- This topic has 32 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
I saw a post on twitter that Wissahickon was given a TF rating higher than Saxon Warrior, based on his win on Saturday.
I don’t have access to Timeform, so i am not sure if it’s a performance rating he means?
It was a very good win on Saturday and considering the Mile division isn’t great, he will probably go close wherever he goes next, however, i do find it hard to think that win is a stronger piece of form than anything Saxon Warrior has done?
I saw someone suggest the times per furlng were better than his guineas run and also weight carried and perhaps that is why?
Maybe i am being stubborn because it was a handicap, and i really should consider the performance from Saturday much higher??
Twitter: Jackh1092
Hindsight is 20/20 so make the most of it!Comparisons to the Guineas is a waste of time imo
Time per furlong would only come into it if the going was exactly the same
Pace of each race will differ tooBeat the Bank was suppose to be the next big group 1 horse going by the clock late last season but he never got near as yet in the main events.
Charles Darwin to conquer the World
Yeah pretty much what nathan said, also, this race was over 9f, how often does this happen and when these horses step out of handicap company get shown up in group races, the race was likely just ran to perfection for him as with most big handicaps, suits one more than others.
He would get eaten alive by roaring lion over 10f, i doubt highly he would have been as close as SW
I get why they view it the way they have, but the clock doesnt always tell the whole story.
Yeah i know Nathan, but just trying to work out why Wissahickon gets a higher TF rating than Saxon other than that?
Whilst the guineas is early 3yo form etc, you’d imagine the winner of that should have a higher rating than the Cambridgshire especially considering Saxon went on to finish close to Roaring Lion on a few occasions.
Clearly TF believe Wissahickon is a G1 winner in waiting.
Twitter: Jackh1092
Hindsight is 20/20 so make the most of it!I’m not sure if Timeform use foresight to rate a horses performance. If they believe he is a G1 winner in waiting I think they have to wait or give him a capital P or something.
Ginger is away until Thursday or Friday but I’m sure he’ll tell us why the horse is rated that way when he gets back.
Charles Darwin to conquer the World
TF are not subjective, so whether it’s a Guineas or a Class 2 handicap doesn’t matter to them AFAIK. Don’t use TF extensively, so my understanding could be wrong here.
As has been said time and time again on this forum or at least it seems, that figure doesn’t mean he will beat G1 horses, but that he ran this race exceptionally. It’s a one-off time-figure, presumably with a p for potential +/-.
It’s not 100% reliable but I believe TF also produce going allowances, so the figures they put up take into account the ground on the day.
All ratings are subjective. They are very educated best guesses. Even if based entirely upon, for example, going allowances because the interpretation of the data used to calculate such allowances, and/or the formula applied to the data to set base figures, will vary from person to person.
I saw a post on twitter that Wissahickon was given a TF rating higher than Saxon Warrior, based on his win on Saturday.
Comparing two horses over two different trips, at different times of the year is a bit silly.
Looking at my speed figures and using the RP WFA I compared the two.
Saxon Warrior 84 + 10lbs WFA = 94 (2000 Guineas)
Saxon Warrior 82 + 18lbs WFA = 100 (Derby)
Wissahickon 92 + 8lb WFA = 100So comparing the two together you can see that Wissahickon performance in the Cambridgeshire was certainly impressive.
Mike.
Having read JG’s quote he mentioned Frankie says they went to hard in front which would explain the performance as an individual time.
Twitter: Jackh1092
Hindsight is 20/20 so make the most of it!Having read JG’s quote he mentioned Frankie says they went to hard in front which would explain the performance as an individual time.
On the clock, I wouldn’t say they went too hard up front, it was one of those rare occasions, a true run race.
Another aspect for comparisons is the going allowances on the day.
2000 Guineas – 0.00s/f (good)
Derby – +0.12s/f (good)
Cambridgeshire – +0.13s/f (good)In conclusion, Timeform were right in their assessment Wissahickon is the better horse.
Mike.
The P is subjective, it can’t be anything else.
It indicates that something about the horse’s performance indicates that it could be capable of improving on the figure they’ve given. So if it won hard held, for example, it’d be reasonable to expect that there might be further improvement to come. Or if it was on a rapid upward curve having won two or three in improving fashion it’d be reasonable to offer up a P until the improvement appeared to be halted.
https://www.timeform.com/horse-racing/features/guides/abbreviations
Here is what the BHA handicapper thought.
https://www.britishhorseracing.com/cambridgeshire-meeting-handicappers-blog/
Cheers Admin!
Mike, that is interesting, and something i will probably have to adapt to, i find it hard to believe a handicap winner can be marked up to be as high or higher than a G1 classic winner. However, that parts on me and not timeform.
Hopefully the ground doesn’t hinder our chance to see Wissahackon in graded contests this Autumn.
Twitter: Jackh1092
Hindsight is 20/20 so make the most of it!Beat the Bank was suppose to be the next big group 1 horse going by the clock late last season but he never got near as yet in the main events.
Are you trying to exaggerate in order to make yourself look better? LOL
Timeform rated Beat The Bank 124 after the Joel Stakes, Nathan. Where as you were saying he wasn’t anywhere near that rating. 124 is not good enough to win an average British Group 1, so they were not suggesting BTB “was suppose to be the next big group 1 horse going by the clock late last season”.
As I said on the subject last year immediately after the QEII:
“Yes, there’s always a chance a stand out performance on form flatters a horse a little. Rated 123 now (I’d still (written in October 2017) rate Beat The Bank 124). There’s a chance he might be a genuine 122, 121, possibly even 120. But that still makes him a Group 1 horse. Certainly better than some of you give him credit for”.Beat The Bank twice came close to winning a British Group 1 this season. Once when not getting a clear run through in the Queen Anne – beaten less than 1 3/4 lengths. Once in the Sussex, beaten less than 2 1/4 lengths… Certainly worth his place in those races – as Timeform suggested.
…Beat The Bank’s Joel Stakes Timeform performance rating now stands at 121, with his last three races this season also 120, 120 and 121. So with more evidence available is now just three pounds less than that original 124 Joel Stakes rating. ie Only a fraction over a length worse than their original Joel Stakes verdict. 121 being much higher than some thought he should be rated.
Value Is EverythingMy gripe with Beat the Bank last year was his price for the QE11 Ginge, he was far too short, place lay material, I was right so don’t see the need as you wrote for me to look better. Better about what exactly.?
He still has yet to win a group 1 despite his speed figures and quickest furlongs, timeform rating etc
and the older mile division is as weak as a wet paper bag this yearCharles Darwin to conquer the World
…Beat The Bank’s Joel Stakes Timeform performance rating now stands at 121, with his last three races this season also 120, 120 and 121.
I was looking at my speed figures for Beat the Bank and they are nothing special, how Timeform came came up with these ratings beats me, I currently have Beat the Bank 10lbs behind Cambridgeshire winner Wissahickon.
Mike.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.