- This topic has 29 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
I think Frankel is probably the best racehorse ever and deserves his 147 rating.
Considering your post spent a good deal of time disputing Timeform’s ratings of some other horses it seems somewhat odd you support this one. I honestly can’t see why Timeform have decided to rate a horse 7lbs and 3.5 lengths above his official rating and their reasons for doing so seem rather suspect to me.
Brigadier,
Timeform ratings are on a different scale to BHA etc. It’s like celcius and fahrenheit. Timeform rating is generally higher.Value Is Everythinghmmm somehow do not think Secretariat was 151 , or 147 , but he was a brilliant horse , and would be 140 plus in my book
I am forever in awe of his brilliant display in Belmont , and unlike most of the guys on this outpost I was there to see it
Dont please rubbish stuff you know nothing about
cheers
Ricky
According to Timeform’s own international handicapper Chris Williams*, to convert a Beyer Speed Figure to a Timeform Rating for 3yo colts early in the season we add 15 points. Andy Beyer said he would give Secretariat a 139 speed figure for his Belmont performance. Therefore Secretariat would get a rating of
154
.
*Andy Beyer’s rule of thumb is to add 14 to his ratings. Both of these conversions are only useful for horses at the top level of racing and only provide a rough approximation. Secretariat would clearly have at least a 150 TR regardless.
Miss Woodford , you could be right , but its a bit iffy to say the least
It was 1973 , a much less tech world , and in terms of racing a lot less international than now
One thing for sure in the top ten racehorses of all time Frankel and Secretariat would rate highly
Ricky
Celtic Swing only ran once on soft ground in the Racing Post Trophy, winning by 12 lengths from Annus Mirabilis. Every other run on good or good-firm. Was Celtic Swing over-rated? It’s impossible to say, as the only time Celtic Swing had anywhere near his ideal conditions was in the Racing Post Trophy.
Can’t agree that a lone, albeit exceptional, run on soft ground demands the unequivocal conclusion that those were his "ideal conditions". Prior to the RP Trophy he broke the track record over Ascot’s 7f on good-to-firm; a performance strengthened by an excellent timefigure, not far behind the exceptional one returned at Doncaster
Not a healthy horse would be my curt dismissal of him as a 3yo, though despite this still a very good one
Do you have Celtic Swing’s timefigures in the Hyperion and RP to hand Ginger, or anyone?
Can’t recall myself though think both were mid-to-high 130s
According to Timeform’s own international handicapper Chris Williams*, to convert a Beyer Speed Figure to a Timeform Rating for 3yo colts early in the season we add 15 points. Andy Beyer said he would give Secretariat a 139 speed figure for his Belmont performance. Therefore Secretariat would get a rating of
154
.
*Andy Beyer’s rule of thumb is to add 14 to his ratings. Both of these conversions are only useful for horses at the top level of racing and only provide a rough approximation. Secretariat would clearly have at least a 150 TR regardless.
Conversely, as I have previously pointed out on these august pages, John Randall and Tony Morris, in their magnificent book, " A Century Of Champions " used Timeform’s own criteria in evaluating Secretariat’s performances. After some painstaking research and form analysis of all Secretariat’s races, they came to the conclusion that Big Red should be awarded a Timeform figure of 144.
John Randall also pointed out ( as I have previously highlighted ) that Sea Bird’s true Timeform figure should be 149, as the Halifax based organisation insisted on using their own measurements for Sea Bird’s Arc victory. Instead of using the official winning 6 lengths margin, they decided that Sea Bird had only won by four and a half lengths.
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
Brigadier,
Timeform ratings are on a different scale to BHA etc. It’s like celcius and fahrenheit. Timeform rating is generally higher.I agree they are generally higher which is why breeders are so fond of using them when promoting their stallions. However their ratings are not just a higher scale from which you can convert one to the other. For instance in the case of Frankel Timeform have him 14lbs clear of Cirrus Des Aigles as opposed to 10lbs on official ratings.
Conversely, as I have previously pointed out on these august pages, John Randall and Tony Morris, in their magnificent book, " A Century Of Champions " used Timeform’s own criteria in evaluating Secretariat’s performances. After some painstaking research and form analysis of all Secretariat’s races, they came to the conclusion that Big Red should be awarded a Timeform figure of 144.
John Randall also pointed out ( as I have previously highlighted ) that Sea Bird’s true Timeform figure should be 149, as the Halifax based organisation insisted on using their own measurements for Sea Bird’s Arc victory. Instead of using the official winning 6 lengths margin, they decided that Sea Bird had only won by four and a half lengths.
Interesting, especially about Sea Bird. I understand Timeform’s system would equate a length to 2lbs at that distance so I’d assume that would bump Sea Bird’s rating up to 148. I may be wrong on that but I’d be interested to know.
I’ve looked for that book but never found it.
I’m forever disputing rating with Timeform but they do have the impossible task of comparing generations.
They very much tie themselves to all Group winners who are beaten by the Nijinsky’ of racing being much the same as a a guide.
You only need to listen them and you here it often enough he won x amount of group racing and beat x amount of group winner.
Too bad if the Group race they won were crap there’s not a lot of room to be playing with.
Rated between 130 and 133 there are 10 horses in Europe currently crammed together.
Going back 40 years and trying to cram that lot in is an impossible task.
It doesn’t really matter to the individual what Timeform think if Nijinsky gave you the buzz that said this horse would have destroyed Sea the Stars and he gort your heart pumping I’d say your probably right.
That is where I dispute Frankel’s right to have ousted Sea-Bird both would have knocked your socks off I simply couldn’t split them but probably for commercial reasons Timeform saw the opportunity and took it. Do they think Frankel in their heart of hearts was the greatest of all time?……some perhaps but not all.
One of the best we’ve ever seen is about the most used phrase by trainers this week very few say he is the greatest of all time.
I’m a Secretariat man: Frankel awesome display in the Guineas 15 lengths clear after 4 furlong made all won by a diminishing 5 lengths clearly running out of petrol in the closing stages
Secretariat in the Belmont Stakes went 15 lengths clear….then 20 then 25 then increased the distance to a staggering 31 lengths and clocked furlong after furlong at top speed.
If Frankel is 147 horse in my book Secretariat was a 151 horse At the end of the day it’s only an opinion and proves nothing.
Probably the biggest load of codswallop I have ever witnessed on this forum, it’s so big I even considered leaving the room for 5 minutes to catch my breath.
It’s one thing disagreeing with someone but to come out without any sound argument against and nothing but blatant rudeness.
Makes you look like a lowlife fool sunshine and I doubt if anyone cares if you held your breath for 5 minutes and never came back
Celtic Swing only ran once on soft ground in the Racing Post Trophy, winning by 12 lengths from Annus Mirabilis. Every other run on good or good-firm. Was Celtic Swing over-rated? It’s impossible to say, as the only time Celtic Swing had anywhere near his ideal conditions was in the Racing Post Trophy.
Can’t agree that a lone, albeit exceptional, run on soft ground demands the unequivocal conclusion that those were his "ideal conditions". Prior to the RP Trophy he broke the track record over Ascot’s 7f on good-to-firm; a performance strengthened by an excellent timefigure, not far behind the exceptional one returned at Doncaster
Not a healthy horse would be my curt dismissal of him as a 3yo, though despite this still a very good one
Do agree Drone, it’s quite possible Celtic Swing’s "disappointing" (for want of a better word) 3 year old career could well have been because of an unhealthy horse. There are so many possible reasons why Celtic Swing did not reproduce that 138.
Value Is EverythingI think Frankel is probably the best racehorse ever and deserves his 147 rating.
Considering your post spent a good deal of time disputing Timeform’s ratings of some other horses it seems somewhat odd you support this one. I honestly can’t see why Timeform have decided to rate a horse 7lbs and 3.5 lengths above his official rating and their reasons for doing so seem rather suspect to me.
No ratings are wholly objective, there is always a subjective element. I would not trust the Timeform ratings to be always “right”. But at least their methods and ratings are consistent within Timeform. The International/BHA/Official Ratings are less trustworthy still. An ex-Jockey Club representative on the International Classifications handicapping committee (Geoffrey Gibbs) has indicated that ratings were sometimes awarded without reference to any method at all, and a current BHA handicapper (Dominic Gardiner Hill) has suggested that he, and the head BHA handicapper (Phil Smith) think that the current level of official international ratings is not the same as the level that was used when the International Classification first started about 35 years ago.
The fact that the annual international ratings are voted for (!) in a committee meeting at the end of the year, should warn us that the ratio of objectivity to subjectivity from this committee is more likely to be lower than in organizations that rely on people paying for their product to enable them to stay in business.
Also, several organizations, including the BHA handicappers, give themselves the luxury of adding weight to a rating for the notion of “Style”, in both Group races and in day-to-day handicaps. It hardly encourages people to believe in the objective accuracy of any ratings.
Also, several organizations, including the BHA handicappers, give themselves the luxury of adding weight to a rating for the notion of “Style”, in both Group races and in day-to-day handicaps. It hardly encourages people to believe in the objective accuracy of any ratings.
Any organisation
needs
to add to ratings for "Style" MV. If the BHA handicappers don’t do it, then all connections of all horses will try to win by the smallest margin possible.
Surely you’re not saying a horse winning "hard held" with "any amount in hand" by a neck should only be raised 1 lb by the handicapper? Handicappers need to add the amount they believe the horse has in hand.
Similarly, any form book organisation
needs
to do a lot of assessing how much a horse has in hand. Otherwise so many horses will have a "+" (or whatever the motif would be) on them and that "+" could mean anything between 2 lbs and 2 stone in hand – rendering the ratings useless. ie It would not tell the subscriber what the organisation believe a lot of horses are capable of.
Value Is EverythingNo ratings are wholly objective, there is always a subjective element. I would not trust the Timeform ratings to be always “right”. But at least their methods and ratings are consistent within Timeform. The International/BHA/Official Ratings are less trustworthy still. An ex-Jockey Club representative on the International Classifications handicapping committee (Geoffrey Gibbs) has indicated that ratings were sometimes awarded without reference to any method at all, and a current BHA handicapper (Dominic Gardiner Hill) has suggested that he, and the head BHA handicapper (Phil Smith) think that the current level of official international ratings is not the same as the level that was used when the International Classification first started about 35 years ago.
The fact that the annual international ratings are voted for (!) in a committee meeting at the end of the year, should warn us that the ratio of objectivity to subjectivity from this committee is more likely to be lower than in organizations that rely on people paying for their product to enable them to stay in business.
Also, several organizations, including the BHA handicappers, give themselves the luxury of adding weight to a rating for the notion of “Style”, in both Group races and in day-to-day handicaps. It hardly encourages people to believe in the objective accuracy of any ratings.
I wouldn’t trust any rating to be always right but I’m not sure how you know Timeform’s rating are any more consistent than say the official handicappers in the UK or France.
I’ve no idea about the view of an ex-Jockey Club rep that official ratings have been awarded without any reference to any method, did he say which country or horses?
Afaik Phil Smith made that comment with regard to Dancing Brave being rated 1lb above Frankel and suggested the latter may not have got such a high rating today. Perhaps he wouldn’t but then he was racing over 25 years ago and Phil Smith is a self-confessed Frankel fan.
The IFHA afaik review and assess the ratings produced by the various offical ratings authorities who are members before agreeing final ratings. The committee doing that uses the Eurpopean Pattern Committee rules and consists of 5 members from France, Germany, Great Britain, Ireland, and Italy.
Perhaps this may be of interest with regard to how the BHA rated Frankel and that 8 out of 8 of the International Handicappers who had posted a rating had come up with 140 for Frankel at York. The bare rating on distance versus other horses came out at 12lbs and a rating of 136 but Smith added on 4lbs for the ease and style of victory.
http://www.britishhorseracing.com/gorac … apping.asp
Incidentally it states the BHA use 1.75lbs per length over 10f while Timeform I believe use 2lbs.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.