Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Guy Harwood has described the decision to downgrade Dancing Brave by 3lbs as extraordinary and out of order.
And I sympathise with him and others. It is a most unsatisfactory way of arriving at the correct figures and the BHA should be embarrassed for cocking it up in the first place.
However with respect to Mr Harwood et al they are not seeing the whole picture.
The BHA are not suddenly saying that Dancing Brave was not as good as they originally thought, just that the system that was in place to arrive at figures was flawed (or at least not the same as the one they use today)
. It is a bit like converting old decimal currency to new. If Frankel had been rated according to the old system he would still have been rated a few pounds higher than DB. That would have been the more acceptable way of doing things but would have meant them going back to a system they believe is inaccurate.
The BHA/WTR had three options yesterday:
1) Change the figures of the 70’s and 80’s horses to reflect what they would have been given had they run today.
2) Change the figures of the present day horses to reflect what they would have been given had they run in the 70’s and 80’s.
3) Do nothing and just accept that there is an anomaly in the figures and that the official best horse since 1977 is not actually the one they believe in the correct one.
Clearly they would never pick number 2 so it was 1 or 3. I think they made the right call but understand how people can be upset by the perceived slight on great horses like DB.
What IS clear is that they have not explained themselves very well. What exactly HAS changed in their system? Why did it take til now to change it? (looks suspiciously like it is because of Frankel). Why have some horses been dropped more than others? (I agree with Miss Woodford about poor old Alleged).
I said months ago that I was clueless as to how the BHA figures can differ so greatly from RPR and Timeform and I am still just as clueless now.
All in all I think we now have the ratings that THEY believe to be correct. If you like Frankel was perviously the WBA and IBF heavyweight champ – he is now undisputed.
BIB, the fact is they have said Dancing Brave was not as good as his original rating 26 years after the event and there is absolutley no doubt in my mind this was done by today’s handicappers to put Frankel at the top of the pile.
I agree with you about the differences in the various ratings and after this fiasco you can really take them with a pinch of salt.
Silly thread title as it is impossible to say which horse was the greatest of all time over any distance and the posts seem to have very little to do with the title.
My opinion is Frankel along with Brigadier Gerard are the best milers I’ve ever seen race.
Guy Harwood has described the decision to downgrade Dancing Brave by 3lbs as extraordinary and out of order.
I heard about this review a while back and thought at the time the outcome will be exactly what it has turned out to be. The practice of revising the ratings for other horses down to ensure Frankel becomes the top rated horse since these ratings were first introduced is deplorable.
Quite how 26 years after he raced today’s handicappers can downgrade Dancing Brave by 3lbs is a mystery to me.
Sad news, he was the most lovely looking horse and an exceptional one to boot. Rather sad the international handicappers dropped his rating by a lb on the same day he died.
Being the first day of C4’s new racing coverage I watched it with interest to see just how it would be and all in all it was a bit mixed.
Despite the loss of the Cheltenham meeting on the positive side the visit to Seven Barrows was very interesting as was the piece on the recovery from an horrendous injury of jockey Isabel Thompsett at Oaksey House. Along with the views of a few jockeys it was obviously part of the objective to increase the focus on those who work in the sport and it worked well.
However there were negatives and imo too many of them. No one from the team actually bothered to venture to Musselburgh and instead we were left with a talking shop in a studio in Cheltenham. The touchscreen and the graphics definitely need some tweaking. No one seemed sure how to operate the former and the latter were often far too small to read and didn’t even show the trainer. However the most disappointing aspect was the time given ahead of the races to see and review the runners and what was happening in the ring and on the exchanges. It was woefully too short and at the end of the day that is what horse racing is about for most enthusiasts.
Hopefully they can tweak the balance and get it right as for me they strayed too far away from the races and the horses taking part in them and the betting.
The result was nothing to do with SWC, Long Run just seems to be one of those horses who is not consistently at the top of his game and at those sort of odds is not really for backing. A bit like Finian’s Rainbow whose price was never realistic.
One the things I like about horse racing is the lack of hype and celebrity/show business culture when compared to other sports and I hope that doesn’t change.
I’ve no idea if C4 having coverage to themselves on fta tv can attract more people to become interested in and watch horse racing and even start going to meetings but I do hope so and one thing is for sure the BBC weren’t.
Do you expect Coolmore to say they consider a horse best on soft ground Brigadier? With a round actioned horse I’d like to see him run on a sound surface before backing him for anything ante-post let alone the Derby. Quite a lot of round actioned horses can act on flat surfaces but most struggle on very undulating tracks like Epsom. Having said that, if Kingsbarns does act has obvious potential.
Well as he’s never raced on firm ground how would they know for sure what his best surface is? I never take what connections say as gospel but it is worth at least as much as the opinions of others.
I thought it was a very good performance for a horse that had only run once before though I don’t think the others are really any better than G2 horses. On pedigree he looks more a Derby type than a Guineas horse as he has stamina on both sides but then again this season’s 2yos don’t look outstanding, it is rare to see Belmez as a grandsire these days. Connections didn’t seem bothered yesterday about his action or firmer ground for the Derby and if you like him then 8-1 isn’t at all bad.
Disappointed to see they have brought in Persad who I don’t rate and God knows why they want Fitzgerald. Luck is ok but I was never too keen on Plunkett and much prefer Cattermole and Thompson so its a pity they no longer seem to be involved. No more jokes about the Booby either.
At least the race commentators are imo the best two.
Most of the more interesting staying types for next year have defected and AOB has taken everything out bar Kingsbarn who could be anything.
In terms of the rest Hannon must think a fair bit of Van Der Neer to supplement him and has taken Havanna Gold out. Trading Leather looks to have the best form of the Irish horses left in. Steeler though exposed to a degree does have very solid form on a line through his defeat of Artigiano. The others don’t make a great deal of appeal.
Have they bought him or is he just going to based there?
Anyway good luck to him though I can’t see breeders falling over themselves to use him considering he only raced at 2.
What and have a show like Channel 4? no thanks.
C4’s racing coverage is better than the BBC’s imo and I will not lament the fact Carson is no longer stood on his soap box waffling on.
I think Channel 4 is equally poor. John Francome is as bad as Willie, just a great ex-jockey who doesn’t have the skills to warrant his place. His paddock observations are as predictable as the sun rising in the morning. "Lovely size about her, biggest horse in the race, wouldn’t be out of place in a 3 year old race the size of him" etc etc
In a recent broadcast, after Mark Johnston’s Fulbright went in at good odds, having been stuffed seven days prior when a warm Fav, Jim McGrath put it to John that this was a theme with Mark Johnston inmates in general and that it was frustrating for punters. Francome didn’t answer Jim’s point at all, instead waffling some old tosh about the horse who finished second. Very poor stuff and it’s time this "well past the sell by date" pundit was put out into a field, where he can be reunited with his tips, which are scattered all over the grass as fertiliser.
Even if you don’t like C4’s coverage they do at least cover horse racing week in week out.
Nobody is as bad as Carson, he is beyond useless.
Most jockeys in my experience are poor tipsters but you’ll be please to know Francombe is leaving C4, though I’m surprised you watch it with it being so poor.
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.
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.