Search results

As I see it, a lot of what this comes down to is that some people would rather sit and wait for confirmation of a performance than credit an improving, impressive winner from good opposition, in a good (not brilliant) time with the sort of rating it would get in relative terms 9 times out of 10...

Even I am not old enough to remember Nijinsky. However, perhaps you could point me to the ONE performance he put up that was better than an 11-length defeat of an Irish Derby winner, a 14¼-length defeat of a triple Arc second and a 14½-length defeat of a Hong Kong Vase winner. And that is...

Steve, I don't think you have understood. Do you know what an OR of 135 equates to on the Timeform scale? You cannot "drive a bus" through the difference. And, as I stated previously, yes I think you are entitled to ask questions. I would not have it any other way. But you should be aware...

In effect, he didn't. Even his greatest detractors - and there were some who lost a sense of proportion every bit as much as those who thought the horse was the second coming - surely would not claim that his subsequent unplaced run at Ascot reflected his ability. Where Or When (beaten 11...

I not only hope that you would question a rating you are not convinced by rather than take it on trust, I would expect you, of all people, to do just that! Don't imagine that it has been arrived at off the cuff, though. ;-)

Harbinger's Timeform timefigure is 135, 5 below his form rating. The fact that the beaten horses finished slowly, and that the timefigure is good but not sensational, has been taken into account in compiling the form rating. Or so I am led to believe. As has race standardisation, first-5...

As someone who worked there under the old regime and who does freelance work for them now, I have to agree. It is better now than it used to be.

Sorry, that was my Forum Bot that posted that. The usual difference between BHA and Timeform for older horses is currently 8 (I have spent far too long looking into such matters, believe me), but it tends to be less with the better horses. The point is that they are not on the same universal...

This is an automated response, prompted by an incidence of comparing apples with pears: The respective levels of ratings of Timeform (est 1947), Racing Post (est 1986) and BHA (est as BHB in 1993) are all different.

Unless he's doing something like sectional analysis to establish whether margins have been exagerrated or compressed. I may be giving him too much credit.

My thoughts too.

Incidentally, Timeform revised its assessment earlier today, according to their communications head honcho Keiran Packman: “Having had the opportunity to carry out and factor in the due time analysis, Harbinger’s current Timeform master rating will be 140. “As with all Timeform ratings...

As mentioned above, I do not do sectionals for Ascot on a regular basis any longer, but, as EC points out, the closing sectionals of the beaten horses suggest their overall times (and proximity) were adversely affected by running unevenly. That said, you would be looking to have them a few...

I see no evidence that it is often the case, but I do not doubt that this can happen. That was not what was being reported (unquestioningly), however.

Ascot used to be THE course for hand-held sectional times, due to the presence of paths at crucial junctures and due to the pronounced effect misjudgements of pace have at such a track. I have not taken sectionals since they relaid it, as I found them to be far too hit and miss. I may try again...

Maybe. But it obviously begs the question "what is Cape Blanco's best?" He is not limited by what he had achieved previously, obviously.

That is not so, at least where Timeform is concerned. http://www.sportinglife.com/racing/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=racing/10/07/25/manual_121337.html Interesting stuff on the sectionals (Ascot used to be THE BEST track for them until they took out all the paths), though I for one don't...

I would say there was little in it between the ground at Epsom and at Ascot. Former something like 8 lb quicker, not what I suggested earlier. Impressive to beat the track record in the circumstances, though it should be remembered that Ascot's current track dates only to 2006.

11 lengths. Good grief!

Was no great fan of Cape Blanco before the race but did not think anything could take him apart like that if he ran his race. Think we have a very, very good horse in our presence!