Are Timeform being fair?

Tanlic

Tanlic

Senior Jockey
Joined
Dec 6, 2011
Messages
11,749
Location
Bangkok Thailand
To Black Caviar?

Currently she is rated 136 and Frankel 143

Here's an example of what she would have to do to be put on a par with Frankel.

If she met Bated Breath 125 at Ascot he would have to run up to his very best and she would have to win by 18 lengths.

I think Timeform have stitched her up, well and truly, to ensure she cannot depose the UK Champ.
 
18 pounds, not 18 lengths (though they wouldn't race off levels). Somewhere between 5 and 6 lengths over 6f.
 
By the way - if Black Caviar's connections think she deserves a higher rating (Timeform, WTRR, whatever), they would probably be best served by getting her jockey to ask her to do more than win on the bridle. Frankel's rating is partly down to Queally actually doing some work on him.
 
Wouldn't it have to be nearer 8 lengths? She'd be getting 5lbs mares' allowance, so 23lbs to dead-heat and 24lbs to win. Then again, she'd get 5lbs anyway from Frankel if they met but that would be reflected in her rating.

I suppose it highlights how questionable some of Timeform's ratings are (Excelebration's being another recently highlighted example).
 
Depending on the time/official ground of the Jubilee, Timeform's pounds per length scale is likely to be somewhere between 3 - 3 1/2lbs per length.

But even if she were to win by 6 lengths, from Bated Breath or Hoof It (128), you wouldn't necessarily rate her 143. There are other more sophisticated methods, like race standardisation and time comparisons that you'd be looking to use to assist in compiling such a rating rather than merely speculating which of her beaten rivals should be used to rate the race around.

Lets just hope she puts up the kid of special performance that leaves us all speculating how good she really is.
 
davidjohnson said:
Depending on the time/official ground of the Jubilee, Timeform's pounds per length scale is likely to be somewhere between 3 - 3 1/2lbs per length.

But even if she were to win by 6 lengths, from Bated Breath or Hoof It (128), you wouldn't necessarily rate her 143. There are other more sophisticated methods, like race standardisation and time comparisons that you'd be looking to use to assist in compiling such a rating rather than merely speculating which of her beaten rivals should be used to rate the race around.

Lets just hope she puts up the kid of special performance that leaves us all speculating how good she really is.
Click to expand...

So, if she wins by an easy 6l, in a time that's good without being exceptional, would she be rated "a standard race" winner?
 
davidjohnson said:
Lets just hope she puts up the kid of special performance that leaves us all speculating how good she really is.
Click to expand...
I'd rather see a performance that goes beyond speculation.

Most of Brigadier Gerard's best performances were beyond speculation - for Timeform as much as anyone - but one-off runs will always be open to debate, such as Hawk Wing's Lockinge, Frankel's Guineas, etc.

Dj, how do you - or timeform - reconcile Excelebration's 133 with race standardisation, as a matter of interest?
 
Desert Orchid

Simon Rowland's blog on the differing types of race standardisation are probably worth looking at to see what techniques Timeform handicappers will call on to arrive at their ratings.

This type of assessment of the Hungerford backs up the view that Excelebration is a low 130's horse, and it's this race as much as any of his efforts against Frankel where Excelebration gets his figure from.
 
Thanks, Dj.

I'll have a look at my own ratings and see how they compare. I knew the official handicapper used ratings of previous winners of races to get a feel for form in races where previous form is think on the ground.

I can't help thinking the Timeform figures for the principals in the Hungerford may well have been a tad generous but I can see that if most of Tf's ratings are a tad generous then it's all relative (and would go some way to explaining Frankel's inflated - imo - figure).

Is there anything on record at Timeform to support the idea that standardisation was in use in the days of Brigadier Gerard et al?
 
I think the card that day at Newbury needs treating with caution.

In the Hungerford itself, I had Beacon Lodge going into the race on a rating of 111. The official wfa allowance at the time was 6lbs (cf Timeform’s 4lb) so Excelebration gave Beacon Lodge a 15.4lbs beating, plus 2lbs for being that amount wrong on the official scale and since he is recorded as having won “readily”, I’m happy to round it up to a total of 18lbs. Assuming Beacon Lodge ran to 111, it is not hard to argue that Excelebration ran to 129. If Timeform had Beacon Lodge on a more generous mark than mine then that would lead to a higher rating for the winner although Timeform should not make any allowance for wfa on the day.

This would imply that the third, Musir, ran below his earlier form abroad. He was running for the first time since Sha Tin in April, so that isn’t hard to accept.

Dubawi Gold is not the best candidate as a marker for the race as he ran badly the time before and was only a length closer to Excelebration than that day despite not getting the best of runs, while The Cheka was marginally closer to Beacon Lodge than he had been two runs earlier but hadn’t matched that figure in between. Lines with Libranno and Doncaster Rover take us in a number of directions.

The times offer only limited help. Excelebration was 34lbs faster than Covert Decree (OR 73) later in the day, 30lbs faster than Anatolian (OR 82) and 23lbs faster than the winner of the opening handicap Directorship (OR 86). These suggest Excelebration running to somewhere between 107 and 118 (after wfa adjustments) plus an allowance for a margin of superiority over handicap marks. I’d say it still falls some way short of 133.

I originally went on the low side with my figures because I felt Beacon Lodge didn’t get the best tactical ride on the day, being steadied at the start and held up off a moderate pace, trying to give a clearly superior horse in Excelebration a start and first run. He probably did well to finish second. I’m not sure any of the others can be taken as reliable markers because it wasn’t a true pace and they weren’t the most consistent performers.

I don’t mind being proved wrong in the longer term as long as I learn from it but I compile my own figures so there will always be an element of subjectivity involved. I’d say Beacon Lodge probably ran a few pounds off his best, putting Excelebration somewhere in the mid-120s, which is still pretty high for a G2. I can think of plenty of G1 races in which the winners don’t get near that.

Subsequent lines with Rio De La Plata and Dubawi Gold suggest that Excelebration ran pretty much to the same level in the Moulin and QE2, so why should I believe he ran so much better in the Hungerford? I have Rio De La Plata as a solid marker on 117 and that would suggest Dubawi Gold’s form eventually levelled out at around 114 so any early-season lines between him and Frankel could be called into question.

Using ORs and Simon Rowlands’s standardisation procedures by my reckoning puts Excelebration on 121-122.
 
Last edited:
Here is a Timeform list of top rated performers in Australia since the 50s:

Order Horse TFE
1 Tulloch138
2 Kingston Town137
3 Manikato136
3 Black Caviar136
4 Galilee134
4 Vain134
5 Might and Power133
5 So You Think133
5 Gunsynd133
6 Better Loosen Up132
6 Hay List132
7 Strawberry Road130
7 Weekend Hussler (3yo)130
9 Americain129
9 Dulcify129
9 Pacid Ark129
9 Northerly129
9 Sunline129
9 Sepoy (3yo)129
9 Makybe Diva129
9 Divide And Rule129
9 Century (3yo)129
9 Todman (2yo)129
17 Atlantic Jewel (3yo)128
17 Taj Rossi (3yo)128
17 Beau Zam (3yo)128
17 Bonecrusher128
17 Saintly128
17 Hareeba128
17 Lonhro128
17 Maybe Mahal128
17 Schillaci128
17 Super Impose128
17 Vo Rogue128
17 Luskin Star (2yo)128
17 Filante128
17 Takeover Target128
17 Sobar (3yo)128
17 Vinnie Roe128
17 Whobegotyou128
17 More Joyous128
17 Foxwedge128
31 Tontonan (3yo)127
31 Baguette (3yo)127
31 Dual Choice (3yo)127
31 Red Anchor (3yo)127
31 Emancipation127
31 Naturalism127
31 Doriemus127
31 Shaftesbury Avenue127
31 Testa Rossa127
31 Rubitano127?
31 Veandercross127
31 Fastnet Rock127
31 Mahogany127
31 Desert War127
31 Miss Andretti127
31 Apache Cat127
31 Helmet (3yo)127
31 Zipping127
31 All Silent127
31 Pierro (2yo)127
47 Campaign King126
47 Choisir126
47 Citius (3yo)126
47 Eskimo Prince (3yo)126
47 Royal Sovereign (3yo)126
47 Defier126
47 Exceed and Excel126
47 Gurners Lane126
47 Horlicks126
47 Hyperno126
47 Intergaze126
47 Jeune126
47 Let's Elope126
47 Octagonal126
47 Our Maizcay126
47 Redoute's Choice126
47 Rough Habit126
47 Rubiton126
47 Sir Dapper126
47 Surround126
47 Tie The Knot126
47 Shogun Lodge126
47 Grand Armee126
47 Grandera126
47 Racing To Win126
47 Marasco126
47 PompeII Ruler126
47 Viewed126
47 Ranchinado126
47 Predatory Pricer126
47 Mic Mac126
47 Jimmy Choux126
47 Manawanui (3yo)126
47 Shoot Out126
47 Shocking126
47 Starspangledbanner (3yo)126
47 Wanted (3yo)126
47 Scenic Blast126
47 Rain Affair126
47 Manighar126
47 Mentality126?

When you see the likes of Takeover Target, Miss Andretti and Choisir well down the list it's hard to argue that Timeform are being unfair to Black Caviar. I just hope conditions next week don't prevent her from giving her best.
 
Desert Orchid said:
Subsequent lines with Rio De La Plata and Dubawi Gold suggest that Excelebration ran pretty much to the same level in the Moulin and QE2, so why should I believe he ran so much better in the Hungerford? I have Rio De La Plata as a solid marker on 117 and that would suggest Dubawi Gold’s form eventually levelled out at around 114 so any early-season lines between him and Frankel could be called into question.
Click to expand...

The ground was a lot softer at Ascot than it was for the Moulin and I would argue that points to Dubawi Gold running to a better figure in the former race. Timeform only gave Excelebration 126 at Longchamp.
 
Euronymous said:
The ground was a lot softer at Ascot than it was for the Moulin and I would argue that points to Dubawi Gold running to a better figure in the former race. Timeform only gave Excelebration 126 at Longchamp.
Click to expand...

It was soft at Longchamp when he won the Moulin. Had pissed it down all afternoon.
 
Excelebration was not at his best in the Moulin

the Hungerford is solid for me and run there to a better figure than 130
Queen Elizabeth form quite solid too


top class miler, without Frankel would have been a true champion
better horse than Rock OF Gibraltar
 
Sorry, I got that the wrong way round - I meant the ground was softer for the Moulin than it was at Ascot. In any event Dubawi Gold is a stone cold fast ground horse. DO's figure of 114 is very harsh imo. With a better ride he'd have won the Irish Guineas (admittedly a poor renewal)
 
sunybay said:
top class miler, without Frankel would have been a true champion
better horse than Rock OF Gibraltar
Click to expand...

RoG best race was beating Noverre and Reel Buddy by 2 and 4L in the Sussex. I would think Dubawi Gold would be slightly better than the latter and slightly worse than the former.

The Rock's rating is fascinating because you get used to TF ratings being a bit higher the RPR across the board. This wasn't the case with ROG.

Timeform seemed to have done the sensible thing in the Sussex and recognised that the WFA is overly fair to the 3yos:

rog 124+ Noverre 121 Reel Buddy 116

RPR went
rog 131 Noverre 123 Reel Buddy 118


But in the SJP Timeform overrated the form:

rog 129+ Landseer 125

RPR:
rog 128 Landseer 122

Sunsequent events kind of proved that Landseer was no 125 beast.


Rock of Gibraltar's final TF rating was 133. But the 129+ he got in the SJP was the highest figure he attained. Strange.
 
I think Timeform sometimes add on pounds to their end-of-year master figure in lieu of what they consider the horse to have potentially been capable of, but not to the individual race ratings. Either that or the form of one or more races was later downgraded but the master rating (which presumably is the same figure as printed in the annuals) was kept.

Also, their WFA scale gives 3yos 2lb less than the official one over a mile at the end of July.
 
Euronymous said:
DO's figure of 114 is very harsh imo.
Click to expand...
It is a bit low but that looks to me what he was running to latterly that season (which is what I thought I'd said) whereas earlier in the season his form was more difficult to quantify, being very in and out, running on different goings and being well beaten in Frankel's races.

Excelebration was 7lbs and 8lbs ahead of DG the last two times they met, which is probably about right and is backed up with lines with Beacon Lodge on 111. Say DG is 118 and Excelebration is still only 126 or thereabouts.

I just can't see how you could put him on 133 with any conviction and I don't think a major commercial outfit like Timeform should put him on that kind of rating unless they have a compelling body of evidence to support it. If they'd said 133? (pending further evidence) I could have understood where they were coming from.
 
QEII

Frankel 143 Exc..133 Immortal Verse 121 Dubawi Gold 123 Dick Turpin 120

I don't see the problem really. Immortal Verse is better than the bare result as she was anchored at the back whilst the pace followers largely ignored Bullet Train.

Frankel was able to pull out his best rating in this race because he wasn't sent hell for leather early doors.
 
Back
Top