- This topic has 59 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
- Total Posts 17716
How can you state any sort of case, Mark, when your argument hinges on ifs, buts and maybes? If the numbers are to be believed then they have to be precise; if that were the case, there’d be no ‘I’d have thought’, ‘add x or y pounds’ or ‘seems right to attribute’.
It’s unusual, but I’m inclined to agree with Fist and reet.
Sea The Stars won the Arc despite having already won five Group Ones in five months, pulling throughout the early stages of the race itself and not getting the easiest of passages when the pace inevitably quickened. And he made his move pulling a feckin’ train.
This apparent need to degrade the race because of the relative proximity of La Boum is both bizarre and laughable; horses never run above themselves do they? Besides, it’s not as though she’s either devoid of ability or finished right on the heels of the winner, is it?
There’s no reason to suspect that Youmzain didn’t run to his best, the form (both previous and subsequent) of Cavalryman, Conduit and Dar Re Mi is bullet-proof and beyond the on-the-day-one-hundred-percent-right La Boum were four-time Group One winner Stacelita and Prince Of Wales’/Hong Kong Cup winner Vision D’Etat.
But what about Fame And Glory in sixth? He raced a little keenly admittedly, but we know he stays every yard of the trip and yet he was beaten almost twice as far as he was in the Irish Champion. It’s widely accepted that Sea The Stars had an incredibly high cruising speed, so why is not more remarkable that he’s finished further ahead of a horse who supposedly contributed to his greatest ever performance elsewhere?
Common sense tells you that Longchamp was Sea The Stars’ finest day. And by some margin.
- Total Posts 17716
A lot of reading required but an excellent effort to try and explain his rating.
If you had stopped at the 137+ I would have ben 100% in agreement with you.
For me Mill Reef 141 and Sea the Stars 137 is a much more realistic but then should rating be compared outside of 2 years?
I never knew they decuted WFA off fillies ratings. that surely can’t be right?
You get WFA run to amark then they deduct the allowance back of you?? Bit Irish that is.
I’ve always maintained whatever mark Sea the Stars run to in the Arc then Zarkava equalled or bettered. She certainly never had to be stoked up as much as Sea the Stars was to do the same job.
So the main issue is if she was a 132 horse where did the 140 for Sea the Stars sprout from.
You reckon the Irish Champion Stakes but I can’t have that at all.
On the day I distinctly remeber a few members fears about Mastercraftsman who was really amiler getting the trip. They weren’t wrong as he went out like a light that day leaving Fame and Glory to chase him home.
Fame and Glory’s rating of 128 can’t be far of the mark. If anything it could be a tad high as his best victories came in the Irish Derby beating sod all and in the Coranation beating the unfit, unwilling Sariska on totally unsuitable ground.
You probably noticed very early in the Arc thread I totally dismissed Fame and Glory and said he’s the one horse who would never win an Arc so you have an uphill battle trying to convince me beating him 2 1/2 lengths justifies a 140 mark or anything like it.
Compare that to Fame and Glory running in the Arc at his best trip and Sea the Stars beating him twice as far also blows it right out the window.
I’ve already covered the Eclipse so no sense in going there again.
In reality in their/our quest to find a champion Timeform got a bit carried away with Sea the Stars a bit too early and had to backtrack when the Arc result came in.
No horse that stayed in training has done anything exciting to boost the form and maybe the whole lot of them were higher than they should have been.
Timeform I beleive gave Workforce a rating of 128 or is it 131? seems to be some confusion.
Last time I looked Midday who beat the 3rd very easily was 120 which confuses the issue even further. Workforce beat fame and Glory further than Sea the Stars but strictly on form through the somehwat unlucky Sarafina,ignoring Plumania’s poor showing, had she run Midday would just about have won the Arc.
I would hate to work in the department of timeform who have to sort that lot out would drive me mad.
- Total Posts 17716
But what about Fame And Glory in sixth? He raced a little keenly admittedly, but we know he stays every yard of the trip and yet he was beaten almost twice as far as he was in the Irish Champion. It’s widely accepted that Sea The Stars had an incredibly high cruising speed, so why is not more remarkable that he’s finished further ahead of a horse who supposedly contributed to his greatest ever performance elsewhere?
Common sense tells you that Longchamp was Sea The Stars’ finest day. And by some margin.
That AJ is well spotted but becuase of Yomzain when you have given Zarkava only 132 you can’t give Sea the Stars the rating he deserved without admitting you got it wrong so you ignore him and bring in Conduit despite the fast he definitely wasn’t a 10f horse.
As I just said in my other post it’s way too easy with ratings to dig a hole you can’t get out of. Not without twisting things to suit your argument.
Aidan O’Brien called Rip a miler who gets 10f on good ground. I think he definitely stayed in both the Eclipse and this year’s International. Remember, STS broke the course record for the Eclipse by around 1.2 seconds, so Rip has smashed the previous record as well. Nick Mordin claims that 304 races had been run at the course and distance in the previous 13 years so sample size is not an issue. And of course Rip hit the line very hard in this year’s International.
Vision D’Etat is one of the best horses in training but his record and trainer say that he’s clearly best over 10f. Both he and Stacelita didn’t seem to get the trip, though they ran respectable races. I agree that the level of competition was highest in the Arc, and that STS overcame a lot of adversity that day, but because of that adversity he did not win by enough to merit a big rating. Form figures don’t tell us how how hard he pulled, how he had to come off heels and shift out, they describe the number of lengths he beat other horses…
I always thought Fame was over-the-top by the time the Arc came around, but I’ve also always been convinced he couldn’t win an Arc even at 100%. Assessing his Arc run is a bit tricky, him getting impeded this year doesn’t make it any easier.
How can you state any sort of case, Mark, when your argument hinges on ifs, buts and maybes? If the numbers are to be believed then they have to be precise; if that were the case, there’d be no ‘I’d have thought’, ‘add x or y pounds’ or ‘seems right to attribute’.
AJ,
Rating horses is always about opinions, but those opinions have to be backed up by logic and pounds. Numbers are precise, but I’ve had to say "I’d have thought", because these performance ratings of Sea The Stars are what I would rate him on, using Timeform Racehorses as a guide. I don’t know what Timeform’s actual performance ratings are.It’s unusual, but I’m inclined to agree with Fist and reet.
Sea The Stars won the Arc despite having already won five Group Ones in five months, pulling throughout the early stages of the race itself and not getting the easiest of passages when the pace inevitably quickened. And he made his move pulling a feckin’ train.
It is you who is rating a horse on ifs, buts and maybes. Rating Sea The Stars on what he won PREVIOUSLY, the fact he won 5 group 1’s prior to the Arc makes no difference to the performance rating on the day; what MIGHT have happened had he NOT pulled hard, NOT met trouble, NOT being in the right place etc. As Presto says, the performance rating is how much A beats B, C and D.
This apparent need to degrade the race because of the relative proximity of La Boum is both bizarre and laughable; horses never run above themselves do they? Besides, it’s not as though she’s either devoid of ability or finished right on the heels of the winner, is it?
The rating of Sea The Stars is based on the distances he beat Youmzain, Cavalryman and Conduit. La Boum is just another small thing to take in to account. Timeform rating of horses performances must be down to what they achieved. If you see that as "downgrading" that’s up to you, I don’t see it that way.
There’s no reason to suspect that Youmzain didn’t run to his best, the form (both previous and subsequent) of Cavalryman, Conduit and Dar Re Mi is bullet-proof and beyond the on-the-day-one-hundred-percent-right La Boum were four-time Group One winner Stacelita and Prince Of Wales’/Hong Kong Cup winner Vision D’Etat.
Sea The Stars rating in the Arc is based on Youmzain running to form on 131, that’s the point. On Cavalryman actually improving to 130, a career best. Cavalryman’s form is certainly not "bullet proof", not been the same horse this term. The ratings are also based on Conduit running to form on 130. It’s you who seems to think you can rate Sea The Stars a lot more than all the principles earlier ratings suggest. Or are you saying 6 year old Youmzain and Conduit improved and then regressed for the Breeders Cup win? Did Cavalryman and Dar Re Mi improve to an even greater degree?
Stacelita ran a little below form judging by Dar Re Mi’s performance.
But what about Fame And Glory in sixth? He raced a little keenly admittedly, but we know he stays every yard of the trip and yet he was beaten almost twice as far as he was in the Irish Champion. It’s widely accepted that Sea The Stars had an incredibly high cruising speed, so why is not more remarkable that he’s finished further ahead of a horse who supposedly contributed to his greatest ever performance elsewhere?
Because Fame And Glory ran below form, as he did this year. You surely can’t think Fame And Glory ran to form?
Common sense tells you that Longchamp was Sea The Stars’ finest day. And by some margin.
I agree, the Arc was Sea The Stars "finest day". One where he overcame what happened in the early stages to win so decisively, going in to the history books. Does not mean the facts of the form should be overlooked.
Horses don’t run to form in every race.
Sometimes they don’t need to run to form to win.Value Is Everything- Total Posts 17716
Ginger
All you’re doing is taking Timeform’s ratings and trying to justify them;Derby 130
Eclipse 137
International 133
Irish Champ 140
Arc 136but, in doing so, you’re asking us to believe that one of the most progressive and consistent horses we are ever likely to witness bounced up and down in form like a yoyo.
It should be clear, even to the casual glance, that the ratings for the Eclipse and the Irish Champion are skewed, and not at all representative of the normal and natural progression of a high class 3yo. Both these ratings are wrong, for reasons I’ve already made clear on a number of occasions, and though I’m not about to get into long and turgid discussions about why with someone who takes his thoughts directly from a booklet, I’ll give you a ‘for instance’.
"There was absolutely no doubt Mastercraftsman 129 (improving a little), stayed the trip well".(International, York)
No he didn’t! After travelling smoothly and taking it up 2 out, he had nothing left to give in the closing stages, a point that was accentuated in his next race (over a stiffer test) when he finished a further 4l behind STS, after which his trainer was moved to say
Today’s race has proved what we half suspected about Mastercraftsman-that he is best at a mile.
That race, of course, was the Irish Champion, where Timeform chose to elevate STS by an inordinate 7lbs without taking proper account of the circumstances, much as they did in the Eclipse for very similar reasons.For what it’s worth, STS broke the track record in the Juddmonte International by 0.8s, so Mastercraftsman ran a very smart time too. No stats on how many races were run C&D though. I think he stayed the trip alright in that race, STS only collared him late after pulling out. He folded easier in Ireland but wasn’t beaten far by Fame & Glory on softer ground. I think 10f tests his stamina in that he wouldn’t be able to run big races consistently at the distance, but fully tuned and with fast ground he seemed to stay in the International.
I think the ratings represent a pretty steady level of form taking all things into account. Idled in the Derby since he was out in front early and never challenged, got a challenge in the Eclipse, looked a bit lazy and had to pull off heels to challenge late in the International, had Fame to chase in the Irish Champion with a clear run and pushed out by Kinane, and pulled and got a less-than-ideal run in the Arc.
you’re asking us to believe that one of the most progressive and consistent horses we are ever likely to witness bounced up and down in form like a yoyo.
And you are asking us to believe that Youmzain, Cavalryman, La Boum, Tangaspeed etc are within a few lengths of one of the best horses of the modern era, running his best race "by a mile".
I wouldn’t presume to be knowledgable enough on the subject to query ratings to an in-depth extent, but for what its worth i agree with Presto’s post, which i think is a very good one and not as condescending to someone daring to disagree with your opinion, as the norm appears to be on here.
Reet Hard has rubbished the ratings offered by Timeform as they differ somewhat (ie go up and down and not steadily up towards the Arc).
But surely this is completely normal – the ratings are for each individual race, so not having an ideal run (like in the Arc, pulling hard etc) would lower that rating somewhat. Conversely, it may actually be more impressive to win despite these problems, but the rating has to be lower to make it a worthwhile excercise. If he hadn’t pulled hard and got a slightly awkward run, he would have won further and been rating higher. I buy that theory, absolutely.
Wheras as Presto pointed out, everything that could go right, did go right, in The Irish Champion. Strong pace, didn’t pull, clear run, didn’t idle, etc etc.
Sea The Stars is known as an all time great because of his remarkable consistancy, durability and versatility together with a very high level of performance.
I’d agree that the Eclipse was his best performance but never once did he put up a performance that was truely brilliant and had me going WOW!!
You’d have to question just what Sea The Stars beat as well. The likes of Fame And Glory and Rip Van Winkle are undoubted good group one horses but but lets be honest neither are anything out of this world and he best Delegator in the Guineas who similarly is hardly special. Both Rip Van Winkle and Fame And Glory have been put in their place this season but three year olds. It has to be possible that last years crop weren’t exceptional.
Sea The Stars I believe was flat out to beat Rip Van Winkle in the Eclipse and that is a true measure of how good he was IMO.
I think as far as BRILLIANT horses go Sea The Stars is well below the Harbinger we saw at Royal Ascot and in the king George and Zarkava (the year before Sea The Stars) beat Goldikova convincingly every time they met. People say Goldikova is the best racemare for years but they seem to forget she could never cope with Zarkava.
I don’t expect everybody to agree but my view is that Harbinger was a better horse than Sea The Stars (once he’d properly come to himself) and so too probably was Zarkava.
Here’s hoping Frankel is the next to be mentioned in the same breath.
Did your friends think La Boum was one of the best mares they’d since since Triyptch?
Some chancer just had to bring La Boum into it
But what would I know about racing? perhaps you’d be better asking some of Rory’s I’m in racing friends who I’m sure would come up with a much better explanation.
Apologies Fist – my initial response on this thread was crass.
- Total Posts 17716
you’re asking us to believe that one of the most progressive and consistent horses we are ever likely to witness bounced up and down in form like a yoyo.
And you are asking us to believe that Youmzain, Cavalryman, La Boum, Tangaspeed etc are within a few lengths of one of the best horses of the modern era, running his best race "by a mile".
Pru
I’ve never queried STS’s rating for the Arc (nor indeed, said it was his best race by a mile). On the contrary, I’d agree it’s probably representative, and in line with his overall progression.
Where I do have difficulty is accepting his inflated ratings for the Eclipse and the Irish Champion, a subject you and yours appear at some pains to avoid.Disagree with most of that, and agree with Fist that the Arc was probably the greatest race of his life (which it normally is for the winner, despite Timeform’s A beat B, so it must be C approach to handicapping).
OK. Perhaps you could make it clear which parts of what I wrote you disagree with. Presumably not, after all, the part in which I myself disagreed with the thread-starters original assertion that the Arc was Sea The Stars’ best performance "by a mile".
Incidentally, do you know how Timeform approaches handicapping? It is not apparent from the above that you do.
I think there is a good case to be made for Sea The Stars only ever having run to a maximum of about 135 judged on what Rip Van Winkle (who was probably better in 2009) and Fame And Glory (who probably was not) have done since.
That is still some way ahead of what a 2-length defeat of Youmzain and Cavalryman – never mind only a slightly bigger defeat of La Boum and Tangaspeed – amounts to, surely.
I don’t think Sea The Stars ever ran to above 128 personally. Some of the ratings awarded are nothing short of barmy unless average horses are all to suddenly gain inflated ratings.
Fame And Glory was given 128 (from memory, correct me if I’m wrong someone) for his Irish Champion run – now when has Fame And Glory ever been anything more than a 124 horse? His rating was inflated to inflate Sea The Stars rating because everybody subconciously wants to see all time great horses and a horse that wins all those group ones on the spin gets people excited, overly so.
As I said consistancy and versatility was Sea The Stars strength but there have been better horses than him in terms of class and quality over the years.
As is usually the case when these things are discussed, there can be confusion over which ratings are being referred to.
For the record, I was referring to ratings on the Timeform scale, which has been in use since the 1940s. I suspect the last poster was referring to ratings on the scale used by the BHA, which has been in existence since 2007.
The latter’s ratings, for reasons best known to itself, are about 7 lb less than Timeform’s taken overall.
For what my very non-scientific approach is worth, I wonder if we are getting too hung-up on ratings these days when dealing with great feats of achievement by the likes of STS, Goldikova, Zenyatta et al.
Goldikova and Miesque are the two greatest fillies since probably Allez France and Dahlia. Why? Because they ran up unrivalled sequences in Group 1 races, taking on all ages and most importantly the colts (the latter is a reason why Midday will never be regarded as a trus great once she goes to the paddocks).
You can only beat what lines up against you. Many of Brigadier Gerard’s wins were no more than exercise canters against vastly inferior opposition. Does that mean he wasn’t actually very good? Of course not. What cemented the Brigadier’s reputation as a true great was his run of 16 straight wins, many of which were at the highest level.
Whilst I think it is extremely useful to have ratings for the purposes of punting and trainers to estimate the relative merit of their horse’s ability, I do think that when applied to comparison of the true greats they can cause problems.
As Fist suggests where is your starting point? Sea The Stars has ended up with a comparatively poor rating given the unique sequence of Group 1 wins he accumulated – something no horse as ever done before. And his Arc victory seems to be what has anchored his rating. Based on the runs of Youmzain and Fame and Glory you can say Workforce is either 12 lengths superior to STS of 1L superior depending which horse you use to compare last yearsrenewal with. Of course therein lies the problem – horses do not always run up to form, and prevailing ground conditions and varying preparations for the horses can all impair or seemingly improve performances.
With a horse like STS all he can do is keep winning. Few horses in my lifetime have managed to do it as consistently as he has, so I am firmly in the camp that he is up there with the greats and time will hopefully see him being given more credit than he is currently getting.
Sea The Stars has ended up with a comparatively poor rating given the unique sequence of Group 1 wins he accumulated – something no horse as ever done before. And his Arc victory seems to be what has anchored his rating.
Rightly or wrongly, no horse has been rated higher by Timeform in nearly 40 years. They did not pull down Sea The Stars’ master rating after the Arc – why should they? – but I can see no way in which they could be expected to raise it further.
As you say, ratings are not the be all and end all of assessing the "greatness" of a horse. But they are a useful measure of what a horse has achieved, not only at its best, but how often it ran above a certain threshhold, under what circumstances and over what timespan.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.