Champions Day

SteveM said:
I've not got access to all the figues at the moment, but I thought this was the highest he had been rated for that performance. I think it was the highest rating achieved last season in Britain or France.
Click to expand...

Timeform: 132
Racing Post: 131
2008 Classifications: 130
 
Aragorn said:
New Approaches Champion rating was a nonsense and the BHA only gave him 124 for it anyway. They had to give him it because he won by 6 lengths but the reality is it was a poor race and his 10f efforts prior to that back this theory up. Duke of Marmalade put him firmly in his place. Yes he pulled hard but STS did that and won doing handsprings. New Approach was a very good horse, but he was a nutcase and was high 120's at best.
Click to expand...

Aragorn, I think you are taking the value of certain races much too literally. New Approach was a very complicated horse, and to compare him pulling hard at the start of a race (such as the Juddmonte) with Sea the Stars at the beginning of the Arc is really wide of the mark. Yes, they both pulled for their heads, but to massively different degrees.

Plus, New Approach clearly wasn't right after an injury in the Juddmonte. This, allied with the stubborness of Bolger in trying to ride him in a restrained manner led to the horse underperforming in both the Juddmonte and subsequently the Irish Champion.

However, I don't believe there was a horse in training last season who could have lived with him in the Champion Stakes, where he was finally ridden much more positively, and produced an outstanding performance, one which Duke of Marmalade would have had little chance against.

I think a rating in low to mid 130s is what I would have had had New Approach on for his Champion win. Like Sea the Stars, I don't think we ever saw the best of this horse, and thought it ironic (as Bolger commented) that he put in his best, most professional performance when he was on his way to stud. Great horse to watch, and have seen.
 
Gareth Flynn said:
Timeform: 132
Racing Post: 131
2008 Classifications: 130
Click to expand...

Thanks. Looks like I've got this wrong. STS has certainly run better than 132, but Fame almost certainly hasn't (although he may be just about capable of that as we've said given optimum conditions). I'd still agree with Hamm's assertion however that it's difficult to see how Fame can be rated above the likes of NA.
 
Last edited:
Galileo said:
138 is a ridiculous rating for New Approach's success in the Newmarket Champion - particularly as he dodged the Arc and Breeder's Cup.
Click to expand...

Seems I was wrong about this (perhaps the 138 was a provisional rating, it was the figure that stuck in my mind at the time - clearly this is not the case, however). The IC rating was 130 and the others a bit more.
 
The question is, why did NA get such a high rating for the Champion Stakes? There wasn't even a G1 winner in the field, I think.
 
Hamm said:
I wonder have ratings (or rather people calculating them!) got ahead of themselves this season, as it is very hard for me to accept Fame and Glory is better than Raven's Pass, New Approach and Henry from last year.
Click to expand...


What did the international classifiers rate Henry and Raven's Pass at last year?
 
On official ratings Mastercraftsman is currently at 125 which is equal to Henry.

The Racing Post had Henry on 128 and have Mastercraftsman on 129.

I would be very doubtful if Mastercraftsman is as good as Henry was last season.
 
Henry is comfortably 2/3 pounds (maybe more) better than Mastercraftsman. I think the desire to have Sea the Stars rated leagues above horses of recent years has resulted in many erroneous figures for horses he has beaten. In my eyes, Sea the Stars is undoubtedly a 140 horse, but has not yet run to this figure, and several times his ratings have been dramatically exaggerated in an attempt to give him the rating we all know (wrong word) he is capable of. This has then resulted in the horses he has beaten having to be given ratings to which they hold little claim but which are necessary to justify the lofty ratings given to Sea the Stars.

The above is, for me, a good illustration of the need for separate ratings for a horse, and ratings for a particular race. The latter can factor in any supposed superiority over and above official distances, while the former is rating horses using conventional handicapping methods with p's and +'s.
 
Last edited:
When it comes to Sea The Stars, I think the Eclipse will be his defining "performance" race. Fast pace, fast ground, 10 furlongs, and the rarity of a rival who actually attacked him. It's about the most solid piece of Group 1 form you could realistically expect to see. Even Jukebox effing Jury came out and won a Group 1 :lol:.
 
The 2 performances to rate See The Stars are the Eclipse and the Irish Champion, on both days he was bordering 140 in my figures looking like having more if needed.



The Arc is his weakest performance and I think he would have been beaten in some Arcs in the last 15 days but even though is a great nce after how the race happened and with the long campaign and all the travels he has had.



It was also a great luck this horse was in the hands off a true genius like John Oxx is.
 
SteveM said:
It's quite probable that STS has run to a best of about 136 this season
Click to expand...

136 is way too low. The whole crux to the matter is the rating Conduit earned in the Eclipse. Giving him 125 when his top rating is 130 is nonsensical. He was 5l clear of Cima De Triomphe at Sandown and a similar margin in front of Alwaary in the King George. The Official Ratings have those two animals at 116 and 118.
I would have Conduit at 127, RVW at 135 and STS at 138+ for that race.




sunybay said:
The Arc is his weakest performance and I think he would have been beaten in some Arcs in the last 15 days but even though is a great nce after how the race happened and with the long campaign and all the travels he has had.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. The reason the normal rules don't apply to animals like Sea the Stars is that they can run 8,9 or even 10lbs below their best and still win races like the Arc. Top class animals like Hellisio and Hurricane Run did not have that luxury.
 
Last edited:
Just thinking of Ballydoyle horses, I'm not sure I would say RVW is as superior to the likes of George Washington etc as the ratings show, and there is no way MCM is close to Henrythenavigator. Would Fame and Glory have given Duke of Marmalade a several length beating as the ratings suggest he would? I doubt it very much, but would love to hear Galileo's opinion on that particular comparison!

Is Fame a better 10 furlong horse than, say Dylan Thomas?

Yes, the ratings can be shown to make sense in one season, but over the course of the last few seasons, they do not, to me at least, seem to stack up.
 
Hamm said:
Just thinking of Ballydoyle horses, I'm not sure I would say RVW is as superior to the likes of George Washington etc as the ratings show, and there is no way MCM is close to Henrythenavigator. Would Fame and Glory have given Duke of Marmalade a several length beating as the ratings suggest he would? I doubt it very much, but would love to hear Galileo's opinion on that particular comparison!
Click to expand...

I think from a ratings point of view nobody ever got to the bottom of George Washington. His final Timeform rating was 133 which was probably right, but one got the feeling if things had gone his way just the once (firm ground and a straight track) in the late summer he could have put up a Hawk Wing type performance.

The Duke was rated 132 and I hope Timeform see sense and don't rate F&G above that. I get the feeling they won't.
 
Euronymous said:
I think from a ratings point of view nobody ever got to the bottom of George Washington. His final Timeform rating was 133 which was probably right, but one got the feeling if things had gone his way just the once (firm ground and a straight track) in the late summer he could have put up a Hawk Wing type performance.

The Duke was rated 132 and I hope Timeform see sense and don't rate F&G above that. I get the feeling they won't.
Click to expand...

Agree about George.

Also agree about F&G, but I'm not sure they have a choice but to rate him higher than DoM, based on their rating of Sea the Stars in the Irish Champion.
 
SteveM said:
I've not got access to all the figues at the moment, but I thought this was the highest he had been rated for that performance. I think it was the highest rating achieved last season in Britain or France.
Click to expand...

Champion Stakes (Timeform)

132 New Approach
117 Twice Over 6
114 Linngari 1 1/2
110 Russian Cross 1 1/4
 
Hamm said:
Also agree about F&G, but I'm not sure they have a choice but to rate him higher than DoM, based on their rating of Sea the Stars in the Irish Champion.
Click to expand...

I think they can easily revise the IC and give STS his highest rating via the Eclipse. Just 137/8+ would enable them to give him 140. They gave Zarkava 133 last year but rated her Arc success at 130+
 
Getting back to Champions Day...The Dewhurst has...

Chabal (confirmed)
Dick Turpin (confirmed)
Arcano (confirmed)
Cape Blanco (possible)
Steinbeck (possible)

Anything else likely to turn up...Stoute have anything?

Bolger is great for the quotes - asked about his chances of winning a fourth straight Dewhurst he comes out with "He's the best chance I've had of winning the Dewhurst in the last five years," he said.
 
Last edited:
Galileo said:
Getting back to Champions Day...The Dewhurst has...

Chabal (confirmed)

Bolger is great for the quotes - asked about his chances of winning a fourth straight Dewhurst he comes out with "He's the best chance I've had of winning the Dewhurst in the last five years," he said.
Click to expand...

He's probably odds against to even turn up then.
 
Back
Top