I was always under the impression that neither Timeform's, nor the official, scale is 'arbitrary' but is meant to represent an actual weight rating as per handicaps (140 = 10 stone Flat, 168 = 12 st Jumps). That being the case (AFIAA), then surely one or the other is out of kilter?
Brigadier Gerard
- Thread starter Harbinger
- Start date
Bar the Bull
At the Start
It is not that simple. Timeform ratings on the flat are approximately 6lb to 8lb higher for Group 1 horses than official ratings. This is from a post I made on the subject earlier this year.
Of the top 18 horses (rated @ 128 or above by TF in 2011)
Horse Timeform---OR---RPR
Frankel---143---136---139
Black Caviar---135---132---133
Dream Ahead---133---126---129
Excelebration---133---126---129
Canford Cliffs---133---127---130
Cirrus Des Aigles---133---128---130
Rewilding---132---127---130
Danedream---132---128---128
Strong Suit---131---123---126
So You Think---132---126---129
Deacon Blues---130---120---125
Workforce---130---125---128
Americain---129---123---127
Goldikova---129---124---126
Cape Blanco---128---122---124
Hoof It---128---118---124
Snow Fairy---128---122---125
Twice Over---128---125---126
Average 131.5---125.4---128.2
6.1 diff between TF and OR
3.3 diff between TF and RPR
Of the top 18 horses (rated @ 128 or above by TF in 2011)
Horse Timeform---OR---RPR
Frankel---143---136---139
Black Caviar---135---132---133
Dream Ahead---133---126---129
Excelebration---133---126---129
Canford Cliffs---133---127---130
Cirrus Des Aigles---133---128---130
Rewilding---132---127---130
Danedream---132---128---128
Strong Suit---131---123---126
So You Think---132---126---129
Deacon Blues---130---120---125
Workforce---130---125---128
Americain---129---123---127
Goldikova---129---124---126
Cape Blanco---128---122---124
Hoof It---128---118---124
Snow Fairy---128---122---125
Twice Over---128---125---126
Average 131.5---125.4---128.2
6.1 diff between TF and OR
3.3 diff between TF and RPR
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,024
That's what the Timeform rep said, not me.
I accept Phil Bull 'invented' ratings. I accept the idea has been copied and modified by other bodies. My understanding - and I'm open to being proved wrong since I'm more interested in what is right than whether I am right - is that Timeform originally equated 140 (10-0 in their handicap) to a top class horse. Modern handicapping tends to equate 126 (9-0) to a top class horse. Perhaps that is where the difference originated but the dividing lines have become obscured by the greater modern availability of official ratings. Peope assume a 100-rated horse is a 100-rated horse. so when Timeform say it's rated 110 people are entitled to wonder.
It doesn't help that other ratings bodies present their figures in such a way as to allow people to interpret them as being on the same scale as Timeform. Indeed, the use of the word 'scale' itself seems to be at the root of the problem. As far as I can see, Timeform, Raceform (RPRs) and the BHB (ORs) all talk about ratings as though they are to the same scale. Perhaps one or other or all should make it clearer to the betting public that we aren't comparing apples with apples.
The problem I have with this is the premise that there isn't going to be a difference in the horse population year on year. We all know we have good crops and poor crops. The difficulty is that poor crops and good crops alike may end up being rated average to suit a mathematical premise, namely that applied in race standardisation. Presumably, Timeform historically corrected this at the end of the season and if they do not do so nowadays (am I understanding dj correctly?) then presumably they are responding more quickly to how subsequent form works out, which is desirable in my opinion. It's certainly something I strive to do all through the season.
I'm not sure if that is what I said or meant. I was trying to reconcile the idea that methods hadn't changed since day one (as said by the TF rep) with the idea that ratings used to be revised at the end of the year but aren't now. This sounds very much to me like a pretty big change in methods.
I too apologise if I'm coming across in a way that gives the impression I'm being ignorant or pig-headed. I just need to be clear whether there's any point in referring to Timeform's ratings when discussing ORs.
Gareth did an excellent job in investigating how Timeform might have arrived at Brigadier Gerard's ratings. What is now needed is an investigation into what a retrospective examination of the form based around the BHA scale would put him on. (I'm not volunteering.)
If BG's form, for example is rated around Sparkler on 129 and the general level of Sparkler's g1 wins would equate to, say, 126 on the BHA scale, then we will have unearthed the root of the problem. We might be able to say in retrospect that BG was really only 141 horse.
I think the message all forumites should take from this is that we simply cannot make any true correlation between Timeform's figures and official ratings.
That in itself would render TF's ratings as meaningless (to me personally and not per se, which was what I was trying to say) other than in comparing one horse's TF rating with another's.
rorydelargy
At the Start
Arbitrary is perhaps the wrong word, but the bottom line is that even though the ratings represent a set weight in pounds, the definition of what represents the pinnacle of a ratings system is dependent on whoever devises the scale. Timeform's scale is different to that of the BHA, which in turn is different to that used by the Racing Post, and there's no-one to insist that those scales are brought into line with each other. Timeform clearly can't modify their own scale as it would affect the continuity of their work, and others would argue the same. That means that any comparison between TF figures and OHRs (or RPR's) needs to be done with the knowledge that there isn't simply a difference in ratings, but also a difference in the scale of those ratings. A Timeform rating of 145 isn't therefore higher than an OHR of 142, but merely different.
rorydelargy
At the Start
Some earlier posts read that way DO - not the one above, thanks. Similarly, I don't want to come across as preachy - I couldn't rate a race to save my life, and don't pretend I can. I do, however, have to field questions on a regular basis which infer a supposed parity in method and scale between the BHA and Timeform which drive me to despair. You're unfairly and unwittingly representing those correspondents.
Re the change in methodology - it would be useful to get a definitive answer as to how ratings are published by Timeform currently. The way annual figures are assessed is clearly the same year on year, but the method of controlling the level of those figures throughout the season appears to be different now than it was up until the late 1990's. I'd be as interested as anyone to know what has enabled that change to be made.
The Randall/Morris book A Century Of Champions addresses these issues, as I’ve mentioned before. The universal handicap is based on the scale used by Timeform since its foundation (Timeform Ratings were first published in 1947). The authors of the book comment that a number of horses have, with the benefit of hindsight, been “rated too high or too low at the time by Timeform. Adjustments have been made to set the record straight, as we see it”. They consequently undertook a re-handicapping of the horses of the last century using the same scale that has been adopted by Timeform, ORs, RPRs and WTRs. Although all of these organisations use the same scale there have been notable shifts alluded to by BTB and Rory, caused by different and inconsistent application of methodology, which is unsatisfactory to many (...primarily here to DO).
The 143 rating for Brigadier Gerard in the book equates to the TF rating of 144. Sea-Bird is the same on 145, Tudor Minstrel 2lb lower on 142 as opposed to TF 144, etc, etc. Secretariat for example is rated at 144 in the book (not rated by TF).
Frankel currently tops the TF all-time highweights on 147, although using the same scale other rating organisations have him closer to 140.
So it’s clearly not an exact science (and subject to slippage and creepage in the handicap). At best it should be an honest stab at valuing horses from different generations against each other. However, it seems that many of today’s practitioners have either ditched or forgotten how the numbers used to be calculated and are coming up with consistently higher bias. Someone at Timeform should take up DO’s suggestion of valuing the likes of Sea-Bird, Mill Reef, etc according to their method for evaluating the likes of Frankel these days.
The 143 rating for Brigadier Gerard in the book equates to the TF rating of 144. Sea-Bird is the same on 145, Tudor Minstrel 2lb lower on 142 as opposed to TF 144, etc, etc. Secretariat for example is rated at 144 in the book (not rated by TF).
Frankel currently tops the TF all-time highweights on 147, although using the same scale other rating organisations have him closer to 140.
So it’s clearly not an exact science (and subject to slippage and creepage in the handicap). At best it should be an honest stab at valuing horses from different generations against each other. However, it seems that many of today’s practitioners have either ditched or forgotten how the numbers used to be calculated and are coming up with consistently higher bias. Someone at Timeform should take up DO’s suggestion of valuing the likes of Sea-Bird, Mill Reef, etc according to their method for evaluating the likes of Frankel these days.
Last edited:
edgt
Senior Jockey
Tony Morris had a lovely article in the Racing Post last sunday June 24. He basically had his favourite horse of the moment/year/decade and left it at that. There is no realistic solution. We have to rely on how accurate or otherwise our bias is! Great conversation though. As my late father said, " there is only so much you can say about a bullock, but you can talk horses until the cows come home"
baldeagle
Conditional
Im not one for quoting....But
When Frankel great miler as he is wins group 1 races at 10 f and over 12 f he can then be treated with the same respect as Sea The Stars.
When Frankel great miler as he is wins group 1 races at 10 f and over 12 f he can then be treated with the same respect as Sea The Stars.
baldeagle
Conditional
Nobody is saying that STS is the greatest miler of all time:blink:
Frankel has won 7 grp 1s over a mile in 3 yrs greatest horse this century
No way Jose
1 Grp 1 at a mile
3 Grp 1s at 10f
2 group 1s at 12f and all in the same season
need I say more
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,024
No. We know you're talking sh1te
baldeagle
Conditional
EC1
On a break
he's the highest rated horse of all time..but that doesn't make you the greatest
but then again what does?..what if 100% greatness meant you had to win a G1 at every distance from 5f to 16f..is that complete greatness and everything else a % of it?
how would we judge greatness?
is it winning on all types of going..at every trip known to man
i don't think it can be truly defined tbh
a small measure of greatness at a trip can be measured in what price a horse starts at..when its 1/9 in a G1 that would be a par G1 any other year..it certainly suggests you are great under those conditions
baldeagle
Conditional
At the moment we can only say that Frankel is one of the best milers (perhaps the best) we have seen, which probably undervalues him. Which is why he will almost certainly be stepped up in distance at some point. The scary thing is he may be even better at 10 furlongs.
If Camelot wins the Triple Crown and Frankel doesn't prove he is more than a one trick pony he could be in danger of being eclipsed in the history books. Tudor Minstrel was a brilliant miler (virtually the equivalent of Sea-Bird in brilliance of performance) but Nijinsky tends to be remembered as the better horse, although the ratings won't bear that out.
If Camelot wins the Triple Crown and Frankel doesn't prove he is more than a one trick pony he could be in danger of being eclipsed in the history books. Tudor Minstrel was a brilliant miler (virtually the equivalent of Sea-Bird in brilliance of performance) but Nijinsky tends to be remembered as the better horse, although the ratings won't bear that out.
:lol: ...indeed we can.
Wonderful work Gareth. In the 1972 Racehorses article they say that "Brigadier Gerard was slow to find his stride and lost 3 or 4 lengths, a considerable handicap in a race run at a cracking pace throughout...Mercer had to pull Brigadier Gerard round the two leaders to deliver a challenge which began about 2 furlongs out....Brigadier Gerard caught the new leader, Sparkler, in 20 strides and pushed right out strode away in tremendous style to win by 6 lengths. Although Piggott gave up riding Sparkler 30 or 40 yards from the post, the colt ran through to the finish without slackening his pace
and the winning margin was a true reflection of the merits of 1st and 2nd on the day. The winners time was a full second in the track record which had stood for 15 years." Losing start at the beginning puts an even better gloss on the performance.
Harbinger
At the Start
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 11,282
Despite the low resolution and poor quality of some of the Youtube videos, its still possible to estimate the finishing distances as they would be calculated today with an accuracy of about a quarter of a length. The above race comes out as:
Code:
[b]Pos Horse Age Weight Distance[/b]
1. Brigadier Gerard 3 9-0
2. Mill Reef 3 9-0 3.5
3. My Swallow 3 9-0 0.75
4. Minsky 3 9-0 5
5. Indian Ruler 3 9-0 15
6. Good Bond 3 9-0 1.5Today, Brigadier Gerard would have been given an extra half length - more than a pound - in his Guineas.
I have never really bought the - Brigadier Gerard was ill when Roberto beat him story . He beat Gold Rod by further than ever that day into third . I just think he was better at a mile than 10f and after trying 12f and just scraping home against a moderate field he was run into the ground by a brilliant horse going left handed on a going day.
What will never be known is what would have happened between him and Mill Reef over 10f - I suspect the latter would have won.
What will never be known is what would have happened between him and Mill Reef over 10f - I suspect the latter would have won.
Last edited:
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,024
The biography states that he brought up a large lump of mucus shortly after the race. He may not have been 'ill' but he probably wasn't 100% at the top of his game.
In the past 20 or so years, mainly thanks to research by people like James Willoughby, we have come to appreciate phenomena like track biases, pace biases, etc. I think Roberto may have been favoured by the front-running bias that prevailed at York (which maybe no longer exists since they re-did the drainage). It wasn't that long ago we were discussing how hard it was for hold-up horses to peg back front runners at the track.
Roberto was brilliant on the day, the Brigadier probably a fraction shy of his peak and the ride by Baeza brought it all together in spectacular style.
Mill Reef was the one I was particularly struck with at the time. I don't think the Brigadier would have beaten him at 10 furlongs+ either.
Mill Reef and BG have been described as "the greatest pair of contemporaries ever trained in Britain".
Mill Reef and BG have been described as "the greatest pair of contemporaries ever trained in Britain".
Last edited: