REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do much without having been registered!

At the moment you have limited access to view all discussions - and most importantly, you haven't joined our community. What are you waiting for? Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Join Talking Horses here!

Reply to thread

Message

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.

<blockquote data-quote="SteveM" data-source="post: 2399736" data-attributes="member: 64943">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&nbsp; 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="SteveM, post: 2399736, member: 64943"] The Randall/Morris book [I]A Century Of Champions [/I]addresses these issues, as I’ve mentioned before. The [I]universal handicap[/I] 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 [I]“rated too high or too low at the time by Timeform. Adjustments have been made to set the record straight, as we see it”. [/I]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. [/QUOTE]

Verification: 5 + 3 = ?