Are Timeform being fair?

I'd be extremely wary about taking that form at face value. For a G1 race won by a horse with an OR of 135, the time was dreadfully slow: 5lbs behind the winner of the 7f handicap an hour or so later won by Edinburgh Knight off 93 and 27lbs behind Deacon Blues in the sprint.

Immortal Verse was more than just better than the bare result. Raceform says:
Immortal Verse ... had to miss the Moulin on account of an overreach. Her trainer was confident she was over that setback, but she'd missed work (11 days) so her preparation for taking on such a formidable rival as Frankel had hardly been ideal...
Click to expand...
As you say, she was held up out the back in a slow race but not only that, she was also noted as slowly into stride. What are the realistic chances that she ran so close to her best as the Timeform ratings suggest?

The race developed into a sprint and IV obviously did well to finish third but Excelebration has 7f pace and was always likely to finish second. The front two aside, nothing else had a chance of showing their form the way the race panned out.
 
Last edited:
Desert Orchid said:
As you say, she was held up out the back in a slow race but not only that, she was also noted as slowly into stride. What are the realistic chances that she ran so close to her best as the Timeform ratings suggest?
Click to expand...

I don't think 5lbs off her best in her biggest race of the year is that close to be honest.
 
'Slowly into stride' could account for 5lbs.

Being held up off a slow pace could account for 5lbs.

Missing 11 days' work could account for 5lbs.

All three together? It might not account for 15lbs but I suspect it would be fair bit more than 5lbs.

If IV hadn't run in the Marois, no-one would be looking at a rating any higher than 112 for her. She beat nothing in the Coronation. The Marois in isolation might have been a performance not to be taken at face value. Being ridden from the back off a strong pace that day might have been what won it for her.

i'm not arguing these points seriously, just bringing them to the table for consideration. Devil's advocate and all that.
 
I met Mr Hayes of Kilfrush at the airport after QE2. Regardless of hold up in training he was of the opinion that Immortal Verse would have been closer if race had been run on the round rather than the straight mile. Any thoughts? Also was any reason given why they ran the race on the straight rather than the round course as was usually the case?
 
Hmmm, that makes Side Glance a 122 horse.

Frankel is a fantastic racehorse, genuinely one of the all-time greats but Timeform don't do themselves any favours with this kind of nonsense.

Excelebration, bless, tried to go with Frankel when Queally made his move but was tying up badly in the last half-furlong. There's no way he ran to his true rating.

Side Glance is a solid 113 horse and Indomito was on something like 110 going into the race so I'm looking at something around 138+ for Frankel, which would make him the best miler since Brigadier Gerard but the Brigadier was beating genuine 120+ horses with G1 form by eleven lengths.

I'll get a look at the times in due course but they looked to go a fair pace and I suspect SG and Indomito have run closest to form. Strong Suit was ridden exactly as I'd anticipated but looked as though this test was too much for him. I reckon they'll abandon all plans to keep him at a mile.

My figures say Frankel ran 4lbs+ better than any previous form. Looks like Timeform have arrived at the same conclusion but they were way out to start with.

I'd really love to see Frankel hit a mid-high 140s figure. I want to be able to look back before altzheimer's sets in and say 'I saw Frankel'. I probably saw Sea Bird but was just far too young to realise what I was seeing. But I saw Brigadier Gerard and Mill Reef hammer really top class opposition.
 
Desert Orchid said:
And Hawk Wing's provisional rating for the Lockinge was...? Hawk Wing beat better horses than Side Glance and Indomito.
Click to expand...

A very fat Where Or When if I remember correctly was one, in totally different conditions and at a different racecourse, and I bet he couldn't have repeated that no matter how many times he tried.
Hawk Wing would get creamed against Frankel.
Ratings, schmatings.
 
Desert Orchid said:
Hmmm, that makes Side Glance a 122 horse.


I'll get a look at the times in due course but they looked to go a fair pace and I suspect SG and Indomito have run closest to form. Strong Suit was ridden exactly as I'd anticipated but looked as though this test was too much for him. I reckon they'll abandon all plans to keep him at a mile.

.
Click to expand...

just for reference re speed figures

I got the ground riding 5lb fast = GOOD

these ratings are based on OHR scale

Frankel = 137
Little Bridge = 120
Most Improved = 114 [no wfa added]
Dawn Approach = 109 [no wfa added]
Hototo = 85 [no wfa added]


Dawn Approach is a very good winner as well
 
Last edited:
Hawk Wing had three screaming race performances; breaking all age 7furlong record at The Curragh at 2 in The National Stks, his 2000gns 2nd on the wrong side of the track and his Lockinge win. Frankel has at least 7 or 8 such races, so far with the prospect of more. It puts pressure on Black Caviar to be as impressive sat, at least to (us) pommies!
 
EC1 said:
just for reference re speed figures

I got the ground riding 5lb fast = GOOD

these ratings are based on OHR scale

Frankel = 137
Little Bridge = 120
Most Improved = 114 [no wfa added]
Dawn Approach = 109 [no wfa added]
Hototo = 85 [no wfa added]


Dawn Approach is a very good winner as well
Click to expand...
You've prompted me into doing some provisional figures...

Bearing in mind that I use the old standard times (for reasons too boring to go into other than to say I've tried the current ones and they don't make any sense) and the time ratings are:

Frankel 120
Little Bridge 120
Most Improved 111* +wfa
Dawn Approach 114 +wfa
Hototo 92 +wfa
*using the same going allowance as for the straight course

Is Dawn Approach really only 6lbs behind Frankel? As a 2yo compared to a 4yo? Is Most Improved only 9lbs behind? That would put MI 4 lengths second in the Queen Anne carrying the same weight as Frankel. it would also put half the field in the SJP in front of Excelebration. Maybe someone could run recordings of the race simultaneously to see. And MI probably raced on easier ground.

Little Bridge's and Most Improved's ratings look right and DA might well be 22lbs better than Hototo but I have serious doubts about 114.

I suspect the times on the day are meaningless, other than to suggest Dawn Approach is probably very good indeed. But it would also imply the other placed horses in that race are above average.
 
Desert Orchid said:
You've prompted me into doing some provisional figures...

Bearing in mind that I use the old standard times (for reasons too boring to go into other than to say I've tried the current ones and they don't make any sense) and the time ratings are:

Frankel 120
Little Bridge 120
Most Improved 111* +wfa
Dawn Approach 114 +wfa
Hototo 92 +wfa
*using the same going allowance as for the straight course

Is Dawn Approach really only 6lbs behind Frankel? As a 2yo compared to a 4yo? Is Most Improved only 9lbs behind? That would put MI 4 lengths second in the Queen Anne carrying the same weight as Frankel. it would also put half the field in the SJP in front of Excelebration. Maybe someone could run recordings of the race simultaneously to see. And MI probably raced on easier ground.

Little Bridge's and Most Improved's ratings look right and DA might well be 22lbs better than Hototo but I have serious doubts about 114.

I suspect the times on the day are meaningless, other than to suggest Dawn Approach is probably very good indeed. But it would also imply the other placed horses in that race are above average.
Click to expand...

if its no prob DO could you put up the standard times you are using for Ascot

it seems strange to me that you don't get a big figure over the mile for F.
 
Desert Orchid said:
5f - 60.2
6f - 1m 14.0
7f - 1m 27.0
1m (R) 1m 40.5
1m (S) 1m 39.0
1m 2f 2m 05.30
1m 4f 2m 30.00
Click to expand...

what i tend to do as a cross check is work out the per furlong time for each distance to make sure that each increasing distance is run slower per furlong. I knock off 13 seconds from each distance to alllow for standing start..then divide by the distance minus 1f

5f = 60.2 - 13 divide by 4 = 11.80
6f = 74.0 - 13 divide by 5 = 12.20
7f = 87.0 - 13 divide by 6 = 12.33
8f [R] = 100.5 - 13 divide by 7 = 12.50
8f = 99.0 -13 divide by 7 = 12.28
10f = 125.3 - 13 divide by 9 = 12.47
12f = 150.0 - 13 divide by 11 = 12.45

looking at those its clear that the 8f time is too difficult to equal..the per furlong time is faster than the 7f time..which isn't possible. The 10f & 12f times are also in question as they are very similar and are run faster than the 8f R time..which isn't possible

you will always struggle to get a fast time at 8f S using these imo
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
you will always struggle to get a fast time at 8f S using these imo
Click to expand...

But that isn't my experience. Plenty of races over the straight eight have thrown up fast times. I find it's the Jersey that throws up the dodgy ones! I suspect the undulations have something to do with it.
 
Last edited:
Desert Orchid said:
But that isn't my experience. Plenty of races over the straight eight have thrown up fast times. I find it's the Jersey that throws up the dodgy ones! I suspect the undulations have something to do with it.
Click to expand...

on a straight track horses can't run faster at longer distances though DO..that mile time shouldn't be faster per furlong than the the 7f

this is a really good way to check if your standards are correct i've found

obviously there are going to be variations..no course is uniform..but if i ever get a time that sits out of kilter like this 8f one then imo the time needs amending..that 8f standard is faster than a 6.5f time.. per furlong ..at the same track

similarly..a 12f per fur time can't be faster than an 8f one
 
Last edited:
a 5f pf time is usualy around .6 faster than a mile time..so your mile ascot time should be about 12.40 pf which would make the standard 99.8 against the 99.0

a 6f pf time is usually about .26 faster than a mile time..making your 8f time about 12.46..this would point to a standard of 100.22

split the difference and you would have about 100.00 for your 8f standard
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
on a straight track horses can't run faster at longer distances though DO..that mile time shouldn't be faster per furlong than the the 7f

this is a really good way to check if your standards are correct i've found

obviously there are going to be variations..no course is uniform..but if i ever get a time that sits out of kilter like this 8f one then imo the time needs amending..that 8f standard is faster than a 6.5f time.. per furlong ..at the same track

similarly..a 12f per fur time can't be faster than an 8f one
Click to expand...
I think the old Standards were based on the fastest times in the highest class. Genuine G1 horses would have contested the mile but there wouldn't be any G1 races over 7f or less. That might explain it.

There are a couple of courses where the stnadard time is faster than the course record. That's one I struggle with but as I hinted before I lost a lot of bets using the RP standards before recovering the money once I went back to the old standards. That tells me more than any theory.
 
Desert Orchid said:
I think the old Standards were based on the fastest times in the highest class. Genuine G1 horses would have contested the mile but there wouldn't be any G1 races over 7f or less. That might explain it.

There are a couple of courses where the stnadard time is faster than the course record. That's one I struggle with but as I hinted before I lost a lot of bets using the RP standards before recovering the money once I went back to the old standards. That tells me more than any theory.
Click to expand...


i set all my standards using handicaps..they are the most reliable races imo

i'm not 100% about all mine but i do tend to do the pf test just to double check...some of the RP ones fail the pf test..mainly longer distances
 
Maybe getting my threads mixed up here but I've been sleeping on some of the theories and methods expounded lately.

When the ground is soft or heavy, I tend to amend the poundage downwards since soft ground exaggerates beaten distances. For example, in heavy ground over 5f, I might allow just 2lbs or even 1lb per length, depending on how the resultant ratings pan out. At a mile and a half, I'd definitely reduce it to 1lb per length.

Logic dictates that if the ground is very fast, I should adjust the poundage upwards but the old standards are based on "genuinely good, fast ground" I think the terminology was. So, just as I probably wouldn't adjust the poundage for going that incurred a slowish going allowance, so I wouldn't adjust it for fast ground and you could argue that not many horses really let themselves down on very firm going.

Also, although the distances are time-calculated, they are nevertheless rounded up or down to specific margins: nose, short-head, head, neck, etc.

I suspect suggesting Frankel would have won by 12 lengths at another time in the day is stretching credulity.
 
Back
Top