EC1
On a break
they both back up that the form rating is too high imo
just how good is Sri Putra?..he just keeps getting better and better..but has a win level that suggests he is being overrated..to suit the rating of others
Coral Eclipse
- Thread starter Bar the Bull
- Start date
they both back up that the form rating is too high imo
just how good is Sri Putra?..he just keeps getting better and better..but has a win level that suggests he is being overrated..to suit the rating of others
EC1
On a break
Stoute says of WF..he is a heavy topped horse who needs to get his toe in
the Derby is early June..when he may not have been so heavy topped..and it didn't bother him much.....his effort 2 months later..when i assume he was still thickening out..in the KG..was absmyal..suggesting he wouldn't let himself down on it
now..either the form is wrong and the trainer knows nowt about him..or the horse can defy physics and prefer fast ground even though due to his weight he is going to hit the ground quite hard.
my assessment.. given that assessment wouldn't be that he doesn't prefer fast ground..and all those jumping on him at 2/1... or whatever looked like value before saturday... found that out the hard way imo
the Derby is early June..when he may not have been so heavy topped..and it didn't bother him much.....his effort 2 months later..when i assume he was still thickening out..in the KG..was absmyal..suggesting he wouldn't let himself down on it
now..either the form is wrong and the trainer knows nowt about him..or the horse can defy physics and prefer fast ground even though due to his weight he is going to hit the ground quite hard.
my assessment.. given that assessment wouldn't be that he doesn't prefer fast ground..and all those jumping on him at 2/1... or whatever looked like value before saturday... found that out the hard way imo
Last edited:
Harbinger
At the Start
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 11,282
Timeform gave Sri Putra a performance rating of 121, the third time they've rated him at that level (120+ or better) in the last 12 months. No improvement required - in fact, Timeform haven't suggested any improvement from any of the runners on Saturday.
EC1
On a break
their ratings are about 5lb higher on average than OHR's though..which we have discussed loads on here
a 120 horse that can't win a class C?..seems odd that
how many OHR 140 horses have there been over the last 10 years..how many 140 TF ratings have there been..highlights the difference between the ratings
Last edited:
EC1
On a break
WF = TF rating 133..OHR 128
Carlton House = TF 122...OHR 118
just two examples
this one is a big difference..plenty of form to go on
Famous Name TF 126..OHR 117
Carlton House = TF 122...OHR 118
just two examples
this one is a big difference..plenty of form to go on
Famous Name TF 126..OHR 117
Last edited:
EC1
On a break
basically..each time we discuss ratings..we are always at cross purposes because each rating type seems different..and yet is all on the 140 scale isn't it?
Last edited:
Harbinger
At the Start
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 11,282
Prufrock worked out the average difference between Timeform Ratings and Official Ratings at around 8lbs, but less at the top end. Any other difference is presumably exactly that; difference of opinion.
Sri Putra's OR going into Saturday was 116. His highest career OR is 117. That's only 4-5lbs less than his Timeform rating, suggesting that, if anything, the official handicapper has a higher opinion of Sri Putra.
Sri Putra's OR going into Saturday was 116. His highest career OR is 117. That's only 4-5lbs less than his Timeform rating, suggesting that, if anything, the official handicapper has a higher opinion of Sri Putra.
Euronymous
Senior Jockey
EC1
On a break
Quite... With no disrespect to those that work for the joint. Timeform ratings have been all over the place and for me have lost credibility since Betfair took the Halifax firm over at the end of 2006. They seem to blow whichever way the wind blows these days. Despite efforts of Prufrock and co to square the circle, there is a PR spin on the ratings now – they don’t even appear consistent with themselves let alone other ratings supposedly derived on the same scale.
Last edited:
davidjohnson
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2007
- Messages
- 3,434
This is rubbish and can come across with disrespect. By all means, I'm happy for anyone to argue with a view taken because you think I'm wrong, I'll argue that toss all day, but I really can't be bothered if you think there's some sort of hidden agenda.
I'm sorry you think so David. The ratings applied to Harbinger (and several others) were especially ridiculous, even after retractions and amendments. Timeform has wandered far from the principles of its founder Phil Bull. While I respect the stewardship of Griffin and co, things aren't what they were anymore.
Initially TF had him on 142 (a 20lb improvement from what he was generally rated before the KG). We were expected to believe [according to Timeform’s own methodology comparing like with like] that Harbinger had suddenly become superior to Dancing Brave or Mill Reef… do me a blinkin’ favour.
Last edited:
Harbinger
At the Start
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 11,282
A touch of sacred cow syndrome, IMO. A single performance does not equal all that Mill Reef and Dancing Brave achieved, but as a single sample of what Harbinger was capable of, well, he absolutely destroyed a field of Group 1 winners. Dismantled them. And he was barely pushed out to do so. It would have been disingenuous not to rate him in that kind of bracket.
You think a rating of 142 was justified then? A 20lb hike on what he was generally rated before the KG.
I cannot believe that anyone who saw Mill Reef or Dancing Brave run could think Harbinger had outperformed them in his KG. Indeed TF itself started retracting what it had done and spoke about adding in extra pounds due to the ease of victory, etc. (which according to Timeform's own methodology is what the + and Ps are for).
...an absolute shambles.
Last edited:
Wide margin winners get overrated by ratings systems and as a punter it usually pays to shave off a few points when using them. The marginal value of each length added to a winning margin is not the same, in my opinion. It probably has something to do with what happens when the horses and jockeys in behind start to understand they can't match the one in front.
I wouldn't disagree with this... My point is that since Timeform have been owned by Betfair it is not adverse to making up a figure and adding the number they first thought of. There is no rhyme or reason to what they come up with on these headline horses anymore.
I said he was generally rated around 122 before the KG. I don't have access to Timeform's previous figure right now.
Phil Smith: "From the Hardwicke Stakes I had him on 123 and to have a horse go from 123 to 142 in six weeks would require remarkable improvement. I suspect we will have him over 130 but not as high."
Last edited:
The KGV field was so so group one horses plus one that simply didnt go on the day and one that was past his best. It was one of the worst pieces of racing news in recent times that he couldnt go on and prove himself again, but at the end of the day, that field doesnt surely compare with Dancing Braves arc, even if DB's victory was a late flourish
Last edited:
Harbinger
At the Start
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 11,282
You're quoting his OR and the official handicapper. What that has to do with his Timeform rating is beyond me.
Euronymous
Senior Jockey
TF gave him 131+ for his Hardwicke win. Looks a solid rating, and the form is bombproof. It's easier to take a 140+ Rating of a horse when he's a 3yo who performs to that level consistently in the races that make up a normal programme of a classic horse - Sea the Stars being the perfect example. Harbinger's KG win was monstrous and just because the narrative of his career didn't prepare us for such an effort doesn't make it any the less meritorious.
Last edited:
Harbinger
At the Start
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 11,282
But wide margin winners usually aren't driven out, so we might not see the full extent of their superiority. Its swings and roundabouts.
Conversely, those who do just enough to win, whilst clearly having plenty in hand, must be a handicappers nightmare. Dancing Brave was probably lucky that the Arc field he faced was so much above average (imagine having a horse running to 136 and losing) because it meant he still got a huge rating without having to put distance between himself and the field.
I can just imagine the thread if that race was run today, though. "He's a monster". "He only beat a Group 2 winner in Dihistan
by 8 lengths". "He had so much in hand". "But how good is Saint Estephe really?". etc. etc.