Brigadier Gerard

[SteveM]

The Black Book was definitely a weekly publication, certainly from the mid-seventies onwards. It's what got me into racing. My dad used to buy Timeform cards from a newsagents on Arundel Gate in Sheffield - and they did give him an edge, although he was too indisciplined in his approach to betting to make the most of it - but they were quite pricey and he got better value if he bought a Black Book and paid his teenage son a bit of pocket money to go through all the cards and work out the weight-adjusted ratings. Said teenage son gradually started betting himself on the apparent "good things" and the rest is history...

Yep they were posted on the Thursday of each week. I found half a dozen issues purchased at strategic points in the season ample data to work on. The ratings were unadjusted (i.e. different to the age- and weight-adjusted ratings in the Timeform race cards). To adjust for race card ratings the procedure of adding or subtracting points for pounds below/above 10 stone, had to be undertaken (as you point out). During the course of the season the figures rose to several pounds higher than were recorded in the TF Annuals where the ratings were subject to a re-handicap in the winter, where they would return to the standard level from which the definitive Timeform Rating in the Annuals were derived. So throughout the season ratings for the best horses could rise to above 140 but appear in the low to mid 130s for the Annual.

 

[SteveM]

It was the black book that convinced me I was better than Timeform!

In fairness the Black Book was only ever intended as a weekly update, a work in progress describing relative merit. It was a starting point rather than a finished article of raw and mostly factual data. Much of the interpretation and analysis was left for the adjusted race cards and finally for the Annual.

 

[davidjohnson]

During the course of the season the figures rose to several pounds higher than were recorded in the TF Annuals where the ratings were subject to a re-handicap in the winter, where they would return to the standard level from which the definitive Timeform Rating in the Annuals were derived. So throughout the season ratings for the best horses could rise to above 140 but appear in the low to mid 130s for the Annual.

Very interesting point this. Was routing round the archives the other day and came across an original black book which had Brigadier Gerard rated, I think, 152.

Not really sure why the levels rose throughout the season that a re-handicap was necessary at the end of the year, but that isn't the case now. Bar the odd tinkering of a rating here and there with a little but of hindsight, the ratings in the Annual don't differ greatly from those that appear in the final black book.

 

[EC1]

Very interesting point this. Was routing round the archives the other day and came across an original black book which had Brigadier Gerard rated, I think, 152.

Not really sure why the levels rose throughout the season that a re-handicap was necessary at the end of the year, but that isn't the case now. Bar the odd tinkering of a rating here and there with a little but of hindsight, the ratings in the Annual don't differ greatly from those that appear in the final black book.

the two races that were very difficult to rate could have caused a rating that large for BG during the season..then again I would think the time figure would have nailed both those races at the time

 

[rorydelargy]

From Racehorses of 1979:

"The Level of The Ratings

At the close of each season, all the horses that have raced are re-handicapped from scratch, and each horse's rating is revised. It is also necessary to adjust the general level of the handicap, so that the mean of all the ratings is kept at the same standard level from year to year. Left to itself, the general level of the ratings, in each succeeding issue of Timeform, tends to rise steadily. For technical reasons, it is desirable to allow it to do so during the season: but, in the winter, when the complete re-handicap is done, the ratings must, of course, be put back to their proper level again.

This explains why, in this book, the ratings are, in general, different from those in the final issue of the 1979 Timeform series."

 

[davidjohnson]

Thanks Rory.

Interesting to see that Steve Dennis is writing about Brigadier Gerard in tomorrows Post. The likelihood that it was sparked off by this thread? Odds on I'd say.

 

[Desert Orchid]

From Racehorses of 1979:

"The Level of The Ratings

At the close of each season, all the horses that have raced are re-handicapped from scratch, and each horse's rating is revised. It is also necessary to adjust the general level of the handicap, so that the mean of all the ratings is kept at the same standard level from year to year. Left to itself, the general level of the ratings, in each succeeding issue of Timeform, tends to rise steadily. For technical reasons, it is desirable to allow it to do so during the season: but, in the winter, when the complete re-handicap is done, the ratings must, of course, be put back to their proper level again.

This explains why, in this book, the ratings are, in general, different from those in the final issue of the 1979 Timeform series."

In other words, the ratings all through the year are meaningless.

In other words, Frankel's 147 is meaningless.

In other words, why does Timeform enjoy such a lofty reputation?

If this were a court of law defending the rating of Frankel, the jury would have thrown it out on the first day.

 

[rorydelargy]

In other words, the ratings all through the year are meaningless.

In other words, Frankel's 147 is meaningless.

In other words, why does Timeform enjoy such a lofty reputation?

If this were a court of law defending the rating of Frankel, the jury would have thrown it out on the first day.

Are you actually paying any attention?

 

[Desert Orchid]

Not really sure why the levels rose throughout the season that a re-handicap was necessary at the end of the year, but that isn't the case now.

So much for Jamie Lynch's assertion on the Morning Line that Timeform's ratings have conformed to the same methodology since day one.

 

[Desert Orchid]

Are you actually paying any attention?

I'm obviously missing something in your opinion. Put me out of my misery.

 

[Desert Orchid]

As for Frankel, I've looked at the race from a few angles but still have a few more to research.

Firstly, the overall time was fast but doesn't match the form performance. This doesn't surprise me. The race probably wasn't run to produce perfect sectionals.

Secondly, I'm taking Excelebration out of the equation. All known form points to his being some way below form but quantifying that in isolation is impossible. So we need to check the reliability of the form lines using the next two, Side Glance and Indomito. I had Side Glance on 113 for his previous run but he had been officially 115 earlier in the season and had been running to similar figures in weaker races early last summer but the weaknesses of those races could be argued as bases on which to doubt the value of the form, including his 9-length defeat by Frankel in the QE2. To counter that, Side Glance was looking progressive at that stage.

Indomito is a bit of an unknown quantity having raced exclusively abroad but is a bit of a globetrotter. He came into the race with an RPR of 110 for running second on his seasonal in a soft-ground G3 in Germany, which looked his best ever form given that he couldn't win handicaps in Dubai off 105. Rating this race via Side Glance's 113 suggests Indomito has run another career best on this better ground.

The next two home were the pacemakers for the first two. Windsor Palace (for Excelebration) never got near the front but Bullet Train led for over half the race before understandably fading as his exalted stabemate took over.

Nothing else can be used to mark the form.

I am happy to rate Frankel a 12-length winner. Rating him via Side Glance on 113 gives Frankel a rating of 141 (and Indomito a new high of 111). He wasn't necessarily pushed to his absolute extent but whether that would have translated into significantly more than he achieved is open to debate. (I'm more inclined to believe that bringing a horse under pressure merely serves to attempt to stop it from slowing down, which is quite different from being eased appreciably.)

This was Frankel's best ever performance, of that I have no doubt. He'll be a 141+ horse for me until he betters that or until Side Glance and/or Indomito offer evidence that I've underrated them.

With the prospect of his being even better over another quarter-mile, the debate about how he compares with Brigadier Gerard should only get hotter and I would love to see Frankel eventually topple him.

I want to be able to tell my grandchildren I saw Sea Bird, Arkle, Brigadier Gerard, Mill Reef and Frankel.

 

[sunybay]

DO
some points to your analysis

the RPR of Indomito is irrelevant
RPR figures for french and german racing is a joke


about Windsor Palace
he uses to run like a pacemaker but in this case he run for his own right and the rating should be different to what he has been achieving when running too fast at the beginnign of his races,



pd I have Side Glance higher than 113

 

[SteveM]

I am happy to rate Frankel a 12-length winner. Rating him via Side Glance on 113 gives Frankel a rating of 141 (and Indomito a new high of 111). He wasn't necessarily pushed to his absolute extent but whether that would have translated into significantly more than he achieved is open to debate. (I'm more inclined to believe that bringing a horse under pressure merely serves to attempt to stop it from slowing down, which is quite different from being eased appreciably.)

This was Frankel's best ever performance, of that I have no doubt. He'll be a 141+ horse for me until he betters that or until Side Glance and/or Indomito offer evidence that I've underrated them.

With the prospect of his being even better over another quarter-mile, the debate about how he compares with Brigadier Gerard should only get hotter and I would love to see Frankel eventually topple him.

This sounds reasonable. He certainly put up a 140+ performance for me. If he's even better than this (which I suspect he may be) there are few to compare him with.

 

[Desert Orchid]

I admit I'm never comfortable relying on RPRs for foreign racing so I tend not to. My point was that since Indomito couldn't do much in handicaps in Dubai off 105 there has to be a question mark over whether the 110 he got on RPRs for his most recent run was correct. The lines with Side Glance suggest it might have been on this occasion.

Whether Side Glance is better than 113 is another matter. I didn't have my figures to hand when watching the race but my first instinct was that Frankel had just hammered a 116 horse. It was when I checked back through my ratings I saw I had him on 113. ORs tend to yoyo a bit over the season so his 115 was obviously revised back down at some point.

I agree about Windsor Palace but his 4-length inferiority to Side Glance puts him on 104, exactly the same as his OR. I was temtped to rate the race via him but would have ended up with the exact same figures. If the OR underrates him then you could into account the in-running comment that he was slowly into stride and niggled along most of the way - not the ideal scenario for running to its best form.

 

[SteveM]

I'm obviously missing something...

The quote from Rory backs up my own observations with regard to the Black Book as it was: the Black Book ratings represented an ongoing gross figure (different to the adjusted race cards). Also, at the end of the season they would reappraise the mean of the ratings compared to the standard from year to year as a sort of reality check (with the Annual figure often being much reduced from the final Black Book). This had the effect of pulling back the ratings to a centre of reality. David reckons TF don’t do this now which could in part explain why the ratings are running away with themselves without the anchor of a ‘sanity’ check.

 

[sunybay]

I admit I'm never comfortable relying on RPRs for foreign racing so I tend not to. My point was that since Indomito couldn't do much in handicaps in Dubai off 105 there has to be a question mark over whether the 110 he got on RPRs for his most recent run was correct. The lines with Side Glance suggest it might have been on this occasion.

.

Indomito
maybe a little bit flattered and ridden for a place,
also have to say he looked very very well in the paddock, for me the best of the field in the day.
My figures for german racing are much more accurate than RPR and have to say when I came back home and did the rating I was a little disappointed because I have to give Frankel only a 142+.


What amazes meabout Frankel is not he is able to hit a145,is that he has run to very very high figs in the Royal Logde,Guineas, Sussex, QEii , Lockinge and QA,
he is a TRUE superhorse.

 

[edgt]

What amazes meabout Frankel is not he is able to hit a145,is that he has run to very very high figs in the Royal Logde,Guineas, Sussex, QEii , Lockinge and QA,
he is a TRUE superhorse.

Agree totally with you. Consistency and the ability to run to their best many times is all you can ask from any horse. It marks out the greats from the rest.

 

[Desert Orchid]

Also, at the end of the season they would reappraise the mean of the ratings compared to the standard from year to year as a sort of reality check

... hence my interpretation that the ratings during the season are meaningless.

David seems to be saying this doesn't happen any more yet his TF colleague said on Saturday on the ML that Timeform's methods haven't changed "since day one". They obviously have.

Christalmighty only knows where they Arkle during the season...

 

[Desert Orchid]

Indomito
maybe a little bit flattered and ridden for a place,
also have to say he looked very very well in the paddock, for me the best of the field in the day.
My figures for german racing are much more accurate than RPR and have to say when I came back home and did the rating I was a little disappointed because I have to give Frankel only a 142+.


What amazes meabout Frankel is not he is able to hit a145,is that he has run to very very high figs in the Royal Logde,Guineas, Sussex, QEii , Lockinge and QA,
he is a TRUE superhorse.

So what did you have Indomito on before Ascot? Does it tie in with his not being competitive off 105 in handicaps?

Frankel is brilliantly consistent with wide margin wins in most of his races. As the form has been developing, though, it's clear he is an absolute standout in a moderate division. Brigadier Gerard stood out in a strong division.

I think it's great that Frankel has managed to hit 141+ (and will hopefully hit higher against better opposition at 10f) against horses that really aren't up to giving him a proper race. And with Queally on his back...

 

[sunybay]

I had Indomito rated 112 before Ascot, more than once , ut I didnt have the rating for all his races.
About his duba form, maybe was not at his best there, but to win a hcp in Dubai off a OR 105 you have to have in hand 10 pounds.


about the OR
it tends to be the correct figures in the high class horse but the lower the mark less likely the figure is accurate

Side Glance has been running in places like Windsor where even if you run a good race the OR keep horses on lower ratigns than they should
he run to 117 last week but he has done similar or better figures than that for me many times:
118 at Epsom in June
120 last year in the qeii
119 at salisb in Aug11
121 at Wind May11
118 at ascot the previous month

 

[SteveM]

... hence my interpretation that the ratings during the season are meaningless.

David seems to be saying this doesn't happen any more yet his TF colleague said on Saturday on the ML that Timeform's methods haven't changed "since day one". They obviously have.

Christalmighty only knows where they Arkle during the season...

I agree with what you are saying to an extent. I don’t know if “meaningless” is quite right though. I found the Black Books quite useful in terms of broad brush relative performance.

I don’t care if people want to rate a horse at 1,000 or 10 as long as the number is meaningful in relative terms to other horses.

 

[sunybay]

http://frankel.juddmonte.com/

 

[Desert Orchid]

I agree with what you are saying to an extent. I don’t know if “meaningless” is quite right though. I found the Black Books quite useful in terms of broad brush relative performance.

I don’t care if people want to rate a horse at 1,000 or 10 as long as the number is meaningful in relative terms to other horses.

Yes but I have to say if I'm looking at two horses that I rate, say, 100 and 102, and Timeform have them on something like 108 and 110, I'm going to think they've got it wrong and ignore them. I'm very uncomfortable working with stuff I see as inaccurate.

 

[rorydelargy]

Yes but I have to say if I'm looking at two horses that I rate, say, 100 and 102, and Timeform have them on something like 108 and 110, I'm going to think they've got it wrong and ignore them. I'm very uncomfortable working with stuff I see as inaccurate.

If Timeform invent a scale (prior to any other ratings organisation) on which horse A=110 and horse B=108, and someone else, using an entirely arbitrary scale of their own devising, rates those horses 102 and 100, then it's rather arrogant to accuse Timeform of inflating the ratings, don't you think? Your reference to Timeform "admitting to using a higher scale" makes you look either ignorant bloody minded.

Of course Timeform's annual ratings have been derived using identical methods from day one, and the organisation would have no credibility whatsoever it it chopped and changed those methods. The annual evaluation of racehorses is, after all, the raison d'etre of the organisation. It's specifically designed to be comparable across generations, and your refusal to accept that Timeform would use set methods to do this beggars belief. The whole process would be utterly pointless if not conducted according to an unchanging principle.

One of the tenets of rating horses is that while they may have evolved over millions of years, the general horse population isn't going to differ perceptibly in quality every year, whereas traditional handicapping methods tend to see ratings creep up through an individual season. Timeform have, therefore, in line with their ethos, ensured that any such "creep" is taken into account and ensured that mean ratings remain constant, thereby ensuring parity of comparison year on year. That doesn't mean that interim ratings are meaningless (as well you know), as the only crucial factor is in how the ratings compare with each other. I don't know what's changed in the last few years at Halifax which has led to the rehandicapping of horses at end of year no longer being required - although I suspect the need to be able to publish absolute ratings for the top horses has meant that this process is now conducted on an ongoing basis through the year, rather than as a one-off at season end. I'm sure that DJ can find out. The notion that this pulling down of figures has been abandoned, leading to ratings spiralling out of control is surely wide of the mark, as it would completely undermine Timeform's modus operandi, and make "Racehorses" (as an opus) obsolete.

I apologise to Messrs Johnson, Rowlands, Bull et al if I've misrepresented Timeform in the above rant.

 

[Bar the Bull]

We have been here dozens of times before.