Coral Eclipse

No. If the race was run today it would only be an idiot who questioned his achievement
 
Last edited:
Gareth Flynn said:
You're quoting his OR and the official handicapper. What that has to do with his Timeform rating is beyond me.
Click to expand...

The point I'm making should be obvious. There is a descrepany is whopping. Even according to Timeform's exaggerated stretching of some of their own ratings on this scale (it is the same as ORs on some other ratings) this is too much. This I repeat was due to them adding extra pounds to the rating for ease of victory (something their own methodology states the + and Ps are for).

Timeform ratings and Official ratings, contrary to what you may be told, are calculated on the same universal scale. Of course there will be differences, but when you see such willful manipulation of the figures you have to wonder.
 
Last edited:
Sea The Stars was a monster.

Able to win in different months, distances and ground and putting some very high figures in the Irish Champion and especially in the Eclipse where he was absolutely top class.


what a horse
 
I dont know why people mind on OR figures

RPR is the best scale in general, timeform is a little bit high but they have been higher in the 70s and 80s

my scale is similar to RPR and it works quite well for me.
 
True. Only idiots question Sea the Stars greatness.
Click to expand...

If thats some sort of childish dig (expected), then you confusing a long ago previous point that STS probably beat lesser horses than DB and thats why DB will always just have the edge for me. STS is easily the best ive seen apart from that horse
 
Think we went through this with Hawk Wing in his Lockinge.

A huge figure achieved that was never going to be repeated, the same could be said for Harbinger in that King George and perhaps Workforce in his Derby.
 
SteveM said:
The point I'm making should be obvious. There is a descrepany is whopping. Even according to Timeform's exaggerated stretching of some of there own ratings on this scale (it is the same as ORs on some other ratings) this is too much. This I repeat was due to them adding extra pounds to the rating for ease of victory (something their own methodology states the + and Ps are for).
Click to expand...

I'll try this again: it has already been established that the level of Timeform's ratings are higher than ORs. This is, in of itself, irrelevant, as long as you compare like with like.

If you do want to compare them, you need to take into account Prufrock's research, which showed that Timeform Ratings are around 8lbs higher than ORs on average, although it decreases at the top end. That does not mean they're uniformly higher. There will of course be bigger and smaller differences, as there should be, as different methodologies and different opinions are factored in.

In Harbinger's case, the official handicapper rated him at 135. Only 5lbs lower than Timeform's figure. So in that particular case they're actually pretty much in agreement as to how good that performance was.
 
Gareth Flynn said:
That's incorrect. Not that it would mean anything if it were true.
Click to expand...


CC was only given a 127 OHR after he beat RVW..before that his form was quite a bit better than Famous Name..but was rated 3lb less than that animal...really?

so after beating RVW... CC is just a 1lb better horse than Famous Name using ratings that are supposed to be on a similar scale?

Many on here still thought CC only a 125 horse even after Goodwood.

are you really agreeing with that assessment?
 
Gareth Flynn said:
I'll try this again: it has already been established that the level of Timeform's ratings are higher than ORs. This is, in of itself, irrelevant, as long as you compare like with like.

If you do want to compare them, you need to take into account Prufrock's research, which showed that Timeform Ratings are around 8lbs higher than ORs on average, although it decreases at the top end. That does not mean they're uniformly higher. There will of course be bigger and smaller differences, as there should be, as different methodologies and different opinions are factored in.

In Harbinger's case, the official handicapper rated him at 135. Only 5lbs lower than Timeform's figure. So in that particular case they're actually pretty much in agreement as to how good that performance was.
Click to expand...

What I’m saying is that Prufrock has tried manfully to square the circle, but when Timeform does not even apply its own methodology consistently I think we have a right to challenge such very inflated ratings. TF has both climbed back from its original 142 to 140 and admitted that it has added in extra pounds for ease of victory. This is something that Timeform did not do in the past (it is what the + and Ps are for). That it has decided to do this now (I can only conclude to put a spin on such headline horses) is wilful manipulation of the actual rating.
 
i'm confused as to how ratings can differ by 8lb using the same scale.

if that is the case..stating a horse is a 132 TF animal..then maybe in brackets we should have the OHR just for clarity ;)
 
SteveM said:
What I’m saying is that Prufrock has tried manfully to square the circle, but when Timeform does not even apply its own methodology consistently I think we have a right to challenge such very inflated ratings. TF has both climbed back from its original 142 to 140 and admitted that it has added in extra pounds for ease of victory. This is something that Timeform did not do in the past (it is what the + and Ps are for). That it has decided to do this now (I can only conclude to put a spin on such headline horses) is wilful manipulation of the actual rating.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but the examples you gave were exaggerated.

Harbinger went up 9lb from 131 to 140 (Timeform) After being 142 initially.
Harbinger went up 7lb from 129 to 135 (RPR)
Harbinger went up 12lb from 123 to 135 (OR)

Using Prufrock's analysis, Timeform is actually a pound or two below RPR, if you standardise them.

RPR seem to have the more sober view of the performance, as RPR is typically 5lb higher or so than OR.
 
Last edited:
Yes, Canford Cliffs had an OR of 127 last year after Goodwood. Which makes your suggestion that Famous Name has a higher Timeform Rating than Canford Cliffs' OR last year incorrect. But, as I just explained to Steve, it's also completely irrelevant, because you're treating ORs and Timeform Ratings as if they were on the same level. Which, as has been explained numerous times, they aren't.
 
Bar the Bull said:
But if one is 8lb higher than the other, you would need to adjust accordingly before making comparisons.
Click to expand...

It's not the case that one is 8lb higher than the other though. With many horses (even at the high end) the ratings may be 1 or 2lb different sometimes identical and at times the ORs or RPRs can be higher. Difference will of course occur. But this 8lb higher business is a smokescreen. It is so imprecise that you could drive a bus through it.
 
Gareth Flynn said:
But wide margin winners usually aren't driven out, so we might not see the full extent of their superiority. Its swings and roundabouts.
Click to expand...

That's one theory, mine is another.

Perhaps we could put them to the test by looking at what happens to wide margin winners subsequently. I think they get overrated. I haven't tried to measure it in any systematic way, it's just an assumption I use when analysing form because it seems to work.

The Racing Post has also taken to adding points to ratings for ease of victory, on the flat at least. In my opinion they should be thinking about taking points off rather than adding to them.
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
i'm confused as to how ratings can differ by 8lb using the same scale.
Click to expand...

Different methodologies, different poundages, slippage; there's all sorts of reasons. It's up to each rating organisation to remain internally consistent, but you can't expect them to match up with each other, either in absolute or relative terms.
 
SteveM said:
It's not the case that one is 8lb higher than the other though. With many horses (even at the high end) the ratings may be 1 or 2lb different sometimes identical and at times the ORs or RPRs can be higher. Difference will of course occur. But this 8lb higher business is a smokescreen. It is so imprecise that you could drive a bus through it.
Click to expand...

Of course it is imprecise.

If either organisation tried to standardise the gap it would be doing the wrong thing. Each should only concern themselves with their own metric.

But on average the gap is 8lb or so. A bit smaller for higher rated horses (6lb I think?) Comparing them is futile, unless you recognise that ratings are on average higher in Halifax.
 
Bar the Bull said:
They are not the same scale. This is a common misconception.
Click to expand...

They do use the same scale. See the Randall/Morris book (Portway Press) Century Of Champions, where thre attempt to harmonise the differences of application.
 
Last edited:
Bar the Bull said:
Of course it is imprecise.

If either organisation tried to standardise the gap it would be doing the wrong thing. Each should only concern themselves with their own metric.

But on average the gap is 8lb or so. A bit smaller for higher rated horses (6lb I think?) Comparing them is futile, unless you recognise that ratings are on average higher in Halifax.
Click to expand...

That's not actually right though. The 8lb thing is a smokescreen to enable 'poetic licence'.
 
Last edited:
Grey said:
Perhaps we could put them to the test by looking at what happens to wide margin winners subsequently. I think they get overrated. I haven't tried to measure it in any systematic way, it's just an assumption I use when analysing form because it seems to work..
Click to expand...

That would be interesting - just Group 1 winners? Or at all levels?
 
Back
Top