is still exactly the same animal as the Hyperion, Golden Miller and Sceptre generations. We dismiss the achievements of our ancestors, (be they horse or human) too easily. Man has had hundreds of years to produce better writers than Shakespeare or better composers than Bach or Mozart etc. But where are they?
The human of 500 years ago is essentially the same beast as today and as (to my knowledge) scientists have not been tinkering around with introducing cheetah or other "outside" dna for horses then they’re the same beast too. In fact, with the improvements in veterinary science and introduction of new medications, one might argue that the modern day thoroughbred is inferior to those of 100 years ago as we’ve been allowing weaker physical specimens to procreate. How many GP1 performers race more than once in the space of a few days? Yet Sceptre (1902) ran in the Lincoln, 2,000gns, 1,000gns, Derby, Oaks, St. Leger + a few more at 3yrs. Was she a member of an inferior breed?
How often in recent years have we read of worries about the paucity of runners in novice chases? Would Golden Miller have found today’s fences an even easier challenge than those he had to jump?With the thoroughbred most improvements have, I would suggest, come about because of better veterinary and training practices, better turf husbandry, better jockeyship, better feed maybe and a greater understanding of optimum diet for racecourse performance and a few other minor things, but the animal is not a superior breed to past generations. The racehorse of today is exactly the same beast as raced 100 years ago, just as the writers, composers etc. of today are still exactly the same species as those who wrote and composed 500 years ago. Until humans start cross-breeding with aliens or the thoroughbred cross-breeds with other creatures, they are both are exactly the same animals as their recent ancestors.
Timeform’s rating can still be taken seriously but only when comparing horses of the same generation. Nobody can say with utter certainty that Tudor Minstrel was inferior to Brigadier Gerard who was inferior to Frankel. What we can say with more certainty is that the current thoroughbred racehorse population(at least in Europe and the USA) contains a higher proportion of injury-prone horses who might never have made it to the racecourse without a little help from Glaxo, Astra-Zeneca etc; help their predecessors didn’t have and maybe wouldn’t have needed.…but the "arbitrary number" I can see is 1 lb per length. Is that always what you work to whatever the going/distance?
Aye, I’ve always used one pound per length over the jumps, irrespective of ground and trip. It is the measure which I was taught by a professional punter in the early 1980s and has stood the test of time. I sometimes get the impression that, these days, there is a trend to overcomplicate relatively simple things in an attempt to make quite ordinary people appear clever.
Insomniac, that’s a very interesting and thought-provoking post.
Let us assume that racehorses are genetically pretty much the same as they were a century ago. Let us also assume that any development in their performance has been brought about by advances in feed, training methods, medication, etc. If the true champions elevate themselves by being far superior to their contemporaries, then surely the champions of today are better than those of the past?
I wouldn’t really argue with the rating given to Sprinter Sacre, but does anyone seriously believe Flyingbolt could have given him a stone
To argue for or contest the theory that horses as a breed are improving requires an incredibly large amount of data to even begin to have some merit. I wouldn’t bother touching the subject frankly, since i’m going to out on a limb here and suggest that no one on this forum is even remotely equipped to begin to tackle the question, nevermind have a plausible and useful answer.
Sprinter Sacre’s rating seems plausible, and i wouldn’t cite his rating as evidence for Timeform inflating their ratings. He has demolished what we presume to be a constant and accurate performer in Sizing Europe. You can pick a few holes in the race, but i think it works out relatively well.
I don’t think SS would have any problem getting 3m round Kempton, especially with good going and if he won by 15 lengths on the bridle, the Gold Cup too would be at his mercy.
How dare you! Anyone suggesting a horse win over a variety of distances is clearly stuck in the past!
I think the Melling should be banned. It encourages horses run over a different trip than at Chelts – surely unacceptable.
Another thing to note is that Sprinter Sacre isn’t pure Thoroughbred, he’s AQPS. So in a sense he
isn’t
genetically the same as Thoroughbreds 100 years ago.
Insomniac, that’s a very interesting and thought-provoking post.
Let us assume that racehorses are genetically pretty much the same as they were a century ago. Let us also assume that any development in their performance has been brought about by advances in feed, training methods, medication, etc. If the true champions elevate themselves by being far superior to their contemporaries, then surely the champions of today are better than those of the past?
The clock, unlike Timeform ratings and Beyer Speed Figures, is not subjective. Steeplechase times have in fact stayed fairly static over the years, in cases where the course and fences have stayed the same.
Flat horses, on the other hand, have clearly gotten faster, at least at shorter distances (most American records for distances over a mile haven’t budged in decades). The conclusion I can draw from this is that we’ve figured out how to breed sprinters and milers (breed the fastest horses together), but breeding a horse who is fast AND can go 2+ miles AND can jump well is a bit more complicated!
Although I can offer no evidence for it, more than 40 years watching racing leads me to the conclusion that few horses run two races alike, as far as being able to depend on a definite measure (like 1 lb for a length) is concerned.
Taking a broad brush approach you could say that some do run two, or more, alike – Sprinter Sacre always wins easily for example – but sufficiently consistent to measure by the length or the pound?
There have been some pretty rare occasions when two horses who regularly meet at levels, seem to produce their form almost to the pound, but I find it hard to believe that racehorses, as a species, produce consistent enough performances to be rated within such tight margins.
It seems a cliche, but every horse is indeed an individual. No matter the sophisticated ‘tools’ available to trainers, nobody can say, on a raceday, what or how a horse is feeling.
I have long suspected that the majority of horses branded ungenuine, have a physical rather than mental ailment, which simply has not been diagnosed. If there is some ‘lack of will’ in a horse, I believe it is most likely to be linked to the horse’s general mental wellbeing (equine anxiety?), rather than a premeditated intention to shirk in a finish.
If only they could talk!
I backed Sizing Europe for the Ryanair, thinking connections would want to run in a race they had a good chance of winning. I’d like to thank his owner and trainer for being sportsmen and not going for the easy option. Am glad I lost my money, Sizing Europe made the race, could’ve been "Champion Chase" in name only.
Value Is EverythingRecord times are there to be broken – and usually are.
Although ultimately there must come a point where neither horse nor man can improve on a time (or height or length), I reckon we’re still some way off it yet. (It’s worth noting – if Wikipedia is correct – that the mens’ high-jump record has now stood for over 10 years and the long jump for over 12. Does that mean we’ve reached the ultimate pinnacle of how high and long a man can jump?) I doubt it, but the likelihood is that records will only improve by diminishing measures of times/distances rather than comaparitively larger increments. That record times for horses have continued to come about was always (short of some drastic equine catastrophe) going to happen, even if no advances were made in jockeyship, turf management, feeding regimes, timing methods, etc.
The mere suggestion that because record times are better now than they were means the racehorse is better is rot. The thoroughbred might possibly be better, butrecord
times are not the indicator of this.
What is? I don’t know, but I know enough about statistics, logic and evolution to know that as long as racing continues and has a sizeable horse population and ample opportunities for them to race, new record times will occur every now and again. (If one insists on trying to use new best times as proof of a better animal, it would make more sense to monitor frequency of new record times in relation to the horse-racing population during each era compared and the number of races held over distances where new record times occur. Quite a job I think!)
Let me put it another way, if every single flat race was over 5 furlongs and every single male athlete was made to do the long-jump, would there be new records set in each event? You bet there would.http://www.racingpost.com/news/live.sd
Interesting and quite surprising news, hope it transpires
Just further emphasises that the words of trainers and jockeys should be taken with a large pinch of salt, particularly those exhaled in the heat of the moment immediately post-race
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.