Coral Eclipse

Gareth Flynn said:
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.
Click to expand...

i know what you are saying...but 8lb is a lot imo..even 5lb is a lot at this top end.

to me 130 is a sort of golden barrier..when horses beat that its something special...if TF are rating many above that then its devauling the true worth of a 130+ performance to me
 
Canford Cliffs 133 127
Rewilding 132 127
Dick Turpin 127 124
Cityscape 126 121
Midday 126 119

9.20 Kempton tomorrow
Eastern Hills 74 61
Starwatch 70 58
Abigails Angel 66 58
Fitz 68 58
Focail Eile 65 58
Having A Ball ? 57
Ermyntrude 64 57
Blue Noodles ? 57
Kielty's Folly 66 57
Swansea Jack 65 57
Sweet Possession 65 56

Left colum is Tfom Rating Right Hand column is BHA rating

Seeing the figures in true form rather than just the theoretical concept may help you grasp the point Prufrock has made before and the one Gareth is making on this thread.
 
you cant compare the figures of a hcp and the top class horses


OR can not go very high sometimes with handicappers to allow them to win his race.
 
This is selective David (as you must be aware). A different sample of high end horses will give you virtually matching results.
 
Similar to DJ's post this. The Top 11 3yo horses in the UK:

TF----Horse----OR----Diff
141----FRANKEL----130----11
128----DREAM AHEAD----126----2
122----CARLTON HOUSE----118----4
122----ELZAAM----114----8
122----NATHANIEL----111----11-----0
121----STRONG SUIT----116----5
120----DUBAWI GOLD----117----3
119----EXCELEBRATION----117----2
119----NATIVE KHAN----116----3
119----WOOTTON BASSETT----115----4

Average difference is 4.8lb
 
Last edited:
Bar the Bull said:
Steve, they attempt to do the same thing, but they are not on the same scale.

Do you accept that Timeform ratings are on average 8lb higher than ORs?
Click to expand...

They are are the same scale, but there are differences of application.

While Timeform ratings are typically a little higher (but other times not) this is nothing to do with using a different scale. It is the way they may apply the rating in a particular case.

I would contest that they are 8lb higher on average. It's plainly not the case.
 
EC1 said:
i know what you are saying...but 8lb is a lot imo..even 5lb is a lot at this top end.

to me 130 is a sort of golden barrier..when horses beat that its something special...if TF are rating many above that then its devauling the true worth of a 130+ performance to me
Click to expand...

This is right.
 
TF----Horse----OR----Diff
133----CANFORD CLIFFS----127----6
133----WORKFORCE----128----5
132----REWILDING----127----5
127----DICK TURPIN----124----3
127----MANIFEST----117----10
126----CITYSCAPE----121----5
126----MIDDAY----119----7
126----POET'S VOICE----122----4
126----PRESVIS----119----7

Average difference is 5.7lb for older horses.
 
Last edited:
The list wasn't selective, it was Timeform's 5 highest rated older horses that are currently in training in Britain which therefore have an up-to-date published BHA mark.

I think quoting a random handicap was extremely relevant to attempt to prove the point that throughout the whole range of ratings on the Timeform scale, that they vary from the BHA counterpart.
 
Perhaps we could look 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.
Originally Posted by Grey
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...

Gareth Flynn said:
That would be interesting - just Group 1 winners? Or at all levels?
Click to expand...

I would be inclined to say all levels, and especially younger horses.

For flat horses I would suggest 3L as the starting point to define a wide margin winner and 8L for NH races.

We could have a look at what rating they were given and, if it was the highest rating they had received to that point, whether they could match it subsequently.
 
Grey said:
I would be inclined to say all levels, and especially younger horses.

For flat horses I would suggest 3L as the starting point to define a wide margin winner and 8L for NH races.

We could have a look at what rating they were given and, if it was the highest rating they had received to that point, whether they could match it subsequently.
Click to expand...

Only problem with this, is that any handicapper worth his salt will have back-handicapped accordingly to ensure that if at first the wide-margin win was overrated, if the horse was reproducing it, it would be pulled down very quickly. You'd need to have access to what the horse was rated immediately after the wide margin win, is such info readily accessible?
 
Last edited:
I am now confused..Bar you are saying they are a different scale?..so TF isn't 0-140 then?

i thought it was

i'm not really interested in the handicap figures at all..its top horses getting 130+ ratings like its going out of fashion.

i'll stick with..and always quote OHR's mesen..i know where I am then ;)
 
Only problem with this, is that any handicapper worth his salt will have back-handicapped accordingly to ensure that if at first the wide-margin win was overrated, if the horse was reproducing it, it would be pulled down very quickly.
Click to expand...

It would only be a problem if ratings are revised retrospectively. The official ratings are not, I would imagine? After all, if a horse has run with a given rating in a handicap that information is part of the form book and can't be tinkered with?

I take your point that RPRs and Timeform ratings sometimes are revised in the light of sbsequent events.

One way around the problem would be to compile a sample from future performances rather than past ones.
 
Grey - once RPRs are revised you can't find out the original. Will presume the same with Timeform. ORs are different but can be a right pain in the hole - only the master rating is published so you can only be sure about the rating given for a specific performance if the rating has gone up. A horse can run way below form but have his OR stay the same. You end up having to go through the race, find other horses that *have* gone up subsequently, and work out the rating of your horse from those. I really wish the official handicappers would publish individual performance ratings for every race.
 
All the more reason, then, not to look at history and instead keep an eye on wide margin winners over the next little while and see how they get on subsequently. I'll start a thread and keep it going until either a pattern emerges or I get bored.

I only have access to RPR and official ratings, but if Timeform is showing a different pattern someone on here might be able to tell us. :)
 
EC1 said:
I am now confused..Bar you are saying they are a different scale?..so TF isn't 0-140 then?

i thought it was

i'm not really interested in the handicap figures at all..its top horses getting 130+ ratings like its going out of fashion.

i'll stick with..and always quote OHR's mesen..i know where I am then ;)
Click to expand...

From Timeform's website:

In Britain, Timeform ratings and those published by the British Horseracing Authority (which determine the weights actually carried) are not necessarily on the same level, let alone the same for individual horses. This has come about in part as a result of the two organisations having come into existence at different times. Timeform ratings had been around for nearly fifty years by the time the BHA was established in 1993.
Click to expand...
 
Bar the Bull said:
SteveM, trust me on this.

Timeform ratings are on average higher than Official ratings.
Click to expand...

I am fully aware of this, as I have repeatedly said. However, it is not consistent and certainly not an "average of 8lb". It is not a case that they use a different scale. They use the same universal scale. Naturally the application of ratings will differ, but should not differ to the extent that they do in examples such as Harbinger.

This is to do with Timeform adding on pounds for ease of victory (rather than using the + and p) independently of metodology, rather than using a different scale...

Whether you want to believe this a deliberate attempt to flatter headline horses is another thing.
 
EC1 said:
I am now confused..Bar you are saying they are a different scale?..so TF isn't 0-140 then?
Click to expand...

Barry is wrong. They use the same scale but apply it differently. The problem arises when Timeform applies their own criteria inconsistently.
 
Back
Top