A Question for Timeform

I don't see the issue. Take Frankel out of the equation and you have a colt with a pretty fine resume of Group 1's - Moulin, QEII, Lockinge and maybe the 2000 Guineas as well assuming he'd have gone for it.
 
Royal Palace my favourite Derby winner had a big bet (for me) on him.

Now that's what I call after-timing.:o

Always a problem with rating different generations isn't there, lots of anomalies.
 
You've obviously been reading Laurie Williamson's letter in today's Post, Brutto. He was "Brigadier Gerard's lad" and clearly sees it as his role to cheerlead for his old friend and who could blame him? He may well be right when he argues that BG is more than a pound superior to Frankel and that Excelebration is also overrated by Timeform but unfortunately his reasoning goes down a blind alley when he reduces it to the "class" racehorse (the Brigadier) versus the "brute" racehorse (Frankel).
 
Timeform ratings have never been devised as a measure of "greatness", of course. There are some aspects of the racehorse which defy measurement.
 
Williamson writes to the paper every time a new top class horse emerges in order to tell us what it has to do before we can call it great or even 'mention in the same breath as' Brigadier Gerard. It's quite tedious. I do wonder how many letters he has sent in that they didn't publish.
 
BruttoCattivo said:
Excelebration is now rated 133.

This makes him just 2lb inferior to Sir Ivor, Nashwan, Pebbles and Dahlia.

Really?
Click to expand...
Presumably based on the QE2 in October and presumably on some kind of literal reading of the form with Immortal Verse.

The problem for me is that is a very unsatisfactory-looking race. I reckon you can drive a bus and articulated lorry side by side through the form.

I'll check my own figures later but from memory I think I have Excelebration on something like 126 on a few lines with more reliable performers via Rio De La Plata.
 
Desert Orchid said:
Presumably based on the QE2 in October and resumably on some kind of literal reading of the form with Immortal Verse.
Click to expand...
He'd already achieved a rating of 133 before the QEII, when winning the Hungerford Stakes at Newbury in a performance backed up by a big time figure. It's easy to argue that such a big rating is out of kilter with a Group 2 win, so I'll let you get on with it. :whistle:
 
When you look at the horses form on the RP site - its got three ratings - the RPR, the OHR and TS ( i think) which one is the right one to use when you talk to people? Its something that Ive always wondered - one makes my mare rated in the 80s, another puts her quite a lot lower - which is right?
 
OR is official rating trudi and is the mark given by the handicapper which is used to determine weights in handicaps. RPR is the racing post rating, which is their own internally generated figure and TS is top speed.

Generally people will talk in official ratings.
 
Brill - thats kind of what I had presumed, thankyou very much :)

actually - that does give me another question... when I look down Grape's rating (on the bit where her race record is) her highest OR is 132 (which I like lots!) but at the top of the page theres an OR with a funny little swordy thing next to it - and the highest there is 119 (which I also dont mind,but its obviously not 132!!) what does the little sword thing mean - is that her average or something? (just trying to work out what I shoudl call her - Im liking calling her a 132 rated mare at the mo, but I cant do that if its wrong!!!)

http://www.racingpost.com/horses/ho...=horse_race_record&bottomHorseTabs=horse_form
 
Last edited:
I think they are her current official ratings in the various disciplines.

58 on turf,60 on AWT.
119 over hurdles,117 over fences.
 
Yeah, she was rated 132 over fences going into the race run on 20th September. She's since fallen to 117 after a few losses. Looks like a winnable mark!

BTW its not obvious, but when you're reading a Racing Post results page, the OR given is the official rating going into the race, whilst the RP and TS ratings are those awarded for the race itself.
 
BruttoCattivo said:
Excelebration is now rated 133.

This makes him just 2lb inferior to Sir Ivor, Nashwan, Pebbles and Dahlia.

Really?
Click to expand...

For starters Pebbles and Dahlia were usually receiving fillies' allowances, so it would have probably taken a 138+ horse to beat them at their best.
 
Gareth Flynn said:
For starters Pebbles and Dahlia were usually receiving fillies' allowances, so it would have probably taken a 138+ horse to beat them at their best.
Click to expand...

Does it though? I always have that problem with how fillies are rated. A handicap does not allow for fillies allowance or is built in. Rating is a handicap rating and as such confuses me and probably will do as long as I watch racing.
What you say is correct or at least should be.
Personally I would take either filly ahead of Excelebration any day of the week.
 
edgt
so you know and rate Pebbles and Dahlia and you still dont know if the fillies are given or not the weight concession in a handicap.........

your post confuses me
 
The ratings are their relative abilities assuming level weights, so the fillies' allowance (which could, and has, changed over the years) has to be treated as just another race condition (like a Group race penalty).

Timeform would presumably take either filly ahead of Excelebration any day of the week too, given their 5lb advantage.

(edited for clarity)
 
Back
Top