Coral Eclipse

Steve,

The only way I can reconcile our difference is that we must be at crossed purposes. They both attempt to use 0-140 scale, but due to a difference in approach (what you see as Timeform inconsistency).

If ratings in one are higher than ratings in another, I don't see how you can compare. In fact I maintain that you can't compare until you adjust for the average difference.
 
SteveM said:
I am fully aware of this, as I have repeatedly said. However, it is not consistent and certainly not an "average of 8lb".
Click to expand...

Of course the difference between Timeform Ratings and Official Ratings isn't consistent. Why should it be? That would mean they're both rating all horses the same, just with a fixed offset. Which would be a bizarre situation.

As for the average of 8lb, have you done the research and come up with a different figure?
 
Bar the Bull said:
Steve,

The only way I can reconcile our difference is that we must be at crossed purposes. They both attempt to use 0-140 scale, but due to a difference in approach (what you see as Timeform inconsistency).
Click to expand...

If this is what you think then there is no argument. It is what I have maintained throughout. The scale is the same. The difference is in application.

This is very different from saying they use different scales.
 
Regarding the '0-140' scale, I've never been sure what the exactly means, to be honest. It's obviously not the lower and upper range of possible ratings. It makes more sense in the context of race-day adjusted figures, where the ratings are adjusted to 10st (i.e. 140lbs).
 
Gareth Flynn said:
Of course the difference between Timeform Ratings and Official Ratings isn't consistent. Why should it be? That would mean they're both rating all horses the same, just with a fixed offset. Which would be a bizarre situation.

As for the average of 8lb, have you done the research and come up with a different figure?
Click to expand...

You misunderstand. I am saying that Timeform is not consistent with itself. Of course it won't necessarily be the same as ORs or RPRs if there is a difference of application, but as it uses the same scale you cannot preclude this either.
 
If I were to have a scale for all possibilities, I'd use 0 - 154, then ...
As it seems the 140 has been breached (or possibly 'breeched', but exceeded is right.)

Timeform said 141 for Frankel?

Ratings, eh? Too complicated for me. How fast, what distance, what going, what wind, what weight, what tactics, how humid, in foal.
Generally speaking what's the point?

Other than to find ways of looking at all aspects of a great performance, then ratings provide the excuses for doing that & no complaints there.
 
Soary - 140 was breached in the 1940s, I think! It's never been an upper limit, indeed there should be no upper limit.
 
SteveM said:
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.
Click to expand...

But it is you who compared them to other methodologies in this post.
 
SteveM said:
You misunderstand. I am saying that Timeform is not consistent with itself.
Click to expand...

No, I don't misunderstand, and that's not what you said.

You were replying to Bar's assertion that Timeform ratings are on average higher than Official ratings. You said you were aware of this, but that:

it is not consistent and certainly not an "average of 8lb"
Click to expand...

You were clearly referring to the difference between Timeform Ratings and Official Ratings.
 
I wasn't as should be obvious. Indeed it is you that is so fixed upon comparing ORs with Timeform. I am comparing Timeform with all other rating agencies that use the same universal scale. Not just ORs.
 
It may be of interest to see what the WTR said about Harbinger.
The World Thoroughbred Rankings (WTR) – that also uses the same universal scale – are compiled by the World Rankings Supervisory Committee and published by the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities (IFHA).

“Leading the way was HARBINGER (GB) [135], who put up a truly exceptional performance to demolish his rivals by 11 lengths in the King George VI & Queen Elizabeth Stakes (sponsored by Betfair) (G1) at Ascot in July. In so doing, he recorded the highest rating in the Ascot showpiece since ST JOVITE (USA) [135] in 1992, and also the highest rating over 2400m since the launch of the World Thoroughbred Rankings in 2004; only SEA THE STARS (IRE) [136] has achieved a higher figure in that time”.

This is very different from Timeform’s original assertion that Harbinger was superior to Mill Reef and Dancing Brave (and indeed Sea The Stars), however you want to cook the numbers.
One had him the equivalent to St Jovite, while the other had him above all but a small handful of horses in racing history.
 
Last edited:
SteveM said:
I wasn't as should be obvious. Indeed it is you that is so fixed upon comparing ORs with Timeform.
Click to expand...

Sometimes I wonder if I'm in an alternate universe on this board.

You were the one who quoted Phil Smith - the Official Handicapper - in order to back up your assertion that Timeform had gone too high on Harbinger.
 
Am I seeing this correctly Steve, because Timeform's rating of Harbinger relative to Sea The Stars is 1lb higher than World Throughbred Rankings, you believe the whole thing is a shambles?
 
Regarding comparisons of International Classifications, their successor WTRRs, and Official Ratings (on which ICs and now WTRRs are based) across generations, I'd point out two things:

Irish handicapper Garry O'Gorman when Sea The Stars was rated 136, compared to Dancing Brave's 141:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/jan/12/sea-the-stars-2010-international-classifications

"In 1986 there was a higher *[general] level than there is at present," Garry O'Gorman, Ireland's senior Flat *handicapper, said, "so in real terms I don't think that rating would be as high now."

And Prufrocks' history lesson from last year's King George thread:

http://www.talkinghorses.co.uk/forum/showpost.php?p=378738&postcount=179

The usual difference between BHA and Timeform for older horses is currently 8 (I have spent far too long looking into such matters, believe me), but it tends to be less with the better horses.

The point is that they are not on the same universal scale. The Jockey Club (RIP) started off on just about the same scale back whenever, but, due to more slippage than would be experienced by a Scarborough clifftop bungalow, the BHB (RIP) and now the BHA operates at a lower level.
Click to expand...

In other words, comparisons of ORs/ICs/WTRRs awarded over the last few years with those awarded 20 years ago (prior to the recalibration of ORs) are dangerous. Given that the BHB were formed in 1993, I suspect that St Jovite's rating was from before the recalibration, when they were still using a similar scale to Timeform's (who, perhaps only coincidentally, also rated St Jovite at 135).
 
The World Thoroughbred Rankings told us that Dancing Brave was a 5 lb better horse than Sea The Stars. Gary O'Gorman commented, "I am not confident that Dancing Brave would be 141 today. He was given that rating in 1986 when rankings were given at a higher level than presently."

There's your universal scale for you. For some reason between 1986 and 2009, the level of top-class horses on the official scale has been reduced. Why? You'll have to go to someone else for the answer. Maybe Steve can help.
 
Melendez said:
Am I seeing this correctly Steve, because Timeform's rating of Harbinger relative to Sea The Stars is 1lb higher than World Throughbred Rankings, you believe the whole thing is a shambles?
Click to expand...

No I believe that Steve's assertion was that Timeform have deliberately been overrating horses at the top level since they were taken over by betfair. Since then he's produced no evidence of that being the case, other than harping on that the Harbinger rating proves it, before completetly failing to grasp that relatively speaking, Harbinger was rated by Timeform and the WTR, roughly on a par. Is that right Steve? I wouldn't want to misunderstand.
 
davidjohnson said:
Bloody hell. I spent 20 mins reasearching a post and see Gareth beats me to it by a minute and in greater detail!
Click to expand...

:lol: Rule 285 of the forum - Engage in a discussion with Gareth on International Classifications from 1989-2011 at your pearl.
 
Harbinger's rating relative to other top horses is similar at Timeform to RPR and BHA ratings.

I never got the big deal. For me, he isn't as good a horse as the luminaries around him in the all time rankings. But it is not Timeform doing it on their own. It is every ratings agency. Which makes me think I am probably wrong.
 
Bar the Bull said:
Harbinger's rating relative to other top horses is similar at Timeform to RPR and BHA ratings.

I never got the big deal. For me, he isn't as good a horse as the luminaries around him in the all time rankings. But it is not Timeform doing it on their own. It is every ratings agency. Which makes me think I am probably wrong.
Click to expand...

I suspect you're not, my thinking being that there is an inbuilt tendency in all three ratings systems to overrate wide margin winners.
 
A better example of Timeform having too high a rating might be Frankel; OR 130, Timeform 141, RPR 133.

Now that might be harder to defend than the Harbinger case. Timeform is out of whack in this instance, taking into account the 5lb to 6lb discrepancy on average for ratings this high.
 
Simon Rowlands' view from the Timeform site:


The Timeform team of handicappers give their verdicts on the top performances of the last week. Simon Rowlands reports...

Build up a showdown enough and it will almost inevitably disappoint, or that's what conventional wisdom says.

By turns, Kvitova v Sharapova in the Wimbledon women's singles, Haye v Klitschko in the world heavyweight boxing title fight, and Nadal v Djokovic in the Wimbledon's men's singles ended up as relatively one-sided affairs over the weekend.

Meanwhile, racing, in its understated way, produced a top-notch event that managed to surpass most expectations following a relatively muted media build-up.

So You Think v Workforce might not - quite - have brought together the two best horses of a generation. But, in an important sense, it was a unique and enthralling event of some significance.

So You Think is, by common consent, the best middle-distance horse to have come out of Australia in years. Workforce won The Derby in a record time and followed up in the Arc later last year. They had not met before.

Both came to Saturday's Coral-Eclipse at Sandown in form (though So You Think had gone down narrowly at Royal Ascot on his latest appearance) and Timeform could not separate them on ratings. 133 put them joint-third in the world and joint-best at the ten-furlong distance at which they were racing. Something had to give.

In the event, it was So You Think who emerged triumphant, but only narrowly and only after Workforce had made him dig deep. So You Think got to the front about half a furlong out, scoring by half a length, with five lengths back to the third.

Race standards and prior-rating standards point to the Eclipse being worthy of a rating in the low-to-mid 130s. So You Think has been raised to 134, behind only Frankel (141) and Black Caviar (135, plus a mares' allowance) in Timeform's Global Rankings, and behind only Sea The Stars (ran to 136 in 2009) among winners of this prestigious race in recent years.

As an indication of the level of achievement by the first two, Workforce (still rated 133) would have won an "average" Eclipse by three to four lengths on Timeform ratings and would have won all bar Sea The Stars' race this century. He was beaten narrowly enough to suggest that a "rematch" would be no forgone conclusion.

Events on the same card and elsewhere paled in comparison, but the Prix Jean Prat at Chantilly on Sunday produced an even more nail-biting finish. Mutual Trust preserved his unbeaten record, but only by a head and a nose from Zoffany and Strong Suit.

This was a strong running, overall, of what is not usually one of the best European Group 1s, and Mutual Trust returned a figure of 121 (same for second and third) despite the closeness of the finish.

The Group 1 Deutsches Derby at Hamburg on the same day fell to the undefeated Waldpark, now rated 116p, with the Michael Owen-owned Brown Panther (remains on 110) a respectable fifth after making most of the running.

Other notable performances in the week came from the likes of Emulous (rated 122 after her win in the Group 3 Brownstown Stakes at Fairyhouse), Class Is Class (123 after an emphatic listed win at Sandown), Gertrude Bell (111 after winning the Group 2 Lancashire Oaks at Haydock) and Night Carnation (left on 117 as a result of her success in the Group 3 Coral Charge at Sandown).

Performance of the week in the US came from last year's Breeders' Cup Sprint third Smiling Tiger, who posted a 126 figure with an authoritative victory in the Triple Bend Handicap at Hollywood Park. The French mare Stacelita pulled hard and underperformed in third behind Teaks North (rated 121) in the United Nations Stakes at Monmouth Park
 
Back
Top